Now, with kickoff less than a month away, its probably time to wrap up this spring's and summer's discussion up.

What have we learned?

1) Wake runs the ACC and the NCAA.  Pitt is VERY afraid of them.

2) WVA will do the majority of fetching Mr Dodds his iced tea.

3) TCU AD Chris Del Conte attempted to intimidate The Hive by leaving dead animals in ESPNj's pool.

4) Beer, bacon, boobs, BBQ, Bratwursts, and now, Bourbon, RULE!!!

5) Very early on, ESPNjacket, GTJT, and, many other Hive folks called out the Big Meth folks for their nonsense, and, laid waste to their disinformation campaign at every turn.

6)

7) WVA are severely butthurt over their being very publicly passed over by both the ACC and SEC.

8) Some memebrs of the media, regionally and nationally, were duped by know-nothings like 'The Dude,' who spent countless hours passing off BS as fact.

9) Some powers-that-be at FSU are as damn dumb as the WVA fans who insisted that the ACC would cease to exist before the spring was over.

10) That every drop-dead date ever set by the WVA folks 'in the know' came and went without incident.

11) Big Meth fans disappeared as FACTS became known, and, more and more good news for the ACC was announced (Pitt and Cuse joining early, the OB deal, etc)

12) UofPitt took way too long coming around to what Hive regulars kept telling him over the course of these threads.  Maybe he's finally grown a pair.


Feel free to add onto this list as you all see fit. 

Champions Bowl and other bowl updates from Barnhart.

Atlanta out to make its case to be college football's capital city

Previous Thread:

Big 12 Expansion Thread No 9, and, The Newest B...Bratwursts!

GH

Pac 12 network set to launch. Lots of good stuff in here about the schools looking to benefit from the exposure.

Excerpts below

''Gone are the days of regional broadcasts on ABC or Fox,'' Commissioner Larry Scott said. ''This is going to be a major change in terms of the national exposure and recognition our conference gets.''

''It was like being Santa Claus because in all cases the amount or programming these sports will get in Pac-12 Networks is double, triple, quadruple, quintuple or dramatically more than the exposure these teams have gotten in the past,''  Gary Stevenson (president of the network) said.

Stanford women's basketball coach Tara VanDerveer, who had complained in the past about lack of coverage, called the new arrangement the best television package in the country that will help the conference's schools recruit top athletes.

the previous thread had the Big east TV deal.

I read it as 10 Million for the schools with football and 4 Million for the basketball only schools. 

"Under the current deal with ESPN, the Big East's eight full members get about $3.125 million annually while the eight non-football schools get about $1.5 million."

http://www.tampabay.com/sports...e-small/1232903

I'm not seeing an 11 million dollar increase to 14 Million, but still that is a significant bump and enough to keep the conference viable.

By the way Barnhart is my favorite college football writer out there, and now that he's reporting on Stokans Chic Fil a bid, I think Atlanta's chances of getting one of the games is 75% or greater.

ESPNjacket wrote: Pac 12 network set to launch. Lots of good stuff in here about the schools looking to benefit from the exposure.

Excerpts below

''Gone are the days of regional broadcasts on ABC or Fox,'' Commissioner Larry Scott said. ''This is going to be a major change in terms of the national exposure and recognition our conference gets.''

''It was like being Santa Claus because in all cases the amount or programming these sports will get in Pac-12 Networks is double, triple, quadruple, quintuple or dramatically more than the exposure these teams have gotten in the past,''  Gary Stevenson (president of the network) said.

Stanford women's basketball coach Tara VanDerveer, who had complained in the past about lack of coverage, called the new arrangement the best television package in the country that will help the conference's schools recruit top athletes.

Whats your best guess?  Is it going to be the uber success that the Pac-12 PTB's believe it will?

I have my doubts.  Honestly, I am not sold on them having that large a viewership east of the Mississippi River.

WesternStormer wrote:

ESPNjacket wrote: Pac 12 network set to launch. Lots of good stuff in here about the schools looking to benefit from the exposure.

Excerpts below

''Gone are the days of regional broadcasts on ABC or Fox,'' Commissioner Larry Scott said. ''This is going to be a major change in terms of the national exposure and recognition our conference gets.''

