WVSPORTS.COM Big 12 digital network a move to get ahead in a changing landscape?
- Thread starter Keenan Cummings
- Start date
Do like specific site for BIG 12
Dont like that OU and UT have no football on it.
But have seen that OU has some basketball and other sports on it. Ie WVU has 5 bb games and OU has 3- so it would seem there will be some participation after all from the “ premiere” schools.
Dont like pay wall when others are getting better distribution and no extra fee.
Dont like that OU and UT have no football on it.
But have seen that OU has some basketball and other sports on it. Ie WVU has 5 bb games and OU has 3- so it would seem there will be some participation after all from the “ premiere” schools.
Dont like pay wall when others are getting better distribution and no extra fee.
Go pick up some Coke cans and bottles on the side of the road and you will have 5 dollars in no time.
Texas has a home game against Kansas this year that will be on the Longhorn Network.
Already have had one against Louisiana Tech.
They have a few basketball games on ESPN+
Like I have said ESPN+ can be streamed through your televsion like a regular channel.
More and more sports are going to be broadcast like this.
Already have had one against Louisiana Tech.
They have a few basketball games on ESPN+
Like I have said ESPN+ can be streamed through your televsion like a regular channel.
More and more sports are going to be broadcast like this.
Televsion providers are trying to screw over ESPN.
ESPN says screw the televsion providers because they can offer content without them.
This is what ESPN+ is. They don't have to pay Comcast, Direct TV or whoever to broadcast their sporting events.
ESPN is going to put more and more content on their ESPN+ because they control it 100%.
Simple business. You control everything from production to how it is delivered to homes.
This will ultimately mean more money for universities if they have fanbases who will purchase the product.
ESPN says screw the televsion providers because they can offer content without them.
This is what ESPN+ is. They don't have to pay Comcast, Direct TV or whoever to broadcast their sporting events.
ESPN is going to put more and more content on their ESPN+ because they control it 100%.
Simple business. You control everything from production to how it is delivered to homes.
This will ultimately mean more money for universities if they have fanbases who will purchase the product.
When / if everyone else has to pay to get their own games, then it makes sense.
Now, you have just added an acc network for one of the least watched conferences. In large part, if they want to see these games its been added to the platform they already pay more for.
Now BIG 12 fans are paying for those-- btn, acc, secn, in rare cases pac nets if they have a cable or streaming subscription.
But those conferences fans are not likely going to buy BIG 12 NOW on the espn+ app, and BIG 12 fans are being asked to pay double to get their own games plus a streaming/ cable service with everyone elses games on.
Plus Texas and OU are not committed to it the same as everyone else, but are also going to take money out of it from reports.
Now, you have just added an acc network for one of the least watched conferences. In large part, if they want to see these games its been added to the platform they already pay more for.
Now BIG 12 fans are paying for those-- btn, acc, secn, in rare cases pac nets if they have a cable or streaming subscription.
But those conferences fans are not likely going to buy BIG 12 NOW on the espn+ app, and BIG 12 fans are being asked to pay double to get their own games plus a streaming/ cable service with everyone elses games on.
Plus Texas and OU are not committed to it the same as everyone else, but are also going to take money out of it from reports.
Last edited:
Texas doesnt get their conference share when a game like Kansas is added-- around $220,000 now-- that money is split by the conference with everyone else--Texas gets $0. If Kansas also puts it on their outlet then everyone else gets double that-- KU and Texas lose $220,000 ea in conference distribution.
Having to pay extra to see your own game(s) on this service and also paying your cable streMing service more to get secn, btn, accn-- but they pay nothing for your content? Problem.
Having to pay extra to see your own game(s) on this service and also paying your cable streMing service more to get secn, btn, accn-- but they pay nothing for your content? Problem.
Last edited:
You are just not getting it.
Those conference networks won't stay on there much longer because the televsion providers are in conflict with ESPN and FOX.
Direct TV may end up pulling the plug on ESPN this season because ESPN doesn't want to deal with them.
You are thinking in 2010 terms for 2020.
2020 and beyond will be a totally different in terms of how ESPN and FOX distribute their product.
