Solid work on the OP!

And does anybody else think that Hal(59) is just about the least effective sip troll still posting?

quote:

---

I look for back-room deals to be going on where ESPN and t.u. are going to make some incredible proposals to A&M, including a morphing of the LHN into a Big 12 or A&M/OU/t.u. channel combined with huge guarantees.

---

I would love to see an offer to morph the LHN into a Big12 network. And then we still leave for the SEC. I would like to think that the other 9 schools wouldn't let them back down on it, but I suppose I shouldn't put much faith in them standing up for themselves.

quote:

---

I hope our Admin stays the course and remembers its words that this is a "100 year decision" and the best chance for A&M to finally realize its ultimate destiny of a great stand-alone institution for all of Texas.

---

this x 1000000000000000000000 etc, etc.

Notre Dame does not have their own network.

NBC only has them for football season. All other sports are through the Big East.

this is all about the sips wanting to keep their control over A&M and college football in the state of texas.

that is the ONLY reason why they don't want us in the SEC - because they lose all that.

once we go SEC we have the chance to become just as much of a national presence as them.

quote:

---

roboag

1. There are only 3 teams in America w/ there own networks: ND, BYU, and t.u.
2. Only 2 of those teams are independent: ND, BYU.
3. t.u. put together the "new" B12 so they can have their network, b/c they don't want to go indy.
4. Only us (Aggies) & ou have the ability to break free on our own (and we're the only AAU university of the 2, which makes us extremely attractive).

---

#1 There are 4 independent schools: Notre Dame / BYU / Army / Navy
tu has a contract for a network, so far they have aired no content

#2 ND has a contract with NBC / BYU has a network, but it is for all things mormon. This means religion, sports, etc. / Army & Navy piggyback on the AFN (Armed Forces Network)

#3 tu does not want to go indy. What they want is the protection of conference they control. ND / BYU are national teams because they draw eyeballs based on religion and not region. Army / Navy do the same with a smaller target audience built for military eyeballs. tu as an independent can not attract the same "national" eyeballs because they are a regional brand. Owning the B12 extends their footprint beyond the state of TX into the footprints the B12 covers. Programming 24 / 7 / 365 also demands content year round, and not just during football season. It also demands "new" content, as just replaying old material has a limited audience.


#4, On who can leave on their own

OU has a "brand" in their football team
A&M has eyeballs in texas for football
MU has smaller eyeballs but no political issues
All 3 can leave the B12, but the first two can go on their own, MU would have to hitch their wagon to another star.


Both are attractive, but football drives the bus. UNL is no longer an AAU school, but they are still in the B1G after last june. For all the "we are academic" bragging by the B1G, they still added UNL for their football program.

FYI, Notre Dame just raised 2 BILLION in their last fund drive, a feat VERY few schools in the US could accomplish. tu and A&M were blessed with the PUF to build their endowment base.

HTH

[This message has been edited by Kentucky Mustangs (edited 8/17/2011 8:39a).]

Pat Forde's comments yesterday stating how he understands now why the LHN can be troubling to conference members made me a little nervous. He said something along the lines of "highlighting just one conference member when your committed to the whole conference was something we should have considered."

I took it as they're bending under the pressure.

I agree with OP - LHN has nothing to do with profitting from tu and everything to do with managing tv contracts for potential super conferences.

Overall, the OP has many things right, but there are few things definitely incorrect.

quote:

---

7. Ags were not privy to the ESPN deal, though t.u. had an informal agreement with ESPN that it was coming (this is the murky smoking gun that t.u. and ESPN have kept under wraps). t.u. approached A&M about a Lonestar network as a smokescreen, but made the terms so unworkable and gave other indications to Byrne that he knew an arrangement would be bound to failure. (see Byrne's comments about the deal and how we were interested but their terms and conditions werent acceptable[my paraphrase])

---

The LoneStar Network idea was floated around more than 2 years ago, well before there was even any talk between Texas and the Pac-10 (Scott didn't take over as commissioner until mid 2009).

While I have no doubt that ESPN had talks with Texas concerning TLN during realignment last summer there was no way anything definite was agreed to. Texas was still taking proposals in September. I know one of the heads of a media fund that submitted a proposal and we were discussing it still in October. With the amount of time and effort his fund put into that proposal, and the amount that the proposal was worth to Texas (significantly less than ESPN), there is no way Texas would have bothered reviewing and commenting back on it (and all the others) if it had a deal ready to go with ESPN.

quote:

---

8. Six months later the LHN is announced. The money was troublesome enough, but what could A&M do? There was also an understanding in the conference re the limited scope of the coverage. ESPN and t.u. got a little too ambitious and ESPN lost sight of the fact that this was a deal to stop realignment, NOT to make a profit. They started focusing on ways to recoup their investment faster.

