By the way, MattSarz posted this link that more or less refutes a lot of stuff in the blog. Those reading the original blog should check it out:

Texas Contract with ESPN

The only thing interesting in the contract that we didn't know before is that UT and ESPN knew from the beginning they were going to try to grab 2 FB games a year. How the heck were they planning on doing that? Were they really going to buy a game from Fox every year for the LHN? They both knew that UT only had rights to 1 game a year. Everything else was sold off in the last contract.

As for the B12-UT network, I think it could work, but it would take a lot of start-up money. I'm sure you could get a couple mil a school from it after a while, but the conference is so shaky, who wants to invest all the cash it would take to get it started? This is where losing CU really hurts. Losing the Colorado market was a huge hit to dreams of a B12N.

Many people are SHOCKED by the Spadilly FOIA request and are taking what the commentary says at face value. They aren't questioning how these conclusions are reached, they are just running with them.

Most of it comes from The Midnight Yell

They run a commentary I find very misleading.

Example: "This contract prohibits UT from appearing on a league network"

Lets analyze the contract basis and the claim:

Aggy said:

Aggy Wrote:However, the University of Texas and IMG has agreed that no content featuring Texas would be made available to that conference network and would violate the agreement with ESPN. The other nine conference members would have to put together a network without Texas and it's content.

Dead wrong IMO when you look at the part of the contract they actually cite for it.



i- This can be summed up, don't put another LHN together while we are working with you. Like many things in the legal world, they have to write things with zero wiggle room based on centuries of people being dishonest and hiring lawyers for cases with no legs to stand on.

ii- License any network content to any 3rd party- The content we have bought (UT tier 3 home games) can't be licensed elsewhere. Says nothing about road games which is what a B12 network or Boomer network would use.

iii- Last chance for them to be right.... and they aren't. It's just a loose writing of things to cover loopholes.

So the blog decided that "don't sell your home tier 3 content to anyone else" means "you can't appear on another branded network!"

Lets quickly evaluate what else they commented on.

- UT must get 2 football games!: They only acknowledged a desire to do so. Still subject to B12 & NCAA rules and also the minimum outlined was 1 game. Not accurate at all.

-UT was lying when they said they didn't know ESPN was moving forward with a 2nd league game:
Looks bad but plausible because...

Any decision to broadcast more than two games is subject to mutual decision. Not two, more than two.

Quote: I guess this also makes void Chip Brown and the Longhorn's spin that "Texas had no idea what ESPN was doing, it was their fault". It's not ESPN alone when there is a "mutual desire" is it?
“This was ESPN acting on its own,” one high-ranking administrator in the Big 12 said. “I don’t think Texas even knew where ESPN was in the process of trying to get this conference game secured. DeLoss Dodds has been very open and forthcoming with all the schools in the Big 12.

It is saying they did not know they were trying to secure it at the time. UT could have been waiting to go about it a different way. Shady but plausible. Definitely the most disturbing thing when you look at it objectively.

-UT going after road game content:

Quote:If that isn't unsettling, ESPN and the University of Texas is also in an agreement to get live sporting events when the Longhorns play AWAY from home and say in Norman or Stillwater.

Vague terminology just stipulates they try if it is available. The Big 12 already dealt with it anyway.

The phrase "reasonable best efforts" is still subject to B12 & NCAA rules. Yawn.


- B12 championships, extra league games, and extra HS games: "Reasonable best efforts" is vague and completely subject to both parties acting within Big 12 and NCAA rules... again. Each entity will have a say in the HS game issue and the Big 12 already handles the Big 12 game issue and will likely handle B12 championship for smaller sport issues in the same way. Pay us Fort Knox or we don't sign off.

-Indy right of first refusal: Taking this to mean UT is going indy is like saying a life insurance policy is written with the intent of dying soon. It is nothing more than covering the bases in a world where TCU is in the Big East after being in the Mountain West. Preparing for anything, in other words.

