Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.

[mavblues]

We need some of you sons of bitches to get your a$$e$ down to Austin. Pronto. Y'all.
#KeyTweets

 

[Fishy]

I give up.

 

[junglehusky]

I give up.

frozen_let_it_go.mp3

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Santa J. Ono ‏@PrezOno · 1h1 hour ago
Fonda San Miguel is now my favorite restaurant in Austin.

Santa J. Ono
@PrezOno
28th President of the University of Cincinnati.

Now we know why the B1G uses confidentiality agreements. That said, I wonder if Susan has had the opportunity to enjoy dinner yet at Fogo de Chão in Rosement yet?

 

[kyleslamb]

President of a major state university visits the state capitol city and immediately everyone assumes it has to be related to college football realignment. Folks, we all have issues.

 

[FDNY99]

Now we know why the B1G uses confidentiality agreements. That said, I wonder if Susan has had the opportunity to enjoy dinner yet at Fogo de Chão in Rosement yet?

I think even if she has...we won't know about it until things develop. The not thing that Susan Herbst has developed at UConn during her tenure is a united front on no media leaks until things are finished.

 

[NYUConn]

Not a tweet, but definitely worth a read. Lays out just how precarious ESPN's future is right now.

http://deadspin.com/espns-uncertain-future-is-already-here-1753901086

This is no to say that ESPN wouldn't invest in a Big 12 Network, but it really throws cold water on the idea that it could be as profitable as the SEC Network for the sole reason that the network doesn't have the cash to spend on buying the rights that they did when they gave the SEC their deal.

 

[junglehusky]

 

[nd73]

“We’re smaller, we don’t have a championship game, we don’t have a network,” he added. “Right now, our Tier 1 media (rights) is slightly undervalued. Over the next 15 years, the delta between us and the other major conferences is going to get large.

"Asked whether Oklahoma or West Virginia could ever leave the Big 12, Bowlsby said, “There are always those possibilities."

 

[CAHUSKY]

That's an odd article. Bowlsby says they have no imperative to expand but then says:

"We’re smaller, we don’t have a championship game, we don’t have a network,” he added. “Right now, our Tier 1 media (rights) is slightly undervalued. Over the next 15 years, the delta between us and the other major conferences is going to get large.”

That sounds like an imperative to me.

 

[dwalks93]

On a related note I have no imperative to breath but I will be dead in 5 minutes if I don't....

"We’re smaller, we don’t have a championship game, we don’t have a network,” he added. “Right now, our Tier 1 media (rights) is slightly undervalued. Over the next 15 years, the delta between us and the other major conferences is going to get large.”

Sounds like the B12 needs to expand/change or it dies.... is that an imperative?

 

[pj]

They could expand and still not have a network or revenue parity with other conferences.

 

[FDNY99]

That interview brings me back to the ones John Marinatto used to give before Pitt and Cuse left for the ACC.....he doubled down just before WVU and RU left and put the final bullet in the coffin...actually Bowlsby sounds like that era with these comments.

 

[dayooper]

That's an odd article. Bowlsby says they have no imperative to expand but then says:

"We’re smaller, we don’t have a championship game, we don’t have a network,” he added. “Right now, our Tier 1 media (rights) is slightly undervalued. Over the next 15 years, the delta between us and the other major conferences is going to get large.”

That sounds like an imperative to me.

Imperative for what? What schools will make up the difference in money? Without a network, there is no way to increase the media payout. A CCG will provide some money, but not enough to make a dent in the "delta." They now can have a CCG without adding teams, so it will cost them money to add schools.

Even with the network, the money won't come close to even. There is no way ESPN is signing on to a Big12 network paying out what they pay the SEC for theirs. The money just isn't in it. You know I love me some UConn and think you would add to the NYC/NE presence for the Big10/BTN, but it isn't the same for a potential Big12 network. The draw of NYC for the Big10 is the alumni presence that many Big10 schools have in the area. Michigan, PSU, OSU and even Indiana have a strong alumni population. Throw in UConn/Rutgers, and you have a winner. Does the Big12 (Texas) have enough of that presence to give them what they need? Or even enough to make it worth while for Texas?