---

The scope of coverage has never really changed outside of trying to get one more game as a promotional piece this year. ESPN always wanted to make a profit off of this.

quote:

---

9. Because they overplayed their hand, all hell broke loose and now they are both in a crapload of hotwater because re-alignment is occurring BECAUSE of their deal (which was supposed to STOP it)

---

Can't disagree there. The heads of LHN have made some strategic mistakes in what they have said trying to drum up excitement for the channel.

quote:

---

AND the value of their deal has plummeted because of the concessions made.

---

I don't think so. One football was not going to make or break the network. As for the high school sports, its definitely a set back, but I don't think the market for the random HS game is much better than that for the Olympic sports.

quote:

---

10. Now, I look for back-room deals to be going on where ESPN and t.u. are going to make some incredible proposals to A&M, including a morphing of the LHN into a Big 12 or A&M/OU/t.u. channel combined with huge guarantees. Otherwise, t.u.'s back is against the wall. The LHN has basically ground to a halt, and this is the reason.

---

LHN is still full steam ahead. From what I have been told, we should see announcement of carriers just before the 'launch date'. As for morphing it, I really doubt it. I have no doubt that a Big12 channel might be offered to placate A&M some, but it won't be at the expense of LHN. LHN simply gives ESPN too much influence over one of the most powerful athletic departments in the country to just walk away from it.

Hook 'Em Horns

Hellraiser97

--

"You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas." -- Davy Crockett

quote:

---

Powers and Dodds turned on a dime, overnight. From done deal with the PAC, to staying in the Big Xii. Sure, Scott says NOW, it was all Texas politics, he has a relationship he has to maintain with ESPN, NOW. That was not what he was saying at the time, last year.

At the time he was saying he was drinking the good stuff and smoking a stogie celebrating the deal. He got the phone call from Powers the next morning. And further, he stated he was not given any concrete reason for Texas pulling out of the deal.

---

Got a link for that? The oldest article I have found came out right after it got called off and Scott blames Texas politics.

Hook 'Em Horns

Hellraiser97

--

"You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas." -- Davy Crockett

quote:

---

Do you actually think he was going to tell the sips what to do?

---

Yes. He appointed the Texas regents just like the A&M regents. Same political and budget issues.

quote:

---

Dodds might not even answer Rick's phone calls.

---

That would not be a wise move on at least a couple of levels.

If you want to look at it from a simplified version


University of Florida operates under the Sunshine Network but it falls secondary to the conference. CBS / ESPN have first say and these revenues are distributed evenly between 12 members


tu wants to operate under the LHN and circumvent the B12 contract (the current B12 contract has unequal revenue to begin with) and does not want to share LHN dollars or PIPELINE with the other 9. It is in opposition to Florida as it seeks to maximize returns before returning revenue or PIPELINE with the other 9 members.


Florida operates as a conference, before individual revenue

tu operates for individual gain, before conference gain as a whole

I think the horns are already trying to re-write history to ensure that if this thing does blow up that they are made out to be the victims of ESPN and the LHN, not the beneficiaries.

And to a certain extent I can see how they have a point.

I think you guys are way overestimating UT's "fear" of A&M going to the SEC.

Sure, it's not something the Longhorns want to happen, but their attitude seems to be a shrug and, "Well, we hate to see you go, but if that's what you want to do, so be it."

If UT was really "afraid" of A&M moving to the SEC, it would have pulled out all the stops. It would have exerted its significant political power to stop the deal. If that didn't work, it would offer A&M more money, maybe even a piece of the LHN or somesuch.

But, from all appearances, that's just not happening. It appears that UT is willing to let A&M go without much of a fight. It's Baylor who's pulling out all the stops.

quote:

---

(see Byrne's comments about the deal and how we were interested but their terms and conditions werent acceptable[my paraphrase])

---

Byrne is now trying to cover tracks. Otherwise, if Texas had made the offer and A&M was interested, they would have worked out a deal, or it would have come out that they talked and couldn't make a deal.

And, if they couldn't make a deal, A&M would have explored its own options a little harder. Instead, Byrne said the LHN wasn't viable.

quote:

---

tu wants to operate under the LHN and circumvent the B12 contract (the current B12 contract has unequal revenue to begin with) and does not want to share LHN dollars or PIPELINE with the other 9. It is in opposition to Florida as it seeks to maximize returns before returning revenue or PIPELINE with the other 9 members.

