Non-Key Tweets

[UConnJim]

Texas used to play in conference Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado, and Missouri and they are going to be happy long term replacing them with TCU, West Virginia, and 2 of Memphis, Cincinnati, UCF, BYU, ...? I think Texas would leave the Big 12 before they agree to adding 2 more schools from the G5.

 

[Briuconn]

It's kind of sad that I'm anxiously awaiting news from anyone in the Non-Key Tweets category, yet here I am awaiting the results of Flug spooning with BTM. How does this work? If BTM loosens his belt does that mean there will be expansion?

Post of the year! I just laughed by ass off with the visual while I am 100% thinking the same thing. Just hanging on to hear something from a random twitter guy in Minnesota about UConn. Its so sad, I laugh at myself.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Texas used to play in conference Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado, and Missouri and they are going to be happy long term replacing them with TCU, West Virginia, and 2 of Memphis, Cincinnati, UCF, BYU, ...? I think Texas would leave the Big 12 before they agree to adding 2 more schools from the G5.

Texas looks out for Texas. Thus, if keeping the XII alive is in Texas's best interest, it will do so in the way that benefits Texas, such as adding Houston (no threat, gains political points in Austin) and Memphis (no threat, gains a 'new' market on the fringe of Texas's existing territory) and it will be done. If joining the PAC or B1G provides the best benefit for Texas, then Texas will walk away from the XII in a heartbeat. The wildcard is if Texas does stay and either blocks any additions or adds a pair of schools like Houston and Memphis versus say BYU and UCF, what will Oklahoma do? If Oklahoma decides that the XII is a dead end and can find a way out (PAC, SEC, B1G) and leaves, is there anyway that Texas can see any value staying in the XII without their chief rival? Thus, if I was a conference executive and coveted some XII teams, I would focus on shaking Oklahoma loose because if the Sooners leave, the XII is dead.

 

[jostar1]

Post of the year! I just laughed by ass off with the visual while I am 100% thinking the same thing. Just hanging on to hear something from a random twitter guy in Minnesota about UConn. Its so sad, I laugh at myself.

It's sad that we all know what "BTM" means.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

Texas looks out for Texas. Thus, if keeping the XII alive is in Texas's best interest, it will do so in the way that benefits Texas, such as adding Houston (no threat, gains political points in Austin) and Memphis (no threat, gains a 'new' market on the fringe of Texas's existing territory) and it will be done. If joining the PAC or B1G provides the best benefit for Texas, then Texas will walk away from the XII in a heartbeat. The wildcard is if Texas does stay and either blocks any additions or adds a pair of schools like Houston and Memphis versus say BYU and UCF, what will Oklahoma do? If Oklahoma decides that the XII is a dead end and can find a way out (PAC, SEC, B1G) and leaves, is there anyway that Texas can see any value staying in the XII without their chief rival? Thus, if I was a conference executive and coveted some XII teams, I would focus on shaking Oklahoma loose because if the Sooners leave, the XII is dead.

Memphis and Houston are no threat, but they also dampen the quality of their opponents, not to mention are putrid academically.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Memphis and Houston are no threat, but they also dampen the quality of their opponents, not to mention are putrid academically.

Basically, its a 'Texas' compromise that gets the conference championship game without threating Texas' king-of-the-hill status. The question is if Oklahoma would be satisfied or not with such an action.

 

[junglehusky]

Basically, its a 'Texas' compromise that gets the conference championship game without threating Texas' king-of-the-hill status. The question is if Oklahoma would be satisfied or not with such an action.

I think they would be, since Oklahoma would figure they'd get a decent TCU type of matchup in a championship game which might be just enough to get the winner in the CFP despite any drag a new team would add... and I also think they'd figure a Houston/Memphis would be average in their league and not a downward drag on RPI. And academics is way down the B12's priority list.

 

[junglehusky]

 

[junglehusky]

Maybe Greg is just trolling Dude here?

 

[FDNY99]

Maybe Greg is just trolling Dude here?