Then there's to idea of who owns the media rights for those schools. Oklahoma sold their rights to Fox, Kansas sold their rights to ESPN. I believe the others are scattered around as well. How easy will it be to buy those rights back and at what cost? Will Fox/ESPN give a Big12 Network to the other without getting their monies worth? Can there be a Big12 Network without Texas, Kansas or Oklahoma? Not likely.

The Big12 is a dead conference walking and Bowlsby knows it. Teams like Oklahoma and Kansas are falling further and further behind the rest of the college sports world. They can't keep up with the facilities, coaching staffs and support. The lack of exposure they are getting is hurting their student body recruitment as well.

My guess is that Oklahoma/UConn will join the Big10 and Kansas/Cincinnati will join the SEC. Texas will keep trudging along with whomever they can get to fall in line with what they want.

 

[The Viking]

When will UConn join the B1G in 10 years? Will we have football in 10 years?

 

[upstater]

Imperative for what? What schools will make up the difference in money? Without a network, there is no way to increase the media payout. A CCG will provide some money, but not enough to make a dent in the "delta." They now can have a CCG without adding teams, so it will cost them money to add schools.

You're making a lot of assumptions.

There are ways to increase the payout.

 

[jostar1]

Brian Davis ‏@BDavisAAS · 45m45 minutes ago
My one takeaway from Bowlsby today. Doing nothing is not really an option, as "the delta" between Big 12, others is growing. That means $$$.

Matthew Gaylor
‏@MatthewGaylor @BDavisAAS I'm confused on the story. As you said, Bowlsby says doing nothing isn't an option but it's the option the schools currently want

Brian Davis ‏@BDavisAAS · 45m45 minutes ago
I think Bowlsby's frustrated by lack of clear expansion targets and, frankly, LHN preventing a league network.

Gene Egdorf
‏@GeneEgdorf @BDavisAAS but there is nobody to add that brings in money. He and DeLoss screwed this pooch years ago

Brian Davis ‏@BDavisAAS · 46m46 minutes ago
Agreed. No obvious targets that dramatically move the financial needle.

 

[mavblues]

Not a tweet, but definitely worth a read. Lays out just how precarious ESPN's future is right now.

http://deadspin.com/espns-uncertain-future-is-already-here-1753901086

This is no to say that ESPN wouldn't invest in a Big 12 Network, but it really throws cold water on the idea that it could be as profitable as the SEC Network for the sole reason that the network doesn't have the cash to spend on buying the rights that they did when they gave the SEC their deal.

Ugh. I guess you're posting these articles in the key tweets thread now. I avoided reading the other thread because I told you I wasn't going to argue this point with you any more because your $21MM number was so stupidly low. However, you're now polluting this thread with your garbage, so here goes:

How ridiculous to think that ESPN "doesn't have cash to spend" and that it's in a "precarious" position. Like any business, ESPN is adjusting to market forces. It no longer has the luxury to invest in unprofitable ventures. (Grantland, etc.) The key word here is unprofitable.

It can, however, continue to invest in profitable ventures and conference networks have proven to be profitable. (Both the SECN and PAC12N were profitable in their very first year.)

Here is an article discussing ESPN's operating results from the most recent quarter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/b...ey-profit-rose-12-percent-in-fiscal-year.html

Takeaways:

- Reported significant quarterly gains for its sports media business (even after one-time charges associated with 3,000 layoffs)
- Income soared 27 percent, to $1.82 billion, in Disney’s Media Networks division, which houses ESPN. Disney said the increase was primarily due to higher ESPN affiliate and ad revenues

Quote:

“The brand is stronger than ever,” Thomas O. Staggs, Disney’s chief operating officer, said on a conference call with analysts, before reciting a list of viewer statistics showing the dominance of ESPN. Ad sales are pacing up “significantly” so far in the current quarter, added Christine M. McCarthy, Disney’s chief financial officer."

