Length of the deals is the price the conferences have to pay. ESPN and Fox are buying price stability. They wouldn't pay that much for a 5-year deal.

B12 and ACC didn't hold back more than half of Tier 2 inventory like Pac did, so they won't have conference networks -- but B12 couldn't b/c of ESPN and LHN, plus they
probably had to sell all of Tier 2 to ESPN to hit the $20 million number they wanted.

It's a big score for the Big 12, IMO. They did right by their schools, and then some.

(05-07-2012 03:44 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:38 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:30 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  My biggest question is why verbally agree to a deal that will expire in 2025? All conferences are making this same mistake. While it may be worth 25M in 2025, 20M today would be worth a lot more.

Totally agree. Conference have no one to blame but themselves for the situations they're putting themselves in.

Same could be said for ACC- signing away ALL of their rights.

I agree that the ACC made the same mistake. When the ACC deal was first signed, it was a great deal and within 2 years of the contract being signed, its a horrid deal. Conferences should sign 5-7 year deals at the most. And now that y'all signed away your rights until the deal expires is even more sh*tty.

It can work out the other way just as easily though. Let's say the PAC-10 deal was at the peak college football values. That means you'll be getting less for the same content in 7-8 years than you are now and a longer term is better.

Since either outcome is possible, I think the presidents prefer the safer longer term locked in value. (For the record, I think we are near the peak; I think by the time the Big Ten renegotiates, it's going to wish it had set things up sooner).

Inflation rates, and the quality of our bond market will be another factor in determining if 25-30M is worth that much more money in 2025 than 20M is today. I'm actually going to say its less and these TV deals are more frontloaded than anything.

Someone else will have to do the math.

You'd have about 25% more inventory with Clemson and FSU plus CCG. However, a lot of that extra inventory is non-conference games which are a mixed bag of desirability.

But, for giggles, if you assume the deal went up 25% (due to the increase in inventory) then that's an increase from $200M/yr to $250M/yr. Add in a CCG for, say, $20M/yr and that's now $270M/yr.

$270M/12 schools = $22.5M/yr/school. That would seem somewhat feasible.

(05-07-2012 03:48 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:31 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:25 PM)stever20 Wrote:  20 mil per year. Huge number for the Big 12- especially considering no title game.

ACC has got to make a splash with their tv deal renegotiation. If it was the number that they were talking about a few months ago- 14-15 million- it would be a disastor for the ACC.

As of now it seems 16mil-ish is the worst possible outcome, 20mil-ish being the best. It's still a ways away, and anything can happen.

Why is that the worst? The SBJ reported $14-$15 million. They reported $19-$20 for the Big 12. Now that $20 is being confirmed.

It is based on multiple people that claim to know what is going on are saying the number offered has been 230 million and the number desired is 270 million so it is going to mediation or arbitration or something at this point.

Mutiple people claiming to know say the Big 12 will get $28-$30 million with FSU and a ccg. I find those figures hard to believe. That ESPN would have a solid long term contract and bump it up from $155 million a year by $75 million to $115 million for Pitt and SU I also find hard to believe. ESPN is not into charity.

(05-07-2012 03:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Length of the deals is the price the conferences have to pay. ESPN and Fox are buying price stability. They wouldn't pay that much for a 5-year deal.

B12 and ACC didn't hold back more than half of Tier 2 inventory like Pac did, so they won't have conference networks -- but B12 couldn't b/c of ESPN and LHN, plus they
probably had to sell all of Tier 2 to ESPN to hit the $20 million number they wanted.

It's a big score for the Big 12, IMO. They did right by their schools, and then some.

Big 12 definitely did well. The real interesting part for them is 11/12- and how much it increases. Just getting the conference title game is going to be worth probably 2 mil per school extra.

(05-07-2012 03:54 PM)BaylorGuy314 Wrote:  Someone else will have to do the math.

You'd have about 25% more inventory with Clemson and FSU plus CCG. However, a lot of that extra inventory is non-conference games which are a mixed bag of desirability.

