Big 12 to expand...or not

[omniorange]

He is still sticking to that, thinks that ESPN subscribers will drop by ~10mm by 2019 and the network will never get off the ground

He could be right. But when people cord-cut, it isn't as though ESPN is the only one being unsubscribed to. How about all of the millions in B1G country and SEC country? Does anyone believe the majority of cord cutters there are nixing ESPN but keeping BTN/SECN? I sure don't. If you aren't into sports, you aren't into sports.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Cusefan0307]

He is still sticking to that, thinks that ESPN subscribers will drop by ~10mm by 2019 and the network will never get off the ground

Maybe, but doubtful. Platforms like Sling TV and Playstation Vue are becoming more popular. I cut my cable yesterday, got the playstation VUE and still get all the ESPN Networks, while cutting my TV Bill by 60%. I think the streaming idea is excellent and the way of the future.

 

[texascpa]

Maybe, but doubtful. Platforms like Sling TV and Playstation Vue are becoming more popular. I cut my cable yesterday, got the playstation VUE and still get all the ESPN Networks, while cutting my TV Bill by 60%. I think the streaming idea is excellent and the way of the future.

Was just checking out the Vue's lineup. Their costliest plan - $44.99/month - includes the Longhorn Network, SEC Network, all of the ESPN channels and the Fox Sports channels. That is half of what I pay for Directv and I don't have to pay for box rentals or any of the other crap. When my two-year contract is up with Directv next June, I'm switching.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[Toga]

UConn in others not receiving votes.

 

[NKR1978]

He is still sticking to that, thinks that ESPN subscribers will drop by ~10mm by 2019 and the network will never get off the ground

And he works for Fox Sports. He has a pretty obvious agenda.

 

[MSOrange]

And he works for Fox Sports. He has a pretty obvious agenda.

That was my first thought also. ESPN has been and will be affected by cord cutters but Clay isn't exactly an unbiased observer.

 

[atom58]

This is what Tomcat was saying based on my theory. If ESPN and Fox each have to pony up 250 million dollars extra a year to the Big XII based on their pro rata contract the league can go to the American schools and put them off each other.
Okay Memphis we won't give you an equal share of 25 million a year will you take 8 million which is better than the 3 million you are getting and now and we keep that extra 17 million for current members.
Same for Cincinnati/UConn/USF/UCF.

The big XII would know each school is desperate to leave the American and would take less money.

That's the angle I am seeing too - 4 new schools x $25 million/school = $100 million more, and if the 4 agree to take say $10 million per year for the life of the current TV contract*, that leaves $60 million/10 current Big 12 members = $6 million extra for each of them. Of course, IMO that is totally unfair to the 4 new schools, however maybe $10 million is 3 to 5 times what they are getting now - absent consideration of travel expenses from being on an island like WVa. This shows they are desperate.

*Big 12 expansion looks to be a near certainty

 

[KaiserUEO]

UConn in others not receiving votes.

you just gave all storz alums a heart attack.

they likely read that this way...

UConn in, others not receiving votes.

 

[atom58]

And he works for Fox Sports. He has a pretty obvious agenda.

I understood that he is an SEC homer so take anything he says with a grain of salt. If he thinks cord cutting will be so extreme as to prevent an ACC channel but would not affect the BTN or SECn, then he must be smoking something other than tobacco - it would affect $$$ going to everybody. I have no worries - there will be a contractual agreement and the ACC channel will happen. Get on the gravy train while it still exists with say "only" 80 million cable subscribers! Who knows - maybe it would even save ESPN.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Was just checking out the Vue's lineup. Their costliest plan - $44.99/month - includes the Longhorn Network, SEC Network, all of the ESPN channels and the Fox Sports channels. That is half of what I pay for Directv and I don't have to pay for box rentals or any of the other crap. When my two-year contract is up with Directv next June, I'm switching.

Pretty sure you can get all of that with the 34.99 package. That's what I have and I get all the sports networks. You don't get the NFL network, but I think all those games are now covered by the networks channels too.

 

[Ottoble]

Personally I think the best options are in order:

1. BYU (fan base, national appeal)
2. Houston (market, geography, rivalries)
3. Cincinnati (rival and geographic partner for WVU, also probably the most balanced program from a competitive nature)
4. Memphis (logical partner with UC and WVU), FedEx$
5. UCF (recruiting)

I think the first 2 are clear. B12 has to give WVU a bit of a break for non-revenue sports travel so I think Cincy is logical. It also gets the B12 into Ohio which isn't Florida from a recruiting aspect but it ain't bad. So many teams recruit Florida its hardly necessary to place a team there. Hard to pass up the fully underwritten FedEx B12 Championship game imo.

