(05-24-2012 06:10 PM)General Mike Wrote:  

(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.

The Orlando paper's recount of the BE meetings, linked on here somewhere, specifically mentioned the $2B+ was for 15 years. It would be exactly $2.25B total, at $150M a year, for 15 years.

At the same time, can we name how many Pac-12 games garner national interest?

USC/Oregon? Who else? USC/UCLA? lol. Any game not involving USC? Maybe the Apple Cup perhaps?

(05-24-2012 07:14 PM)BE Tex Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 06:44 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 06:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:10 PM)BE Tex Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:05 PM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  Any surprise here? No, same agenda as ususal. ESPN still trying to devalue the BE, and maximize instability.

Rumors surface in the wake of the BE Conf Meetings of a deal worth upwards of $2 Billion over 9 years, and then like clockwork days later sources at ESPN report to CBS that its more like $60 million a year.

Shocker.

Can't wait till NBC and FOX come up to bat and shut everyone up.

Doesn't CBS have some of the BE Basketball contract?

I think he has some really good sources, he hasn't been wrong often. CBS really isn't play for the BE so there is not incentive to devalue. It is what it is and who brings the most national interest for football to get the most money.

Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyCBS
@KingofPasco SU/Pitt why ACC got $4M more per school. UH & SMU don't own Houston/Dallas markets. If so, why C-USA deal only $16M

Very sensible post, but don't ask a question like the one i bolded, it confuses the dreamers too much.

The same reason that nightmare guys like you can't explain how TCU who oesnt own it's market when from making 1.7 mill on MWC to 20 mill in Big12.

Becasue the Big 12 negoiated on having 10 teams in the conference. It didn't matter who it was, the contract was going to be 20 million whether TCU or so no name college was in there. Thanks why the Big 12 had to get West Virgina in this year.

Yes, but WHY didn't it matter whether it was TCU or some no-name in there? Because what the networks were really paying for was the games of the "tent pole" programs the Big 12 could offer - Texas and Oklahoma.

If the Big 12 had lost Texas and Oklahoma, and replaced them with TCU and WVU, that 10-team version of the Big 12 would be getting FAR less than $20m per school.

(05-24-2012 06:44 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 06:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:10 PM)BE Tex Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:05 PM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  Any surprise here? No, same agenda as ususal. ESPN still trying to devalue the BE, and maximize instability.

Rumors surface in the wake of the BE Conf Meetings of a deal worth upwards of $2 Billion over 9 years, and then like clockwork days later sources at ESPN report to CBS that its more like $60 million a year.

Shocker.

Can't wait till NBC and FOX come up to bat and shut everyone up.

Doesn't CBS have some of the BE Basketball contract?

I think he has some really good sources, he hasn't been wrong often. CBS really isn't play for the BE so there is not incentive to devalue. It is what it is and who brings the most national interest for football to get the most money.

Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyCBS
@KingofPasco SU/Pitt why ACC got $4M more per school. UH & SMU don't own Houston/Dallas markets. If so, why C-USA deal only $16M

Very sensible post, but don't ask a question like the one i bolded, it confuses the dreamers too much.

The same reason that nightmare guys like you can't explain how TCU who oesnt own it's market when from making 1.7 mill on MWC to 20 mill in Big12.

Right, it has to do with the makeup of ALL the teams in the contract, not just one or two. A completely false argument. Not even apples to monkeys, much less apples to oranges.

(05-24-2012 07:14 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 06:59 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  What makes this article so infallible versus the other articles and "sources" dealing with the media people actually at the BE meetings saying that deal is looking very favorable and can eclipse the turned down offer and get at least into the ACC territory?

You seem fine with taking this as fact, but want to downplay and deflect when positive stuff is even hinted at.

Did you even read the article? McMurphy himself discusses how some, like Big East officials, believe that we are going to get a huge pay-day.

You didn't even address anything. BE officials won't even be talking numbers. They can't as far as I know. Those projections came from "sources." Ones that you're deflecting because it is positive while taking this article and running with it because it paints a negative tone.

Are you kidding? I couldn't care less whether the "sources" saying that we will get as good or better deal than the ACC are Big East officials or media sources, so i have no reason to "deflect" that.

