Do you get the point that the tier 3 revenues that get reported outside of the LHN tv deal include some tier 3 revenue that the schools were already getting for things like radio, coaches shows and corporate signage? Yes, there is SOME ADDITIONAL revenue from tv tier 3 but when these deals are reported it is lumping in revenue the schools already receieved and revenue that other conference schools get already whether they have a conference network or not? If you don't get this point, the discussion is never on the same terms.
COLUMN: Thank you, Oklahoma president
- Thread starter ChrisMWilliams
- Start date
Do you get the point that the tier 3 revenues that get reported outside of the LHN tv deal include some tier 3 revenue that the schools were already getting for things like radio, coaches shows and corporate signage? Yes, there is SOME ADDITIONAL revenue from tv tier 3 but when these deals are reported it is lumping in revenue the schools already receieved and revenue that other conference schools get already whether they have a conference network or not? If you don't get this point, the discussion is never on the same terms.
If you can provide a link to support the above, I'd buy into what you're suggesting. The Wilner link I provided does not.
This link further illustrates that point, which was done by the NY Times that states in the article they were allowed to examine the contract.
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-sports-is-for-40-million-over-10-years/?_r=0
"According to Oklahoma’s contract, which The Times was allowed to examine, the university will get $40.1 million in rights fees over 10 years, starting with $3.5 million this academic year, and increasing by about 3 percent annually."
Besides Texas, the only school that might be getting more than OU is Kansas. If OU gets is getting around 4 million my guess is everyone else is $2-3 million. Hopefully this helps some understand what the tier 3 tv revenue amounts to. If you understand this it helps you understand why Boren made the comments recently and singled out the LHN as not a positive for the league long term. There is no coincidence all off the other leagues are pooling their tier 3 and some tier 2 content.
While I hold out hope the B1G & SEC can take 4 ACC schools giving the Big 12 a shot at FSU, Clemson and 4 other ACC partners, you will not find any serious discussion of other P5 schools wanting to join the Big 12 without something like this happening. There is a reason for it. With Boren's comments, I am worried the Big 12 could be poached at the end of the deal.
Yes, the PAC 12 has been slow to get carriage. If they do though their model is different from the BTN & SECN. They completely own the channel and will get 100% of the profits instead of 50%, they also were aggressively paying off initial expenses. Their profits will rise. Part of their risk is they have not had a partner like FOX or ESPN to help them get carriage for their channel. I believe they do have a global strategy long term with hoping to get into Asian markets abroad, if this happens it could open a lot of households whatever the delivery model in the future.
The ACC on the other hand has sold all their tier 3 content so it becomes more complicated. They may not be able to monetize the value of their tier 3 content until the current deal runs out. Or if they do they have to buy back their tier 3 content which will decrease their return.
Except for Texas with the LHN, the league has an advantage over ACC for sure, PAC 12 currently but probably not in the long run if they can get carriage for their channel and definitely not the B1G or SEC. That is why this league will be at risk when the deal runs out if they don't add schools and Texas is not willing to do a conference network.
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-sports-is-for-40-million-over-10-years/?_r=0
"According to Oklahoma’s contract, which The Times was allowed to examine, the university will get $40.1 million in rights fees over 10 years, starting with $3.5 million this academic year, and increasing by about 3 percent annually."
Besides Texas, the only school that might be getting more than OU is Kansas. If OU gets is getting around 4 million my guess is everyone else is $2-3 million. Hopefully this helps some understand what the tier 3 tv revenue amounts to. If you understand this it helps you understand why Boren made the comments recently and singled out the LHN as not a positive for the league long term. There is no coincidence all off the other leagues are pooling their tier 3 and some tier 2 content.
While I hold out hope the B1G & SEC can take 4 ACC schools giving the Big 12 a shot at FSU, Clemson and 4 other ACC partners, you will not find any serious discussion of other P5 schools wanting to join the Big 12 without something like this happening. There is a reason for it. With Boren's comments, I am worried the Big 12 could be poached at the end of the deal.
