The only way $60 million is anywhere close to a reality is if 2 or 3 of Boise/UL/Cinci/Uconn is lost plus the BB schools split away.

Other than that happening, it is funny that just days ago with the relevant media on site at the BE meetings (FOX/ESPN/NBC) the "sources" were at $2+ billion.

But CBS is peddling this $60m BS.

Wait, the only source willing to go on the record (Neil Pilson) actually predicts that the rights will be higher, but the headline is based on two anonymous sources? You're telling me that McMurphy's using anonymous sources to take a swipe at USF and every school associated with them?





USFFan

Oh, and if this was anywhere close to accurate, I think you'd see BSU accepted that reported MWC offer.

Pretty sure we haven't seen that either.

If McMurphy can somehow explain to me how Pitt and SU are worth $56M to a network, then I might take him seriously. Otherwise, the article is full of crap. There is such thing as called market conditions and he did not take any of that into consideration.

Two points to consider:
1) The $60MM could be for CBS component for Big East hoops (I'm not sure what CBS pays for their Sunday games)
2) The real value will be determined by the market. The market is paying much higher rates for live sports events and the Big East has as much inventory in football and far more inventory in hoops than anyone.

I believe the overall package will be in excess of what was rejected last fall.

(05-24-2012 05:44 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  The only way $60 million is anywhere close to a reality is if 2 or 3 of Boise/UL/Cinci/Uconn is lost plus the BB schools split away.

Other than that happening, it is funny that just days ago with the relevant media on site at the BE meetings (FOX/ESPN/NBC) the "sources" were at $2+ billion.

But CBS is peddling this $60m BS.

But you do need to compare apples to apples. The $2B+ was total contract for 15 years. It was about $150M a year, vs. the $60M from McMurphy.

(05-24-2012 05:53 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Two points to consider:
1) The $60MM could be for CBS component for Big East hoops (I'm not sure what CBS pays for their Sunday games)
2) The real value will be determined by the market. The market is paying much higher rates for live sports events and the Big East has as much inventory in football and far more inventory in hoops than anyone.

I believe the overall package will be in excess of what was rejected last fall.

Yep. McMurphy's analysis is pretty lame. He does not explain the following:

1) B12 lost A&M, Missouri, Colorado and Nebraska, all big markets or big names. They added WVU (small market) and TCU (decent name but in a market they already own). B12 got like $5M per year bump.

2) ACC added SU and Pitt and added $56M to their TV deal.

Yet BE gonna take a blood bath? When he can explain those numbers to me, then maybe I will believe something he wrote. Otherwise, he should stick to reporting "breaking news" and leave the media deals to real consultants that actually have a clue about media deals. Boise, SDSU and BE all hired media consultants and their opinions are all very different than his anonymous sources.

(05-24-2012 05:53 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Two points to consider:
1) The $60MM could be for CBS component for Big East hoops (I'm not sure what CBS pays for their Sunday games)
2) The real value will be determined by the market. The market is paying much higher rates for live sports events and the Big East has as much inventory in football and far more inventory in hoops than anyone.

I believe the overall package will be in excess of what was rejected last fall.

No, he's trying to say that it would be $60 million per year for FB/BB/OLY sports - the total package.

And TripleA, of course. I was just lazy as far as the per year amount.

(05-24-2012 05:54 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:44 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  The only way $60 million is anywhere close to a reality is if 2 or 3 of Boise/UL/Cinci/Uconn is lost plus the BB schools split away.

Other than that happening, it is funny that just days ago with the relevant media on site at the BE meetings (FOX/ESPN/NBC) the "sources" were at $2+ billion.

But CBS is peddling this $60m BS.

But you do need to compare apples to apples. The $2B+ was total contract for 15 years. It was about $150M a year, vs. the $60M from McMurphy.

If it is $60M a year and at $2B, BE just agreed to a 34 years yet

I don't think even the BE is that stupid.

(05-24-2012 05:17 PM)BE Tex Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Okay, I just read through the whole thing. Definitely a difference of opinion. One of them is dead wrong. I obviously prefer the bigger number, but let's try to be objective.

We have people listening to the Fox Sports and NBC presentations, coming out of BE meetings, and estimating $150M a year.

Now we have CBSSports.com quoting former CBS Sports prez Neil Pilson as saying it could surpass last year's offer of $130M a year, OR, using an "unnamed industry source," saying it could be as low as $50M a year. Their arguments for the lower number are:

1) The BE lost 4 teams, and might lose two more. Yeah, we gained 7, too, many of whom are comparable, and account for more inventory, and increased the markets to 32M households, more than twice the next conference, the Pac 12 at 15M households. And we haven't lost the "two more" yet.

