Longhorn Netowrk is a resounding success....for the SEC

[RunLeeRun]

Kevin Jairaj / USA TODAY Sports​

On Aug. 26, 2011, the Longhorn Network, a joint partnership of Texas and ESPN, launched to equal parts acclaim and controversy. ESPN had inked a 20-year deal that guaranteed Texas $300 million for the newly christened LHN, an average of $15 million a year over the life of the partnership. Texas Longhorn administrators and fans heralded the new network as the product that would make Texas a truly national brand. Sportswriters wrote feverish columns speculating on who the next school to follow in the Longhorn footsteps and launch its own network would be. It was truly a proud day for Longhorn supporters -- the beginning, they believed, of a generation of dominant athletics.
But the rest of the Big 12 eyed the new network apprehensively. Having recently chosen not to join the Pac-10's audacious expansion bid to 16 schools, Texas had driven a high price to remain in the Big 12 -- the Longhorn Network was its prize. While ESPN has received much of the criticism for the LHN's launch, if ESPN hadn't partnered with Texas on the channel then it's likely Fox or Comcast or another major media company would have stepped up to launch the channel. Those other companies may not have paid as much as ESPN, but one thing was certain -- if the Longhorns were staying in the Big 12, Texas was going to have its own network.



So as we near the four-year anniversary of the network's launch, it's worth asking: How's the Longhorn Network doing?

The answer depends on who you ask.
According to SNL Kagan, the Longhorn Network now has 6.5 million in-state subscribers paying an average rate of .29 a month. Based on SNL's numbers, that means in 2015 the Longhorn Network will bring in $22.6 million in revenue from those 6.5 million subscribers in Texas. ESPN doesn't comment on particular revenue numbers for channels, but ESPN says the LHN actually has 20 million subscribers. That's a big difference in subscriber numbers, but when you parse the difference between those subscriber numbers, the revenue isn't much different. That's because, according to SNL Kagan, all of the national subscribers outside the state of Texas -- that's roughly 13.5 million subscribers -- are paying $0.02 a month, or $0.24 a year, for the Longhorn Network.

HA HA!!

Those 13.5 million subscribers would add just $3.2 million more a year in revenue, meaning after four years the Longhorn Network is still just doing $25.8 million a year in revenue. (Putting that number in a sports TV context, the Longhorn Network is on pace to do less revenue in 20 years than Mayweather-Pacquiao did in one night of pay-per-view boxing.)

DAAAAMMNN!!

Given that ESPN has guaranteed Texas in the neighborhood of $15 million a year and the costs to launch and run the network were substantial, this also means ESPN has lost money every year the Longhorn Network has existed. Those losses likely run into the tens of millions of dollars so far. And while the Longhorns were guaranteed a payment that averages $15 million a year and ESPN isn't bouncing checks, the rumored millions of additional dollars that could materialize from a successful network are not ever going to arrive.

This can't get any better, can it?

There are roughly 100 million cable and satellite subscribers in the country, and just over 6 percent of them are paying more than a quarter a year for the LHN, according to SNL Kagan. Even by ESPN's own internal numbers a tiny segment of the cable and satellite audience has access to the channel. That's disappointing for Texas, because the Longhorn Network was launched as a major national recruiting tool. The Longhorn Network was also supposed to make Texas a national brand. Unfortunately for Texas, the SEC Network is in 69 million paying homes. The Big Ten Network is in 62 million paying homes. And all of those subscribers are paying a lot more than a quarter a year to the conferences.

Indeed it can!

Indeed, the biggest irony of the Longhorn Network is this: In deciding to create its own channel, Texas made much more money for two Big 12 schools that left for the SEC -- Texas A&M and Missouri -- than it's going to make for itself. That's because both Texas A&M and Missouri stand to make much more money off the SEC Network than Texas will ever make off the Longhorn Network. Nebraska, in the Big Ten, will also be making more television money than Texas.

Thank you, Texas.

And here's the craziest fact of all: If the Longhorn Network hadn't existed, then the SEC Network wouldn't have existed either. Without Texas A&M leaving for the SEC, the SEC's own network wasn't lucrative enough to undertake. It was the eight million cable and satellite subscribers in Texas that made the SEC Network financially viable. Here's some simple math for you: Every major cable and satellite subscriber in Texas pays around $16.80 a year for the SEC Network. Every major cable and satellite subscriber in Texas -- except for those with Comcast, which doesn't carry it -- pays $3.48 for the Longhorn Network. So right now in Texas, the only state paying more than a quarter a year for the Longhorn Network, the SEC Network makes nearly five times as much every month. (Nationwide the SEC Network, on pace to do nearly $550 million in revenue this year, makes nearly 22 times as much money a month as the Longhorn Network.)