''It was like being Santa Claus because in all cases the amount or programming these sports will get in Pac-12 Networks is double, triple, quadruple, quintuple or dramatically more than the exposure these teams have gotten in the past,''  Gary Stevenson (president of the network) said.

Stanford women's basketball coach Tara VanDerveer, who had complained in the past about lack of coverage, called the new arrangement the best television package in the country that will help the conference's schools recruit top athletes.

Whats your best guess?  Is it going to be the uber success that the Pac-12 PTB's believe it will?

I have my doubts.  Honestly, I am not sold on them having that large a viewership east of the Mississippi River.

I think the national broadcast of ABC and Fox games is a much bigger step forward for the P12.  Previously, we didn't get many P10 games on the east coast because it was a regional game.  And with FSN carrying Tier 2, games were often preempted for local baseball or basketball or hockey or college football or basketball.

That will be a big benefit.  As far as PTN vs. BTN, I agree the viewership won't be that large on the east coast.  I'll probably tune in if there's a game on late night, but like many of you I'm a junkie.

WesternStormer wrote:

ESPNjacket wrote: Pac 12 network set to launch. Lots of good stuff in here about the schools looking to benefit from the exposure.

Excerpts below

''Gone are the days of regional broadcasts on ABC or Fox,'' Commissioner Larry Scott said. ''This is going to be a major change in terms of the national exposure and recognition our conference gets.''

''It was like being Santa Claus because in all cases the amount or programming these sports will get in Pac-12 Networks is double, triple, quadruple, quintuple or dramatically more than the exposure these teams have gotten in the past,''  Gary Stevenson (president of the network) said.

Stanford women's basketball coach Tara VanDerveer, who had complained in the past about lack of coverage, called the new arrangement the best television package in the country that will help the conference's schools recruit top athletes.

Whats your best guess?  Is it going to be the uber success that the Pac-12 PTB's believe it will?

I have my doubts.  Honestly, I am not sold on them having that large a viewership east of the Mississippi River.

I don't think gazillions are coming but I think they will do okay with it. These things are driven by carriage rather than ratings.

The way I look at these conference networks is this:

Will the grads and fans of that conference choose their TV service based upon availability of this network? The BTN was able to succeed when it got second tier choices of football mixed in with the third tier crap. Once that happened, they had enough momentum.

To be clear, it doesn't take some crazy high percentage of viewers willing to choose based upon availability. It takes just enough to be noticed. When cable and DBS providers are fighting hard for a point or two of market share, a couple of percent of the viewers being driven by one network is huge.

The Longhorn abor.... ahem, uh, Network has no content. Even if you are Mr. UT, you probably don't care about their worst home game of the year. If you care that much you are going. Good high school football ratings on the U and the big ESPNs were the thing that could make it work. The Big 12 and then the NCAA put a bullet through its skull before it had a chance. Just IMO.

ESPNjacket wrote:

WesternStormer wrote:

ESPNjacket wrote: Pac 12 network set to launch. Lots of good stuff in here about the schools looking to benefit from the exposure.

Excerpts below

''Gone are the days of regional broadcasts on ABC or Fox,'' Commissioner Larry Scott said. ''This is going to be a major change in terms of the national exposure and recognition our conference gets.''

''It was like being Santa Claus because in all cases the amount or programming these sports will get in Pac-12 Networks is double, triple, quadruple, quintuple or dramatically more than the exposure these teams have gotten in the past,''  Gary Stevenson (president of the network) said.

Stanford women's basketball coach Tara VanDerveer, who had complained in the past about lack of coverage, called the new arrangement the best television package in the country that will help the conference's schools recruit top athletes.

Whats your best guess?  Is it going to be the uber success that the Pac-12 PTB's believe it will?

I have my doubts.  Honestly, I am not sold on them having that large a viewership east of the Mississippi River.

I don't think gazillions are coming but I think they will do okay with it. These things are driven by carriage rather than ratings.

The way I look at these conference networks is this:

Will the grads and fans of that conference choose their TV service based upon availability of this network? The BTN was able to succeed when it got second tier choices of football mixed in with the third tier crap. Once that happened, they had enough momentum.