Those conference networks won't stay on there much longer because the televsion providers are in conflict with ESPN and FOX.
Direct TV may end up pulling the plug on ESPN this season because ESPN doesn't want to deal with them.
You are thinking in 2010 terms for 2020.
2020 and beyond will be a totally different in terms of how ESPN and FOX distribute their product.
Providers are paying ESPN the largest part of their cable bill. Its why people's bills keep going UP. People that don't want i.e. accn, are now paying more than $5 additional per month for the same service they had been getting. And then they are increasing payouts to the acc from your extortion tax because you still wanted i.e. ESPN or the Disney channel.
Its why people are dropping cable in the first place.
It is fully expected by the industry (and the BIG 12 btw) that linear cable will continue for the long term to be the premiere delivery service. Going into the next set of contracts starting in a few years, no one expects i.e. the Big Ten or Pac, or then the BIG 12, to get JUST a streaming contract.
There are still 60-80 plus million cable subscribers despite losses.
So to pretend that everyone is going to be on ESPN+ immediately or for a long time to come, makes no sense. In fact ESPN got the accn on lots of platforms while signing new several year deals just recently. So the SEC, BTN and accn are going to be bringing in money for those conferences linearly for a long time to come yet, just in decreasing amounts from cable (but increasing amounts on the streaming services). Everyone who wants cable or streaming will pay for those, while BIG 12 fans will only be able to get their content by paying for both the espn plus app and the cable streaming bill feeding the other conferences millions per year.
Its why the BIG 12 should expand going into their next set of deals--to get more inventory for this pay wall streaming service or better yet a more linear network that doesn't charge just BIG 12 fans for their own content, while they must pay for everyone else to get richer.
Texas and Oklahoma have around 80% of the population.
Texas 28.7 million
Oklahoma 4 million
Iowa 3.156 million
Kansas 2.912 if you include the KC market probably closer to 3.5 million
West Virginia 1.8 million
About 33 million compared to 8.2 million
There is nothing there for a Big 12 conference network.
Truthfully I don't think anyone would want a Big 12 network because it would be Texas 24/7.
Why would that network not be totally controlled by the biggest market.
With the current setup everyone is happy plus revenue hasn't been an issue with the Big 12.
Still going to be higher than the ACC with their network because they have too many schools.
You want to add more schools to the Big 12 to divide the revenue. Very few schools will bring 40 million to the table.
Texas 28.7 million
Oklahoma 4 million
Iowa 3.156 million
Kansas 2.912 if you include the KC market probably closer to 3.5 million
West Virginia 1.8 million
About 33 million compared to 8.2 million
There is nothing there for a Big 12 conference network.
Truthfully I don't think anyone would want a Big 12 network because it would be Texas 24/7.
Why would that network not be totally controlled by the biggest market.
With the current setup everyone is happy plus revenue hasn't been an issue with the Big 12.
Still going to be higher than the ACC with their network because they have too many schools.
You want to add more schools to the Big 12 to divide the revenue. Very few schools will bring 40 million to the table.
Buck is a real lowlife. Even for a bum he can't even panhandle correctly. He isn't on GregJacobs level. Greg is the best panhandler ever
Welcome to the future of College Football on PPV streaming. You want to see a game you must pay to see it.
The BIG 12 expansion was about adding inventory and territory.
Not sure what you don't get about that. Adding certain schools would have increased the BIG 12 territory into the numbers the B10 and SEC have in their base territory--aiding in negotiations for a linear network. That is why they needed to expand, in addition to the benefits a bigger conference gives you in landing in the playoff (see Clemson)
A BIG 12 network would be every school equally, just as everyone else's conference network is. Just as BIG 12 now is for participating members.
Everyone is not thrilled with the setup at all, a good portion of the conference wanted to expand the conference when the opportunity presented itself.
Adding more schools would increase everyone's revenues, it wouldn't decrease anyone's. Biggest lie of the situation. Did the acc's revenues decrease? PAC's? Big Ten's? SECs when they expanded? Of course not. So why would anyone pretend the BIG 12s would?
Expansion would open up new streams of revenue and also bring a rights increase.