I see your point on Houston, I just don't see it adding TV revenue and think that UT, Baylor, TCU, TT, are not in any hurry to add another team to recruit against in their state. Especially the Longhorns who I think have been hurt in the DFW & Houston areas already the by adding TCU and losing A&M to the recruiting draw of the SEC.

1. 
   
   There is a reason TAMU, UT, TTech, took Baylor and left Rice, TCU, SMU and Houston behind when they left the SWC to join the Big 8 forming the Big 12. With big state school funding, State schools including Arkansas had become more dominant in the SWC in the 8os and 90s, except when SMU cheated (which is why people noticed they cheated when everyone else around them in the SWC was cheating too), following years of more balanced play or even some early eras of private school dominance. The 85 Scholarship limit went into effect in '92 and state schools were still at an advantage as they are today with funding, but it was becoming more level recruiting field since they couldn't take 35-40 players a year under previous limits of 105 and 95 which the private schools often couldn't afford to hit anyways previously except SMU. It concerned them and when Arkansas left for the SEC the conference was destabilized and the big state schools had their eyes open for options and $. To compete with the Big 8 State schools TAMU, UT, and TTech left with Baylor was their Patsy, they were the perennial bottom feeder in the SWC and was the only one of the 5 private schools that lacked geographical ties to the Major Metropolitan areas in Texas. Baylor would remain that way for a decade in the Big 12, has always had a recruiting disadvantage, and may go back down under new leadership.
   
   My Thoughts and I think its going to be 4 teams because $&TV&Recruiting make this carousel spin:
   1. Memphis (logical partner with UC and WVU), FedEx$ (Major City/State(s) added to TV)
      
   2. Cincinnati (rival and geographic partner for WVU, also probably the most balanced program from a competitive nature) (Major City/State(s) added to TV)
   3. BYU (fan base, national appeal, (Major City/State added to TV) BYU would normally be the #1 but they are just a little further away geographically.
      
   4. UCF (recruiting, recent success) (Major City/State added to TV)
      
   5. Colorado State (Geography, TV, BYU Partner) (But Likely doesn't draw deeply enough crowd or TV to warrant a bid.)
      
   6. Houston (market, geography, rivalries) (But doesn't expand TV coverage and adds a more level recruiting playing field for the Cougars.)

 

[HtownOrange]

I understood that he is an SEC homer so take anything he says with a grain of salt. If he thinks cord cutting will be so extreme as to prevent an ACC channel but would not affect the BTN or SECn, then he must be smoking something other than tobacco - it would affect $$$ going to everybody. I have no worries - there will be a contractual agreement and the ACC channel will happen. Get on the gravy train while it still exists with say "only" 80 million cable subscribers! Who knows - maybe it would even save ESPN.

I am one who thinks the cord cutting will hurt the current cable set up. However, cable will be around for a very long time as many people will still want it. The media shift to the streaming is happening and many young people simply never get cable to begin with. That said, the streaming will grow for a long time while cable fades. Regardless, the production of the sportscasts and shows is not changing, just the delivery to the consumer. If there is money to be made, the TV gurus will find it and make it happen.

 

[HtownOrange]

I see your point on Houston, I just don't see it adding TV revenue and think that UT, Baylor, TCU, TT, are not in any hurry to add another team to recruit against in their state. Especially the Longhorns who I think have been hurt in the DFW & Houston areas already the by adding TCU and losing A&M to the recruiting draw of the SEC.

1. 
   
   There is a reason TAMU, UT, TTech, took Baylor and left Rice, TCU, SMU and Houston behind when they left the SWC to join the Big 8 forming the Big 12. With big state school funding, State schools including Arkansas had become more dominant in the SWC in the 8os and 90s, except when SMU cheated (which is why people noticed they cheated when everyone else around them in the SWC was cheating too), following years of more balanced play or even some early eras of private school dominance. The 85 Scholarship limit went into effect in '92 and state schools were still at an advantage as they are today with funding, but it was becoming more level recruiting field since they couldn't take 35-40 players a year under previous limits of 105 and 95 which the private schools often couldn't afford to hit anyways previously except SMU. It concerned them and when Arkansas left for the SEC the conference was destabilized and the big state schools had their eyes open for options and $. To compete with the Big 8 State schools TAMU, UT, and TTech left with Baylor was their Patsy, they were the perennial bottom feeder in the SWC and was the only one of the 5 private schools that lacked geographical ties to the Major Metropolitan areas in Texas. Baylor would remain that way for a decade in the Big 12, has always had a recruiting disadvantage, and may go back down under new leadership.
   