2) There have to be eyeballs in those markets to watch. Not necessarily, if rights fees are tagged onto all cable users. Then the market numbers matter. And there is also the chance that new viewers catch on, too. Much better when your markets are that big.

3) ESPN has already spent $8B in programming and mitigated any product losses from last year, so there might not be much more money to spend on the BE now. Yeah, but Fox and NBC money spends, too, and they're both still looking for inventory.

4) There is other CFB programming available of similar quality. Where? The other 5 conferences have locked up deals for the next 5 to 15 years. Is he talking about C-USA and the MWC, where the BE just took 6 teams?

5) How can those schools who just came from the MWC now be worth so much more in the BE? Uh, b/c there are a LOT of other better teams in the BE than in the MWC they just left.

Okay, I'm TRYING to be objective, but those arguments are dumb, IMO. If they weren't, I'd be really concerned. I'll take the estimates coming from conversations with network executives who actually pitched the BE, + the former prez of CBS sports, over "unnamed industry sources" who don't make a single argument that can't be easily debated. JMO.

SMU and Houston don't carry the market in their cities....Otherwise, CUSA would have a greater deal than they do now.

And Memphis and UCF don't carry their TV market in football either. The potential is there but the TV folks are not going to throw billions of dollars at potential.

(05-24-2012 05:54 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:44 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  The only way $60 million is anywhere close to a reality is if 2 or 3 of Boise/UL/Cinci/Uconn is lost plus the BB schools split away.

Other than that happening, it is funny that just days ago with the relevant media on site at the BE meetings (FOX/ESPN/NBC) the "sources" were at $2+ billion.

But CBS is peddling this $60m BS.

But you do need to compare apples to apples. The $2B+ was total contract for 15 years. It was about $150M a year, vs. the $60M from McMurphy.

I can guarantee the Big East's TV contract will not be 15 years long. I suspect 9 or 10.

(05-24-2012 06:05 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:17 PM)BE Tex Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Okay, I just read through the whole thing. Definitely a difference of opinion. One of them is dead wrong. I obviously prefer the bigger number, but let's try to be objective.

We have people listening to the Fox Sports and NBC presentations, coming out of BE meetings, and estimating $150M a year.

Now we have CBSSports.com quoting former CBS Sports prez Neil Pilson as saying it could surpass last year's offer of $130M a year, OR, using an "unnamed industry source," saying it could be as low as $50M a year. Their arguments for the lower number are:

1) The BE lost 4 teams, and might lose two more. Yeah, we gained 7, too, many of whom are comparable, and account for more inventory, and increased the markets to 32M households, more than twice the next conference, the Pac 12 at 15M households. And we haven't lost the "two more" yet.

2) There have to be eyeballs in those markets to watch. Not necessarily, if rights fees are tagged onto all cable users. Then the market numbers matter. And there is also the chance that new viewers catch on, too. Much better when your markets are that big.

3) ESPN has already spent $8B in programming and mitigated any product losses from last year, so there might not be much more money to spend on the BE now. Yeah, but Fox and NBC money spends, too, and they're both still looking for inventory.

4) There is other CFB programming available of similar quality. Where? The other 5 conferences have locked up deals for the next 5 to 15 years. Is he talking about C-USA and the MWC, where the BE just took 6 teams?

5) How can those schools who just came from the MWC now be worth so much more in the BE? Uh, b/c there are a LOT of other better teams in the BE than in the MWC they just left.

Okay, I'm TRYING to be objective, but those arguments are dumb, IMO. If they weren't, I'd be really concerned. I'll take the estimates coming from conversations with network executives who actually pitched the BE, + the former prez of CBS sports, over "unnamed industry sources" who don't make a single argument that can't be easily debated. JMO.

SMU and Houston don't carry the market in their cities....Otherwise, CUSA would have a greater deal than they do now.

And Memphis and UCF don't carry their TV market in football either. The potential is there but the TV folks are not going to throw billions of dollars at potential.

They will if they need programming and the BE is the best available option

$2 billion / 9 years

(05-24-2012 05:50 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  Oh, and if this was anywhere close to accurate, I think you'd see BSU accepted that reported MWC offer.

Pretty sure we haven't seen that either.

I'll believe Boise State is going to the Big East when they formally withdraw from the Mountain West. SDSU has, but Boise State is doing some serious foot-dragging.

In case you didn't hear Boise turned down the MWC latest offer of uneven payments. So the only foot dragging is from fans of CUSA,SBC and MWC that keep hoping for the Big East demise.

(05-24-2012 06:05 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:17 PM)BE Tex Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Okay, I just read through the whole thing. Definitely a difference of opinion. One of them is dead wrong. I obviously prefer the bigger number, but let's try to be objective.

We have people listening to the Fox Sports and NBC presentations, coming out of BE meetings, and estimating $150M a year.

