Sooner Network close to reality

[theshadow]

There's nothing stopping us from working out a similar deal with Kansas, K State and FSN Midwest.

Except that a significant percentage of Iowa is served by FSN North or Comcast Chicago.

It'd be great to have an FSN Iowa, where you wouldn't have to worry about pro sports or local access programming preempting collegiate coverage. Fox keeps subdividing its regions. Not so long ago, you had just FSN Southwest. Now, in that same area, there's FSN Oklahoma, FSN Houston, and FSN Southwest (and the occasional "Plus" channels).

 

[alarson]

There are 8760 hrs in a year. This is 1000 hrs of coverage for 3rd Tier rights to a limited audience. Who gives a rat's arse. I love the way the B12 lets schools do what they want with third tier.

The whole 'third tier rights' is a mythical construct to begin with. The 'third tier' on television was just 'whatever the networks didnt want'. By allowing schools like Texas and OU to partition off some of the material for themselves, at a time when networks are really wanting the same material (live sports is the closest thing to dvr-proof they can get), it hurts the other schools in the conference. If texas doesnt blackmail the conference into getting that separate portion sidelined for itself last year, what's the offer fox had for our 2nd tier look like? Maybe it includes all the currently 'third tier' content much like the big 10 has set up.

I find it funny how texas was allowed to basically take a portion of the income that wouldve been spread throughout the conference (its now 'third tier' material) and then everyone claims that we've got equality in tv revenue here now. We dont. Sure, the ESPN\Fox contracts are equal. Texas has just moved the inequality to a different pool.

 

[CrossCyed]

The whole 'third tier rights' is a mythical construct to begin with. The 'third tier' on television was just 'whatever the networks didnt want'. By allowing schools like Texas and OU to partition off some of the material for themselves, at a time when networks are really wanting the same material (live sports is the closest thing to dvr-proof they can get), it hurts the other schools in the conference. If texas doesnt blackmail the conference into getting that separate portion sidelined for itself last year, what's the offer fox had for our 2nd tier look like? Maybe it includes all the currently 'third tier' content much like the big 10 has set up.

I find it funny how texas was allowed to basically take a portion of the income that wouldve been spread throughout the conference (its now 'third tier' material) and then everyone claims that we've got equality in tv revenue here now. We dont. Sure, the ESPN\Fox contracts are equal. Texas has just moved the inequality to a different pool.

What second tier content is Texas taking away? They can't. By definition, the third tier stuff is the stuff that fell past the first two tiers.

That second tier deal was basically unaffected because that third tier Texas stuff was never available as part of a second tier package in the first place.

That portion of the income you talk about would never have been shared around the conference unless the entire conference agreed to share all tv rights, which never would have happened, because it's what kept Texas in the Big 12.

I agree its still unequal, but we didn't have many other realistic options.

 

[alarson]

What second tier content is Texas taking away? They can't. By definition, the third tier stuff is the stuff that fell past the first two tiers.

That second tier deal was basically unaffected because that third tier Texas stuff was never available as part of a second tier package in the first place.

That portion of the income you talk about would never have been shared around the conference unless the entire conference agreed to share all tv rights, which never would have happened, because it's what kept Texas in the Big 12.

I agree its still unequal, but we didn't have many other realistic options.

The 'third tier stuff' wouldve been part of the second tier. The 'third tier' was just what they didnt want, but networks are looking for more and more content as live sports is becoming more and more valuable.

 

[isuno1fan]

The whole 'third tier rights' is a mythical construct to begin with. The 'third tier' on television was just 'whatever the networks didnt want'. By allowing schools like Texas and OU to partition off some of the material for themselves, at a time when networks are really wanting the same material (live sports is the closest thing to dvr-proof they can get), it hurts the other schools in the conference. If texas doesnt blackmail the conference into getting that separate portion sidelined for itself last year, what's the offer fox had for our 2nd tier look like? Maybe it includes all the currently 'third tier' content much like the big 10 has set up.

I find it funny how texas was allowed to basically take a portion of the income that wouldve been spread throughout the conference (its now 'third tier' material) and then everyone claims that we've got equality in tv revenue here now. We dont. Sure, the ESPN\Fox contracts are equal. Texas has just moved the inequality to a different pool.

I guarantee you the B12 will be making as much per team as anybody when all is said and done. There is no need to get your panties in a bunch over 3rd Tier.

