It's Not About The Longhorn Network - Well, Not Entirely

Rumors have greatly intensified about A&M heading off the SEC, leading to much speculation as to why it wants to go. Many sports analysts, rival fans, and bloggers are assuming A&M is generally peeved that Texas got its ESPN-backed, $300 million dollar Longhorn Network.


That's not exactly what the fuss is about.


I discussed this at the end of my previous post about the Longhorn Network contract but I'll repeat it again. This has all been played out in the media, but I'll try to patch it together in one spot.




The background facts:


Last summer, when Nebraska left for the Big Ten and Colorado left for the (now) Pac-12, the rest of the Big 12 was left considering their options. A&M looked to the east. The other Texas schools and the Oklahoma schools looked to the west. All schools had a few concerns about joining different conferences, among them being the geographical proximity (or lack thereof) to the new conference, the destruction of old rivalries, and cultural fit with their new conference-mates. Each school had factors to weigh and a decision to make based on those factors.


One of the major factors was Texas's insistence on having its own network. Such a network of course has always been permitted under the Big 12 Conference rules, but presumably due to the Texas athletic department's general aggressiveness (which I commended in my previous post), an agreement was made amongst Big 12 athletic directors that each school would only broadcast one non-conference football game on its network (given that Texas was the only school legitimately considering a network, we can all guess whom they were talking about).


Bill Byrne has repeatedly referred to this agreement in his comments to the press. (see here and here for example). As Byrne told BusinessofCollegeSports.com's Kristi Dosh, "as Athletic Directors [in the Big 12] we agreed that every school could take one football game and choose to put it on PPV or our own network."


And with that agreement as an assurance that the Longhorn Network would not overstep its bounds as an institutional network designed to broadcast one non-conference football game, additional third tier games, and other non-athletic content, A&M decided to stay in the Big 12. The agreement was later documented when the Big 12's new television deal with Fox was announced. (source: "school-operated networks can protect up to one nonconference home game each year.")


So what's the big deal?


Now, it appears that, despite that agreement, the LHN will be pursuing additional games, specifically conference games, to broadcast.


As I mentioned in my previous post, the LHN contract expressly documents Texas's and ESPN's "mutual desire" for a second football game. Now it doesn't require that the second game be shown (presumably because they anticipated this being an issue and didn't want to breach the contract in case they couldn't air the second game), but it does let us know their intentions.


And ESPN is acting on those intentions. They approached Texas Tech with $5 million dollars and the promise to air two of Texas Tech's non-conference games on the LHN if Texas Tech would agree to allow the LHN to air the Texas-Texas Tech game. Texas Tech was warned that ESPN may not broadcast the game otherwise (which I would have to assume is a major bluff - the Texas-Texas Tech game is too huge a game to go unaired). Texas Tech turned them down, with its chancellor saying, "I don't want a Tech fan to have to give one dime to the Longhorn Network." (source).


So now, A&M is back in the process of reconsidering its options. Its decision last summer to remain in the Big 12 was at least partially based Texas's agreement to a limited concept of the Longhorn Network. With those limitations, the Big 12 was the better option than the SEC. Without those limitations, the balance may have shifted.


That is the issue. It's not about the general concept of Texas having its own network. A Texas network was always a given.

(This post doesn't even consider the high school games, which isn't a pressing issue since there's a one year ban on broadcasting high school games until the NCAA (hopefully) deems that a recruiting violation. That is still a very relevant topic, but not as immediate as the conference games. Consider it another huge straw on the camel's back though.)


Whatever. A&M didn't know that Texas would be getting $300 million for its network and is just jealous.


I will admit to being jealous of Texas's deal - that's a hell of a deal! But that doesn't mean the A&M administration is all that worried about it. As I previously posted, once IMG takes its portion and the general university gets its half, the athletic department is left with $4.2 million a year. That's good money, but it's not going to make A&M run to the SEC, especially considering the difference between that $4.2 million and what the athletic department was already getting for its third tier rights is even smaller.


Okay, well A&M is just jealous that Texas has a network and it doesn't.


Again, I'd love for A&M to have its own network. But as covered in the previous post, Fox is pursuing a deal for a Big 12 Network that will likely air a substantial amount of A&M's third tier games. (source). And that network would be on an already existing national channel with 10-20 million viewers. No, we don't get the bells and whistles of the LHN, but we get what we need. While Texas certainly has the better deal, the difference between what A&M gets and what Texas gets isn't substantial enough to prompt a leap to the SEC.


Oh I get it. Can't compete with Texas, huh?