But, for giggles, if you assume the deal went up 25% (due to the increase in inventory) then that's an increase from $200M/yr to $250M/yr. Add in a CCG for, say, $20M/yr and that's now $270M/yr.

$270M/12 schools = $22.5M/yr/school. That would seem somewhat feasible.

that's a lot more reasonable than $28-$30. One thing that does add value to the Big 12 is that its regional expanse on ABC is limited. FSU and Clemson would add to that at the expense of the ACC. The Big 10/Big 12 and ACC usually share regional broadcasts.

Several times last year the 3 would split ABC while the Big 10 would get on ESPN in almost all the areas it was not on ABC. ACC and the Big 12 would both be left off in some of the country.

(05-07-2012 03:50 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:44 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:38 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:30 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  My biggest question is why verbally agree to a deal that will expire in 2025? All conferences are making this same mistake. While it may be worth 25M in 2025, 20M today would be worth a lot more.

Totally agree. Conference have no one to blame but themselves for the situations they're putting themselves in.

Same could be said for ACC- signing away ALL of their rights.

I agree that the ACC made the same mistake. When the ACC deal was first signed, it was a great deal and within 2 years of the contract being signed, its a horrid deal. Conferences should sign 5-7 year deals at the most. And now that y'all signed away your rights until the deal expires is even more sh*tty.

It can work out the other way just as easily though. Let's say the PAC-10 deal was at the peak college football values. That means you'll be getting less for the same content in 7-8 years than you are now and a longer term is better.

Since either outcome is possible, I think the presidents prefer the safer longer term locked in value. (For the record, I think we are near the peak; I think by the time the Big Ten renegotiates, it's going to wish it had set things up sooner).

Inflation rates, and the qualitey of our bond market will be another factor in determining if 25-30M is worth that much more money in 2025 than 20M is today. I'm actually going to say its less and these TV deals are more frontloaded than anything.

Pac 12 TV deal is,backloaded. First years they get less money, and at the end they get more.

(05-07-2012 03:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:48 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:31 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:25 PM)stever20 Wrote:  20 mil per year. Huge number for the Big 12- especially considering no title game.

ACC has got to make a splash with their tv deal renegotiation. If it was the number that they were talking about a few months ago- 14-15 million- it would be a disastor for the ACC.

As of now it seems 16mil-ish is the worst possible outcome, 20mil-ish being the best. It's still a ways away, and anything can happen.

Why is that the worst? The SBJ reported $14-$15 million. They reported $19-$20 for the Big 12. Now that $20 is being confirmed.

It is based on multiple people that claim to know what is going on are saying the number offered has been 230 million and the number desired is 270 million so it is going to mediation or arbitration or something at this point.

Mutiple people claiming to know say the Big 12 will get $28-$30 million with FSU and a ccg. I find those figures hard to believe. That ESPN would have a solid long term contract and bump it up from $155 million a year by $75 million to $115 million for Pitt and SU I also find hard to believe. ESPN is not into charity.

The one I saw claiming that was exposed as a fraud recently.

The thing about the ccg I think is being overlooked is I would guess not having a ccg is making the final week of B12 games more expensive than they would otherwise be. With most of the other FBS conferences only having one game that day, you will have the B12 with 5 games going. There is probably a lot of value added due to the scarcity of games going on that day so adding a ccg would push those 5 games back early in the season and they would have to compete for attention against a full slate of games by other conferences.

So the ccg may add value but it'll also decrease the value of the regular season games on that last weekend so I don't think it will all be positive. The B12 didn't get near 30 million for their game they added.

(05-07-2012 04:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:50 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:44 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:38 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Totally agree. Conference have no one to blame but themselves for the situations they're putting themselves in.

Same could be said for ACC- signing away ALL of their rights.

I agree that the ACC made the same mistake. When the ACC deal was first signed, it was a great deal and within 2 years of the contract being signed, its a horrid deal. Conferences should sign 5-7 year deals at the most. And now that y'all signed away your rights until the deal expires is even more sh*tty.