 

[CrossCyed]

The 'third tier stuff' wouldve been part of the second tier. The 'third tier' was just what they didnt want, but networks are looking for more and more content as live sports is becoming more and more valuable.

No, it wouldn't have. That FOX contract was exclusively football. The only third tier football material is the one game per school. Which ALL schools wanted.

EDIT: It also includes all non-men's basketball championship rights and some olympic sports rights.

So, what FOX was missing out on from the LHN was Longhorn baseball, a CHANCE at the lowest demand Longhorn football game of the year, and Longhorn olympic sports.

 

[ricochet]

As long as the one football game a year is non-conference I'm totally fine with it. In a lot of ways I like the idea of part time on existing RSNs over a stand alone network because it eliminates the whole carriage problem.

 

[Rogue52]

Of course I agree with everyone that doesn't understand why we just can't come together and form a conference network (minus TX).

But it's pretty simple, OU thinks they are good enough to be on UT's level and want to prove it. So fine, go have your **** measuring match.

 

[HouClone]

I agree with most that this likely will not be a good thing. Sure, it is 3rd tier stuff but we saw what happened with the LHN. They paid off Fox to get a 2nd tier game so to speak. So now you are talking of intruding on 2nd tier stuff with these school networks. Also, who does ESPN and Fox want the most to be shown on Saturdays - Texas and Oklahoma. When the 1st and 2nd tier rights come up again down the road, the bidding for 1st and 2nd tier rights by ESPN and Fox will be much less than if there were not any individual school networks in my opinion since I see Texas or Oklahoma games “slippingâ€￾ to 3rd tier (owned by ESPN and Fox coincidently). As some others pointed out, a conference is not stable when individual members look to themselves first before the good of the conference. We’ll see what happens and maybe it all works out. We don’t have many options anyways so we will have to take it.

 

[Tre4ISU]

To me this is dumb. Why not team up with the rest of the Big 12 schools and get a member dedicated network. The divide amongst the conference will continue to grow with the 'everyone for themselves attitude.'

The remaining schools united would have had a great network not including Texas. I do not see how this ends well for the conference.

Of course you don't. Shocking.

 

[IcSyU]

I agree with most that this likely will not be a good thing. Sure, it is 3rd tier stuff but we saw what happened with the LHN. They paid off Fox to get a 2nd tier game so to speak. So now you are talking of intruding on 2nd tier stuff with these school networks. Also, who does ESPN and Fox want the most to be shown on Saturdays - Texas and Oklahoma. When the 1st and 2nd tier rights come up again down the road, the bidding for 1st and 2nd tier rights by ESPN and Fox will be much less than if there were not any individual school networks in my opinion since I see Texas or Oklahoma games “slippingâ€￾ to 3rd tier (owned by ESPN and Fox coincidently). As some others pointed out, a conference is not stable when individual members look to themselves first before the good of the conference. We’ll see what happens and maybe it all works out. We don’t have many options anyways so we will have to take it.

You obviously are clueless if you think the networks are going to allow Oklahoma and Texas to fall to third tier. You do realize they're in business to make money, right? Hmmm...what gets more viewers...Iowa State vs Kansas State or Oklahoma/Texas vs anybody?

 

[cyman05]

I agree with most that this likely will not be a good thing. Sure, it is 3rd tier stuff but we saw what happened with the LHN. They paid off Fox to get a 2nd tier game so to speak. So now you are talking of intruding on 2nd tier stuff with these school networks. Also, who does ESPN and Fox want the most to be shown on Saturdays - Texas and Oklahoma. When the 1st and 2nd tier rights come up again down the road, the bidding for 1st and 2nd tier rights by ESPN and Fox will be much less than if there were not any individual school networks in my opinion since I see Texas or Oklahoma games “slipping” to 3rd tier (owned by ESPN and Fox coincidently). As some others pointed out, a conference is not stable when individual members look to themselves first before the good of the conference. We’ll see what happens and maybe it all works out. We don’t have many options anyways so we will have to take it.

1. As was stated before, UT and OU games are not falling to 3rd tier. In fact, the new 2nd tier Fox contract that starts in 2012 states that all Big 12 conference games will either be Tier 1 or 2. That means this past season was the last one with ISU having a conference game not televised.

2. As to your point about UT paying off Fox to get a 2nd tier game on the Longhorn network, I believe that ESPN/ABC used a 1st tier pick to put on their 3rd tier network to try to get more subscribers, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyways, you'd never have to worry about the same deal with OU because (1) the Fox Regional networks aren't trying to get more subscribers and (2) Fox will be the owner of OU's 2nd AND 3rd tier rights. So whether the OU game was a 2nd or 3rd tier pick you'd see it on the same channel regardless.