Bottom line is that McMurphy does discuss the fact that some sources- whomever they are - do think we could get a big, ACC-like contract. He even mentions the possibility that his "negative" sources could be sand-bagging us.

The article is very even-handed, unless you expect everyone to just blow the Big East's horn 100%.

(05-24-2012 06:11 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(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

Not if they are smart.

Another thread Quo is about to ruin. I am trying to ignore this negative Nancy, but people are quoting him way too much.

McMurphy prediction is just wrong. End of the story.

(05-24-2012 07:37 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  Another thread Quo is about to ruin. I am trying to ignore this negative Nancy, but people are quoting him way too much.

McMurphy prediction is just wrong. End of the story.

In fairness to Quo, and to not take sides, he did say McMurphy offered more than one option to how the contract could go. He never said that the big east was going to get a 50-60 Million K, just that it was a possibility along with the 130 million k, and reiterating that the future of the Big East is heavily dependent on the upcoming K.
However, I think the headline skews the story out of place. But hey, they're in the business of grabbing attention, and that's a good headline to do it.

(05-24-2012 06:53 PM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:43 PM)Jassbale Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:41 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 04:51 PM)justinslot Wrote:  One day it's two billion, the next day it's 60 million.

LOL

Depends on whose "sources" you ask, I guess.

Well, I think it's odd that we would hear from 130+ mill/year to 150+mill/year for weeks to months, then all of a sudden it goes to 60 million. Nothing has changed, so it makes me wonder why it's such an outlier.

Basically an attempt to use the "Imminent moves" that haven't happend, and may not now... nor NEVER happen.." to drive-down the cost of our conference.

It's just classic marketing BS.


Honestly, if we have more TV sets than anyone but the PAC? How can we end up with a TV deal that pays half what ACC just got? Makes zero sense.

Depends who the captive audience is. Not sure the Big has any captive audience compared to the PAC or SEC or BIG 10.
UCLA/USC have the entire LA market and no NFL
Stanford/Cal have a bigger part of the Bay Area even with the NFL
OSU/Oregon have the entire state.
WSU/UW have the entire state even with the NFL
ASU/UA have the entire state even with a NFL like team (jk!)
Utah has 1/2 of SLC
CU well they count part of Denver but the NFL Broncos carry the day.

CU and Utah were added to have a CCG so that is their real intrinsic value.

just my 2 cents.

(05-24-2012 07:40 PM)Jassbale Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:37 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  Another thread Quo is about to ruin. I am trying to ignore this negative Nancy, but people are quoting him way too much.

McMurphy prediction is just wrong. End of the story.

In fairness to Quo, and to not take sides, he did say McMurphy offered more than one option to how the contract could go. He never said that the big east was going to get a 50-60 Million K, just that it was a possibility along with the 130 million k, and reiterating that the future of the Big East is heavily dependent on the upcoming K.
However, I think the headline skews the story out of place. But hey, they're in the business of grabbing attention, and that's a good headline to do it.

Just FYI, the headline of McMurphy's story is "Having gambled on better media pot, Big East facing deal of its lifetime".

That is not a negative headline, just really a statement of fact.

(05-24-2012 07:42 PM)BE Tex Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 06:53 PM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:43 PM)Jassbale Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:41 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 04:51 PM)justinslot Wrote:  One day it's two billion, the next day it's 60 million.

LOL

Depends on whose "sources" you ask, I guess.

Well, I think it's odd that we would hear from 130+ mill/year to 150+mill/year for weeks to months, then all of a sudden it goes to 60 million. Nothing has changed, so it makes me wonder why it's such an outlier.

Basically an attempt to use the "Imminent moves" that haven't happend, and may not now... nor NEVER happen.." to drive-down the cost of our conference.

It's just classic marketing BS.


Honestly, if we have more TV sets than anyone but the PAC? How can we end up with a TV deal that pays half what ACC just got? Makes zero sense.

Depends who the captive audience is. Not sure the Big has any captive audience compared to the PAC or SEC or BIG 10.
UCLA/USC have the entire LA market and no NFL
Stanford/Cal have a bigger part of the Bay Area even with the NFL
OSU/Oregon have the entire state.
WSU/UW have the entire state even with the NFL
ASU/UA have the entire state even with a NFL like team (jk!)
Utah has 1/2 of SLC
CU well they count part of Denver but the NFL Broncos carry the day.