- The Agreement will live on if UT leaves the conference: ESPN holding on to what they are currently buying. It would be stupid not to have this clause.

-Hire & fire clause: This is a provision to be able to remove a subpar or racist or otherwise offensive employee should UT & ESPN not see eye to eye. The coverage will be favorable already and the media storm (think CBS & Fox would like to give that personality face time in an interview?) will likely keep that in check. Even if it doesn't it's a source you expect bias from. Nobody expects Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann to be moderate and people will likely consider the source.

-Videos to benefit UT: Not a huge deal as watching the LHN is already slanting UT like the B10 network does it's schools. I think this is probably just ESPN locking out competitors from doing UT athletics documentaries but admittedly this is an area I am less sure about than the rest.

-Out clauses. UT has already carved out the minimum # of events. Pretty understandable that ESPN would end it if the content they put as a minimum is not there. However the Ags claim HS & additional football would do it, and neither is outlined as necessary in the contract.

So a ton of sizzle but no real steak. UT looks shady at the "ESPN did this without us" part but it is at least plausible. The UT cannot appear on a B12 network is BS and everything else is pretty much expected but has to stay within B12 & NCAA rules. Nothing more damaging than what was previously reported IMO. However the spin is everywhere.

No matter how much you try to make this seem like it isn't a big deal and is perfectly reasonable, it comes down to this; ESPN/UT's interests are in direct conflict with the interest of the Big 12 conference.

No one but Baylor and ISU are happy and this conference is going to break apart sooner rather than later.

(08-08-2011 12:04 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  Many people are SHOCKED by the Spadilly FOIA request and are taking what the commentary says at face value. They aren't questioning how these conclusions are reached, they are just running with them.

I was noticing that too. I could not see a lot of the text on my computer, but one or two I did certainly made me question them myself.

(08-08-2011 12:16 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  No matter how much you try to make this seem like it isn't a big deal and is perfectly reasonable, it comes down to this; ESPN/UT's interests are in direct conflict with the interest of the Big 12 conference.

No one but Baylor and ISU are happy and this conference is going to break apart sooner rather than later.

Where is my assessment wrong on a point by point basis?

(08-07-2011 09:58 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  There is a lot of good tidbits in that agreement.

Texas should just take its football program independent and play in the Big XII for other sport. The Big XII would probably accept that deal.

Texas would continue to play TAMU, OU, Texas Tech every year which will all now have an extra game to fill in on the year. BYU and Texas can play every year. A yearly game against LSU too.

For the remainder of the games, Texas will be playing at HOME making massive cash. They can design the schedule in such a way that they almost always win 10 games.

If you think the Big12 schools would allow Texas to go indy in football and leave their other sports in the Big12 you are incredibly naive.

(08-08-2011 10:52 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  By the way, MattSarz posted this link that more or less refutes a lot of stuff in the blog. Those reading the original blog should check it out:

Texas Contract with ESPN

I bet the writer, Kristi Dosh is from Texas..............

(08-08-2011 12:04 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  Many people are SHOCKED by the Spadilly FOIA request and are taking what the commentary says at face value. They aren't questioning how these conclusions are reached, they are just running with them.

Most of it comes from The Midnight Yell

They run a commentary I find very misleading.

Example: "This contract prohibits UT from appearing on a league network"

Lets analyze the contract basis and the claim:

Aggy said:

Aggy Wrote:However, the University of Texas and IMG has agreed that no content featuring Texas would be made available to that conference network and would violate the agreement with ESPN. The other nine conference members would have to put together a network without Texas and it's content.

Dead wrong IMO when you look at the part of the contract they actually cite for it.



i- This can be summed up, don't put another LHN together while we are working with you. Like many things in the legal world, they have to write things with zero wiggle room based on centuries of people being dishonest and hiring lawyers for cases with no legs to stand on.

ii- License any network content to any 3rd party- The content we have bought (UT tier 3 home games) can't be licensed elsewhere. Says nothing about road games which is what a B12 network or Boomer network would use.

iii- Last chance for them to be right.... and they aren't. It's just a loose writing of things to cover loopholes.