You keep posting articles from sports reporters who are citing revenue guidance from Disney from three (3) quarters ago. Sports reporters and financial matters are not a good mix. Disney (and ESPN) have already shown they are adept at quickly reacting to market forces to remain hugely profitable (refer to the results from the most recent quarter). And that's without any increase to its subscription fees, ad rates, or changing its distribution model to charge for streaming its content.

Related (PAC12N & SECN):

Here is an article showing Pac12 profits, even though it is generally acknowledged that the PAC12 screwed up by doing everything itself (a huge mistake, IMO), and repeatedly walking away from DirecTV negotiations:

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...venues-expenses-and-per-school-distributions/

Even though those numbers did not include any revenue from DirecTV (the nation's largest satellite provider), and the PAC12 runs everything itself (very inefficient) the network still managed to throw off a profit of over $30MM in 2014. And that's with starting its network on its own, from scratch. After only 2 years. 30% year over year revenue growth, BTW.

When you analyze that figure, don't forget to add in DirecTV revenues to get a stabilized (normalized) idea of what the PAC12N's profits will be once it's fully distributed. Estimates are PAC12N would receive a minimum of .80 per in market subscriber and that goes straight to the bottom line. Add to that figure whatever they would get from out of market subs (presumably in sports packages). Also, do you think ESPN would have brought significant production cost savings to the table for PAC12N? You bet.

Therefore, the stabilized (fully distributed) profits for the PAC12 network will be a hell of a lot higher than $30MM, and would be higher still if ESPN had been handling the production.

And who here is saying that B12N will be as profitable as SECN? I certainly never said that. What I said was if SECN can do $120MM in its first year, it's not unreasonable to assume B12N could do $100MM (once stabilized), if B12 expands the conference's footprint. I already posted the SECN profit numbers ($120MM), which were from its first year of operations. There have been articles claiming the SECN figure is going to climb to $200MM or more. PAC12N, in only its second year of operations (2014), and without any presence on the largest satellite provider in the US, and handling all of its own production, still managed to generate over $30MM in profit. PAC12 has done virtually everything wrong with its network, and yet they still show more profit than you're willing to grant to the B12N.

Given all of the above, anyone that says a B12N (assuming an expanded conference footprint) would only generate $21MM in profits each year is just plain foolish.

And all of these figures (except yours) explain why Boren wants the B12 to expand into new markets with lots of eyeballs, why he wants a network, and why he wants it done now.

 

[NYUConn]

Ugh. I guess you're posting these articles in the key tweets thread now. I avoided reading the other thread because I told you I wasn't going to argue this point with you any more because your $21MM number was so stupidly low. However, you're now polluting this thread with your garbage, so here goes:

How ridiculous to think that ESPN "doesn't have cash to spend" and that it's in a "precarious" position. Like any business, ESPN is adjusting to market forces. It no longer has the luxury to invest in unprofitable ventures. (Grantland, etc.) The key word here is unprofitable.

It can, however, continue to invest in profitable ventures and conference networks have proven to be profitable. (Both the SECN and PAC12N were profitable in their very first year.)

Here is an article discussing ESPN's operating results from the most recent quarter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/b...ey-profit-rose-12-percent-in-fiscal-year.html

Takeaways:

- Reported significant quarterly gains for its sports media business (even after one-time charges associated with 3,000 layoffs)
- Income soared 27 percent, to $1.82 billion, in Disney’s Media Networks division, which houses ESPN. Disney said the increase was primarily due to higher ESPN affiliate and ad revenues

Quote:

“The brand is stronger than ever,” Thomas O. Staggs, Disney’s chief operating officer, said on a conference call with analysts, before reciting a list of viewer statistics showing the dominance of ESPN. Ad sales are pacing up “significantly” so far in the current quarter, added Christine M. McCarthy, Disney’s chief financial officer."

