Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of DBSTalk by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Longhorn Network


  • Please log in to reply
603 replies to this topic

#61 OFFLINE   rcadss

rcadss

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 17 posts
Joined: May 12, 2011

Posted 07 July 2011 - 09:14 PM

I don't think that an OTA football deal and a largely religious based channel are similar to what Longhorn Network will be. My main concern with it is the lack of content. Two football games aren't going to cut it. The closest thing out there that's similar to this is the Fighting Sioux Sports Network in North Dakota. Obviously, that's on a smaller scale but it's the only college regional network that I know of and I believe that it's only a part-time channel.
.



You are grossly underestimated what BYUTV is going to be. From what I have read it will basically go to an all sports channel. They plan to show live broadcast of over 140 BYU sporting events a year. Also they plan to have a college game day type show before every game. I truly believe it will be the envy of any program out there, as far as fans getting to see their team.

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#62 OFFLINE   Eksynyt

Eksynyt

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 819 posts
Joined: Feb 08, 2008

Posted 07 July 2011 - 11:18 PM

My hope is that zero providers pick up the channel and then it fails so then it shuts down and Texas et al join the Pac 16 in order to make more money.

#63 OFFLINE   I WANT MORE

I WANT MORE

    CowboySooner

  • Registered
  • 1,107 posts
  • LocationNorthern plains
Joined: Oct 03, 2006

Posted 08 July 2011 - 05:40 AM

My hope is that zero providers pick up the channel and then it fails so then it shuts down and Texas et al join the Pac 16 in order to make more money.


Why would you want OKLAHOMA to win your conference every year? :lol:
Perhaps I Misremembered.

#64 OFFLINE   Marty711

Marty711

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 65 posts
Joined: Oct 15, 2008

Posted 08 July 2011 - 07:43 AM

The price is based upon hours of live programming, not the ratings. I assure you that Texas football draws more eyeballs per hour than a Padres game.


That's probably true but 2 football games doesn't come anywhere close to 150 MLB games.

You are grossly underestimated what BYUTV is going to be. From what I have read it will basically go to an all sports channel. They plan to show live broadcast of over 140 BYU sporting events a year. Also they plan to have a college game day type show before every game. I truly believe it will be the envy of any program out there, as far as fans getting to see their team.


That's in the future but that's not how or why BYU TV started. While they have always had sports programming, it was created and gained carriage because of it's religious content. There's a reason that it's grouped with all the religious channels. It's not in the 600s or low 200s. There aren't any plans to make BYU TV sports only. They are adding more original sports programming and adding more niche sports but will only air one live football game per year. The long term plan is to double the amount of sports programs that BYU currently airs.

I don't see how one or two live football games during a season compares to what BTN offers every week. BTN was built on live football, BYU TV was built on it's religious content. If all BTN offered was one live football game, some niche sports and magazine style programs, it wouldn't have gained much carriage so quickly and you can say the same for BYU. That's a big difference and why BTN was so successful in a short period of time. Longhorn Network is trying to build its brand largely on niche sports and insider programming. I don't see that as successful as having the rights to multiple live games week after week. That was my only point.

#65 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,097 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 08 July 2011 - 09:39 AM

That's probably true but 2 football games doesn't come anywhere close to 150 MLB games.

Uh, yeah. That is why the larger overall number for the Padres games than the Longhorns. I think that was my point. ;)


BTN was built on live football,


To some extent, but all Big Ten games were already available widely when the BTN went live. The BTN opened up venues for basketball games and other sports as much or more than it did for football. With the existing ESPN and ABC deals, Big Ten football was nationally available without extra packs (at least in conference games). Basketball was a trickier matter. You needed at least a college basketball package to get all the Big Ten basketball games. So the larger gain for the conference in exposure was the basketball games.

Football was a big driver for cable systems to pick it up, but not the only factor as you made it sound.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#66 OFFLINE   Marty711

Marty711

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 65 posts
Joined: Oct 15, 2008

Posted 08 July 2011 - 01:42 PM

To some extent, but all Big Ten games were already available widely when the BTN went live. The BTN opened up venues for basketball games and other sports as much or more than it did for football. With the existing ESPN and ABC deals, Big Ten football was nationally available without extra packs (at least in conference games). Basketball was a trickier matter. You needed at least a college basketball package to get all the Big Ten basketball games. So the larger gain for the conference in exposure was the basketball games.

Football was a big driver for cable systems to pick it up, but not the only factor as you made it sound.


I agree but it wasn't until all these football games came about that people started going ballistic about having the network on their systems. Even when BTN first launched, it wasn't on all cable systems. Those games were an impetus to put it on the air. When you have people throughout the midwest all complaining about missing football games, that's a wake up call for providers. You just can't compare the amount of live sports content that a BTN has with what Longhorn Network will. I just remember that in this neck of the woods, all the complaints were about missing football not basketball.