It can work out the other way just as easily though. Let's say the PAC-10 deal was at the peak college football values. That means you'll be getting less for the same content in 7-8 years than you are now and a longer term is better.

Since either outcome is possible, I think the presidents prefer the safer longer term locked in value. (For the record, I think we are near the peak; I think by the time the Big Ten renegotiates, it's going to wish it had set things up sooner).

Inflation rates, and the qualitey of our bond market will be another factor in determining if 25-30M is worth that much more money in 2025 than 20M is today. I'm actually going to say its less and these TV deals are more frontloaded than anything.

Pac 12 TV deal is,backloaded. First years they get less money, and at the end they get more.

Everyone's deals are to some extent. They get less than average the first few years then more than average the last ones. That is why you can't just compare the average figure. The 18 million dollar deal the SEC has will probably be higher per team than the 20 million of the B12 even without and increase just because they are several years into it already.

(05-07-2012 04:00 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:48 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:31 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  As of now it seems 16mil-ish is the worst possible outcome, 20mil-ish being the best. It's still a ways away, and anything can happen.

Why is that the worst? The SBJ reported $14-$15 million. They reported $19-$20 for the Big 12. Now that $20 is being confirmed.

It is based on multiple people that claim to know what is going on are saying the number offered has been 230 million and the number desired is 270 million so it is going to mediation or arbitration or something at this point.

Mutiple people claiming to know say the Big 12 will get $28-$30 million with FSU and a ccg. I find those figures hard to believe. That ESPN would have a solid long term contract and bump it up from $155 million a year by $75 million to $115 million for Pitt and SU I also find hard to believe. ESPN is not into charity.

The one I saw claiming that was exposed as a fraud recently.

The thing about the ccg I think is being overlooked is I would guess not having a ccg is making the final week of B12 games more expensive than they would otherwise be. With most of the other FBS conferences only having one game that day, you will have the B12 with 5 games going. There is probably a lot of value added due to the scarcity of games going on that day so adding a ccg would push those 5 games back early in the season and they would have to compete for attention against a full slate of games by other conferences.

So the ccg may add value but it'll also decrease the value of the regular season games on that last weekend so I don't think it will all be positive. The B12 didn't get near 30 million for their game they added.

If you are thinking about the WV poster, he was one of the last to throw out that number. I saw it a few other places first.

(05-07-2012 04:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 04:00 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:48 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  Why is that the worst? The SBJ reported $14-$15 million. They reported $19-$20 for the Big 12. Now that $20 is being confirmed.

It is based on multiple people that claim to know what is going on are saying the number offered has been 230 million and the number desired is 270 million so it is going to mediation or arbitration or something at this point.

Mutiple people claiming to know say the Big 12 will get $28-$30 million with FSU and a ccg. I find those figures hard to believe. That ESPN would have a solid long term contract and bump it up from $155 million a year by $75 million to $115 million for Pitt and SU I also find hard to believe. ESPN is not into charity.

The one I saw claiming that was exposed as a fraud recently.

The thing about the ccg I think is being overlooked is I would guess not having a ccg is making the final week of B12 games more expensive than they would otherwise be. With most of the other FBS conferences only having one game that day, you will have the B12 with 5 games going. There is probably a lot of value added due to the scarcity of games going on that day so adding a ccg would push those 5 games back early in the season and they would have to compete for attention against a full slate of games by other conferences.

So the ccg may add value but it'll also decrease the value of the regular season games on that last weekend so I don't think it will all be positive. The B12 didn't get near 30 million for their game they added.

If you are thinking about the WV poster, he was one of the last to throw out that number. I saw it a few other places first.

Well he is known to have a few names I hear

I may be wrong, but isn't the Big XII already being paid for a Championship Game. That was one of the reasons why the league didn't fall apart in 2010 if I'm not mistaken.