Oh that's fucking rich. So, Texas did make a powerhouse of a Network....just for Aggie and the SEC. BWWWAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAA!!!! And on top of all that salt in the wound in costs 5 times as much.

Here's the LINK.

 

[GoSooners]

I wish OU had never hitched it's wagon to Bevo's ass. This school is a stand alone virus unto itself. But the problem for OU though is they aren't a stand alone school. They need Texas in the same way as OSU needs OU. If not, they would be having the same problems as Nebraska in recruiting. I hate it, but those are the facts. The problem for Texas is they are stuck with the LHN. Which means if the Big 12 ever broke up, with their TV deal their only option would be to go Independent unless ESPN mutually wants out of the contract, which they might by then since they've already taken a big hit on it.

 

[RunLeeRun]

Oklahoma helped build college football. It should be making the money TAM and Mizzery are bringing in. The recruiting game just has to get more creative. Have you stopped to look at how the tippy top recruits, talking top 300, have dropped off in Texas over the years? Like you opine about east coast kids, I don't think the ceiling is very high on Texas kids....for whatever reason..... and, perhaps, this proliferation of 7 on 7 isn't good for football development.

 

[GoSooners]

Oklahoma helped build college football. It should be making the money TAM and Mizzery are bringing in. The recruiting game just has to get more creative. Have you stopped to look at how the tippy top recruits, talking top 300, have dropped off in Texas over the years? Like you opine about east coast kids, I don't think the ceiling is very high on Texas kids....for whatever reason..... and, perhaps, this proliferation of 7 on 7 isn't good for football development.

The biggest problem with Texas isn't the quality of players as much as it is the number of schools that are now fighting over them. When TCU became a part of the conference and a Power 5 program it watered down the recruiting even further. That's why they don't want any more Texas teams in the Big 12. Plus we now have the SEC coming in and raiding more players. Mainly due to the downsizing of the Big 12, and some of these other schools no longer being a part of it. So the Bama's and LSU's are taking up where the Mizzou's and Nebraska's left off. And they are getting some high star recruits. I agree about the 7 on 7. It's good for players getting more exposure, but I don't see where it can be good for player development when it is a completely different game. It's basically just catch and run on steroids. They say it works well as a training tool. But I'm skeptical...

 

[BigdaddyQH]

I see no relief for the Big 12 in it's current configuration. Why OU is so dependent on Texas is way beyond me. The results are obvious. Since 2010, both OU and Texas have lost a great deal of stature in the NCAA Football scene, and losing stature means losing recruits. While there still may be some hope for OU, Texas, with their tough arse HC, is doomed to several years of futility. Right now I have TCU and BAylor fighting it out for the top spot this season, with Oklahoma State 3rd and OU 4th. Texas maybe be #5 in a 10 team conference. My how the mighty have fallen.

 

[groundhog11]

The longhorn network will turn into a big12 network in a few yrs...

 

[CoachCB]

The SEC Network is killing it. It's making the same as all of the other college "networks" COMBINED!

 

[RunLeeRun]

Dont forget the name is the SEC ESPN Network. They got half the name, so half off the top. Still the SEC is banking it. By 2017-18, both the SEC and Big Ten could be distributing 40+ mil per school. Of course its all about markets, which is why the Big Ten went after NY and DC. The SEC has more top markets, so expect the Big Ten to continue to look for areas to invade. They dont want to fall behind this arms race. I think I saw where the Pac 12 is way behind, maybe 15 mil or more. They just have to go after Texas.

 

[RunLeeRun]

Turns out nobody is watching BYU either. Another flop deal for ESPN. Perhaps, its the nail to coffin reason why the B12 has never offered the Cougers.

Here is a sample of the games against the best teams on BYU's 2014 schedule:

August 29, season opener on Monday at Connecticut: TV ratings 0.7, 1.08M viewers (ESPN)

September 5, BYU vs. Texas: TV ratings 0.5, 910K viewers ( FS1)

September 11, on Thursday night vs. Houston: TV ratings 0.6, 1.05M viewers (ESPN)

September 20, BYU vs. Virginia: TV ratings 1.0, 1.64M viewers (ESPN)

Those below-average ratings and viewership came as BYU went 4-0 and before the Cougars had even lost their starting quarterback. Even the game on October 23, BYU vs Boise State, drew a rating of only 0.6 and a viewership of just 1.02 million (ESPN). This game was one of Boise State's lowest draws.

 

[groundhog11]

I don't think big12 will go with byu...they could of been added before or as team 11...once they added WVU, the move was to the east.

 

[RunLeeRun]

I've come to the opinion that the tv dollars trumph all in future conference expansion plans. That's the only way to explain Maryland/Rutgers. Rutgers program is junk, but they offer a door to a big market. Thats why Im thinking any program that expands the B12 tv footprint is a good pick. Who cares if it waters down the product some. Who cares if the stadium only holds 40-50k. Attendance is down anyway. Its all about tv $. Got to get into Florida even if its UCF.