You keep posting articles from sports reporters who are citing revenue guidance from Disney from three (3) quarters ago. Sports reporters and financial matters are not a good mix. Disney (and ESPN) have already shown they are adept at quickly reacting to market forces to remain hugely profitable (refer to the results from the most recent quarter). And that's without any increase to its subscription fees, ad rates, or changing its distribution model to charge for streaming its content.

Related (PAC12N & SECN):

Here is an article showing Pac12 profits, even though it is generally acknowledged that the PAC12 screwed up by doing everything itself (a huge mistake, IMO), and repeatedly walking away from DirecTV negotiations:

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...venues-expenses-and-per-school-distributions/

Even though those numbers did not include any revenue from DirecTV (the nation's largest satellite provider), and the PAC12 runs everything itself (very inefficient) the network still managed to throw off a profit of over $30MM in 2014. And that's with starting its network on its own, from scratch. After only 2 years.

When you analyze that figure, don't forget to add in DirecTV revenues to get a stabilized (normalized) idea of what the PAC12N's profits will be once it's fully distributed. Estimates are PAC12N would receive a minimum of .80 per in market subscriber and that goes straight to the bottom line. Add to that figure whatever they would get from out of market subs (presumably in sports packages). Also, do you think ESPN would have brought significant production cost savings to the table for PAC12N? You bet.

Therefore, the stabilized (fully distributed) profits for the PAC12 network will be a hell of a lot higher than $30MM, and would be higher still if ESPN had been handling the production.

And who here is saying that B12N will be as profitable as SECN? I certainly never said that. What I said was if SECN can do $120MM in its first year, it's not unreasonable to assume B12N could do $100MM (once stabilized), if B12 expands the conference's footprint. I already posted the SECN profit numbers ($120MM), which were from its first year of operations. There have been articles claiming the SECN figure is going to climb to $200MM or more. PAC12N, in only its second year of operations (2014), and without any presence on the largest satellite provider in the US, and handling all of its own production, still managed to generate over $30MM in profit. PAC12 has done virtually everything wrong with its network, and yet they still show more profit than you're willing to grant to the B12N.

Given all of the above, anyone that says a B12N (assuming an expanded conference footprint) would only generate $21MM in profits each year is just plain foolish.

And all of these figures (except yours) explain why Boren wants the B12 to expand into new markets with lots of eyeballs, why he wants a network, and why he wants it done now.

Bro I posted this like a week ago. Move on.

 

[mavblues]

Bro I posted this like a week ago. Move on.

OK, my apologies then. It showed up as a new post for some reason.

Consider it dropped.

 

[pj]

It's not enough for SECN and BTN to be profitable, they have to add enough profits to ESPN (with at most 50% ownership) to make up for the drop of profits at ESPN and ESPN2 and ESPNU due to loss of SEC and B1G content.

Since the premier games are already on Tier 1 channels, for the conference network to succeed you need depth of in-demand content. B12 is top heavy with Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas and not much else.

 

[jostar1]

G R E G S W A I M SHOW
‏@G Sw aim @Jake_Trotter What do you think will happen, if anything, at #Big12 meetings next week as far as expansion, LHN/B12 network, OU leaving?

Jake Trotter ‏@Jake_Trotter · 2h2 hours ago
@G Swai m I don’t see anything being voted on until the May meetings. Next week will be mostly them talking.

 

[CL82]

Imperative for what? What schools will make up the difference in money? Without a network, there is no way to increase the media payout. A CCG will provide some money, but not enough to make a dent in the "delta." They now can have a CCG without adding teams, so it will cost them money to add schools.