(05-07-2012 04:09 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I may be wrong, but isn't the Big XII already being paid for a Championship Game. That was one of the reasons why the league didn't fall apart in 2010 if I'm not mistaken.

It is true their first tier included a ccg and the tv partners agreed to pay the same amount for 10 teams w/ no ccg to keep them from collapsing.

(05-07-2012 03:54 PM)BaylorGuy314 Wrote:  Someone else will have to do the math.

You'd have about 25% more inventory with Clemson and FSU plus CCG. However, a lot of that extra inventory is non-conference games which are a mixed bag of desirability.

But, for giggles, if you assume the deal went up 25% (due to the increase in inventory) then that's an increase from $200M/yr to $250M/yr. Add in a CCG for, say, $20M/yr and that's now $270M/yr.

$270M/12 schools = $22.5M/yr/school. That would seem somewhat feasible.

You only have 20% more inventory with FSU+Clemson, not 25%, but you could make the argument that adding those two increases the value of that inventory by 5%. So your math is solid and much more reasonable than those saying that ESPN and Fox are going to increase their newly-renegotiated contracts by 60% by adding two teams.

(05-07-2012 04:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:50 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:44 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:38 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Totally agree. Conference have no one to blame but themselves for the situations they're putting themselves in.

Same could be said for ACC- signing away ALL of their rights.

I agree that the ACC made the same mistake. When the ACC deal was first signed, it was a great deal and within 2 years of the contract being signed, its a horrid deal. Conferences should sign 5-7 year deals at the most. And now that y'all signed away your rights until the deal expires is even more sh*tty.

It can work out the other way just as easily though. Let's say the PAC-10 deal was at the peak college football values. That means you'll be getting less for the same content in 7-8 years than you are now and a longer term is better.

Since either outcome is possible, I think the presidents prefer the safer longer term locked in value. (For the record, I think we are near the peak; I think by the time the Big Ten renegotiates, it's going to wish it had set things up sooner).

Inflation rates, and the qualitey of our bond market will be another factor in determining if 25-30M is worth that much more money in 2025 than 20M is today. I'm actually going to say its less and these TV deals are more frontloaded than anything.

Pac 12 TV deal is,backloaded. First years they get less money, and at the end they get more.

All deals are like that. I'm sure the first few years of the Big XII deal are in the range of 16/17 per team and the final few years are around 22/23 for example... In 2025 that 22/23M in relative terms isn't much more than 16/17M is today.

(05-07-2012 04:12 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:54 PM)BaylorGuy314 Wrote:  Someone else will have to do the math.

You'd have about 25% more inventory with Clemson and FSU plus CCG. However, a lot of that extra inventory is non-conference games which are a mixed bag of desirability.

But, for giggles, if you assume the deal went up 25% (due to the increase in inventory) then that's an increase from $200M/yr to $250M/yr. Add in a CCG for, say, $20M/yr and that's now $270M/yr.

$270M/12 schools = $22.5M/yr/school. That would seem somewhat feasible.

You only have 20% more inventory with FSU+Clemson, not 25%, b

Are you sure? I could be doing the math wrong, but this is where I got that:

Currently:
10 teams playing 9 conference games each (45 games)
10 teams playing 3 non-conference games each (30 games)
TOTAL = 75 games

With 12 teams:
12 teams playing 8 conference games each (48 games)
12 teams playing 4 non-conference games each (48 games)
TOTAL = 96 games

You are adding two more teams, but not many more conference games (assuming you go from a 9 to 8 game schedule). So you actually get more than 20% kick.

Of course, not all non-conference games count since at least 25-33% of them will be likely be played away anyways.

This is a pretty big deal. I am not even going to try and get involved in a debate on how much Clemson and FSU add to this contract. I am not a believer that FSU gets involved with the Big 12 with expansion only to 12 so for me is there a four team combination that is feasible for the current Big 12 members.