CU and Utah were added to have a CCG so that is their real intrinsic value.

just my 2 cents.

You're nuts. Legit crazy.

(05-24-2012 07:42 PM)BE Tex Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 06:53 PM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:43 PM)Jassbale Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:41 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 04:51 PM)justinslot Wrote:  One day it's two billion, the next day it's 60 million.

LOL

Depends on whose "sources" you ask, I guess.

Well, I think it's odd that we would hear from 130+ mill/year to 150+mill/year for weeks to months, then all of a sudden it goes to 60 million. Nothing has changed, so it makes me wonder why it's such an outlier.

Basically an attempt to use the "Imminent moves" that haven't happend, and may not now... nor NEVER happen.." to drive-down the cost of our conference.

It's just classic marketing BS.


Honestly, if we have more TV sets than anyone but the PAC? How can we end up with a TV deal that pays half what ACC just got? Makes zero sense.

Depends who the captive audience is. Not sure the Big has any captive audience compared to the PAC or SEC or BIG 10.
UCLA/USC have the entire LA market and no NFL
Stanford/Cal have a bigger part of the Bay Area even with the NFL
OSU/Oregon have the entire state.
WSU/UW have the entire state even with the NFL
ASU/UA have the entire state even with a NFL like team (jk!)
Utah has 1/2 of SLC
CU well they count part of Denver but the NFL Broncos carry the day.

CU and Utah were added to have a CCG so that is their real intrinsic value.

just my 2 cents.

Don't be modest, your post is worth a lot more than 2 cents, because alot of folks around here like to denigrate the PAC. But, as you note, the PAC absolutely owns the states of Washington, Oregon, and Arizona. They have not only the flagship school, but the second-in-command school in all those states. They also have the flagships in Utah and Colorado. PAC has SIX flagships, Big East has what, two?

Plus, they truly own the state of California, which, if it was a separate country, would be like the 10th biggest economy on the whole planet!

Those who denigrate the "media zone" of the PAC are crazy, they have FAR FAR more tangible media attractiveness than does the Big East.

(05-24-2012 07:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:40 PM)Jassbale Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:37 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  Another thread Quo is about to ruin. I am trying to ignore this negative Nancy, but people are quoting him way too much.

McMurphy prediction is just wrong. End of the story.

In fairness to Quo, and to not take sides, he did say McMurphy offered more than one option to how the contract could go. He never said that the big east was going to get a 50-60 Million K, just that it was a possibility along with the 130 million k, and reiterating that the future of the Big East is heavily dependent on the upcoming K.
However, I think the headline skews the story out of place. But hey, they're in the business of grabbing attention, and that's a good headline to do it.

Just FYI, the headline of McMurphy's story is "Having gambled on better media pot, Big East facing deal of its lifetime".

That is not a negative headline, just really a statement of fact.

Well on his twitter handle, it read @McMurphyCBS: Sources project Big East media rights at $60M; less than 1/2 what they turned down last yr. So there's where most of the outrage started.

(05-24-2012 07:46 PM)General Mike Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:42 PM)BE Tex Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 06:53 PM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:43 PM)Jassbale Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:41 PM)Kronke Wrote:  LOL

Depends on whose "sources" you ask, I guess.

Well, I think it's odd that we would hear from 130+ mill/year to 150+mill/year for weeks to months, then all of a sudden it goes to 60 million. Nothing has changed, so it makes me wonder why it's such an outlier.

Basically an attempt to use the "Imminent moves" that haven't happend, and may not now... nor NEVER happen.." to drive-down the cost of our conference.

It's just classic marketing BS.


Honestly, if we have more TV sets than anyone but the PAC? How can we end up with a TV deal that pays half what ACC just got? Makes zero sense.

Depends who the captive audience is. Not sure the Big has any captive audience compared to the PAC or SEC or BIG 10.
UCLA/USC have the entire LA market and no NFL
Stanford/Cal have a bigger part of the Bay Area even with the NFL
OSU/Oregon have the entire state.
WSU/UW have the entire state even with the NFL
ASU/UA have the entire state even with a NFL like team (jk!)
Utah has 1/2 of SLC
CU well they count part of Denver but the NFL Broncos carry the day.