I'm not against adding Longhorn on D*. I just think it's an interesting case study. I'm not sure there's enough content to warrant an entire network. Obviously, there will be a big demand for it in Texas. But will the price be worth it to providers? Outside of Texas, I can't see many people clamoring for it since this is only dealing with one school and most of the live sports wont be football or basketball. I'd whole heartedly support a Big 12 channel since there would be plenty of content to make it worth it. I'm just not sure that 2 football games and 8 men's basketball games are as enticing to a national provider.

#67 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,097 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 08 July 2011 - 02:50 PM

I agree but it wasn't until all these football games came about that people started going ballistic about having the network on their systems. Even when BTN first launched, it wasn't on all cable systems. Those games were an impetus to put it on the air. When you have people throughout the midwest all complaining about missing football games, that's a wake up call for providers. You just can't compare the amount of live sports content that a BTN has with what Longhorn Network will. I just remember that in this neck of the woods, all the complaints were about missing football not basketball.


It was a little of all.

They actually launched WITH football. So, of course, football was the first push. But I don't think anyone who is an IU fan (and not many from PU either) were too worked up over not having football games. Nor would many in Pennsylvania bemoan the lack of basketball without it. :)

BTW, some systems still don't have it.

But the amount of live programming being different is true. And yet, Texas is one of the few schools that can pull this off.

(Penn State tried specialized satellite service way back...maybe 1980s. Too early.)
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#68 OFFLINE   djzack67

djzack67

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 899 posts
Joined: Sep 18, 2007

Posted 09 July 2011 - 03:19 AM

I think people are underestimating Longhorn fans nationwide
Waiting for
BBCA HD

#69 OFFLINE   espnjason

espnjason

    Armchair Referee

  • Registered
  • 529 posts
Joined: Sep 30, 2008

Posted 09 July 2011 - 10:24 AM

I think people are underestimating Longhorn fans nationwide


I don't think that is the case. The problem is the channel would be too myopic. Now if there were to be a Big XII network with 35-40% of the Programming to be the Longhorns, that network would face a much stronger likelihood of multiple carriage agreements.

Now I sense that D* would expect a better deal from ESPN regarding the Longhorn network. Someone mentioned on this thread that those very games can be on GamePlan and the Full Court Package for those outside the target region.

I should reiterate that if the Longhorn network launches as-is as-planned, then it should be on the spot-beams for the target regions until the next satellite launch, that way it would give them time to straighten a few things and to build a following.

Or alternatively, ESPN should restructure the network to the scenario I described above. IMO, the Big XII network is just as likely to go on D* as the Pac-12.

#70 OFFLINE   Eksynyt

Eksynyt

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 819 posts
Joined: Feb 08, 2008

Posted 09 July 2011 - 04:44 PM

Why would you want OKLAHOMA to win your conference every year? :lol:


$$$

Then Stoops goes to Ohio State/Michigan/Notre Dame and Oregon will own the conference after the sanctions end. :nono2:

But mostly...$$$

#71 OFFLINE   stp147

stp147

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 17 posts
Joined: Apr 26, 2009

Posted 10 July 2011 - 04:19 PM

As a huge Penn State fan (who also lives in Austin) I remember the launch of the BTN only DirecTV (and maybe Dish) were the national carriage agreements. $0.40/sub for 1 school seems pretty high when you consider that BTN was asking $0.80/sub within the conference footprint for 11 (now 12 teams). It was I think a whole year before Comcast and Time Warner picked it up.

The one thing that played into the favor of BTN was the Michigan loss to App State on the first weekend of broadcasting by BTN. Mark Silverman has gone on record saying that really helped future talks.

BTN is up to something like 400-500 events per year and that's only going to increase with the upcoming Men's Ice Hockey inventory.

I'm with the other person who would pay D* $0.40 to not carry it.

#72 OFFLINE   gomezma1

gomezma1

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 460 posts
Joined: Mar 28, 2006

Posted 10 July 2011 - 04:53 PM

You should get a discount if you order from Oklahoma and prove your from Texas. I don't think any Boomer Sooners will be ordering it.

#73 OFFLINE   morgantown

morgantown

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 902 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 10 July 2011 - 10:34 PM

+2.

I met with one of the coaches from that game (not Rich) and would almost gladly pay $0.40 a month to have it re-played each year. Could care less about the long horn network nor would want a $0.01 added to my bill for it.

Texas is big but there is a whole lot bigger rest of the country out here that couldn't care less. Regional yes. National is laughable. Perhaps UT ought to launch its OWN sat?

