SMU to the Pac 10?

[smupony94]

good lord. enough with this b.s. thread. '94, get the picture.

Ok

[Sammy 11]

On this matter you are entirely wrong.
The Big 10 network is not based upon individual subscribers, but is offered on expanded basic cable in all states within the Big 10. In this way, customers do not actually pay extra money or even have to watch in order for the Big 10 to benefit financially.

In the words of one reporter

If the Big Ten were to expand east and get its network on basic cable in New York City, it would instantly receive 70 cents from 7.5 million subscribers - per month, and regardless of whether any of them actually watch or not.

The number of cable subscribers in the state of Texas is what counts, not the fanbase. And the number of cable subscribers in Texas is far greater than 320,000.

You misunderstand my point in taking 4 times the combined TCU and SMU dfw alumni. I did that to show that as a high estimate, the duo would not come close to clearing a threshold that would make cable companies put it on basic cable and pay a high fee. That 70 cent rate is an AVERAGE of what Big Ten schools have been able to get in their home markets. Now does TCU or SMU command nearly the DFW attention that Ohio State does in Cleveland or Cincinnati? That Michigan does in Detroit? That PSU gets in Philly or Pittsburgh? The duo would not command 70 cents because how would they demand networks pay it? Without enough of a local fanbase demanding it, the network would not be on basic cable and all the high rates go out the window. This setup would face the same struggle that the MTN faced. It couldn't get on basic cable outside of Utah and maybe one or two other cities. The P14 network with SMU and TCU would not come close to the Big Ten's rate even if it pulled an upset by landing on basic cable.

Example of attempt to negotiate:
Pac10: We added 2 teams in DFW, give us 70 cents for each of you subscribers.
Cable: No.
Pac: Why not?
Cable: Not nearly enough of our subscribers want it enough to justify our raising rates to pay you and put it on basic cable. We are putting you on the extra sports premium package or you get next to nothing in fees. We'll pay you handsomely in LA or Seattle or the Bay Area where you have tons of people demanding it but you get little here.
Pac: But!
Cable: Take it or leave it.
Pac: Ok.

No disrespect but on top of what we saw with the network in the Big Ten, the main tv contract is the big ticket for them and it is also where the duo would be weakest. No disrespect but its the struggle SMU faces and BU would face had the B12-2 gone bellyup.

[Samurai Stang]

You misunderstand my point in taking 4 times the combined TCU and SMU dfw alumni. I did that to show that as a high estimate, the duo would not come close to clearing a threshold that would make cable companies put it on basic cable and pay a high fee. That 70 cent rate is an AVERAGE of what Big Ten schools have been able to get in their home markets. Now does TCU or SMU command nearly the DFW attention that Ohio State does in Cleveland or Cincinnati? That Michigan does in Detroit? That PSU gets in Philly or Pittsburgh? The duo would not command 70 cents because how would they demand networks pay it? Without enough of a local fanbase demanding it, the network would not be on basic cable and all the high rates go out the window. This setup would face the same struggle that the MTN faced. It couldn't get on basic cable outside of Utah and maybe one or two other cities. The P14 network with SMU and TCU would not come close to the Big Ten's rate even if it pulled an upset by landing on basic cable.

Example of attempt to negotiate:
Pac10: We added 2 teams in DFW, give us 70 cents for each of you subscribers.
Cable: No.
Pac: Why not?
Cable: Not nearly enough of our subscribers want it enough to justify our raising rates to pay you and put it on basic cable. We are putting you on the extra sports premium package or you get next to nothing in fees. We'll pay you handsomely in LA or Seattle or the Bay Area where you have tons of people demanding it but you get little here.
Pac: But!
Cable: Take it or leave it.
Pac: Ok.

No disrespect but on top of what we saw with the network in the Big Ten, the main tv contract is the big ticket for them and it is also where the duo would be weakest. No disrespect but its the struggle SMU faces and BU would face had the B12-2 gone bellyup.

Now you are not even arguing with facts, but are using imaginary conversations with yourself as evidence.

It is part of the agreement with Comcast and other providers that the Big 10 Network must be made available as basic cable in states that have Big 10 schools. Your imaginary conversation actually took place long ago in a board room, and in reality the Big 10 won.

Hence the report I quoted from before

If the Big Ten were to expand east and get its network on basic cable in New York City, it would instantly receive 70 cents from 7.5 million subscribers - per month, and regardless of whether any of them actually watch or not.

I will not argue with you as to 70 cents being an average, for it is true. In the same way, you cannot argue that the Big 10 Network would necessarily become a basic cable station in Texas were a school in Texas to join the Big 10. Even at 30 cents, however, it would still result in a tremendous profit for the Big 10.

Also, your suggestion that rates would necessarily rise is incorrect, as has been shown with more than 150 cable companies. Additionally, the Big 10 Network further offsets the cost to cable companies by offering local advertising time, HD packages, and video-on-demand.

The Mountain was a failure for many reasons. The Big 10 Network is flawless.

[Sammy 11]

It is part of the agreement with Comcast and other providers that the Big 10 Network must be made available as basic cable in states that have Big 10 schools. Your imaginary conversation actually took place long ago in a board room, and in reality the Big 10 won.