To be clear, it doesn't take some crazy high percentage of viewers willing to choose based upon availability. It takes just enough to be noticed. When cable and DBS providers are fighting hard for a point or two of market share, a couple of percent of the viewers being driven by one network is huge.

The Longhorn abor.... ahem, uh, Network has no content. Even if you are Mr. UT, you probably don't care about their worst home game of the year. If you care that much you are going. Good high school football ratings on the U and the big ESPNs were the thing that could make it work. The Big 12 and then the NCAA put a bullet through its skull before it had a chance. Just IMO.

Thank you, sir.  I appreciate it.  I'm sort of curious as to how successful it'll be initially. 

You mention their success will be carriage-based, as opposed to ratings-based.  I do have another question.  Please, bear with me. 

Say they (P12N) strike a deal with DirecTV.  Once that is finalised, do they get credit for ALL DTV subscribers, or, just for the ones who subscribe to a package that includes the P12N?

Again, thanks for all of the great info on these threads.  Its all been very enlightening, and, much appreciated.

Chrispy wrote:

WesternStormer wrote:

ESPNjacket wrote: Pac 12 network set to launch. Lots of good stuff in here about the schools looking to benefit from the exposure.

Excerpts below

''Gone are the days of regional broadcasts on ABC or Fox,'' Commissioner Larry Scott said. ''This is going to be a major change in terms of the national exposure and recognition our conference gets.''

''It was like being Santa Claus because in all cases the amount or programming these sports will get in Pac-12 Networks is double, triple, quadruple, quintuple or dramatically more than the exposure these teams have gotten in the past,''  Gary Stevenson (president of the network) said.

Stanford women's basketball coach Tara VanDerveer, who had complained in the past about lack of coverage, called the new arrangement the best television package in the country that will help the conference's schools recruit top athletes.

Whats your best guess?  Is it going to be the uber success that the Pac-12 PTB's believe it will?

I have my doubts.  Honestly, I am not sold on them having that large a viewership east of the Mississippi River.

I think the national broadcast of ABC and Fox games is a much bigger step forward for the P12.  Previously, we didn't get many P10 games on the east coast because it was a regional game.  And with FSN carrying Tier 2, games were often preempted for local baseball or basketball or hockey or college football or basketball.

I agree, the increased exposure will be HUGE for them.  No disrespect to the Pac, but, if FSN South was showing a big SoCon game, like Appalachian State-Georgia Southern, for example, I'd be watching it, instead of the Pac game.  With the sole exception of USC-Oregon.  In which case, I'd be wearing out my remote flipping back and forth. 

That will be a big benefit.  As far as PTN vs. BTN, I agree the viewership won't be that large on the east coast.  

The BTN had the good fortune to have large population centers, with lots of their alumni, adjacent to their region.  The Pac is not so lucky in that regard.

I'll probably tune in if there's a game on late night, but like many of you I'm a junkie.

I stay up late to catch some of the FSN Saturday night Pac games.  I like the Pac, because they play a wide-open, offense-centered, brand of football.  Its a cool change from the street fight type games we often see, and enjoy, in this part of the world.

I will freely admit, though, that I thoroughly enjoyed seeing LSU beat Oregon last season. 

WesternStormer wrote:

ESPNjacket wrote: 
I don't think gazillions are coming but I think they will do okay with it. These things are driven by carriage rather than ratings.

The way I look at these conference networks is this:

Will the grads and fans of that conference choose their TV service based upon availability of this network? The BTN was able to succeed when it got second tier choices of football mixed in with the third tier crap. Once that happened, they had enough momentum.

To be clear, it doesn't take some crazy high percentage of viewers willing to choose based upon availability. It takes just enough to be noticed. When cable and DBS providers are fighting hard for a point or two of market share, a couple of percent of the viewers being driven by one network is huge.

The Longhorn abor.... ahem, uh, Network has no content. Even if you are Mr. UT, you probably don't care about their worst home game of the year. If you care that much you are going. Good high school football ratings on the U and the big ESPNs were the thing that could make it work. The Big 12 and then the NCAA put a bullet through its skull before it had a chance. Just IMO.