Best wishes.
DTV & NFLST since 97 at least, not looked back yet...

#74 OFFLINE   scm

scm

    Mentor

  • Registered
  • 31 posts
Joined: Jan 21, 2007

Posted 11 July 2011 - 01:08 PM

This is all too funny by half. First, I think ESPN has a much better idea of the financial potential of this than any cheeto eater here -- and they put their money where their mouth is. Second, as far as DTV bandwidth demands -- if there is room for Fox Sport Ohio, and the appeal to the monster TV markets of Cleveland (#18), Cincinatti (#33) and Columbus (#34) -- with a combined household count of around 3.5M. then there is room for the Longhorn Network with the markets of DFW (#5), Houston (#10), San Antonio (#37), and Austin (#44), with combined households of 6.3M. It is all about the benjamins (which is really about the eyeballs), and UT delivers markets like no one else. All you add with a Big 12 network is STL (#21) and KC (#31). No value add.

I am pretty certain the naysayers here, if they could be intellectually honest, only wish their college could deliver something like this. Fact is, that for TV households, # of graduates, rabidity of fan base, and excellence across the full range of sports, no single college in the nation comes close to UT. $300M of ESPN's money says so.

#75 OFFLINE   espnjason

espnjason

    Armchair Referee

  • Registered
  • 529 posts
Joined: Sep 30, 2008

Posted 11 July 2011 - 02:28 PM

This is all too funny by half. First, I think ESPN has a much better idea of the financial potential of this than any cheeto eater here -- and they put their money where their mouth is. Second, as far as DTV bandwidth demands -- if there is room for Fox Sport Ohio, and the appeal to the monster TV markets of Cleveland (#18), Cincinatti (#33) and Columbus (#34) -- with a combined household count of around 3.5M. then there is room for the Longhorn Network with the markets of DFW (#5), Houston (#10), San Antonio (#37), and Austin (#44), with combined households of 6.3M. It is all about the benjamins (which is really about the eyeballs), and UT delivers markets like no one else. All you add with a Big 12 network is STL (#21) and KC (#31). No value add.

I am pretty certain the naysayers here, if they could be intellectually honest, only wish their college could deliver something like this. Fact is, that for TV households, # of graduates, rabidity of fan base, and excellence across the full range of sports, no single college in the nation comes close to UT. $300M of ESPN's money says so.


Compare your (burnt) orange to this apple, Fox Sports Ohio broadcasts the Cleveland Cavaliers (NBA) and the Columbus Blue Jackets (NHL) - which accounts for a good 120-150 broadcasts between two of those teams, and supplemented by Ohio State and some games in the MAC. D* usually goes after sports networks that have significant content that is likely to have mass appeal.

The Longhorn Network as it stands now is not likely to work. BUT, if UT would broadcast ALL of their Football and Men's Basketball games and what have you, then your argument will have merit. 2 football games and 8 basketball games over the course of a 12-month period would not warrant much success unless those allotments are for every school in the Big XII, you do the math there then you will see where I am going with this.

#76 OFFLINE   I WANT MORE

I WANT MORE

    CowboySooner

  • Registered
  • 1,107 posts
  • LocationNorthern plains
Joined: Oct 03, 2006

Posted 11 July 2011 - 02:42 PM

The Longhorn Network will also broadcast Texas HS Football games.
Perhaps I Misremembered.

#77 OFFLINE   mws192

mws192

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 390 posts
Joined: Jun 17, 2010

Posted 11 July 2011 - 02:45 PM

The Longhorn Network will also broadcast Texas HS Football games.


I thought that would result in a NCAA recruiting violation.

Edit: http://www.google.co...chool violation

#78 OFFLINE   I WANT MORE

I WANT MORE

    CowboySooner

  • Registered
  • 1,107 posts
  • LocationNorthern plains
Joined: Oct 03, 2006

Posted 11 July 2011 - 02:51 PM

I thought that would result in a NCAA recruiting violation.

Edit: http://www.google.co...chool violation


IMO it should.
Perhaps I Misremembered.

#79 ONLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 13,560 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 11 July 2011 - 03:04 PM

I thought that would result in a NCAA recruiting violation.

Edit: http://www.google.co...chool violation


The site results are hilarious. Poor Aggie fans have nothing better to do. :lol:
If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

#80 ONLINE   sigma1914

sigma1914

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 13,560 posts
  • LocationAllen, TX
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Posted 11 July 2011 - 03:09 PM

IMO it should.


How? UT doesn't own the network. It's dedicated to UT, but owned and operated by ESPN who is independent of UT.
If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.




spam firewall