Yes, the PAC 12 has been slow to get carriage. If they do though their model is different from the BTN & SECN. They completely own the channel and will get 100% of the profits instead of 50%, they also were aggressively paying off initial expenses. Their profits will rise. Part of their risk is they have not had a partner like FOX or ESPN to help them get carriage for their channel. I believe they do have a global strategy long term with hoping to get into Asian markets abroad, if this happens it could open a lot of households whatever the delivery model in the future.
The ACC on the other hand has sold all their tier 3 content so it becomes more complicated. They may not be able to monetize the value of their tier 3 content until the current deal runs out. Or if they do they have to buy back their tier 3 content which will decrease their return.
Except for Texas with the LHN, the league has an advantage over ACC for sure, PAC 12 currently but probably not in the long run if they can get carriage for their channel and definitely not the B1G or SEC. That is why this league will be at risk when the deal runs out if they don't add schools and Texas is not willing to do a conference network.
Last edited:
BTN revenues are 7.6 million per school. They just got New York City, New Jersey, Baltimore, Washington D.C. & recently Philadelphia markets on board. The revenues will continue to climb. It will also do nothing but help set their new tv deal that starts in 2017.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/76205/big-tens-tv-revenue-keeps-climbing
I hope this makes them target Virginia and Ga. Tech or NC and stay away from OU & KU in the future but their is some scuttle butt that OU & KU would really like the B1G invite, whether that is when the GOR's are up or sooner.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/76205/big-tens-tv-revenue-keeps-climbing
I hope this makes them target Virginia and Ga. Tech or NC and stay away from OU & KU in the future but their is some scuttle butt that OU & KU would really like the B1G invite, whether that is when the GOR's are up or sooner.
OU's deal with FSN is supplemental to their IP-based platform. FSN does not carry all of their T3 programming. Using the FSN deal to represent all of their T3 programming revenue in your argument is wrong.
Until the ACC and P12 get actual and viable long-term solutions to their T3 revenue shortfalls, the B12 will be in a position to poach both when their respective GORs expire. Not the other way around.
I doubt the additional tier 3 tv/streaming revenue is much more than quoted in the article. Realistically how much is one "crappy" and I do mean crappy football game and about 6 crappy basketball games worth? Remember larger conferences have more tier 3 revenue fall to them because they have more inventory, the Big 12 has very little left after tier 1 & 2 choose due to having only 10 teams.
Also, you have to ask yourself if the Big 12's method of distributing tier 3 revenues is the better solution, why did he just single out the LHN as a problem for the league?
I hope your right the Big 12 does the poaching and not the ACC, but I'm not so sure. I think OU & Kansas would go to the B1G with an invite. Even if the Big 12 is the one doing the poaching unless Texas gets on board with the conference network it will only be if the B1G & SEC take 4 teams and make the ACC unstable not due to the Big 12 conference's individual strength. If Texas would do what they would have to do in any other viable conference by committing to a conference network, then it may be possible the conference could act from a position of strength and not hope to add leftovers. The problem is if there continues to be squabbling and disagreement in the league, especially the league power brokers it does not help the appearance of stability to new P5 candidates.
Iowa State needs to start doing everything thing they can to get on all of the XBOX, PS, Roku, Netflix, etc. streaming devices that they can. Put Cyclones.TV everywhere so that pretty much anyone who streams their content will have access. I don't know how you want to do the subscription but make it cheap / easy to get distribution. The money and number of fans will increase in time.
As I previously posted, Boren is a hypocritical jack *** for saying LHN is a problem when Boren/OU previously voted against equal revenue sharing and a conference network. The real problem for Boren is that he now has a bad case of "aggy little bro syndrome" toward Texas.
I don't know why Boren, you and others insist on a B12 conference network when the P12 and ACC have their ongoing conference network issues and the reality of CATV/SAT cord cutting and unbundling significantly changing/decreasing the current revenue gravy trains of the SECN and BTN. B12 members would be better served exploring alternative IP sales channels for their T3 content (Netflix, etc.) instead of a traditional CATV/SAT network.
