Quote from Tripps "The PAC-12 deal was held up because Texas doesn't know how to distribute revenue evenly"

The problem wasn't Texas not wanting to distribute the 1st and 2nd tier rights evenly, the problem was the LHN which is 3rd tier rights, please keep calling me slow and dumb when are you the one with your facts wrong.

Alabama making $8 million off of 3rd tier rights isn't "big money"???

 

No one ever denied that. The 3rd tier rights for games are left to the schools to sell on their own. The issue with unequal revenue sharing is with the 1st and 2nd tier rights because the Big 12 as a whole makes a contract with the various national TV networks.

The Big 12 conference members aren't pissed about the LHN itself, but about HOW UT is handling the content to be shown.

 

There are nothing wrong with my facts. The PAC-12 wanted to absorb the LHN into it's own plans for a network, but Texas said no, we are keeping it to ourselves. What the Big 12 agreed to allow and what the PAC-12 will only allow are 2 completely different scenarios. THAT is why Texas is not heading west.

Larry Scott wanted the LHN to show other schools content on it and distribute the money made off of it, turning the LHN into a regional network for a small collection of schools.

 

WOW, you just said "3rd tier rights have never been an issue with schools, because it comes down to how good the school is in football or basketball and there is no argument between the schools with that. THE ISSUE IS the sharing of the revenue guaranteed to the conference for the 1st and 2nd tier rights, which is where the big money comes from."

The LHN is 3rd tier rights, make up your mind. First you said 3rd tier rights aren't an issue, then all of a sudden 3rd tier rights are why Texas isn't going to the PAC 12.

 

Are you really so ignorant to think that any of that is going to matter here soon? In 2016 everything is going to get messed up again. College sports is a business whether you believe it or not. It's not UT's fault that other colleges aren't good business men. In order for you to barter with other businesses you have to have viable goods, UT does, most of the other big 12 teams don't so of course UT is going to throw its weight around to get the best deal. I don't understand why you non UT fans are so butthurt over this... Oh yeah, I know why, because your college can't do the same thing.

 

3rd tier rights are not an issue, but the PAC-12 wants the LHN to conform to their demands to turn into a regional Pac-12 network featuring many other schools therefore changing the dynamic of the network. FOLLOW THE BOUNCING ***** MENSA.

Other schools featured on the network = Texas having to share the network and the revenue made from it. texas said no. I am truly shocked that you aren't following this.

 

Yeah, truly UT is the best "business man" in all of this. They have a network that practically no one can see and every school in the Big 12 is trying to get away from them. The PAC-12 and the ACC just rejected them because they couldn't agree to a business deal.

Not butthurt at all, my alma mater actually did see the writing on the wall so they went to the best athletic conference in the US that has long-term stability and equality throughout in regards to conference TV-deal revenue sharing.

Do you even know what the definition of ignorance is?

 

You can't be serious, the LHN is 3rd tier rights, obviously the 3rd tier rights is the issue. Why would Texas have to share 3rd tier revenue when nobody else has to??? Aggy can't be serious, he trolling

 

Good God man come on. 3rd tier rights aren't an issue when they are only involving that one specific school. The PAC wanted Texas to show other schools games on their network and distribute that money to the schools. Texas said no. Therefore, the PAC-12 deal was killed because Texas wouldn't agree to their requirements to share the 3rd tier money made off of their network. Pull your head out of your *** whorn (see I can do it to).

 

While there may not be many who can see it they're still getting 300mil for it, not a bad business deal to me

What do you think consistent sub 500 season is going to do for your team and fans moral? No one is going to want to play for the doormat of the SEC

Just because another conference doesn't want us because they want more from us than what we're getting from them means nothing. No one knows what the hell is going to happen from one day to the next. It changes daily. Either way you can bet your *** that UT is going to do whatever gets then the most money and I don't blame them. They're smart with their money, why do you think we have one of the highest revenues in college sports? Nevermind the top ranked academic programs or being one of the largest universities in the nation. There's a reason for that and why atm will always be the "little brother". They don't have any cards to play, to barter for a bigger piece of any pie so they'll take what they can get just like they did with the move to the sec. Quit being so bitter and the blinders might come off.