Thank you, sir.  I appreciate it.  I'm sort of curious as to how successful it'll be initially. 

You mention their success will be carriage-based, as opposed to ratings-based.  I do have another question.  Please, bear with me. 

Say they (P12N) strike a deal with DirecTV.  Once that is finalised, do they get credit for ALL DTV subscribers, or, just for the ones who subscribe to a package that includes the P12N?

Again, thanks for all of the great info on these threads.  Its all been very enlightening, and, much appreciated.

I forget sometimes that some of us are relatively new to the Hive. 

The last couple of years during realignment, we got into a good bit of detail on the Big Ten Network model and how it started to succeed after a few years of struggle. I'll give you the quick overview now.

The BTN gets about $.80/subscriber in states where it has a presence and about $.08/subscriber in the other states. There are essentially three places for a sports network to be:

- Basic cable (ESPN, FSN, etc.)

- Premium cable package(s)

- Sports tier (every obscure thing on earth)

So, the big issues are the rate (but that doesn't vary that much) and subscribers. Subscribers are driven by the tier, so that part of the negotiation really drives the money. There are also smaller things, like channel placement, that aren't as important but still matter. But let's stick to the big picture. The Pac 12 networks are an extended version of the BTN model. It has the national network, that is just like the BTN, and is supplemented by 6 regional networks.

In its own footprint, it is a fairly easy equation. The PTN will ask for something like BTN money for the big PTN and probably some fraction (I'll guess 60%) for the regional network applicable to that location. So they are looking to make 160% more than the BTN and occupy 2 channels. Let's loop back to the previous post now. What will drive the cable provider will be the anticipated reactions of viewers to their ability to have those networks, and after launch, actual experience among providers regarding churn that is attributed to them. It doesn't matter if anyone actually watches the stuff. It matters if they want to be able to watch it.

It is a little bit different for DirecTV and for cable providers outside the footprint, but the basics stay the same. Let me know if this creates more questions than answers. 

Here is an article that looks at the possiblity of a PSU move to the ACC. I don't think there is even a remote chance this would happen.

http://www.southernpigskin.com...-add-penn-state

Hey Pitt fans, here is a link to our thread on the excellent ESPN OTL story that came out today. While you probably have no interest in our Water Cooler in general, your perspective on the Penn State thing might be interesting for a lot of us.

ESPNjacket wrote:

WesternStormer wrote:

ESPNjacket wrote: 
I don't think gazillions are coming but I think they will do okay with it. These things are driven by carriage rather than ratings.

The way I look at these conference networks is this:

Will the grads and fans of that conference choose their TV service based upon availability of this network? The BTN was able to succeed when it got second tier choices of football mixed in with the third tier crap. Once that happened, they had enough momentum.

To be clear, it doesn't take some crazy high percentage of viewers willing to choose based upon availability. It takes just enough to be noticed. When cable and DBS providers are fighting hard for a point or two of market share, a couple of percent of the viewers being driven by one network is huge.

The Longhorn abor.... ahem, uh, Network has no content. Even if you are Mr. UT, you probably don't care about their worst home game of the year. If you care that much you are going. Good high school football ratings on the U and the big ESPNs were the thing that could make it work. The Big 12 and then the NCAA put a bullet through its skull before it had a chance. Just IMO.

Thank you, sir.  I appreciate it.  I'm sort of curious as to how successful it'll be initially. 

You mention their success will be carriage-based, as opposed to ratings-based.  I do have another question.  Please, bear with me. 

Say they (P12N) strike a deal with DirecTV.  Once that is finalised, do they get credit for ALL DTV subscribers, or, just for the ones who subscribe to a package that includes the P12N?

Again, thanks for all of the great info on these threads.  Its all been very enlightening, and, much appreciated.

I forget sometimes that some of us are relatively new to the Hive. 

The last couple of years during realignment, we got into a good bit of detail on the Big Ten Network model and how it started to succeed after a few years of struggle. I'll give you the quick overview now.

