1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Longhorn Network

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by jon99, Jul 5, 2011.

  1. Sep 5, 2011 #361 of 691
    davidatl14

    davidatl14 Icon

    551
    2
    Mar 24, 2006
    This

    Limit the top tier teams to 64, ideally 4-16 team mega Conferences. others can pound sand or play FCS..
     
  2. Sep 5, 2011 #362 of 691
    mhking

    mhking Legend

    567
    0
    Oct 27, 2002
    Atlanta
    Well, Duke sucks anyway, so they won't count. The others? I can agree with you more or less. The system right now is broken, I don't think anyone can deny that.

    There needs to be SOME kind of fix put in place that gets away from this flip-a-coin-who-has-the-most-money BCS crap that we're stuck with.
     
  3. Sep 5, 2011 #363 of 691
    djzack67

    djzack67 Icon

    899
    0
    Sep 18, 2007
    This network would be a nice addition
     
  4. Sep 5, 2011 #364 of 691
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Yes. A playoff with teams determined by a select committee like they do in basketball.
     
  5. Sep 5, 2011 #365 of 691
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,661
    1,103
    Nov 13, 2006
    I wouldn't even consider adding that channel right now if I where DirecTV. I'd wait till next summer at the earliest, because chances are it's not even going to be around in it's current state in a year when the big 12 gets eaten alive by all the other conferences. Why over pay for it today when you will be able to get it cheap in a year? If there'd wasn't the conference issues, I'd say grab it now if possible too, but...

    I just hope they pick up all the PAC channels.
     
  6. Sep 6, 2011 #366 of 691
    Shades228

    Shades228 DaBears

    6,081
    45
    Mar 18, 2008
    National carriers will not want to pick this channel up no matter what the popularity of it is. If they do this they just pave the way for every other large college football or basketball program to setup the same thing.

    ESPN sees the writing on the wall with the NFL, NBA, MLB networks and know that eventually they won't have game rights for those sports like they do today. College sports is where they will start to segment the market more and start to drive more money.
     
  7. Sep 6, 2011 #367 of 691
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    You really believe that?
     
  8. Sep 6, 2011 #368 of 691
    TANK

    TANK Icon DBSTalk Club

    910
    2
    Feb 16, 2003
    FLORIDA
    I disagree ,the NFL isn't going to give up the money from ESPN to put those games on the NFL network. The NFL network doesn't reach enough viewers now. TheNFL network must allow local coverage for the two teams playing on those Thursday night games. No way the NFL network gets MNF instead of ESPN.


    ESPN needs the NFL to keep getting those obscene rights from cable and sat companies.

    As for the NBA and MLB - as long as ratings are high enough to justify the rights paid for those games,ESPN keeps those games.

    I don't see the NBA channel or the MLB channel getting enough from increased ad dollars and sub fees that they would turn down all those $$$$ ESPN pays for those games.


    Also I doubt many collage commissioners are going to allow individual school networks. That would just devalue all current and future tv contracts for each sport .
     
  9. Sep 6, 2011 #369 of 691
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    The Big XII is the only conference that allows networks like LHN. And an analyst on espn said he thinks no one will ever do it again. So espn is hardly thinking this is the future. The just grabbed at something they thought would work.
     
  10. Sep 6, 2011 #370 of 691
    George_T

    George_T Legend

    326
    10
    Sep 19, 2002
    As probably the only Akron Zip fan on this board, I count it as a blessing that Akron is not Alabama! ;)
     
  11. Sep 6, 2011 #371 of 691
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    LOL!
     
  12. Sep 6, 2011 #372 of 691
    jmpfaff

    jmpfaff AllStar

    56
    0
    Dec 12, 2004
    There is a clear trend among professional teams for the local rights to move from RSNs to team owned stations. (My Rockets and Astros switch to that model very soon) Most of the team owned stations subsequently look like RSNs, making the trend hard to spot, but the profit distribution is changing radically.