The Big Ten dominates each market they have in their footprint and justifies the payout. Had the Big Ten started negotiating with a market that had a significantly smaller loyal audience it is not certain they could merit the same arrangement in that market.

Also, your suggestion that rates would necessarily rise is incorrect, as has been shown with more than 150 cable companies. Additionally, the Big 10 Network further offsets the cost to cable companies by offering local advertising time, HD packages, and video-on-demand.

The Mountain was a failure for many reasons. The Big 10 Network is flawless.

Big10 Network is very successful but there were doubts the P16 net could match it even with UT, OU, OSU, and Tech. Even if the unlikely result of SMU+TCU got it on basic cable in DFW and did so at a high rate via P12 agreements negotiated before their addition, they would not bring enough to impact the overall tv deal which makes the entire discussion a moot point as the Pac12 would lose money on the arrangement. Same with us if the roles were reversed.

So your premise is multi-pointed:
A- that UT's network would stop the Pac from adding them. Larry Scott says it wasnt and although I don't think he was always up front on everything this does make sense. Cash strapped schools won't let pride get in the way of 8 million a year.

B- In the absence of B12 options that SMU and TCU make the most sense. This is highly debateable as some of the other CUSA and MWC teams can make similar claims.

C- SMU and TCU would warrant enough revenue to clear the 24 million hurdle to increase school payouts or at least breakeven.

I see at least 2 of the 3 as highly incorrect. I do see SMU adding value to the Big East as it is a smaller hurdle and increases the number of live events on a possible network that would need inventory to drive ads. SMU's addition there would also be helped by the likely implementation of a championship game lowering the hurdle.

[Samurai Stang]

We are in agreement that the Big East is a far more likely scenario.

My part was not to present a conclusive argument for Pac-12 inclusion, but rather to respond to the idea of it as entirely ridiculous notion.

[Harry0569]

I know for a fact the Athletic Dept. has talked about getting into the Pac-10.

[NickSMU17]

We also called our sister school northwestern for help getting into the big 10....

Only hope we have is that some of the academic conferences put a lot of weight on that portion, PAC 10 and big 10 are the 2 dominant academic conferences in d1

[JasonB]

We are in agreement that the Big East is a far more likely scenario.

My part was not to present a conclusive argument for Pac-12 inclusion, but rather to respond to the idea of it as entirely ridiculous notion.

Yeah, except that TCU has run away from us twice... why would they be interested in having us go to the big east?

Houston will go with them to the Big East. Our stadium is not big enough for a move to a major conference right now, we would have to expand it first. Houston will announce a major stadium deal soon, and along with their recent tier 1 status, they are the prime candidate and will move with TCU.

SMU will be set up to take advantage when the Big 12-2 thing falls apart in two years. Until that happens, we won't hear about anything.

[NickSMU17]

Houston is not close to tier 1 status....

They have no money for their project which they already announced...


UCF is a better candidate than they are for big east....

[EastStang]

More kittens are dead. Anyway, I have no clue what's going to happen. Our sole focus should be on being the best team by a mile in CUSA. Without that nothing will change. While Rice football sucks, culturally it fits better with the PAC-10 than any school in Texas. Rice, Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC, Oregon, we're talking pot and granola heads. So, my guess is that if UT, TT, were unavailable to the PAC-10, then SMU and Rice would be the targets which given our current on field status is highly unlikely. If TCU fits geographically in the BE (when its west of Dallas), then SMU ought to fit in the PAC 10 even if it is in the eastern half of Texas.

[couch 'em]

I know for a fact the Athletic Dept. has talked about getting into the Pac-10.

They can talk all day, as they should, but that doesn't mean they have a chance at being successful. Even if any BCS conference is interested, we're going to have to win some serious games before they'd add us otherwise there would be a fan riot at the conference headquarters.

[couch 'em]

, then SMU and Rice would be the targets

I don't think Rice would be a target for anyone except the SunBelt. They are not trying to win. We are at least making an effort now, and improving rapidly.

[NickSMU17]

You could sell it to fans by increased revenue from TV networks, and sell it to the schools on the academic side...

[RE Tycoon]

Houston will announce a major stadium deal soon, and along with their recent tier 1 status, they are the prime candidate and will move with TCU.

If you read the article about UH's "Tier One" status, you would have seen that one publication has said they have met for the first time one measure of "tier one" status (spending a certain amount of money in one year on research). With looming budget cuts, I don't see them repeating this anytime in the near future.

The school is far from a Tier One research institution and is getting very good at spinning news. Add the Tier One tall tale to the "stadium announcement" last year and we need to look into hiring their PR firm.

As far as the stadium, I'll believe it when I see it. The last plan required $80+ million in naming rights to secure financing and that ain't happening.

[Stallion]

just to add to the discussion, I just read yesterday that the Carnegie Foundation had awarded Houston Tier 1 status as an Intense Research Institution. They seemed to think it was a big deal in the race to become the next Texas anchor school with increased state funding. But with the huge state budget deficit probably those funds won't be coming anytime soon.