Ouch. There's no doubt that Texas holds the all-time records against A&M in many sports. While A&M had a good run in football during the 80s and 90s, the past decade has been pretty bad (with the exception of two 9-win seasons). But A&M has been showing a lot of progress under athletic director Bill Byrne lately. We've beaten Texas 3 of the past 5 years in football, our baseball team was the 2011 Big 12 Champion (with an appearance in the College World Series), our men's basketball team has made the tourney for the past six years (last year was the first of those six that we didn't advance), and our women's basketball team brought home the 2011 NCAA title. Moreover, after a rocky financial start necessitated by some badly-needed upgrades to A&M's facilities, the athletic department under Bill Byrne was one of only 22 self-sustaining athletic departments, meaning it didn't require a subsidy from the general university like most athletic departments do. (source). Things are generally looking up. So while Texas may have scoreboard in the past, I wouldn't say Bill Byrne is afraid of competing with Texas in the future. In fact, if A&M switched conferences, I wouldn't be surprised if an out-of-conference rivalry survived (like that of Georgia and Georgia Tech or Florida and Florida State).

The Big 12 ADs, including A&M, came to an agreement over the conference games at the AD meeting a couple weeks back. What has changed?


The Big 12 never stated that any agreement was made and I don't believe they came to any such an agreement. While the Big 12 announcement (here) said that the ADs "unanimously agreed" to ban high school games for a year, it stated that the directors merely "learned and acknowledged" that additional conference games may be played on the LHN. No mention of an agreement.


For now, Texas has agreed to get the consent of other schools before the LHN broadcasts their games; I do believe Texas is trying to compromise to a point. But ESPN is not necessarily bound by that agreement. Per the LHN contract, ESPN only needs Texas's consent for the third game and beyond.  If every school rebuffs the LHN like Tech did, ESPN can still play their games on the network if it owns the rights to those games. ESPN is a business and is into this deal for a significant amount of money; I wouldn't expect it to act in any manner inconsistent with what any business would do. Therefore I would not put it past ESPN to simply air the games without the school's consent. From ESPN's perspective, it bought the right to air the game. That doesn't make it evil; that makes it a business.


But say the schools do consent; why would A&M care?


Whether consent is given is irrelevant to A&M and doesn't change the fact that A&M remained in the Big 12 under the impression that there would be limits on what the LHN could broadcast. Those limits were taken into account when weighing the decision of whether to stay in the Big 12 or go to the SEC. Without those limitations, the balance of factors is different and A&M has the right to reconsider whether it wants to deal with the LHN as it now exists.


If the one-game limit had never been discussed, A&M would have no grounds to stand on. But that's not the case here. Texas has substantially changed its position and now that's what A&M may do.




Why is the additional conference game such a big deal?


As to this, I can only speculate. Byrne has discussed his dissatisfaction with the fact that the LHN is pursuing conference games but not why those games are meaningful beyond the mere fact that Texas agreed not to air them. I would imagine because it injects instability into the league. With the LHN limited to one non-conference game, there could never be any direct effect on another school. That's not the case now. Just look at how the negotiation with Texas Tech went down. The LHN used its affiliation with ESPN to try to persuade (although some would say threaten) Texas Tech. That perhaps is something that A&M just doesn't want to deal with. And honestly, I can't blame them.


While it's easy to give into the temptation, I'm not trying to paint Texas out like the bad guy here. I'm sure Texas has its reasons as to why it thinks it's appropriate to reconsider the issue of whether conference games should be allowed on its network. You could even argue that there is some benefit to the conference. I'm merely stating what the problem is from A&M's side of the argument. Texas has said it is willing to compromise, but in A&M's eyes, this negotiation already took place last summer.


I've said before, the mentality of the Big 12 has always been "You get yours and I'll get mine." We've never been a cooperative conference like the Big Ten, and I believe many of the members, including A&M, have preferred it that way. That's why you've never seen any A&M administrator, like Byrne or Loftin, criticize the LHN's mere existence. But, while the conference has allowed more freedom to pursue individual interests than others, some limits have been drawn. And it's only the things outside those limits that are causing the friction: high school games and conference games. If those are addressed to A&M's satisfaction, perhaps it'll stick around. After all, it did last summer. But then again, "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." 

And there you get to the heart of it. The squabble over conference games and high school coverage is merely an acute symptom of a chronic problem. A&M is simply getting "tired of Texas." Even if Texas and ESPN agree not to show conference games, what's next? And will that promise be honored or be subject to another renegotiation as we're seeing now? Combine this reluctance to continue the same old song and dance with the general consensus that the Big 12 is unstable and unlikely to prosper under the guidance of Dan Beebe (two major factors not to be taken lightly), I'd place my bets on A&M to the SEC.