ESPN exercises whatever out clause in the contract that Dodds managed to exclude from the FOIA request.
You have to figure with salaries and production costs ESPN has sunk close to $15 million per year into this thing. They didn't imagine that no carriers would pick it up and/or nobody would pay to subscribe.
Even if they managed to get a marquee conference game on the network I still don't see how they get close to break-even.
The midlevel manager sips at ESPN are going to have a tough time explaining to their bosses how this was ever a good idea.

I wonder if cowtv wasn't the brainchild of one of the sips who worked at espn and wanted a chance to get back to austin.

Top brass at Disney greenlighted the network. So it isn't going anywhere.

If they start losing a bunch of money on the deal, they have a way out of it.

The idiot patrol is back! I will read any Maplethorpe thread just for the unintended hilarity!

I don't think there's any doubt that Bevo TV will lose money for the first several years, if not all 20 years of the contract. It appeals only to a single state, where more people hate UT than love it.

But I think ESPN knew that up-front. Bevo TV is a loss leader for them: They lose money on it now, but they've gotten into bed with UT for the long-term, i.e., when/if UT goes independent.

IMO, the key clause in the ESPN/UT contract is the one that says ESPN has the first option to make a deal with UT if it ever goes independent, and to match any other offer it gets.

I truely think that if the Big 12 breaks up or if A&M leaves for the SEC, then ESPN has an out.

That is what stinks to me about this whole thing. It is a bribe to tu politicians to use their influence to keep A&M from rocking the BCS boat.

quote:

---

The idiot patrol is back!

---

I have an Agtag, hence, a college degree. Where's yours?
Instead of name calling, why don't you explain how 3rd tier rights, which have been available for 100 years, and no network was willing to pay more than chump change for, are suddenly worth $300 million?

The best possible scenario is for the lhn to fail, AFTER we are in the SEC.

quote:

---

where more people hate UT than love it.

---

What part of the state do you live in?

something else that concerns me if this bevo tv ever really gets off the ground. what happens when espn starts calling the shots on who tu will play in non conference games. I mean if they are going to show a bunch of games on their (espn's) tv network then they are probably going to, at the very least, have an opinion on who is playing in those games. And continuing on that note, if bevo tv takes off and actually happens what is to stop espn from doing this with many more larger institutions and creating scenarios where they simply play each other all the time, thus pushing out other schools and dictating what state schools are doing. To me a 20-year contract does not mean that espn is trying to see how this goes and see if it is profitable, they have a larger motive.

ESPN is in the business of content. They are amassing a portfolio with content that happens also to appeal to a very attractive demographic. Even low ratings command high advertising rates. If the LHN allows them to receive a few cents more from the cable providers, they will make money. The LHN is part of a broader strategy.

ESPN also knows exactly how negotiations with carriers work. No one there is the slightest bit surprised (I would guess) by the current state of negotiations. Asking $.40 is a pretty hefty amount (would put the channel in the top 30-40 channels). If they reach a deal with TWC and Comcast in the next year, they will be ahead of the Big 10 Network. No one is looking for any outs and $300 million contracts for a novel and risky enterprise aren't approved by mid-level managers.

To me, the best possible scenario lands A&M in the SEC, REGARDLESS of what the heck happens to cowtv and the 'sips!

Gig 'em!






Soli Deo Gloria

quote:

---

$300 million contracts for a novel and risky enterprise aren't approved by mid-level managers.

---

I know this and was mostly kidding about the mid-level manager part. But from what it sounds like there were some guys with Longhorn boners pushing this deal pretty hard that may end up looking bad.

quote:

---

ESPN also knows exactly how negotiations with carriers work. No one there is the slightest bit surprised (I would guess) by the current state of negotiations. Asking $.40 is a pretty hefty amount (would put the channel in the top 30-40 channels).

---

If nobody is surprised why is ESPN scrambling so hard to find additional content to put on the network? We are 3 weeks away from launch and not a single carrier has picked the channel up yet. Do you really think they anticipated this?

Cable companies always play hardball right up until the games start, or even later. Time Warner refused to carry the NFL network that had NFL games on it because they didn't want to pay what the NFL was asking. They went an entire season with no Thurs. games in large markets because the cable company wouldn't give in then.

This isn't unprecedented. I think the B1G had to play hardball to get their network picked up as well.

quote:

---

Cable companies always play hardball right up until the games start, or even later. Time Warner refused to carry the NFL network that had NFL games on it because they didn't want to pay what the NFL was asking.

---

And that was for the NFL. I can't imagine too many people will be calling in crying about missing college volleyball or Texas vs Texas State football.

quote:

---

If nobody is surprised why is ESPN scrambling so hard to find additional content to put on the network? We are 3 weeks away from launch and not a single carrier has picked the channel up yet. Do you really think they anticipated this?

---

Yes, they anticipated this. No one would seriously have expected a contract to be signed until the last week of August/first week of September. Again, it took the Big 10 Network 2 years to sign up carriers. This isn't unusual and isn't unexpected.

Except the big ten has good content to offer in a much larger media market. In fact they have 12 times the content to offer.

Curley is spot on. Tu wants to go independent and they aren't very good at hiding it. The ROFR is what ESPN covets in that deal.

quote:

---

Except the big ten has good content to offer in a much larger media market. In fact they have 12 times the content to offer.

---

Do you think before posting? Of course the Big 10 has more content. And yet it still took them more than a year after launch to sign up TWC and Comcast. That proves my point. Why would ESPN be concerned that they don't have the contracts signed before launch when it took the Big 10 (with a much hotter product) more than a year after launch? I am guessing that some of those mid-level managers even realized that the Big 10 had more content before they made the bid.

MW - If the Big 10 Network with more content and more attractiveness to the viewing public took more than a year to ink cable deals, how long will it take for an unattractive LHN network with crappy programming to sign with cable networks? 5 years?

I suspect that they will get most cable providers in Texas within a year or so and at least one of the DirectTV types. I don't think that this is just going to appear instantly in homes across America. ESPN signed a 20-year contract. They will make money over the life of the contract.