So the blog decided that "don't sell your home tier 3 content to anyone else" means "you can't appear on another branded network!"

Lets quickly evaluate what else they commented on.

- UT must get 2 football games!: They only acknowledged a desire to do so. Still subject to B12 & NCAA rules and also the minimum outlined was 1 game. Not accurate at all.

-UT was lying when they said they didn't know ESPN was moving forward with a 2nd league game:
Looks bad but plausible because...

Any decision to broadcast more than two games is subject to mutual decision. Not two, more than two.

Quote: I guess this also makes void Chip Brown and the Longhorn's spin that "Texas had no idea what ESPN was doing, it was their fault". It's not ESPN alone when there is a "mutual desire" is it?
“This was ESPN acting on its own,” one high-ranking administrator in the Big 12 said. “I don’t think Texas even knew where ESPN was in the process of trying to get this conference game secured. DeLoss Dodds has been very open and forthcoming with all the schools in the Big 12.

It is saying they did not know they were trying to secure it at the time. UT could have been waiting to go about it a different way. Shady but plausible. Definitely the most disturbing thing when you look at it objectively.

-UT going after road game content:

Quote:If that isn't unsettling, ESPN and the University of Texas is also in an agreement to get live sporting events when the Longhorns play AWAY from home and say in Norman or Stillwater.

Vague terminology just stipulates they try if it is available. The Big 12 already dealt with it anyway.

The phrase "reasonable best efforts" is still subject to B12 & NCAA rules. Yawn.


- B12 championships, extra league games, and extra HS games: "Reasonable best efforts" is vague and completely subject to both parties acting within Big 12 and NCAA rules... again. Each entity will have a say in the HS game issue and the Big 12 already handles the Big 12 game issue and will likely handle B12 championship for smaller sport issues in the same way. Pay us Fort Knox or we don't sign off.

-Indy right of first refusal: Taking this to mean UT is going indy is like saying a life insurance policy is written with the intent of dying soon. It is nothing more than covering the bases in a world where TCU is in the Big East after being in the Mountain West. Preparing for anything, in other words.

- The Agreement will live on if UT leaves the conference: ESPN holding on to what they are currently buying. It would be stupid not to have this clause.

-Hire & fire clause: This is a provision to be able to remove a subpar or racist or otherwise offensive employee should UT & ESPN not see eye to eye. The coverage will be favorable already and the media storm (think CBS & Fox would like to give that personality face time in an interview?) will likely keep that in check. Even if it doesn't it's a source you expect bias from. Nobody expects Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann to be moderate and people will likely consider the source.

-Videos to benefit UT: Not a huge deal as watching the LHN is already slanting UT like the B10 network does it's schools. I think this is probably just ESPN locking out competitors from doing UT athletics documentaries but admittedly this is an area I am less sure about than the rest.

-Out clauses. UT has already carved out the minimum # of events. Pretty understandable that ESPN would end it if the content they put as a minimum is not there. However the Ags claim HS & additional football would do it, and neither is outlined as necessary in the contract.

So a ton of sizzle but no real steak. UT looks shady at the "ESPN did this without us" part but it is at least plausible. The UT cannot appear on a B12 network is BS and everything else is pretty much expected but has to stay within B12 & NCAA rules. Nothing more damaging than what was previously reported IMO. However the spin is everywhere.

Sammy, the way you defend the university of texas, I suspicion you are from Texas and like most native Texans, you are a UT fan.

(08-08-2011 12:47 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 12:04 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  Many people are SHOCKED by the Spadilly FOIA request and are taking what the commentary says at face value. They aren't questioning how these conclusions are reached, they are just running with them.