 

First, I want to revisit the Longhorn Network and third tier rights. Most people don’t actually know what this is all about so I want to shed a little light on it as there is a great deal of misconception out there, even amongst knowledgeable college football fans. All the angst, all the anger, all the frustration…it can be largely considered derivative of the Longhorn Network…so here’s how this works. Members of every BCS conference around the country have tie-ins to conference TV contracts that account for the majority of revenues associated with football. The contracts are negotiated between the networks and the conference and then conference bylaws determine the formula for distributing the money within the conference (some conferences distribute that money evenly and some distribute based on a formula that is typically tied to appearances). These contracts represent the rights to the conference “first tier” and “second tier” entertainment; however, they are not ubiquitous. For example, the Big 12’s first tier rights are with ABC/ESPN (meaning ABC/ESPN gets the first pick of the Big 12 football games each week) and its second tier rights are contracted with Fox, which gives them the next pick on games. The rest of the games that aren’t chosen are considered third tier entertainment. It works the same way in every conference…the Big 10’s first tier rights are contracted with ABC/ESPN and its second tier is with the Big 10 Network…while the SEC’s first tier is with CBS and its second tier is with ESPN. Something that needs to be clear is that the Longhorn Network and ESPN bought the THIRD TIER RIGHTS from Texas, nothing more, nothing less. This does not change a single thing with regards to the conference distributions for contracts that govern the conference-network relationship. This means they only have the right to show content that the networks signed into the conference network contracts decline.

So this concept is completely new, right? Texas and ESPN are being cavalier with college football and breaking the mold completely as no school in the country has the level of arrogance and greed that Texas does. Texas is being a bully and making money it doesn’t have to share with the rest of the conference off third tier programming which no one else has the arrogance and greed to do…right?

Wrong.

Teams have been selling their third tier rights for decades. Florida sold its rights to the Sunshine Network many many years ago. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Sports)

In addition the channel offers baseball, basketball, football, and other sporting events from University of Florida, Florida State University, and the SEC. Longtime partnered with FSU & UF, Sun Sports produces all regular season football games for both schools and airs them statewide on a next-day delay basis. The network also has the rights to the FHSAA Football and Basketball Finals.

Ohio State sold its third tier rights for $110 million for 10 years just two years ago: http://www.cbssports.com/general/story/11569497. In fact, most schools in BCS conferences have done the same. The individuals behind this website did an open records request recently to determine how much revenue schools made that wasn’t from conference distribution…which inherently meant it was from selling their third tier rights. They did some incredible research that is summarized here: http://businessofcollegesports.com/2...sting-revenue/. I highly recommend looking closely at the numbers (they are from the 2009-2010 academic year). Obviously, if it were done for a year later, Ohio State would be at the top with its 10 year, $110 million deal. You’ll notice that three of the top five third tier revenue recipients were basketball schools (North Carolina with $11.2M, Kentucky with $7.7M, and the Big 12’s own Kansas with a whopping $7.3M). That is no coincidence as to date, there are a lot more opportunities for third tier carriers to show those primetime teams in basketball due to the sheer volume of basketball games relative to football games. It’s also no coincidence that half of the top 12 recipients were powerhouse SEC football programs (Alabama, Florida, LSU, Tennessee, Georgia, and Auburn). Those teams have extremely large, passionate fanbases that watch whatever someone puts in front of them, as long as it relates to their football team. All of these provide lots of regionally impressive ratings opportunities and a positive economic model from an advertising/distribution standpoint.

And then, there’s the Big 12. Rather unbelievably, Kansas was top dog in third tier rights revenue (ten times the combined amount Texas and Oklahoma made in 2009-2010), Oklahoma State is second, and our old friend Nebraska is third…with $4.3M in third tier revenues. Of course, that’s consistent with what you read in the Omaha World Herald story posted above when Nebraska stated it was working on its own networks and external consultants had told them it was feasible. So the question that must be answered…where was the fury, the angst, the extremely harsh feelings and words for Kansas, Oklahoma State, and Nebraska when they made these extremely lucrative deals that were exclusive to their department…not shared with the conference? Why doesn’t everyone in the ACC flip out and throw a stammering hissy fit over the fact that North Carolina made four times as much as the next highest recipient in the conference on its third tier rights? The fact of the matter is…if Texas A&M is leaving the Big 12 because they don’t believe it’s fair for its conference mates to be making so much money off its third tier rights that aren’t shared with the rest of the conference, they are likely to be sobered by the fact that the SEC schools took home over $52 million collectively in in 2009-2010 on third tier rights revenues. Irony to say the least. [opinion] One of the many instances of myopia TAMU is operating with in my opinion. [/opinion]