Doubt it...Flug is blocked by the Dude...and if you follow Flug and make any kind of tweet in his defense or against the Dude..he blocks you too (know this form personal experience).

 

[whaler11]

It's the obvious Big Ten stance. They have no reason to expand without knowing who might be available in the next few years.

 

[jostar1]

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire · 18m18 minutes ago
BTM..."I don't foresee Big Ten future expansion including any schools currently outside of Power 5 until Big 12 loses a few more schools"

We need a partner.

 

[jostar1]

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire · 9m9 minutes ago
BTM..."If ESPN successfully closes off the state of Virginia from the B10 come 2026 I would put my money on Kansas & UCONN or Kansas & Navy.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire · 7m7 minutes ago
BTM..."Big Ten would accept, invite and put down red carpet for Oklahoma. But SEC has its target set on Oklahoma. Big Ten knows this.."

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire · 3m3 minutes ago
BTM..."Once ACC Network is in motion people will understand why SEC expansion targets won't be from ACC."

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire · 2m2 minutes ago
BTM..".Big 12 won't dissolve. It will have a change in memberships. Will continue to be Power 5"

 

[CL82]

I find the Flug more credible when BTM is touting our virtues. Navy to the B1G? I don't see that happening.

That said, the ACC has a 27 month notice provision. October 2015, plus 27 months = 2018.

Just sayin'.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

I find the Flug more credible when BTM is touting our virtues. Navy to the B1G? I don't see that happening.

That said, the ACC has a 27 month notice provision. October 2015, plus 27 months = 2018.

Just sayin'.

As we've seen, those notice provisions are a load of garbage.

 

[CoastAtlantic]

MH ver3‏@MH ver3 Sep 24
Disney ordering ESPN to make even more cuts financially by July of 2016. B10 contract could be in jeopardy

MH ver3‏@MH ver3 Sep 24
Fox may reap the benefits of a great price on all B10 content

MH ver3‏@MH ver3 Sep 24
ESPN over-extended with ACC and SEC and upcoming ACC network

MH ver3‏@MH ver3 Sep 24
Cable subs predicted to fall by 50% in the next five years according to a firm Disney/abc commissioned

MH ver3‏@MH ver3 Sep 24
Troublesome for B12 that ESPN has also given UT the impression that they would be willing to sell LHN to another entity in the future

MH ver3‏@MH ver3 Sep 24
Rumors are that NBC is still itching to get Premiere CFB content and could become a player for B10 contract as well

MH ver3‏@MH ver3 Sep 24
Interesting times ahead for sure

Alex Amend‏@CincyGuy2009 Sep 24
@MH ver3 riddle me this, if only I want is the disney channel-espn-history channel-local TV why do I want to pay for channels like msnbc?

MH ver3‏@MH ver3 Sep 24
@CincyGuy2009 with on demand and over the top content now the cable system is showing its flaws and age

Alex Amend‏@CincyGuy2009 Sep 24
@MH ver3 espn-disney already ahead of the curve there. Apple TV is a great platform for them

MH ver3‏@MH ver3 Sep 24
@CincyGuy2009 agreed but the price Structure for ESPN to remain profitable in that model is not user friendly

Todd Cunningham‏@TCunningham50 Sep 24
@MH ver3 there is a reason espn is cutting costs. We are at the beginning of the paradigm switch from cable to streaming.

MH ver3‏@MH ver3 Sep 24
@TCunningham50 agreed. Look for live announcers to be a thing of the past except the biggest games

Todd Cunningham‏@TCunningham50 Sep 24
@MH ver3 FS1 already experimenting with it. You couldnt really tell they were not there until they told he audience they were not there

 

[whaler11]

These guys are all full of it - but we have hit the point where there is no guarantee contracts are going up every renewal. There is literally no way the ACC could get the deal they have right now in this environment.

 

[sdhusky]

These guys are all full of it - but we have hit the point where there is no guarantee contracts are going up every renewal. There is literally no way the ACC could get the deal they have right now in this environment.

There is no way the money isn't there with unbundling... just a paradigm shift.