Most of it comes from The Midnight Yell

They run a commentary I find very misleading.

Example: "This contract prohibits UT from appearing on a league network"

Lets analyze the contract basis and the claim:

Aggy said:

Aggy Wrote:However, the University of Texas and IMG has agreed that no content featuring Texas would be made available to that conference network and would violate the agreement with ESPN. The other nine conference members would have to put together a network without Texas and it's content.

Dead wrong IMO when you look at the part of the contract they actually cite for it.



i- This can be summed up, don't put another LHN together while we are working with you. Like many things in the legal world, they have to write things with zero wiggle room based on centuries of people being dishonest and hiring lawyers for cases with no legs to stand on.

ii- License any network content to any 3rd party- The content we have bought (UT tier 3 home games) can't be licensed elsewhere. Says nothing about road games which is what a B12 network or Boomer network would use.

iii- Last chance for them to be right.... and they aren't. It's just a loose writing of things to cover loopholes.

So the blog decided that "don't sell your home tier 3 content to anyone else" means "you can't appear on another branded network!"

Lets quickly evaluate what else they commented on.

- UT must get 2 football games!: They only acknowledged a desire to do so. Still subject to B12 & NCAA rules and also the minimum outlined was 1 game. Not accurate at all.

-UT was lying when they said they didn't know ESPN was moving forward with a 2nd league game:
Looks bad but plausible because...

Any decision to broadcast more than two games is subject to mutual decision. Not two, more than two.

Quote: I guess this also makes void Chip Brown and the Longhorn's spin that "Texas had no idea what ESPN was doing, it was their fault". It's not ESPN alone when there is a "mutual desire" is it?
“This was ESPN acting on its own,” one high-ranking administrator in the Big 12 said. “I don’t think Texas even knew where ESPN was in the process of trying to get this conference game secured. DeLoss Dodds has been very open and forthcoming with all the schools in the Big 12.

It is saying they did not know they were trying to secure it at the time. UT could have been waiting to go about it a different way. Shady but plausible. Definitely the most disturbing thing when you look at it objectively.

-UT going after road game content:

Quote:If that isn't unsettling, ESPN and the University of Texas is also in an agreement to get live sporting events when the Longhorns play AWAY from home and say in Norman or Stillwater.

Vague terminology just stipulates they try if it is available. The Big 12 already dealt with it anyway.

The phrase "reasonable best efforts" is still subject to B12 & NCAA rules. Yawn.


- B12 championships, extra league games, and extra HS games: "Reasonable best efforts" is vague and completely subject to both parties acting within Big 12 and NCAA rules... again. Each entity will have a say in the HS game issue and the Big 12 already handles the Big 12 game issue and will likely handle B12 championship for smaller sport issues in the same way. Pay us Fort Knox or we don't sign off.

-Indy right of first refusal: Taking this to mean UT is going indy is like saying a life insurance policy is written with the intent of dying soon. It is nothing more than covering the bases in a world where TCU is in the Big East after being in the Mountain West. Preparing for anything, in other words.

- The Agreement will live on if UT leaves the conference: ESPN holding on to what they are currently buying. It would be stupid not to have this clause.

-Hire & fire clause: This is a provision to be able to remove a subpar or racist or otherwise offensive employee should UT & ESPN not see eye to eye. The coverage will be favorable already and the media storm (think CBS & Fox would like to give that personality face time in an interview?) will likely keep that in check. Even if it doesn't it's a source you expect bias from. Nobody expects Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann to be moderate and people will likely consider the source.

-Videos to benefit UT: Not a huge deal as watching the LHN is already slanting UT like the B10 network does it's schools. I think this is probably just ESPN locking out competitors from doing UT athletics documentaries but admittedly this is an area I am less sure about than the rest.

-Out clauses. UT has already carved out the minimum # of events. Pretty understandable that ESPN would end it if the content they put as a minimum is not there. However the Ags claim HS & additional football would do it, and neither is outlined as necessary in the contract.

