- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Texas Suddenly Willing To "Share" the LHN
Posted on 9/5/11 at 8:18 am
Posted on 9/5/11 at 8:18 am
ESPN and UT have reportedly told the Pac12 they can fold the fledging (translation, no subscribers) into a sharing with Tech and somehow this works for the Pac12??
According to Bohls in the Austin Statesman Dodds and Scott (Pac12 Comish) have worked this out with ESPN.
According to Bohls in the Austin Statesman Dodds and Scott (Pac12 Comish) have worked this out with ESPN.
3
Posted on 9/5/11 at 8:25 am to Touchdowns4LSU
quote:
ESPN and UT have reportedly told the Pac12 they can fold the fledging (translation, no subscribers) into a sharing with Tech and somehow this works for the Pac12??
According to Bohls in the Austin Statesman Dodds and Scott (Pac12 Comish) have worked this out with ESPN.
PAC 12 has regional stations shared by 2 teams. So they'd make LHN the Texas/Texas Tech and they would make an Okie State/Okie channel. That would fit within the rules of the PAC 12.
Posted on 9/5/11 at 8:26 am to Touchdowns4LSU
quote:
ESPN and UT have reportedly told the Pac12 they can fold the fledging (translation, no subscribers) into a sharing with Tech and somehow this works for the Pac12??
The Pac-12 is doing multiple regional networks. LHN would simply be tied into this.
The bigger issue I see is revenue sharing. Personally, I'm in favor of unequal revenue splits, especially in a conference like the Pac-12 or proposed Pac-16 where there's massive market gaps between schools, but Scott seems committed to equal revenue sharing
Posted on 9/5/11 at 8:30 am to usc6158
quote:
The bigger issue I see is revenue sharing. Personally, I'm in favor of unequal revenue splits, especially in a conference like the Pac-12 or proposed Pac-16 where there's massive market gaps between schools, but Scott seems committed to equal revenue sharing
Unequal revenue sharing is a big part of what made the Big 12 so unstable.
Posted on 9/5/11 at 8:30 am to arwicklu
quote:
Unequal revenue sharing is a big part of what made the Big 12 so unstable.
The Pac-10 had unequal revenue sharing until this year and it was never a problem
Posted on 9/5/11 at 8:38 am to usc6158
The Big 12 dealt with unequal revenue sharing just fine because every program voted for it.
Nebraska was pissed about a lot of other things (location of conf HQ and title game and partial qualifiers). Partial qualifiers were a key element to their titles in the 90s and the academically prestigious Big 10 allows partial qualifiers. Nebraska made the right move for their program but it had nothing to do with unequal rev sharing.
The aggies are beating that drum right now but they voted for unequal rev sharing every step of the way and they agreed to get about $7 million more per year than 70% of the conference last summer.
As for sharing the LN, Texas will do whatever makes it the most possible $, just like everyone else.
Nebraska was pissed about a lot of other things (location of conf HQ and title game and partial qualifiers). Partial qualifiers were a key element to their titles in the 90s and the academically prestigious Big 10 allows partial qualifiers. Nebraska made the right move for their program but it had nothing to do with unequal rev sharing.
The aggies are beating that drum right now but they voted for unequal rev sharing every step of the way and they agreed to get about $7 million more per year than 70% of the conference last summer.
As for sharing the LN, Texas will do whatever makes it the most possible $, just like everyone else.
Posted on 9/5/11 at 8:42 am to usc6158
quote:
The Pac-10 had unequal revenue sharing until this year and it was never a problem
Yes it was. Not a problem for USC, but for the overall strength of the conf it was. The sports business thrives when there is competition and a level playing field. The NFL goes to tremendous lengths to level things out and they make more money because of it. Green Bay and New Orleans, your recent SB winners wouldn't even exist, much less compete, if it weren't for these measures. College football will never go to the extent of the NFL in terms of leveling the natural advantages, but revenue sharing is one of the most important.
Posted on 9/5/11 at 8:44 am to usc6158
quote:
The Pac-10 had unequal revenue sharing until this year and it was never a problem
I don't think it was never a problem. Notice the guys at the bottom usually are terrible. I think the term PAC 1 came from somewhere.
2008-2009:
USC: $11,479,242
Oregon: $9,277,342
OSU: $9,922,072
Cal: $8,851,138
Washington: $8,447,330
UCLA: $8,783,712
Arizona: $8,181,329
ASU: $7,910,038
Stanford: $7,216,848
WSU: $6,676,774
Beyond that, articles like this Washington urges equal sharing. seem to disagree there was no problem for the smaller market guys.
Posted on 9/5/11 at 8:47 am to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
Drunkenstein
Of course the Iowa state and Kansas are going to vote for it. The only reason big schools voted for it was to earn the money deserved when compared to other big programs in the country. So the real problem was having a incompetent commissioner who 3-5 years behind on getting a satisfactory TV deal, he's been reactive about everything. So beebe, imo, is just to blame as ut.