Last edited:
Personally I would love to not have to get the BIG 10 Network bundled with my Direct TV and instead just purchase tier 3 channels from selected schools. I would gladly buy tier 3 content from ISU, Miami and maybe ASU.
I highly doubt the league's #2 brand expressing frustration helps stabilize the conference. Has everyone that has left had "little brother syndrome", is it all 5 schools OU, Neb., Colorado, A&M & Missouri? Or is maybe Texas lording over the conference causes instability. I even get Texas was more forward thinking and tried to give the whole conference a network early on but I think Texas trying to be that much above the rest of the conference is killing the stability and the only way the Big 12 gets P5 schools in the future if this isn't solved is those schools have no other choices.
If you think I'm wrong and the Big 12 is more stable than those other leagues can you give me other examples of national writers or journalists from other leagues that think the Big 12 is more stable than the other leagues with the exception of the ACC possibly. But I think even more national people think the ACC is more stable with the current Big 12 setup. I'm not saying the Big 12 couldn't be more stable than the ACC and possibly the PAC 12 but they need to get this conference network issue solved first.
I also don't think the article you posted by Wilner would qualify. He is unhappy at the current time about the PAC 12 tier 3 but it has a strong possibility to improve and you don't see any PAC 12 teams that speak of leaving or rumors of it.
It is impossible for the B12 to monitor and control hypocritical nonsense coming from an ex-politician like Boren and other hypocrites like aggy and NU who previously voted against equal revenue sharing and a B12conference network.Then they all needlessly blame Texas for leaving or wanting to leave.
The B12 also cannot monitor and control dumb *** media types who characterize hypocritical comments from Boren as a sign of real “instability”. And obviously they cannot monitor and control the nonsense from readers who buy into Boren’s comments as a true sign of instability.
B12 Presidents knew what the hell they were signing up for when they all voluntarily agreed to the B12 GOR which make Boren’s recent comments even more worthless and irrelevant.
The current status of P12 and ACC T3 revenues (or lack thereof) as discussed by Wilner needs no further explanation. The B12 doesn’t need a conference network.The fact is they can’t start one at this point given the issues of the P12 and ACC as well as future uncertainty stemming from CATV/SAT cord cutting and unbundling. The B12 and Boren are much better served enhancing revenues from their current T3 revenue model and reminding Boren what he voluntarily signed up for and to keep his mouth shut. Boren made a fool of himself during Realignment Missile Crisis II when he found out the P12 didn’t want OU without Texas and he is doing it again.
Last edited:
David Boren:
Graduated from Yale in top 1% of class
Phi Beta Kappa at Yale
Rhodes scholar at Yale
Masters from Oxford University in England
Selected by faculty as the "outstanding graduate" at OU Law School
Served in Oklahoma National Guard, rank of captain
Yeah, he's some "fool" all right...
Graduated from Yale in top 1% of class
Phi Beta Kappa at Yale
Rhodes scholar at Yale
Masters from Oxford University in England
Selected by faculty as the "outstanding graduate" at OU Law School
Served in Oklahoma National Guard, rank of captain
Yeah, he's some "fool" all right...
he could certainly be a fool in this situation. One thing is for sure, you are when it comes to expansion and Iowa state Athletics in general.
Boren isn't the first nor the last with those type of credentials to be a fool when it comes to the real business world.
Oklahoma is offering to give up it's Tier 3 brand, the 7 million it'll pocket alone if the other schools in this league will help take the **** out of Texas's sail and demand formation of a network and a long term vision
It's really very simple in Boren's eyes: Lets build a network and expand so this isn't a question in a decade (when Boren will be retired) or elect not to and Oklahoma will leave (either eventually or in a drawn out court battle)
So you got TCU/Tech/KSU, ads coming out siding with Texas because they don't want the boat rocked.