 

[mt85]

Perhaps ISU should give up the Cyclone Radio Network and CloneZone? It's essentially the same thing... :SLEEP:

You're right it is just like the Big Ten network. I guess all those schools fleeing this conference didn't realize how good they had it.

There really are some deep thinkers on these forums.

 

[MIClone]

When the hell are we going to have a Big 12 Network?!?

 

[twojman]

When the hell are we going to have a Big 12 Network?!?

Conference networks are not good. They maximize value for each team and allow the conference to be more competitive with other conferences. The Big 12 does not need that. As long as Oklahoma and Texas are happy the Big 12 will survive. Nobody else matters. Every other team in the league is a joke and are fodder for Texas and Oklahoma. This conference belongs to Texas and Oklahoma, the other schools are just lucky to get scraps that they allow them to have. Conference networks help no one.

 

[XOVERX]

I want to tiptoe into this conversation very carefully as there appears to be some general unhappiness with the way Tier 3 income is handled in the B12. I thought ya'll would be intrigued by this developing OU deal with FOX, since maybe you could do something similar, but that doesn't appear to be the case, by and large.

My first questions are: Why doesn't ISU cut a deal with one of the networks to produce Tier 3 ISU programming for carriage in Iowa and surrounding states? Okay, maybe a 24/7 network like the LHN is a bit much, but how about something sort of like OU is doing? Or like Kansas does for basketball?

And if the networks won't produce ISU programming, why not set up production yourself within ISU, like BYU has done? Couldn't it be accomplished in association with the school curriculum? Is this just silly? Is it still way too expensive? BYU does it, though, right?

It seems to me that if ISU could get some programming going statewide, it would be a great thing, possibly even pushing ISU past the Hawkeyes?

Upthread there is talk about a pooling of Tier 3 material with other schools, like KSU, OSU, and others. Okay, how about that? If that kind of production could bring an extra $1-$2M per year to start, wouldn't that be worth it? A good thing?

The hope is that the way the B12 handles Tier 3 revenue will attract some schools in the bigger markets for expansion purposes. We all know that ESPN/FOX are moving up the league's contract for renegotiation this month (January 2012). The B12's goal is to try to cut a deal for Tier 1 and 2 worth $35M per year per school, plus Tier 3 over and above that, and that can't be accomplished with immediate expansion.

Anyhow, I hate to see so many of you guys apparently unhappy over this Tier 3 business because I really like the Cyclones in the Big 12, and I would hate to lose you guys. BTW, I hope the B12 can hit its goal of $35M because all our schools can use the money.

 

[theshadow]

My first questions are: Why doesn't ISU cut a deal with one of the networks to produce Tier 3 ISU programming for carriage in Iowa and surrounding states? Okay, maybe a 24/7 network like the LHN is a bit much, but how about something sort of like OU is doing? Or like Kansas does for basketball?

And if the networks won't produce ISU programming, why not set up production yourself within ISU, like BYU has done? Couldn't it be accomplished in association with the school curriculum? Is this just silly? Is it still way too expensive? BYU does it, though, right?

It seems to me that if ISU could get some programming going statewide, it would be a great thing, possibly even pushing ISU past the Hawkeyes?

Upthread there is talk about a pooling of Tier 3 material with other schools, like KSU, OSU, and others. Okay, how about that? If that kind of production could bring an extra $1-$2M per year to start, wouldn't that be worth it? A good thing?

*The state of Iowa is served by 3 different RSN (FS Midwest, FS North, Comcast Chicago), not 1 (FS Oklahoma). Harder to package content across three stations.

*Learfield hasn't done ISU any favors in the MBB TV department. Pre-Learfield, ISU had one statewide network (CTN) that showed 12 games per year with an ESPN Regional production tag. Now, it's been split into two independent third-tier productions (CTN, Mediacom) with lower production value.

*Iowa State (the university, not the AD) had its own TV station (WOI, an ABC affiliate) until 1994 -- which was also used as a hands-on "lab" for journalism students -- when the state's Board of Regents forced its sale thanks to strongarm tactics from people affiliated with the U of Iowa. Some folks are still bitter about that, and they should be.

*Iowa State's best investment will be to upgrade and expand its online presence. They already have HD cameras at their disposal. Now it's a matter of adding to the presentation aspect of the video streams.