   My Thoughts and I think its going to be 4 teams because $&TV&Recruiting make this carousel spin:
   1. Memphis (logical partner with UC and WVU), FedEx$ (Major City/State(s) added to TV)
      
   2. Cincinnati (rival and geographic partner for WVU, also probably the most balanced program from a competitive nature) (Major City/State(s) added to TV)
   3. BYU (fan base, national appeal, (Major City/State added to TV) BYU would normally be the #1 but they are just a little further away geographically.
      
   4. UCF (recruiting, recent success) (Major City/State added to TV)
      
   5. Colorado State (Geography, TV, BYU Partner) (But Likely doesn't draw deeply enough crowd or TV to warrant a bid.)
      
   6. Houston (market, geography, rivalries) (But doesn't expand TV coverage and adds a more level recruiting playing field for the Cougars.)

Quick question: I count four private schools; Rice, Baylor, TCU and SMU; who is #5?

Houston is a state school. UT and TAMU voted UH down as they were really good in the late 80's and they both recruited Houston heavily (still do). TexasBlech was a nobody and and a harmless choice. Baylor went along for the ride because the then governor, Ann Richards (I think), was a Baylor grad and did some major politicking to make it happen. Of note: TAMU Wanted to go with Arkansas, UT had to strong arm the state capital to make them stay hitched to UT.

 

[texascpa]

Pretty sure you can get all of that with the 34.99 package. That's what I have and I get all the sports networks. You don't get the NFL network, but I think all those games are now covered by the networks channels too.

Looks like in select cities (those that carry local channels) the amount is $10 higher. I live outside of Houston, so that would be the difference.

 

[Briancuse]

you just gave all storz alums a heart attack.

they likely read that this way...

UConn in, others not receiving votes.

Do they know how to read in storz?

 

[NKR1978]

you just gave all storz alums a heart attack.

they likely read that this way...

UConn in, others not receiving votes.

"A pen is mightier" might be my favorite SNL skit ever.

 

[Briancuse]

"A pen is mightier" might be my favorite SNL skit ever.

Those skits were priceless, I love Norm Mcdonald doing Burt Reynolds.

 

[NKR1978]

Those skits were priceless, I love Norm Mcdonald doing Burt Reynolds.

Therapists!

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Those skits were priceless, I love Norm Mcdonald doing Burt Reynolds.

Let it snow !

 

[Scooch]

Maybe, but doubtful. Platforms like Sling TV and Playstation Vue are becoming more popular. I cut my cable yesterday, got the playstation VUE and still get all the ESPN Networks, while cutting my TV Bill by 60%. I think the streaming idea is excellent and the way of the future.

This is exactly why the term "cord cutting" is increasingly inaccurate. Every network you receive via Vue receives a subscriber fee the same as if you subscribe via Comcast, Optimum, DirecTV or Fios. So whether the delivery mechanism is coaxial cable, direct broadcast satellite, phone company or Internet stream, the content providers really don't care because they're getting paid regardless.

What hurts them are "cord nevers". But there are gobs of tech companies (Hulu, YouTube, Apple, Amazon, etc) lining up to offer bundled video services in order to get a piece of that lucrative pie and to do their best to ensure that segment of the population is small.

 

[TexanMark]

Agreed Scooch...better term is skinny bundlers...which I'm one

 

[TheCusian]

This is exactly why the term "cord cutting" is increasingly inaccurate. Every network you receive via Vue receives a subscriber fee the same as if you subscribe via Comcast, Optimum, DirecTV or Fios. So whether the delivery mechanism is coaxial cable, direct broadcast satellite, phone company or Internet stream, the content providers really don't care because they're getting paid regardless. What hurts them are "cord nevers". But there are gobs of tech companies (Hulu, YouTube, Apple, Amazon, etc) lining up to offer bundled video services in order to get a piece of that lucrative pie and to do their best to ensure that segment of the population is small.

The issue wasn't/isn't the delivery method. Cords, boxes, WIFI, soup cans with rope - it was the lack of options at different price points driven by really large cable companies with no competition. I'd happily go back to giving them my money if they can compete on price with these newer services.

 

[Scooch]

The issue wasn't/isn't the delivery method. Cords, boxes, WIFI, soup cans with rope - it was the lack of options at different price points driven by really large cable companies with no competition. I'd happily go back to giving them my money if they can compete on price with these newer services.

That's fine, but I'm talking about the business of content owners and how that relates to the future viability of networks.

 

[OburgOrange]

Maybe, but doubtful. Platforms like Sling TV and Playstation Vue are becoming more popular. I cut my cable yesterday, got the playstation VUE and still get all the ESPN Networks, while cutting my TV Bill by 60%. I think the streaming idea is excellent and the way of the future.

Can you get CBS FOX ABC NBC ?