Posted on 9/5/11 at 8:47 am to arwicklu
Certainly the smaller market schools wanted a bigger slice of the pie. That's only natural. However, the Pac-10 has never had stability issues because of those revenue splits. The bigger underlying issue was that the pie itself was too small because of horrible TV contracts.
Posted on 9/5/11 at 8:49 am to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
The Big 12 dealt with unequal revenue sharing just fine
Disagree.
quote:
The aggies are beating that drum right now but they voted for unequal rev sharing every step of the way and they agreed to get about $7 million more per year than 70% of the conference last summer.
Agree.
quote:
As for sharing the LN, Texas will do whatever makes it the most possible $, just like everyone else.
Well the network as constructed is currently a joke anyhow. Being in Houston there is no outcry for providers to pick it up. Nobody really wants to pay extra on their bill for women's volleyball.
Posted on 9/5/11 at 8:51 am to usc6158
quote:
Certainly the smaller market schools wanted a bigger slice of the pie. That's only natural. However, the Pac-10 has never had stability issues because of those revenue splits. The bigger underlying issue was that the pie itself was too small because of horrible TV contracts.
So there were issues but the smaller schools had to just bend over and take it.
Posted on 9/5/11 at 8:56 am to arwicklu
quote:
So there were issues but the smaller schools had to just bend over and take it.
Why should USC, UCLA, and Cal, which are in massive metro areas, make the same amount in TV revenue as Wazzu and Oregon St? It's economically irrational
Equal revenue sharing works great in settings like the SEC and Big-10 where markets are relatively equal and there's more financial parity. That's simply not the reality in the Pac-12
Posted on 9/5/11 at 9:04 am to usc6158
quote:
Why should USC, UCLA, and Cal, which are in massive metro areas, make the same amount in TV revenue as Wazzu and Oregon St? It's economically irrational
Because they are in a conference who should be trying to create competitive balance and make the entire network strong. I don't care if you're in a metro area, you can't make a conference without the other teams joining.
Basically teams like USC want to have other teams to play but they want them to be weakened by decreased revenue. So their already large advantage is even bigger and they can keep the weak in their place.
quote:
Equal revenue sharing works great in settings like the SEC and Big-10 where markets are relatively equal and there's more financial parity. That's simply not the reality in the Pac-12
So you're telling me that Vandy who is rarely on TV generates as much as a national program like Alabama?
If the SEC wanted to they could give the teams that are on TV less, like Vandy, Ole Miss, etc less money. But why would you want to weaken your conference?
Beyond that teams like USC and Alabama make so much money on the tickets and merchandise that it doesn't come close to being equal anyhow. It is never close. I don't see why you want to take the conference money and give an unequal split on top of it all. You're basically making certain that part of your conference is a joke. In the Pac 10's case (Pac 1) They made sure 9 teams were a joke until Oregon got Nike'd up.
Posted on 9/5/11 at 9:14 am to usc6158
quote:
Why should USC, UCLA, and Cal, which are in massive metro areas, make the same amount in TV revenue as Wazzu and Oregon St? It's economically irrational
agreed, its ironic that largely conservative states are so in favor of equal revenue sharing in the first place.
Posted on 9/5/11 at 9:27 am to rocket31
Alabama has a small media market so obviously any SEC model should give them a smaller slice due to their smaller market share.
The whole "economically irrational" argument is itself irrational.
The whole "economically irrational" argument is itself irrational.
Posted on 9/5/11 at 9:31 am to Baloo
quote:
Alabama has a small media market so obviously any SEC model should give them a smaller slice due to their smaller market share.
The whole "economically irrational" argument is itself irrational.
Much of the PAC 10 model revolved around TV exposure. If you look at the teams from year to year, the teams who ended up good were on TV more and made more money. So Alabama/LSU who is on TV a lot versus Vandy would be a massive gap. Oregon made very little money a few years ago based on their split and then shot up the rankings.
Posted on 9/5/11 at 9:35 am to Baloo
quote:
Alabama has a small media market
not true, television exposure and popularity push bama to near top of revenue producers in the conference while leach programs like vanderbilt benefit.
the model works, yes, but it still largely benefits some schools moreso than others. which is fine if that is the model agreed upon, just ironic politically.
Posted on 9/5/11 at 9:37 am to rocket31
quote:
agreed, its ironic that largely conservative states are so in favor of equal revenue sharing in the first place.
It is only equal on the conference money because each school is an equal part of the conference.
You can look at the top revenue producing teams in the NCAA and they're getting a lot more money than the conference split. I don't think the conference should be trying to make the poor even poorer.
But I guess the conference strength speaks for itself. Pumping up the strength of the conference has given the SEC a better reputation and if it comes to a one loss (or two loss) team getting into the title game, I think I know what conference they'll come from.
Posted on 9/5/11 at 9:39 am to arwicklu
quote:
You can look at the top revenue producing teams in the NCAA and they're getting a lot more money than the conference split. I don't think the conference should be trying to make the poor even poorer.
i agree, but the irony is amusing. thats all.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News