King Douche Ornery

January 19th, 2011 at 1:27 PM ^

Is this "throwing away money"? All ESPN needs is for this network to go in all the homes in Texas and it'll be a cash cow. Not to mention bordering states, which probably contain lots of Horns fans.]

It's about what, 11 Mill per year? Less than NBC pays ND. There's national appeal for Texas as well. It's an investment, IIRC. ESPN will probably get a 51% share (I didn't read the article because I'm not interested).

Blue_Sox

January 19th, 2011 at 1:39 PM ^

This deal isn't about broadcast rights for Texas football games like the ND deal does. So this is money on top of their deal with ESPN through the Big 12. So there is an argument to be made that this is throwing money away.

Maybe you should read before forming opinions about subjects that you don't care about.

bigmc6000

January 19th, 2011 at 1:46 PM ^

I've been talking with the UT guys (and A&M guys for that matter) about this for a while since they've been working on for at least a couple years.  Basically here's the deal - the UT network gets last pick  to football games after ESPN and Fox Sports. Generally that's never but with UT playing like @ss last year it's a possibility. Now all of UT's baseball and basketball games will end up on this station (if they aren't televised otherwise) and there's plenty of cash associated with that but not as much as with football.

 

Here's  the strange part in all of this - if UT had continued to rock it and got another 10 wins this would have been, without a doubt a gigantic waste of money however because they had such a crappy year it's possible that both ESPN and Fox would pass on their game vs SW School of the Deaf and now you've got the major program in Texas playing on their network and people are going to demand that network.  Also, this sets them up nicely to go independent and not get too screwed because of it when the Big 12 collapses (that or use it as a bargaining chip for more cash from the conference that wants them).

jcgold

January 19th, 2011 at 4:02 PM ^

The network gets one guaranteed Texas game, as well as eight guaranteed basketball games per year.

I agree that $300M is a lot to pay for this.  Its gonna be hard to see this channel anywhere but a specialty sports tier, where it will customers will turn it on for 3 months and then turn it right back off.  A Big 12 network, with a Texas tilt, could have been way more profitable.

jtmc33

January 19th, 2011 at 1:29 PM ^

I still don't understand why they wouldn't join the Big 10

(Sarcasm Notice - for those vultures who've been unleashing vile upon otherwise harmless posts because they've been overloaded with dread, hatred, and carpal tunnels over the last 3 years - this response was in jest)

Not a Blue Fan

January 19th, 2011 at 1:30 PM ^

Texas got screwed. Frank the Tank estimates that each school in the Big Ten makes twice that, on top of having an equity position in the network (meaning that number isn't fixed and will climb with inflation, value growth, etc).

In short, let me express disingenuous, facetious surprise that Texas did something shortsighted and illogical with their athletic department. That's never happened before.

bigmc6000

January 19th, 2011 at 1:37 PM ^

That's just for Texas' deal with ESPN. They also get 20M a year from the big 12 and they also have their deal for merchandise rights.  When you add it all up Texas is looking at around 35M a year and Big Ten schools don't even come close to that right now.

 

And yes, this is a gigantic waste of money on ESPN's part although the rumor was the deal would be for 300M so UT's shitty season apparently cost them about 50M.

MI Expat NY

January 19th, 2011 at 1:45 PM ^

But all that money doesn't seem like it's paying for the TV network.  ESPN is paying IMG $52.5, which, to me, implies that ESPN is buying Texas' marketing and Licensing rights and hiring IMG to handle them.  Ohio State just inked a deal with IMG that pays them $11M a year.  If those are the same rights that are bundled in the ESPN deal, ESPN is really paying less than $50M for the TV network, or less than $2.5M a year.  

I think this number is more headline fodder than actual windfall for Texas.

Edit:  I guess I could be wrong, I just don't see how paying Texas $12M a year to air one football game a year and other sports is worth it.

bigmc6000

January 19th, 2011 at 1:52 PM ^

Is that IMG is getting, basically, a 50M finders fee. IMG is still going to do all the non-TV marketing so they are still going to be paying UT their $10M-ish a year to do all the other marketing. (or maybe ESPN is buying off IMG's TV rights but most of IMGs earning don't come from TV rights as they have 0 with tOSU and they still pay them 11M a year).

 

Apparently ESPN is hoping that enough people in Texas are going to want it and they can convince all the cable people to pony up for it - we'll see how that goes...

justingoblue

January 19th, 2011 at 1:53 PM ^

Disclaimer- I'm using tsio math. I made up half of this from memory and the other half from Wikepedia.

