This is getting insane. Does this mean that they already have someone that wants to pay them the $220 million that they were initially seeking and now has upped the anty? $300 million would reflect a per team payout of $25 million, which would just blow by the Big 10. WOW.


Link

Go to middle of article to get Pac 10 TV info

They are seeing how much the ACC got, and how much the Big East looks to be getting. With their superiority complex, and with the market the way it is, they feel that they can do better than what they already have. I don't blame them for that.

(05-02-2011 10:15 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  This is getting insane. Does this mean that they already have someone that wants to pay them the $220 million that they were initially seeking and now has upped the anty? $300 million would reflect a per team payout of $25 million, which would just blow by the Big 10. WOW.


Link

Go to middle of article to get Pac 10 TV info

I don't know if they will get 25 million per team but I bet they get somewhere around 18-21 million.

(05-02-2011 10:56 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(05-02-2011 10:15 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  This is getting insane. Does this mean that they already have someone that wants to pay them the $220 million that they were initially seeking and now has upped the anty? $300 million would reflect a per team payout of $25 million, which would just blow by the Big 10. WOW.


Link

Go to middle of article to get Pac 10 TV info

I don't know if they will get 25 million per team but I bet they get somewhere around 18-21 million.

Not a bad estimate. This article, just out today, says a deal is imminent in the next 7-10 days at $230 million per year.

Link

This is why it would be beyond stupid for BE to be asking anything less than $15M per team for each football school.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/co...pac03.html

Wednesday could be announcement day

(05-02-2011 10:15 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Pac 10 Pac 10 Now Seeking TV Deal For $300 Million Per Year

You said it twice, and got "Pac 12" wrong on both

(05-03-2011 07:55 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(05-02-2011 10:15 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Pac 10 Pac 10 Now Seeking TV Deal For $300 Million Per Year

You said it twice, and got "Pac 12" wrong on both

Is it officially the Pac 12 now?

Well, the title of the page you linked did say Pac 12. But, thanks for the link. Very interesting stuff

Still operating as the Pac-10 for a few more months. In fact they were having trouble securing the rights to a few domains that had Pac12 & Pac-12 because of squatters operating those domains as a tribute site to Tupac.

So adding Utah and Colorado increased their value that much? Interesting...

(05-03-2011 08:37 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  So adding Utah and Colorado increased their value that much? Interesting...

Well it did, see thread that FOX and ESPN won the rights.

http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=495685

Not $300m. $225m per year, up from around $60m.

(05-03-2011 08:37 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  So adding Utah and Colorado increased their value that much? Interesting...

No it wasnt just adding Utah and Colorado. It is just the name of the game right now. TV rights are on another level right now. With so many competitors popping up, they must have inventory. If they dont get real inventory, whos going to watch? So they are paying whatever is necessary to get inventory, even if it means getting into a bidding war.

There was an article listed here last week that stated how sports rights fees are so, relatively cheap, yet can increase what a cable company has to pay to broadcast that particular network and pouring big money into the networks treasure troves. Its crazy money right now, and the BE tv rights negotiations is situated at just the right time. I hope the BE leaders capitalize to the fullest extent possible on the next tv deal. Its looking more and more likely that the BE will get big money on its next deal. How big depends on the savvy of the BE leaders.

Does this mean a bad TV deal causes the conference to splinter? I'm sure the football schools will be highly upset with the conference leadership if we fall further behind the other BCS conferences...

(05-03-2011 10:20 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Does this mean a bad TV deal causes the conference to splinter? I'm sure the football schools will be highly upset with the conference leadership if we fall further behind the other BCS conferences...

Actually, with the iron this hot, I'm surprised the football schools are not considering announcing a split this June so that a new TV contract could be in place for football by 2012 instead of waiting for 2014.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-03-2011 10:20 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Does this mean a bad TV deal causes the conference to splinter? I'm sure the football schools will be highly upset with the conference leadership if we fall further behind the other BCS conferences...

That's only assuming that basketball is the *reason* why there's a bad TV deal... and all indications is that it's exactly the opposite (despite many message board proclamations to the contrary).

(05-03-2011 10:23 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(05-03-2011 10:20 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Does this mean a bad TV deal causes the conference to splinter? I'm sure the football schools will be highly upset with the conference leadership if we fall further behind the other BCS conferences...

Actually, with the iron this hot, I'm surprised the football schools are not considering announcing a split this June so that a new TV contract could be in place for football by 2012 instead of waiting for 2014.

Cheers,
Neil

Things that make you go hhhhmmmmm....

June 30th is not that far away...and every day the Big East doesn't announce a new TV deal/extension...the chances for a split and new tv deal (prior to June 30th) probably go up every and every day. (Still not sure how likely).

Inventory/secure football tv rights seems to be driving the BCS $$$$ explosion in regards to TV rights...as FOX is expanding their sports empire immensely with these new tv deals.

I think Neil may have just touched upon something that could be in the works, especially in light of this new information. I know the football schools have been exploring many possibilities, one of which is forming a new all-sports conference, and I'm sure they've been floating various situations to TV execs to get their feedback. But the main problem is getting all the football schools on board. At the moment, I seriously doubt that everyone is on the same page. There are too many factions, pulling us in many different directions. There is no consensus. But we'll find if there's anything to it soon enough, I figure...

(05-03-2011 11:10 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I think Neil may have just touched upon something that could be in the works, especially in light of this new information. I know the football schools have been exploring many possibilities, one of which is forming a new all-sports conference, and I'm sure they've been floating various situations to TV execs to get their feedback. But the main problem is getting all the football schools on board. At the moment, I seriously doubt that everyone is on the same page. There are too many factions, pulling us in many different directions. There is no consensus. But we'll find if there's anything to it soon enough, I figure...

I think it's a matter of degree.

If by splitting, the Big East football schools would suddenly be making $10 million per year than they would in a hybrid, then they'd do it in a heartbeat. It's easy to have a consensus when there's a very obvious benefit.

It almost certainly isn't that clear cut, though, and that's why there isn't a consensus. Is it worth it for the BE football schools to split if they were to make $1 million more per year in a split situation compared to a hybrid? And even if it is worth it, how much of a guarantee is it that a split league is worth more than the hybrid?

That's really the issue. Regardless of whether you personally believe that the BE should split or not, I believe all of us can agree that it's a *high-risk* move (or at least the university presidents making the decisions believe that to be the case). If you're making a high-risk move, then small or even medium-sized rewards aren't good enough - you need to see big-time rewards at the end of the horizon. My impression is that the projections are that there are only medium-sized rewards for a split league at best and, as a result, that's not worth the risk of splitting. In this era of college budget cuts, the university presidents want to see "no-brainers" and financially speaking, it doesn't look like splitting is a "no-brainer" (even if it may very well be ultimately beneficial long-term).

High risk can pay high rewards, Frank...

BTW, I've seen this conference make some "no brainer" decisions. That's why Miami, VT, and BC left. It's also why Penn State isn't a member. Don't talk to me about "no brainer" decisons, I've seen far too many of such out of Providence...