    The national rights are a more interesting story...as I have long suspected that the networks are running the NFL at a loss in order to promote their other programming. If ESPN is losing money on MNF, then clearly that makes more sense than the NFL keeping it on the NFLN.

    But if MNF is profitable on ESPN...as soon as NFLN has enough distribution to match the ad revenue from ESPN, well, then NFLN will be able to "outbid" ESPN for those rights since it is essentially a non-profit in that scenario.
     
  13. Sep 6, 2011 #373 of 691
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Every show on a network does not have to make money. ESPN feels it is a power because of what it carries and the cache it brings. Not to mention the myriad of shows that revolve around their weekly game.

    As for the pro teams owning their networks, that ranges from owing them outright (Yankees and Orioles) to being partners (the rest of them). But they don't just look like RSNs, they ARE RSNs. They are just not 100% owned by Fox or Comcast or Directv, etc.
     
  14. Sep 6, 2011 #374 of 691
    mortimer

    mortimer Legend

    146
    0
    Nov 5, 2007
    ESPN is paying UT for the LHN whether anyone carries it or not. So I don't see ESPN doing anything but play hardball with national cable/sat carriers. They have to recoup that money somehow, and they are in a strong negotiating position, esp. with D*, the self-claimed sports leader.
     
  15. Sep 6, 2011 #375 of 691
    inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    22,661
    1,103
    Nov 13, 2006
    Yeah, but those sport owned rsn s... Who really owns all of them. The lakers will have their own network next year, and it will likely find a baseball team to join them, likely the dodgers. But guess who is bankrolling it and setting it up. Twc. Most of the team owned stations are actually a joint venture with a broadcaster that allows them to take more profit sharing and have more control in the station, rather than the system now where teams don't have as much control of the stations.
     
  16. Sep 6, 2011 #376 of 691
    JoeTheDragon

    JoeTheDragon Hall Of Fame

    4,639
    34
    Jul 21, 2008
    that why the teams dumped FSN Chicago and starred CSN Chicago.
     
  17. Sep 7, 2011 #377 of 691
    TANK

    TANK Icon DBSTalk Club

    910
    2
    Feb 16, 2003
    FLORIDA
    Here is an article from a lawyer "is a noted expert on business and legal issues in professional sports" She has her own website and has read the contract between Texas and ESPN. She writes about Texas options of going to PAC 12 or going independent for Forbes.







    http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsm...rk-isnt-a-roadblock-for-texas-to-join-pac-12/
     
  18. Sep 7, 2011 #378 of 691
    skylab

    skylab Legend

    122
    1
    Dec 5, 2007
    The ironic thing is that "best efforts" to have a game aired on the Longhorn Network means scheduling a game that no other network (e.g., ESPN, ABC, etc.) would want to carry. Looks like a steady diet of at least once a year cupcakes (or should I say Rice cakes) in the future for Texas football.
     
  19. Sep 7, 2011 #379 of 691
    jmpfaff

    jmpfaff AllStar

    56
    0
    Dec 12, 2004
    And what exactly is the Longhorn Network?

    The only difference is that ESPN is bankrolling it, rather than either Comcast or TWC. ESPN sees future losses to this type of setup, so they are getting into this business. It is just that they are doing it in a big way.

    And while they may be RSNs from a pure definition standpoint, this network setup is extremely different than a classical RSN. They have a tremendous conflict of interest inherent in their structure. And they are more focused on building a brand than attracting loyal viewership. The "Laker Network" can't go fully national because of NBA territorial restrictions. But I bet the Lakers push that channel to cable systems in every DMA that the NBA lets them into.

    Which is exactly what ESPN and Texas are doing!
     
  20. Sep 8, 2011 #380 of 691
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    I see LHN more like BTN or the Mountain rather than a local team oriented RSN. They intend to go national and with Fios already have.

    In most of the team RSNs there is not much more conflict of interest than in a traditional RSN. the announcers are typically hired by the teams regardless of who owns the station.
     

Share This Page