---

Where do you get this? Texas sold its Tier 3 rights, just as Florida did. They're still subject to the B12 agreements, and there is no conflict between them and the LHN.

What some are ignoring here is that tu's preferences are no longer an important part of the equation. In short, when it comes to whether we leave or not, tu may wish for us to stay, but they have very little wiggle room. They can publicly trash us and threaten political ramifications, and if someone else were governor, might make good on some threats.

But at the end of the day, the SEC offers too much more than the Big Xii can ever offer. A situation they helped create. More money, exposure, and opportunity, and yes, stability.

No one doubts superconferences are coming. And no one doubts the SEC will be one of them. The Big Xii-3? Not looking too solid for superconference status.

quote:

---

I think you guys are way overestimating UT's "fear" of A&M going to the SEC.

Sure, it's not something the Longhorns want to happen, but their attitude seems to be a shrug and, "Well, we hate to see you go, but if that's what you want to do, so be it."

If UT was really "afraid" of A&M moving to the SEC, it would have pulled out all the stops. It would have exerted its significant political power to stop the deal. If that didn't work, it would offer A&M more money, maybe even a piece of the LHN or somesuch.

But, from all appearances, that's just not happening. It appears that UT is willing to let A&M go without much of a fight. It's Baylor who's pulling out all the stops.

---

That may be the opinion of the average fan, but doesn't appear to be the opinion of your leadership.

quote:

---

Byrne is now trying to cover tracks. Otherwise, if Texas had made the offer and A&M was interested, they would have worked out a deal, or it would have come out that they talked and couldn't make a deal.

And, if they couldn't make a deal, A&M would have explored its own options a little harder. Instead, Byrne said the LHN wasn't viable.

---

Byrne was right. Based on the value of the LHN content alone, it is not a good business proposition. When you add in the "bribe" component to ensure conference stability, only then is there sufficient revenue for tx (not ESPN). The $ is not based on a business model but the unique position of tx and their willingness to embrace a giant conflict of interest in exchange for the almighty dollar.

I agree that if a new A&M/tu/OU Big Xii package is offered it is nothing but poison fed us by the devil himself. Leave them now or be forever lost.

"If UT was really "afraid" of A&M moving to the SEC, it would have pulled out all the stops. It would have exerted its significant political power to stop the deal. If that didn't work, it would offer A&M more money, maybe even a piece of the LHN or some such."

Really. Well that is exactly what happened last year with tu doing a 180 and "saving" the conference from our leaving, ignoring the fact they had started it trying to "steer" us all to the Pac 10. I'd say they were very scared last year and are also smart enough to see what a major impact on recruiting SEC will have for us.

Fortunately for us the SEC now also sees they are nothing but poison and will have no reason to let them tag along with A&M. Good luck with independent status.

Bob, UF does tier3 at the end, they do not go to a member school to shift, similar to what tu did with tech offering LHN instead of B12 possibility. Did I miss understand what they were doing there?

KM: They traded something they controlled for something Fox controlled.

If Dave Brown had thought he was getting away with something, he wouldn't have talked about it.

Bob, you are trying hard. I admire that.

OP, solid, solid post. Been thinking this for awhile now. The LHN was a defensive play by ESPN to prevent superconferences forming and being left out.

Would not be shocked whatsoever to see the LHN morph into a Lone Star Football channel featuring Texas and Texas aTm coaches shows, interviews, etc.....

I'm starting to think the longer this plays out, the more likely that things stay the way they are for the time being. There are just too many people/factions out there that aren't ready for superconferences to form at the moment. And I do think the 14th team is a major problem in all of this. People keep saying that all the SEC has to do is pick up the phone. I don't think it is that simple. Also, the SEC has to protect its football brand and will probably be very selective in expansion. They know Texas and OU are probably a package deal that would narrow the gap if they went Big 10. Just my take. Could be wrong. We've all been wrong at some point during this roller coaster.

SugarHorn- I just think the train has already left the station no matter what proposal could be made. I think A&M believes Big 12 would be short-term in any event because of your school's ambition for other stuff.

I DO believe Austin is willing to forego the LHN in concept for the time being, knowing that everything will change in just a few years anyway and then they can do a similar deal. But I don't think A&M would buy into that, knowing it would be short term.

There's just WAY too much risk in college football now not to grab a brass ring when it's being dangled. A&M's a plum but there's no guarantee it would end up in SEC later if it doesnt go now. Going now ensures the chance to be on equal footing with the Alabamas, Floridas and Auburns of the country in whatever happens to the college football world in the future.