Problem with Clemson and this will be something the people in the ACC will see tomorrow if they haven't already seen today is that Clemson vs Syracuse last week as the marquee matchup on Saturday night drew lower ratings than Texas vs Oklahoma State.
That game didn't have to go up against Georgia vs ND.
The problem with the ACC. It is going to hurt that conference.
They don't have the matchups that can draw viewers and the networks have the leverage.
This means less money for the ACC for first and second tier rights with 14 schools.
That game didn't have to go up against Georgia vs ND.
The problem with the ACC. It is going to hurt that conference.
They don't have the matchups that can draw viewers and the networks have the leverage.
This means less money for the ACC for first and second tier rights with 14 schools.
Well the reality is because of their network deal each acc school is going to get estimated $3-$8 million more per school per year. It will take a couple years for them to pay off debt for the network, but people can see their product and all the school advertising and promotions that such channels offer 24/7 365.
The gap between them and the Big 12 is much larger than that.
Plus you have schools in the conference that don't have fanbases. Not a great idea.
SEC works because you have rabid fanbases who watch all sports and deeply care about not just college football but the SEC in general.
You don't have that in the ACC but you have similar schools that are in SEC states.
The ACC network and ACC only benefits the SEC because it will put the ACC out of business with the current model in the South.
Attaching themselves to the Northeast was a horrible idea and a last ditch effort made by basketball schools.
ACC is ran by basketball schools in a football world.
It pretty much allows the SEC to have their pick of the ACC.
But those schools for the most part are trying to stay together even if they have to throw someone off the ship.
What do you think people were already doing when they paid for cable and associate sports packages?
If the University, and the conference, are moving to streaming content....why does anyone need ESPN?
Sell NBC or CBS the conference title game and the tier two stuff, keep the tier 3 in our best interest, and move on.
Seems like we have additional tools in the toolbox that can work in our favor from a conf. exposure standpoint and an individual school standpoint.
It seems ESPN can be completely wiped out.of this equation. Quickly and advantagously.
I think that could be the next step but the PAC 12 tried that and is failing because ESPN and FOX have a bigger voice. Majority of their pieces are anti PAC 12
I think it is the best model if you have demand and so did the people at Stanford.
Obviously the PAC 12 doesn't and overestimated their demand
I think it is the best model if you have demand and so did the people at Stanford.
Obviously the PAC 12 doesn't and overestimated their demand
Its about footprint. A bigger footprint delivers a better chance for the network partner to get back their investment and gain subscribers. They launched the accn because they have schools in highly populated states with lots of cable subscribers.
Even though its highly unlikely most people in IN, PA, NY, MA, GA, FL, KY, etc. care about the acc, by having schools there its easier for ESPN or FOX to negotiate with carriers in those states--guaranteeing a base amount of return on investment.
But these networks are NATIONAL, not local. And thats how they make lots of money, not because i.e. "the sec has a rabid fanbase", but because ESPN got the network on multiple platforms across the country by threatening to pull ESPN, ESPN2, Disney channels, etc. unless they carry the SEC network, or the acc network or whatever.
So the carriers cave and then you, I and anyone else subscribing to that service pay for it whether you ever watch a down of acc football, or ever watch sec basketball etc.
They make money not based on actual fans watching, but based on how many subscribers subscribe to that platform.
Well, for the BIG 12 to have such a network, whether on a linear channel or a streaming channel (but not behind a paywall), they need a bigger footprint to guarantee a minimum number of subscribers. Thats why markets are still important. The BIG 12 could add certain schools and greatly increase their footprint and states with cable/streaming subscribers.
Right now, the BIG 12s fanbase has to support the third tier outlet with additional money, but they are also paying for schools in the Big Ten, SEC and acc and a little for the Pac. But those schools fans aren't paying for the BIG 12 product in kind.
This has to be altered at some point.
Disagree.
The SEC has their network because the fanbase demanded it and the fanbase controls what the televsion providers offer.
If you don't offer their network they will go elsewhere.
Not the same with the ACC. Majority of those people don't care if their televsion provider has the network or doesn't.