I suppose a champsionship game may push some Big 12 games into the regular season but considering how much these big championship games draw, I still think it would be a bonus for the Big 12. If a combination of schools with FSU joins the Big 12 it would be really hard for the renegotiated contract to not rise.

To top it all off, we are comparing the Big 12 contract with the ACC contract as if they are equivalent but they are not. The Big 12 contract does not include Tier 3 programming but the ACC contract does. That the two tier Big 12 contract is worth more then the ACC contract which includes all three tiers is a very important detail. It is reported that Florida makes 10 mil off their individual tier 3 deals. If Florida STate could pull 8 mil from theirs then that is a number that the ACC absolutely cannot compete with. This is dangerous territory.

(05-07-2012 04:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  This is a pretty big deal. I am not even going to try and get involved in a debate on how much Clemson and FSU add to this contract. I am not a believer that FSU gets involved with the Big 12 with expansion only to 12 so for me is there a four team combination that is feasible for the current Big 12 members.

I suppose a champsionship game may push some Big 12 games into the regular season but considering how much these big championship games draw, I still think it would be a bonus for the Big 12. If a combination of schools with FSU joins the Big 12 it would be really hard for the renegotiated contract to not rise.

To top it all off, we are comparing the Big 12 contract with the ACC contract as if they are equivalent but they are not. The Big 12 contract does not include Tier 3 programming but the ACC contract does. That the two tier Big 12 contract is worth more then the ACC contract which includes all three tiers is a very important detail. It is reported that Florida makes 10 mil off their individual tier 3 deals. If Florida STate could pull 8 mil from theirs then that is a number that the ACC absolutely cannot compete with. This is dangerous territory.

Excellent points. Almost all of this is non debatable.

(05-07-2012 04:25 PM)BaylorGuy314 Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 04:12 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:54 PM)BaylorGuy314 Wrote:  Someone else will have to do the math.

You'd have about 25% more inventory with Clemson and FSU plus CCG. However, a lot of that extra inventory is non-conference games which are a mixed bag of desirability.

But, for giggles, if you assume the deal went up 25% (due to the increase in inventory) then that's an increase from $200M/yr to $250M/yr. Add in a CCG for, say, $20M/yr and that's now $270M/yr.

$270M/12 schools = $22.5M/yr/school. That would seem somewhat feasible.

You only have 20% more inventory with FSU+Clemson, not 25%, b

Are you sure? I could be doing the math wrong, but this is where I got that:

Currently:
10 teams playing 9 conference games each (45 games)
10 teams playing 3 non-conference games each (30 games)
TOTAL = 75 games

With 12 teams:
12 teams playing 8 conference games each (48 games)
12 teams playing 4 non-conference games each (48 games)
TOTAL = 96 games

You are adding two more teams, but not many more conference games (assuming you go from a 9 to 8 game schedule). So you actually get more than 20% kick.

Of course, not all non-conference games count since at least 25-33% of them will be likely be played away anyways.

You're assuming they drop to an 8-game conference schedule. I don't think they do that. And I believe only the home non-conference games can be counted, not all of them. If you go 9 vs. 9, you get

10 teams - 10x9/2 = 45 games + 10x1.5 = 15 games == 60 games
12 teams - 12x9/2 = 54 games + 12x1.5 = 18 games == 72 games

12/60 = 20%

(05-07-2012 03:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:31 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 03:25 PM)stever20 Wrote:  20 mil per year. Huge number for the Big 12- especially considering no title game.

ACC has got to make a splash with their tv deal renegotiation. If it was the number that they were talking about a few months ago- 14-15 million- it would be a disastor for the ACC.

As of now it seems 16mil-ish is the worst possible outcome, 20mil-ish being the best. It's still a ways away, and anything can happen.

Why is that the worst? The SBJ reported $14-$15 million. They reported $19-$20 for the Big 12. Now that $20 is being confirmed.

Yes--some wanted to pretend the SBJ was somehow a made up by WVU message board rant--but just as reported the B12 deal comes in at $20 million and the ACC deal will come in at $14-$15 million as they reported as well.