The BTN gets about $.80/subscriber in states where it has a presence and about $.08/subscriber in the other states. There are essentially three places for a sports network to be:

- Basic cable (ESPN, FSN, etc.)

- Premium cable package(s)

- Sports tier (every obscure thing on earth)

So, the big issues are the rate (but that doesn't vary that much) and subscribers. Subscribers are driven by the tier, so that part of the negotiation really drives the money. There are also smaller things, like channel placement, that aren't as important but still matter. But let's stick to the big picture. The Pac 12 networks are an extended version of the BTN model. It has the national network, that is just like the BTN, and is supplemented by 6 regional networks.

In its own footprint, it is a fairly easy equation. The PTN will ask for something like BTN money for the big PTN and probably some fraction (I'll guess 60%) for the regional network applicable to that location. So they are looking to make 160% more than the BTN and occupy 2 channels. Let's loop back to the previous post now. What will drive the cable provider will be the anticipated reactions of viewers to their ability to have those networks, and after launch, actual experience among providers regarding churn that is attributed to them. It doesn't matter if anyone actually watches the stuff. It matters if they want to be able to watch it.

It is a little bit different for DirecTV and for cable providers outside the footprint, but the basics stay the same. Let me know if this creates more questions than answers. 

No sir, thats what I was looking for.  The bold prints parts really were the things I was most curious about.

Thanks again. 

ESPNjacket wrote:

The Longhorn abor.... ahem, uh, Network has no content. Even if you are Mr. UT, you probably don't care about their worst home game of the year. If you care that much you are going. Good high school football ratings on the U and the big ESPNs were the thing that could make it work. The Big 12 and then the NCAA put a bullet through its skull before it had a chance. Just IMO.

I'd go so far as to say that the model the B12 is using is fundamentally flawed....The rest of the conference knows a school specific network on TV is a non starter for them, so they won't go along with a TV contract that allows anything beyond what the current one does fall down to the school to develop, so the LHN is just going to starve for content anyone cares about and not really get picked up anywhere. The only way it works is if somehow the LHN can generate enough revenue to be able to afford to continue buying out games from Fox/ESPN...which makes the whole thing even more dubious.

I'd also think the above holds true for just about any conference...there's at best a couple of schools in any conference with both the fan/public intrest and the desire to develop something like that, so you have the same dynamic that we're seeing in the B12.

bthib wrote:

ESPNjacket wrote:
The Longhorn abor.... ahem, uh, Network has no content. Even if you are Mr. UT, you probably don't care about their worst home game of the year. If you care that much you are going. Good high school football ratings on the U and the big ESPNs were the thing that could make it work. The Big 12 and then the NCAA put a bullet through its skull before it had a chance. Just IMO.

I'd go so far as to say that the model the B12 is using is fundamentally flawed....The rest of the conference knows a school specific network on TV is a non starter for them, so they won't go along with a TV contract that allows anything beyond what the current one does fall down to the school to develop, so the LHN is just going to starve for content anyone cares about and not really get picked up anywhere. The only way it works is if somehow the LHN can generate enough revenue to be able to afford to continue buying out games from Fox/ESPN...which makes the whole thing even more dubious.

I'd also think the above holds true for just about any conference...there's at best a couple of schools in any conference with both the fan/public intrest and the desire to develop something like that, so you have the same dynamic that we're seeing in the B12.

I agree. The real conundrum is that the revenue is subscribers times carriage fee equals $. (MATH !!!!!)

You can't drive subscribers without content. You can't ask for high carriage fees without content. 

The real issue for the Mathkateers is that if Mr. Dodds decides he is willing to do whatever it takes for LHN to make it, they will get their 3 home games. There is no way to do that without devaluing the first two tiers. And Mr. Dodds may be thirsty.

MichJacket wrote: Here is an article that looks at the possiblity of a PSU move to the ACC. I don't think there is even a remote chance this would happen.

http://www.southernpigskin.com...-add-penn-state

I believe that is a WoadBlue article.

ArchEast wrote:

+1

Pac12 network I imagine is set up to make money in the west and anyone else is gravy. I'll be interested to see if these conference networks continue to succeed if the content deliverers (cable and satellite) go to an a la carte model versus block delivery.