So what is different about the Longhorn Network when it comes to rights? Absolutely nothing. The only difference of any kind from any of these other schools is they are the first to get an entire network dedicated to those rights that is partnered with ESPN who as I said, practically controls college football at this point. From the very little I have seen thus far and from what I have been told by viewers that subscribe to early adopting carriers, the Longhorn Network is operating at a first class level all the way and that the production quality, content programming lineups, and integration into UT athletics has been rather incredible and exceeding the expectations for fans. Can I understand the resentment? Yes. Can I see why fans of other schools might use this as just another reason to believe that Texas “gets all the breaks?” Yes. Have the Longhorns become everyone’s Yankees in perception? Yes. But the fact of the matter is, Texas is not doing anything that a) is outside the bylaws of the conference or NCAA rules, b) is not doing anything that other schools haven’t been doing for years and making extraordinary amounts of unshared revenues on, c) should be any surprise to any conference mates (particularly TAMU who Texas attempted to bring in to the whole thing), and d) that is actually destabilizing the Big 12 Conference. However, it makes an easy target to feed the relatively uninformed masses’ confirmation bias when it comes to their perception of greed, arrogance, and bullying from the University of Texas.

So where are we today? As I sit here watching the Big 12’s Oklahoma State annihilate the Pac-12’s Arizona on national TV and think about how Texas has “ruined” this conference, I look at today’s rankings and what I see are seven teams (Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Nebraska, Missouri, Baylor, and Texas) that were in the Big 12 last year who are all in the Top 25 this week…matching the “untouchable” SEC. I see teams like Texas A&M, Baylor, and Oklahoma State elevating themselves considerably over the last few years and becoming legitimate players on the national landscape of college football. I see a conference that should be extremely strong and vying for the top conference in the country year in year out with the SEC. But it is coming to an end over irrevocable actions that [opinion] I believe were entirely unnecessary and very poorly thought out. [/opinion] This idea that Texas has bullied the conference…as I stated, I’ve asked countless fans of different Big 12 schools to please point me to what these actions were and I come up with nothing…just skewed perception. How did Texas’s one vote in the Big 12 become a 51% majority share? What was it specifically that Texas did that caused all of this ruckus? “Greed and arrogance.”

 

I'm not going to read that novel. Cliff notes please?

 

UT is the best business man. Our football program made $93 million last year, which is $22 million more than second place. And next year you can add $15 million to that amount.

It is not UT's fault that nobody can see the network, that is purely ESPN's fault (and guess what, UT is still getting paid).

Your alma mater didn't see the writing on the wall, they are just jelly of UT which is nothing new. The Big 12 is going to be fine for the next 5 years, and the PAC 12 and ACC never rejected UT (cause we haven't even applied).

 

why? i figured somebody of your intelligence could read that quickly

 

Once again, why would Texas share 3rd tier revenue? It's the Longhorn Network, not the PAC 12 network. Nobody would make that dumb of a business decision.

 

Yeah...A&M "took only what they can get"..and that was a stand-alone invite to the best athletic conference in college football. A&M and UT's enrollment are almost equal. In the academics rankings, some have UT slightly ahead and others have A&M slightly ahead. A report put out by the NY Times showing how many fans follow each school...both A&M and UT have over 2 million each.

Oh yeah, in the most recent TV contract for the Big 12, OU, A&M, and Texas were all guaranteed an equal amount that was more than what the other schools were getting. Clearly that was a mistake right? Since A&M "brings nothing to the table". You might want to sit this one out jr. Oh, and I underlined all of the inaccuracies in you're post.

 

We aren't discussing business ethics bud, we are talking about why Texas is having a problem keeping conference members or getting into a new conference.

 

Which site did you copy/paste that from? From reading the first few sentences it looks like a dissertation on conference revenue sharing and TV deals, which I fully understand.

 

Please read this article.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footbal...to_play_092111

 

http://longhornnetworkanddelusion.tumblr.com/