This really IS about A&M and nothing to do with Big 12, or hurt feelings, envy, or other nonsense.

There is no question we were paid by ESPN to stay. I don't know when the $300 million figure was hammered out but I'm sure ESPN told us they'd make it worth our while to stay.

The problem is that it's not going to work.

The SEC is going to expand, and then probably the Big 1G and the Big 12 is going to be weakened and ESPN's investment in Texas will be too unless we move. But the contract can't stay as is if that happens. Since ESPN will have a contract with whatever conference we go to, they'll work it out then.

But it accomplished what it was meant to accomplish.

quote:

---

10. Now, I look for back-room deals to be going on where ESPN and t.u. are going to make some incredible proposals to A&M, including a morphing of the LHN into a Big 12 or A&M/OU/t.u. channel combined with huge guarantees. Otherwise, t.u.'s back is against the wall. The LHN has basically ground to a halt, and this is the reason.

I hope our Admin stays the course and remembers its words that this is a "100 year decision" and the best chance for A&M to finally realize its ultimate destiny of a great stand-alone institution for all of Texas.

---

Interesting point here at the end. If what results from your move to the SEC is a Texas move to another big conference I think you guys lose some of the value of the SEC. Frankly, I think you guys going SEC and us going Big 1G with OU (if that were to happen) puts you on the short end of the stick.

You might disagree. But reasonable minds can disagree about that. And your Admin has reasonable minds...

As things stand, if you left the Big 12 it would weaken the conference. And put you in a better conference with better games. As long as it remained that way, and the Big 12 didn't up the game with a couple of great additions, your move would look great.

But we could certainly make a move to marginalize or eliminate the upside of the SEC for you.

None of us here will ever be held responsible for making a bad call on conference realignment. So it's easy for us to say we'd stay or go. But for the folks making the call that will be held responsible it's not that easy, especially when you're looking at breaking up a pretty long relationship between the two schools. And the upside from their point of view maybe isn't quite as certain as it appears to some of you.

I think it's inevitable that OU and Texas end up in a major conference. I hope it is PAC or B1G- I still think A&M benefits from geography, but even if that's wrong, I believe it benefits from being separate.


My own preference is that someday the college football world comes to it senses, divies up all t.v. money in an equitable way, establishes a playoff system that gives every team a theoretical chance (like NCAA BB) so the schools would go back to smaller, regional conferences.

20 team conferences like Slive is projecting are basically going to be 5-team Divisions and 10-team min-conferences.

10-15 years from now I'd love to be back with OU, t.u., Tech.

The problem actually is that if things are trending the way it appears to everyone, you're looking at 4 16-team superconferences...and a lot of irrelevant teams. If those teams group together for a +1 you marginalize every team left.

Maybe that's the way it should be. Do you need Baylor in the mix to decide a national champion? How about San Jose St? There's a LOT of schools not pulling their weight. No good reason to share money with them. And right now we don't really, and going forward it's going to get worse.

quote:

---

Army & Navy piggyback on the AFN (Armed Forces Network)

---

You clearly have no idea what AFN is or does. AFN shows games based on what they think the majority of their audience wants to see. They show service academy games TAPE DELAYED almost all the time unless it's a major game like Army/Navy. You rarely see a service academy game live when they aren't playing each other.

So tu gets bribed by espn to stay, while everyone else catches Hell. We cannot get away from you clowns fast enough.

Outstanding read. Texas A&M brought the SEC to the alter in 2010 and backed off. That July 21 phone call this year that set all this in motion was a big deal. A&M cannot back off this time unless it happens very soon. If this new courtship progresses to very near a deal and Texas A&M backs off again because of t.u. and ESPN backroom deals to include others, A&M will be beholden to t.u. for a 100 years.

quote:

---

CGSC Lobotomy
posted 8:21a, 08/17/11



Notre Dame does not have their own network.

NBC only has them for football season. All other sports are through the Big East.

---

NBC has ND for its HOME football games only. It's worth lot of $$$$$ to ND.

As to CGSC's later posting that Army and Navy are rarely shown in real time unless they play each other, he's wrong.

CBS Sports carries all of Army's and Navy's home games. I'll go out on a limb here and stipulate that these games draw a bigger viewing audience than the LHN ever will.

Reason? Because Army and Navy have a loyal, admiring nationwide audience. The horns have a nationwide audience only in their wildest dreams. Hell, nobody else in Texas gives a rat's Kerry about the Horns except ... them.

Gig 'Em, Aggies !!

quote:

---

Bob, you are trying hard. I admire that.

---

It's because I'm right.