~25,000,000 Texas residents. At $.30 per subscription per month (I think that's what the BTN is in its footprint), if about 1/4 Texans have a cable subscription, that grosses 22,500,000 per year. And that's before advertising and assuming no subscriptions outside the state of Texas.

bigmc6000

January 19th, 2011 at 1:56 PM ^

It's apparently not going to be in the standard package as they apparently don't have Delaney's balls to pull that one off so it's only going to be sports tier.  Since it's only sports tier now you're looking at best 1/10 if not less (any cable employees on here?)  They'll probably make their money but they are really just hedging their bets that UT's basketball team is good and people in Texas will continue to care about baseball and all the other non-rev sports.

bigmc6000

January 19th, 2011 at 2:28 PM ^

That's just the talk amongst all the UT fans (and the A&M fans by extension since any success UT has pisses them off).  I think their AD may have said something about it back when expansion was still on the table but that's probably hard to find a proper link to. 

 

I suppose they could get it on the standard programming but, man, I don't know if Time Warner is going to be willing to do that.  Heck, they may even get paid off by A&M fans just to try to make sure UT doesn't succeed! haha

artds

January 19th, 2011 at 1:33 PM ^

Jesus. All this money being thrown around and everyone but the players gets a piece. It makes you wonder how much longer this system can go on for.

The public interest in sports is obviously there. All it would take to destroy the system is for a Vince McMahon-type to create a new league and then offering to pay kids on the Rivals 250 to come play and hone their skills until they're eligible for the NFL draft.

artds

January 19th, 2011 at 1:48 PM ^

I think the 3-4 year turnover rate with the players makes that difficult.
<br>
<br>I think the more likely scenario is for a Vince-type to tell a 5-star kid, "Hey, you can attend OSU for free if you want and get weekly English Comp homework assignments, or come work for me and I'll pay you $100k for the next 3 years and you can concentrate 100% on football until you're eligible to get drafted."
<br>
<br>Which do you think a kid like Terrelle Pryor would choose?
<br>
<br>What do most of the top high school baseball players choose? The minors or college?
<br>

shorts

January 19th, 2011 at 1:38 PM ^

Those guys could go and play in the UFL right now and get paid -- same concept. But the point is that the interest level is NOT there for minor league football with no traditions or connections to fans. I don't care about seeing good but random college-age kids play against each other. I care about seeing Michigan football, and that's why Michigan makes a Scrooge McDuck-esque pile of money from football.

artds

January 19th, 2011 at 1:55 PM ^

I agree. But it's all in how you sell it. With the right marketing approach, it could probably work. Get Nike to design some Oregon-esque uniforms, specifically target kids from a Rivals recruiting class, pay them $100k or so for a few years, and 3 years later, they're still eligible for the NFL draft .

Tater

January 19th, 2011 at 1:48 PM ^

McMahon had the right idea, but he tried to make his product too different.  He tried to capitalize on the WWE "Attitude Era" and failed miserably.  Football fans are too traditionalist to enjoy having their games polluted with professional wrestling-style storylines. 

If McMahon employed his promotional acumen while preserving the integrity of the game, he could possibly get an alternative league off the ground and have it succeed. 

Schembo

January 19th, 2011 at 1:52 PM ^

Only a matter of time before Texas got something like this.  I don't see another program being able to pull this off with a contract even close to that though.

Tater

January 19th, 2011 at 1:58 PM ^

Many Texans proudly see their state as its own country; if there is any school that could successfully pull this off, it's Texas.  It may be a little bit boring to the other 49 states, but Texans may find plenty of ways to stay amused while watching 24/7. 

I just wonder how many infomercials ESPN is going to have to run on the station to break even.

jerseyblue

January 19th, 2011 at 2:19 PM ^

University of Texas to do list::

1) Get a defensive coordinator (check)

2) Start own network(check) .........then scroll down

22) Cede Texas from United States....scroll more

78) Overthrow Galactic Senate......scroll

83) Build Death Star

jfoust81

January 19th, 2011 at 3:46 PM ^

This has been in the works forever, and out here, if you dont have dish or directv, you dont have tv. This station will do well in Texas, but it wont do all that well outside of the state. Most of West Texas are diehard Tech fans, about the only Tech fans in the world actually. A and M commands a large audience and TCU is working its way up as well. UT will need to bring in more programming other than UT. If they dont make major programming changes, this network will be dead within 10 years.