Texas has the #1 market in college sports with their state and the Austin media market.
The Austin media market doesn't have a professional sports team and is the largest in the United States that doesn't. The NHL team in Columbus cut into Ohio State's.
Plus they have the entire state of Texas.
Oklahoma and Texas don't need a larger footprint when they are sitting in the biggest mansion in college sports.
In terms of market size, recruits and just overall demand for college sports.
People in California don't particularly care about college athletics.
The SEC has their network because the fanbase demanded it and the fanbase controls what the televsion providers offer.
If you don't offer their network they will go elsewhere.
Not the same with the ACC. Majority of those people don't care if their televsion provider has the network or doesn't.
Texas has the #1 market in college sports with their state and the Austin media market.
The Austin media market doesn't have a professional sports team and is the largest in the United States that doesn't. The NHL team in Columbus cut into Ohio State's.
Plus they have the entire state of Texas.
Oklahoma and Texas don't need a larger footprint when they are sitting in the biggest mansion in college sports.
In terms of market size, recruits and just overall demand for college sports.
People in California don't particularly care about college athletics.
And just what would be the advantage to wvu? Say goodbye to the millions from espn and fs1 etc. Of course might be a good thing...schools could cut costs by paying coaches what they are worth instead of like rock stars...spend dollars on educating ...and not video boards etc and sparkling new stadiums...and start treating student athletes as ...student athletes. Hell...who would need conferences?
You have to be able to see where everything is heading.
Texas isn't afraid to take on the entire SEC. They don't need aggy when the entire SEC is willing to take their shots at Texas.
The move was probably the best thing for Texas. They need something else to measure themselves against because Nebraska and the Big 8 was too easy.
Texas is looking for schools who can assist in their overall war against the SEC.
Reason why they identified Clemson, Florida State and even Georgia Tech. They feel like they can control the larger states the slower states like Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana will have their markets cut in half with Georgia and Florida.
Texas and these schools are natural fits.
Carolina and Texas can always argue BBQ and the fake Leaders of the Confederacy can say they somehow have fatherhood over Texas.
Texas isn't afraid to take on the entire SEC. They don't need aggy when the entire SEC is willing to take their shots at Texas.
The move was probably the best thing for Texas. They need something else to measure themselves against because Nebraska and the Big 8 was too easy.
Texas is looking for schools who can assist in their overall war against the SEC.
Reason why they identified Clemson, Florida State and even Georgia Tech. They feel like they can control the larger states the slower states like Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana will have their markets cut in half with Georgia and Florida.
Texas and these schools are natural fits.
Carolina and Texas can always argue BBQ and the fake Leaders of the Confederacy can say they somehow have fatherhood over Texas.
The SEC has their network because the Big Ten bolted ABC/ESPN to go in with FOX to start a network after ESPN lowballed them on a tier one offer.
ESPN decided to start a network before the SEC made a similar move.
To make it profitable, ESPN needed to get it on everywhere, to fleece cable subscribers all over the country for money to give to the SEC. They succeeded by BUNDLING all Disney products with it to force carriers to carry it. People in the northeast, west, midwest, far midwest are not watching SEC football when their teams are playing and they certainly aren't watching the SEC network.
Texas and Oklahoma want to continue to keep up revenue wise, which is made more difficult when the Big Ten schools are getting in the neighborhood of $10 million per school from their network to go along with $40 plus million from FOX and ESPN and CBS for the various things they cover.
They would gain exposure in an expansion as people not viewing them so much now, would begin to care as a more regional team faced them every couple of years. You aren't winning national championships with just players from Texas and certainly not just from Oklahoma. You have to recruit nationally, and having teams in more recruiting hotbeds is not going to hurt your recruiting it will help as recruits see your teams regularly.
They also want to be in the playoff, and its pretty clear by real evidence that playing 8 conference games and having 14 teams is going to get you in the playoff every year, whereas playing a round robin or even 9 game schedule with more teams in conference makes it more difficult.
B1G is so far removed from anything good they should just give up football. Ohio State is only program that has any balls.
They don't have the athletes. Ohio State recognized this and Michigan was stuck in the day of the I formation and a Michigan Fullback.