Now we have CBSSports.com quoting former CBS Sports prez Neil Pilson as saying it could surpass last year's offer of $130M a year, OR, using an "unnamed industry source," saying it could be as low as $50M a year. Their arguments for the lower number are:

1) The BE lost 4 teams, and might lose two more. Yeah, we gained 7, too, many of whom are comparable, and account for more inventory, and increased the markets to 32M households, more than twice the next conference, the Pac 12 at 15M households. And we haven't lost the "two more" yet.

2) There have to be eyeballs in those markets to watch. Not necessarily, if rights fees are tagged onto all cable users. Then the market numbers matter. And there is also the chance that new viewers catch on, too. Much better when your markets are that big.

3) ESPN has already spent $8B in programming and mitigated any product losses from last year, so there might not be much more money to spend on the BE now. Yeah, but Fox and NBC money spends, too, and they're both still looking for inventory.

4) There is other CFB programming available of similar quality. Where? The other 5 conferences have locked up deals for the next 5 to 15 years. Is he talking about C-USA and the MWC, where the BE just took 6 teams?

5) How can those schools who just came from the MWC now be worth so much more in the BE? Uh, b/c there are a LOT of other better teams in the BE than in the MWC they just left.

Okay, I'm TRYING to be objective, but those arguments are dumb, IMO. If they weren't, I'd be really concerned. I'll take the estimates coming from conversations with network executives who actually pitched the BE, + the former prez of CBS sports, over "unnamed industry sources" who don't make a single argument that can't be easily debated. JMO.

SMU and Houston don't carry the market in their cities....Otherwise, CUSA would have a greater deal than they do now.

And Memphis and UCF don't carry their TV market in football either. The potential is there but the TV folks are not going to throw billions of dollars at potential.

Who carries the Memphis market then?

(05-24-2012 04:38 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Hmm is from McMurphy he has written NOTHING positive on the league........

Listen McMurphys goal in life is to work for ESPN.

Why is it that any time anyone writes something negative about the Big East, they are immediately tagged as "worthless", "stupid", an "ESPN puppet", etc. around here?

You would think these writers were criticizing the 1972 Dolphins or 1973 Secretariat, not the FAR from perfect 2012 Big East. Good Lord ...

McMurphy is a very knowledgeable college football writer, and his article is actually very even-handed. He discusses fully the fact that others, such as Big East ADs, have said the Big East could get far more than what the "pessimists" are projecting.

But because he doesn't just blow the Big East's horn full-throttle, he's an "ESPN lackey" ...

(05-24-2012 06:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 04:38 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Hmm is from McMurphy he has written NOTHING positive on the league........

Listen McMurphys goal in life is to work for ESPN.

Why is it that any time anyone writes something negative about the Big East, they are immediately tagged as "worthless", "stupid", an "ESPN puppet", etc. around here?

You would think these writers were criticizing the 1972 Dolphins or 1973 Secretariat, not the FAR from perfect 2012 Big East. Good Lord ...

Well if you had been in Tampa long enough you would have a clear picture of Mr. McMurphy. And as I said his story is full of holes. No one yet has questioned how Pitt and Cuse brought the ACC 56 mill per year when they werent pulling that in BE. Or how did WV and TCU which were making 5 mill and 2 mill a year are now worth 20 mill a year.
I'm not here painting a picture that the Big East will make more than even the ACC but is plain idiotic when you hear idiots like this with an axe to grind printing garbage like that.
We will find out the REAL numbers come Sept.

(05-24-2012 06:27 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Well if you had been in Tampa long enough you would have a clear picture of Mr. McMurphy. And as I said his story is full of holes. No one yet has questioned how Pitt and Cuse brought the ACC 56 mill per year when they werent pulling that in BE. Or how did WV and TCU which were making 5 mill and 2 mill a year are now worth 20 mill a year.
I'm not here painting a picture that the Big East will make more than even the ACC but is plain idiotic when you hear idiots like this with an axe to grind printing garbage like that.
We will find out the REAL numbers come Sept.

What the hell? McMurphy is obviously FAR from an idiot and clearly has lots of contacts in the media and college football ranks. Your criticism is off-target. He DOES mention that Big East officials expect us to sign for BIG money based on what the PAC and Big 12 were able to accomplish. He also discusses several reasons why NBC would be interested in signing us.

You have no evidence he has an ax to grind with the Big East or that his dream is to work for ESPN. You just don't like the message he is sending.

Actually they brought the ACC more than 56M per year. The deal the ACC signed in 2010 was valued at an average of $155M per year. The deal they just agreed to is valued at 238M per year. That's a difference of 83M. People overlooked not just the 4.1M increase each team got, but the 2 full shares of $12.9M that Pitt and Syracuse got.