 

[whaler11]

There is no way the money isn't there with unbundling... just a paradigm shift.

Not so sure about that. Today, the contracts are supported by the 90% of people who never watch a second of college sports.

The ACC's contract is absurd when you look at it. You think there is a formula to replicate that revenue in any other fashion?

The Big Ten's contract may not go down in this cycle but until someone solves the core issue there is a going to be a lot of downward pressure and if you don't have a premium product forget it.

 

[Stinger92860]

Not so sure about that. Today, the contracts are supported by the 90% of people who never watch a second of college sports.

The ACC's contract is absurd when you look at it. You think there is a formula to replicate that revenue in any other fashion?

The Big Ten's contract may not go down in this cycle but until someone solves the core issue there is a going to be a lot of downward pressure and if you don't have a premium product forget it.

Yes but I would be willing to pay 25-150 per month to watch UConn athletics and their league mates. Not sure at what my walk away is, but I would certainly negotiate the deal with my girlfriend at 200.

 

[sdhusky]

Not so sure about that. Today, the contracts are supported by the 90% of people who never watch a second of college sports.

Right. but those 10% would pay a ton to get access. The money is there.... because people are obsessed with sports.

 

[whaler11]

Yes but I would be willing to pay 25-150 per month to watch UConn athletics and their league mates. Not sure at what my walk away is, but I would certainly negotiate the deal with my girlfriend at 200.

The number of people who would pay $25 a month for a single conference is fairly low. The ACC gets hundreds of millions of dollars a year from ESPN.

The contracts are ridiculous because ESPN is collecting $7 a month from tens of millions of people who never turn it on.

If you took the Big 12 or ACC to market today I don't think they would sniff the deals they have currently.

2.6 billion dollars for 13 years for the Big 12? The cordcutting numbers are scary and accelerating - they are very lucky they signed in 2012.

550k more lost in 2q15 Up from ~300k in 2q14. It's no longer a seller's market.

 

[whaler11]

Right. but those 10% would pay a ton to get access. The money is there.... because people are obsessed with sports.

I think the demand is a lot more price sensitive than you think. Look at what happens when Netflix raises prices by a marginal dollar or two.

We shall see - but I expect the Big Ten is about to find it much more difficult than they would have 3 years ago.

 

[TRest]

I think the demand is a lot more price sensitive than you think. Look at what happens when Netflix raises prices by a marginal dollar or two.

We shall see - but I expect the Big Ten is about to find it much more difficult than they would have 3 years ago.

Do you believe the vast majority of cable subscribers will have the interest or the ability to get out of the traditional packages? My kids are already used to streaming and otherwise obtaining content from sources not on cable, and they are not local TV channel consumers. I assume there will always for the next decade at least, be a vast majority of homes that don't want to make any effort to get programming into their homes other than just turning a TV on and changing channels on the box or dish. And are still watching the big 4 networks. Kind of like landline telephones, it's taken me until this year to finally drop mine just because I have felt it was somehow necessary.

 

[whaler11]

Do you believe the vast majority of cable subscribers will have the interest or the ability to get out of the traditional packages? My kids are already used to streaming and otherwise obtaining content from sources not on cable, and they are not local TV channel consumers. I assume there will always for the next decade at least, be a vast majority of homes that don't want to make any effort to get programming into their homes other than just turning a TV on and changing channels on the box or dish. And are still watching the big 4 networks. Kind of like landline telephones, it's taken me until this year to finally drop mine just because I have felt it was somehow necessary.

Like you, I always thought it would take a long time - but it's speeding up fast.

The networks are getting killed. Premier week ratings were down 10% this year against last.

TV viewership for 18-24 is down 20% overall and 24% for males.

When you are someone like ESPN who is already locked into huge deals and you are going to lose a more than a million subs in just the second half of 2015... the entire Disney empire is propped up on them. If they are losing that much revenue that quickly the only solution is to cut expenses. When you don't know what your revenue will look like in 2020 or 2025 - you become a lot less aggressive with where you are locking in long term.