OU/OSU/WVU are together wanting the change
How the other 3 schools decide: ISU/Baylor/KU is gonna determine how this plays out .
Boren isn't going to be the Pres when the GOR is up, this will be resolved under his presidency one way or the other.
It's really very simple in Boren's eyes: Lets build a network and expand so this isn't a question in a decade (when Boren will be retired) or elect not to and Oklahoma will leave (either eventually or in a drawn out court battle)
So you got TCU/Tech/KSU, ads coming out siding with Texas because they don't want the boat rocked.
OU/OSU/WVU are together wanting the change
How the other 3 schools decide: ISU/Baylor/KU is gonna determine how this plays out .
Boren isn't going to be the Pres when the GOR is up, this will be resolved under his presidency one way or the other.
Last edited:
Son of a ***** should've cured cancer by now with that resume.
Instead he wants to sit in his ivory tower and lob bombs at the Big 12
http://www.scout.com/college/texas/story/1561434-the-next-big-move-in-realignment
Chip Brown has a piece today about what he thinks the next big move in realignment will be, and that is all of the Power Five conferences coming together and collectively bargaining for one single TV contract. Says the money would be better and could possibly even dwarf what the NFL might be able to make.
Says a collective bargaining could also bring some geographic normalcy back to leagues and suggests that the collective group would also determine that the most money can be made off a 16-team playoff, and to get to that take all 65 of the current P5 teams (including Notre Dame) and add a 66th team (congratulations BYU, you are now a big boy) and split them into six 11-team divisions (three in the west, three in the east). You play just 11 regular season games (10 games in your division and one non-conference game against an FCS team). You restore rivalries that way and then take the top two teams in each division and the four wildcards (two from east, two from west) to make up for 16-team bracket. He suggests splitting teams up as follows:
WEST
BYU, California, Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Utah, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, Arkansas, Baylor, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, TCU, Texas Tech
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Iowa State, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin
EAST
Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Kansas, Kansas State, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee
Duke, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami (FL), North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
Boston College, Kentucky, Louisville, Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, West Virginia
Chip also mentions if that doesn't work out, maybe there should just be a full-blown Big 12/SEC merger, and create a 24-team super conference.
Chip Brown has a piece today about what he thinks the next big move in realignment will be, and that is all of the Power Five conferences coming together and collectively bargaining for one single TV contract. Says the money would be better and could possibly even dwarf what the NFL might be able to make.
Says a collective bargaining could also bring some geographic normalcy back to leagues and suggests that the collective group would also determine that the most money can be made off a 16-team playoff, and to get to that take all 65 of the current P5 teams (including Notre Dame) and add a 66th team (congratulations BYU, you are now a big boy) and split them into six 11-team divisions (three in the west, three in the east). You play just 11 regular season games (10 games in your division and one non-conference game against an FCS team). You restore rivalries that way and then take the top two teams in each division and the four wildcards (two from east, two from west) to make up for 16-team bracket. He suggests splitting teams up as follows:
WEST
BYU, California, Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Utah, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, Arkansas, Baylor, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, TCU, Texas Tech
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Iowa State, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin
EAST
Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Kansas, Kansas State, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee
Duke, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami (FL), North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
Boston College, Kentucky, Louisville, Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, West Virginia
Chip also mentions if that doesn't work out, maybe there should just be a full-blown Big 12/SEC merger, and create a 24-team super conference.
I agree it is a very simple concept but it's one that makes zero financial sense at this point in time.
ESPN and the ACC are unable to launch a viable ACCN and their turf has way more potential premium CATV/SAT subscribers. Do you really think the B12 can partner with ESPN or Fox to come up with a viable CATV/SAT conference network plan in B12 turf? Or add two available schools to make it worth their while? The answer is no on both.
Now if Texas and the other schools in their corner can be convinced that a shared IP-delivered B12 conference network will make them all more money over the long-term with a partner like Netflix, then maybe Boren is onto something but I highly doubt that is the case at this point in time.
This would be ideal, but it's probably too rational an idea to actually be achieved.