So a ton of sizzle but no real steak. UT looks shady at the "ESPN did this without us" part but it is at least plausible. The UT cannot appear on a B12 network is BS and everything else is pretty much expected but has to stay within B12 & NCAA rules. Nothing more damaging than what was previously reported IMO. However the spin is everywhere.

Sammy, the way you defend the university of texas, I would suspicion you are from Texas and like most Texans, regardless of their school, are UT fans

I would also suspect that there are a number of people who want to believe that bad things are going to happen because they dislike Texas too...

(08-08-2011 12:47 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 12:04 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  So a ton of sizzle but no real steak. UT looks shady at the "ESPN did this without us" part but it is at least plausible. The UT cannot appear on a B12 network is BS and everything else is pretty much expected but has to stay within B12 & NCAA rules. Nothing more damaging than what was previously reported IMO. However the spin is everywhere.

Sammy, the way you defend the university of texas, I suspicion you are from Texas and like most native Texans, you are a UT fan.

Not a UT fan (loved our game last year!) but just my honest take on it. The blog stretched things a bit and I point out where I see it. I do think UT's explanation was a half-truth at best as I explained at the end of my post.

(08-08-2011 10:39 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  You don't need 12 schools to make a conference network work: The Big Ten was doing it with 11. The thing about conference networks, is that while everyone harps on football driving the bus, basketball games are what build these networks. Even the Big Ten found that since the Big schools (OSU, Michigan, PSU, etc) only have one or two games on the network, and at least one will be vs. a 1AA school, when half of the twon is actually at the game, it is hard to get distrubution showing games that few people care about. The big gams will still go national. Even rabid fan bases can live with missing one game. What made it tick was basketball, because if you did not have th enetwork, you were now missing 10-15 games per year, sometimes more depending on your school. That was what got it moving and sped up disctrubution.

Now, having 12 teams does help, but if those teams don't expand the value of your national TV contract on a per team basis, and make it more valueabel above and beyond that (as in if Fox/ESPN are paying them $15 million a year, each new team needs to bring in at least $22.5 million a year in new money to pay for thesmevles plus add a 20% return to the original teams). Especially when adding those teams means existing teams no longer get to play annual football games against Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M, the leagues biggest draws, and they can no longer all play home and home round robin basketball games against each other.

12 teams really does make a difference. Keep in mind that the BTN owns and owned the tier 3 rights for B1G schools. Also, its contract with ESPN provides around fb 36 games. With 11 schools, that left around 35-40 fb games for the BTN even before Nebraska joined.

The P12 sold a 44 game package to FOX/ESPN. Assuming it stayed at 10 schools and assigned tier 3 rights to the member schools (like the SEC and B12-2), it would have had only around 14 fb games for a P10 Network, instead of the 36 it has.

The B12-2 has boxed itself into a corner as far as a conference network. It has assigned the tier 3 rights to the schools and signed a tier 2 deal with FOX. Even if it expands, the only way they could create a network would be to partner with FOX, which could contribute tier 2 games. Having said that, the Tier 2 deal is a very good one. Once tier 1 rights are sold, the package will likely be more valuable than the SEC's.

(08-08-2011 12:41 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 10:52 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  By the way, MattSarz posted this link that more or less refutes a lot of stuff in the blog.

I bet the writer, Kristi Dosh is from Texas..............

I don't know, but I do know the author he was refuting was from Texas A&M, so at worst, they even out

(08-08-2011 12:41 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 10:52 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  By the way, MattSarz posted this link that more or less refutes a lot of stuff in the blog. Those reading the original blog should check it out:

Texas Contract with ESPN

I bet the writer, Kristi Dosh is from Texas..............

Kristi holds a Bachelor of Arts in Politics from Oglethorpe University and a Juris Doctor from the University of Florida, Levin College of Law.