 

[GoSooners]

I've come to the opinion that the tv dollars trumph all in future conference expansion plans. That's the only way to explain Maryland/Rutgers. Rutgers program is junk, but they offer a door to a big market. Thats why Im thinking any program that expands the B12 tv footprint is a good pick. Who cares if it waters down the product some. Who cares if the stadium only holds 40-50k. Attendance is down anyway. Its all about tv $. Got to get into Florida even if its UCF.

I say no thanks to the SMU's Tulane's, Rice and all of the other never will be's out there. From a fan stanpoint I can't even stand the teams we have now. I look at some of the great teams that used to come to Norman, and then I look at this year's schedule of Akron, Tulsa, WV, Iowa St and Texas Tech and it makes me long for the old days. I miss the Nebraska's, Missouri's and the Aggies. Replacing them with Memphis Or Tulane just doesn't do it for me as a fan of good college football. I much rather the Big 12 just break up and we get some of the Pac-12 teams or bigtime SEC programs coming to town.

 

[RunLeeRun]

I agree with you. But what do you think is more likely?

 

[GoSooners]

I agree with you. But what do you think is more likely?

I don't know. If given a choice i would choose the Pac-12. Mainly because it isn't as top heavy as the SEC and would be easier to win. And also because I have a few friends on the west coast, and going to games would give me a chance to go visit them. I just don't think it is very likely the Big 12 gets two more teams. But I could be wrong. It depends on how soon desperation starts to set in. Then all bets are off.

 

[sendacash]

Hey if you had told me that one day Baylor would be better than Oklahoma and TCU would be better than Texas, I would have said you are out of your cotton picken mind. But look what has happened, both are now clearly better without a doubt. Amazing job by those two programs, Baylor in particular as that was long a football wasteland

 

[MackDonald]

I say no thanks to the SMU's Tulane's, Rice and all of the other never will be's out there. From a fan stanpoint I can't even stand the teams we have now. I look at some of the great teams that used to come to Norman, and then I look at this year's schedule of Akron, Tulsa, WV, Iowa St and Texas Tech and it makes me long for the old days. I miss the Nebraska's, Missouri's and the Aggies. Replacing them with Memphis Or Tulane just doesn't do it for me as a fan of good college football. I much rather the Big 12 just break up and we get some of the Pac-12 teams or bigtime SEC programs coming to town.

Sooner........Always remember, when a man gets older he needs to add a little more seasoning and "hot Sauce" on his food to tantalize his pallet, this goes for his football as well. You've seen and been to so many games during your life-time, the clashes against the Tulsa's, Akron's and Tulane's don't cut-it for you anymore. Of Course you yearn for the "old days".......we all do.

 

[groundhog11]

I think in a few more yrs after the playoffs settle, conferences are a few more yrs into gor deal...then some more movement may happen...I still think we could end up with 4-16 team conferences...acc or big12 will go away, and I'm betting it's the acc...

 

[groundhog11]

I say no thanks to the SMU's Tulane's, Rice and all of the other never will be's out there. From a fan stanpoint I can't even stand the teams we have now. I look at some of the great teams that used to come to Norman, and then I look at this year's schedule of Akron, Tulsa, WV, Iowa St and Texas Tech and it makes me long for the old days. I miss the Nebraska's, Missouri's and the Aggies. Replacing them with Memphis Or Tulane just doesn't do it for me as a fan of good college football. I much rather the Big 12 just break up and we get some of the Pac-12 teams or bigtime SEC programs coming to town.

Terrible home schedule sooners...that would be tough if you were a season ticket holder...last time in norman,a ton of people drove in from Dallas that I remember talking too...forget how long it is from there...but with minimum 2 night stay for hotel that gets expensive to drive in for those types of games...

 

[groundhog11]

I don't know. If given a choice i would choose the Pac-12. Mainly because it isn't as top heavy as the SEC and would be easier to win. And also because I have a few friends on the west coast, and going to games would give me a chance to go visit them. I just don't think it is very likely the Big 12 gets two more teams. But I could be wrong. It depends on how soon desperation starts to set in. Then all bets are off.

you would choose pac over sec?

 

[RunLeeRun]

Scheduling lulls are happening to Nebraska too, since the Big Ten went to 14 teams and split NU from the Michigan teams. Big Ten West is the old Big 12 North, but 14 is not a good number for a conference. NU in 2014: Fl-Atl, FBS, Mia-Fl,Ill, Pur, Rut, Minn. That isnt stellar either. 2015 is a little better. 2016 sucks except for Oregon. NU doesnt even play PSU again until 2017, Michigin til 2019.