How does everyone like my other account Buckaineer.Going to start telling you about all that great West Virginia talent.
I've no problem with digital streaming media, I like it and it's convenient. As for Conference Networks I get SEC and BTN, having to pay for them because they are included in the cable package I have through Comcast. I may watch some BTN depending on the game and who's playing. I would not choose to have them but they are forced on me because of Comcast.
From reading--streaming is going to continue growing, but linear tv isn't going away anytime soon and will still be the preferred platform.
The person that created the BTN actually approached the old Big IIX about doing this first, but schools like Texas, OU, Nebraska wanted their own deal instead.
He went to the Big Ten, which was having a dispute with ESPN over rights fees, Delaney agreed to it, got a deal with FOX for partial ownership, and the rest is history. All the Big Ten schools are making money hand over fist from that network and getting nationwide exposure which helps attracts recruits and students in general.
ESPN seeing that success started the SECn and did it also for the acc as it tries to make that conference more important in college football.
The only problem is we have to pay for them in order to get cable, or have ESPN. Its not because those channels are popular, the ratings aren't even released because they are so low for all.
Its because FOX and ESPN threatened dropping other offerings to the providers if they didn't also offer those conference networks at the lower tiers so that they could shovel your and any other cable subscribers money to these conferences and make a boatload themselves. All good if your conference is included.
But the BIG 12's footprint is smaller than the other conferences which have more schools and states involved. So creating a BIG 12 network was a dilemna. First, there isn't enough inventory to put on it (football drives the bus, the other conferences have 35 or so games to put on while the BIG 12-without Texas or OU content has 8 tier 3 games, and now ESPN is moving BIG 12 conference matchups onto it--which removes that content from national tv ratings for the BIG 12).
Guess they are calculating they'll get a great new deal with ABC/ESPN if they go this route rather than expanding and trying to get their own linear network, but of course the big issue there is the LHN which hasn't done well, but Texas isn't giving it up any time soon.
The person that created the BTN actually approached the old Big IIX about doing this first, but schools like Texas, OU, Nebraska wanted their own deal instead.
He went to the Big Ten, which was having a dispute with ESPN over rights fees, Delaney agreed to it, got a deal with FOX for partial ownership, and the rest is history. All the Big Ten schools are making money hand over fist from that network and getting nationwide exposure which helps attracts recruits and students in general.
ESPN seeing that success started the SECn and did it also for the acc as it tries to make that conference more important in college football.
The only problem is we have to pay for them in order to get cable, or have ESPN. Its not because those channels are popular, the ratings aren't even released because they are so low for all.
Its because FOX and ESPN threatened dropping other offerings to the providers if they didn't also offer those conference networks at the lower tiers so that they could shovel your and any other cable subscribers money to these conferences and make a boatload themselves. All good if your conference is included.
But the BIG 12's footprint is smaller than the other conferences which have more schools and states involved. So creating a BIG 12 network was a dilemna. First, there isn't enough inventory to put on it (football drives the bus, the other conferences have 35 or so games to put on while the BIG 12-without Texas or OU content has 8 tier 3 games, and now ESPN is moving BIG 12 conference matchups onto it--which removes that content from national tv ratings for the BIG 12).
Guess they are calculating they'll get a great new deal with ABC/ESPN if they go this route rather than expanding and trying to get their own linear network, but of course the big issue there is the LHN which hasn't done well, but Texas isn't giving it up any time soon.
This is all a plan to secure and show the old guard on national TV the rest of each conference will be forced to charge their fans to watch their team on stream only. While ESPN will pay these teams a certain price and once it all begins the price of watching your team will continue to grow.
This is back to the days in the 60's 70's and 80's when your team only got a bone every now and then for regional coverage and national coverage if your team made a major bowl. At least there's a chance to see your favorite team on TV instead of listening on the radio. But you will have to pony up money to do so.
This is back to the days in the 60's 70's and 80's when your team only got a bone every now and then for regional coverage and national coverage if your team made a major bowl. At least there's a chance to see your favorite team on TV instead of listening on the radio. But you will have to pony up money to do so.