Even with the network, the money won't come close to even. There is no way ESPN is signing on to a Big12 network paying out what they pay the SEC for theirs. The money just isn't in it. You know I love me some UConn and think you would add to the NYC/NE presence for the Big10/BTN, but it isn't the same for a potential Big12 network. The draw of NYC for the Big10 is the alumni presence that many Big10 schools have in the area. Michigan, PSU, OSU and even Indiana have a strong alumni population. Throw in UConn/Rutgers, and you have a winner. Does the Big12 (Texas) have enough of that presence to give them what they need? Or even enough to make it worth while for Texas?

Then there's to idea of who owns the media rights for those schools. Oklahoma sold their rights to Fox, Kansas sold their rights to ESPN. I believe the others are scattered around as well. How easy will it be to buy those rights back and at what cost? Will Fox/ESPN give a Big12 Network to the other without getting their monies worth? Can there be a Big12 Network without Texas, Kansas or Oklahoma? Not likely.

The Big12 is a dead conference walking and Bowlsby knows it. Teams like Oklahoma and Kansas are falling further and further behind the rest of the college sports world. They can't keep up with the facilities, coaching staffs and support. The lack of exposure they are getting is hurting their student body recruitment as well.

My guess is that Oklahoma/UConn will join the Big10 and Kansas/Cincinnati will join the SEC. Texas will keep trudging along with whomever they can get to fall in line with what they want.

I thought the Big 12 media clause has an escalator to preserve the per school payout in the event of the addition of two schools to the conference. Add to that UConn's NCAA credits, and CCG and I think that UConn is about as close to revenue neutral as possible.

Now when you look at the rest of what UConn brings. Eastern time zone games, competitiveness across a broad range of sports,... and yes entry to the lucrative NYC market, you can see why they jumped to the top of the list of potential candidates the fact that it is a geographically ridiculous marriage notwithstanding.

 

[billybud]

NCAA Bylaws

The following policies also apply when a conference’s membership changes or realignment occurs:

A. If an institution leaves a conference and realigns with another and its original conference
remains in operation, the units it earned remain with the conference that it left.

B. If an institution leaves a conference to become an independent, the units that the institution
earned are retained by the conference that it left.

C. If an independent institution joins a conference, it retains the units it earned as an independent
prior to the date it elected to join the conference; any units the institution earns subsequent to
that date accrue to the conference.

D. If a conference disbands, each institution retains the units it earned in the basketball fund.

E. If an institution leaves a conference and the conference falls below the six-member
requirement, the units remain with the conference for a one-year period; however, if the
conference then later disbands, those units return to the basketball fund.

F. If 50 percent or more of the member institutions in a given conference leave the conference
simultaneously and the remaining conference membership falls below six member institutions,
the conference shall be considered disbanded and each member institution shall retain the
units it earned in the basketball fund as if the conference had in fact disbanded.

 

[dayooper]

NCAA Bylaws

The following policies also apply when a conference’s membership changes or realignment occurs:

A. If an institution leaves a conference and realigns with another and its original conference
remains in operation, the units it earned remain with the conference that it left.

B. If an institution leaves a conference to become an independent, the units that the institution
earned are retained by the conference that it left.

C. If an independent institution joins a conference, it retains the units it earned as an independent
prior to the date it elected to join the conference; any units the institution earns subsequent to
that date accrue to the conference.

D. If a conference disbands, each institution retains the units it earned in the basketball fund.

E. If an institution leaves a conference and the conference falls below the six-member
requirement, the units remain with the conference for a one-year period; however, if the
conference then later disbands, those units return to the basketball fund.

F. If 50 percent or more of the member institutions in a given conference leave the conference
simultaneously and the remaining conference membership falls below six member institutions,
the conference shall be considered disbanded and each member institution shall retain the
units it earned in the basketball fund as if the conference had in fact disbanded.

So, if this were true for all sports (not sure if this is the case), The Big12 needs to lose 5 to be disbanded. If it loses 2 (down to eight), the media contract becomes void and the media partners have say on who is invited. Big12 on very shakey ground. No wonder Texas doesn't want expansion.

Big12 dead conference walking.