CU and Utah were added to have a CCG so that is their real intrinsic value.

just my 2 cents.

You're nuts. Legit crazy.

Yes, yes I am. Just my experience of growing up in the Northwest and Cal area.

(05-24-2012 07:50 PM)Jassbale Wrote:  Well on his twitter handle, it read @McMurphyCBS: Sources project Big East media rights at $60M; less than 1/2 what they turned down last yr. So there's where most of the outrage started.

Gotcha.

I live in the Bay Area. Anyone who thinks Cal and Stanford own the Bay Area needs to have his/her head examined. Most PAC-12 markets are dominated by pro teams and the Bay Area is no different. I will admit USC/UCLA own bigger part of LA, but they don't OWN it like say Nebraska own Nebraska.

Trust me, no one is talking Stanford/Cal game other than people that graduated from those schools. They do have a ton of alums but to say they own this market is a joke. It is like SU fans saying they are NYC's team. It is just laughable.

When Stanford sucks, no one is paying attention. When Cal sucks, no one cares. It wasn't too long ago Cal had attendance in the 20K range.

(05-24-2012 07:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:42 PM)BE Tex Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 06:53 PM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:43 PM)Jassbale Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:41 PM)Kronke Wrote:  LOL

Depends on whose "sources" you ask, I guess.

Well, I think it's odd that we would hear from 130+ mill/year to 150+mill/year for weeks to months, then all of a sudden it goes to 60 million. Nothing has changed, so it makes me wonder why it's such an outlier.

Basically an attempt to use the "Imminent moves" that haven't happend, and may not now... nor NEVER happen.." to drive-down the cost of our conference.

It's just classic marketing BS.


Honestly, if we have more TV sets than anyone but the PAC? How can we end up with a TV deal that pays half what ACC just got? Makes zero sense.

Depends who the captive audience is. Not sure the Big has any captive audience compared to the PAC or SEC or BIG 10.
UCLA/USC have the entire LA market and no NFL
Stanford/Cal have a bigger part of the Bay Area even with the NFL
OSU/Oregon have the entire state.
WSU/UW have the entire state even with the NFL
ASU/UA have the entire state even with a NFL like team (jk!)
Utah has 1/2 of SLC
CU well they count part of Denver but the NFL Broncos carry the day.

CU and Utah were added to have a CCG so that is their real intrinsic value.

just my 2 cents.

Don't be modest, your post is worth a lot more than 2 cents, because alot of folks around here like to denigrate the PAC. But, as you note, the PAC absolutely owns the states of Washington, Oregon, and Arizona. They have not only the flagship school, but the second-in-command school in all those states. They also have the flagships in Utah and Colorado. PAC has SIX flagships, Big East has what, two?

Plus, they truly own the state of California, which, if it was a separate country, would be like the 10th biggest economy on the whole planet!

Those who denigrate the "media zone" of the PAC are crazy, they have FAR FAR more tangible media attractiveness than does the Big East.

Pac does not own the state of Washington. The Seahawks do and to a lesser extent the Mariners. Same with the Cardinals/ DBacks in Arizona and the 2 football teams and 2 baseball teams in the bay area. Heck in LA, the Lakers get better ratings than anyone and so do the Dodgers. The only team that owns their markets are Utah and Oregon.

(05-24-2012 07:53 PM)BE Tex Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:46 PM)General Mike Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 07:42 PM)BE Tex Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 06:53 PM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  

(05-24-2012 05:43 PM)Jassbale Wrote:  Well, I think it's odd that we would hear from 130+ mill/year to 150+mill/year for weeks to months, then all of a sudden it goes to 60 million. Nothing has changed, so it makes me wonder why it's such an outlier.

Basically an attempt to use the "Imminent moves" that haven't happend, and may not now... nor NEVER happen.." to drive-down the cost of our conference.

It's just classic marketing BS.


Honestly, if we have more TV sets than anyone but the PAC? How can we end up with a TV deal that pays half what ACC just got? Makes zero sense.

Depends who the captive audience is. Not sure the Big has any captive audience compared to the PAC or SEC or BIG 10.
UCLA/USC have the entire LA market and no NFL
Stanford/Cal have a bigger part of the Bay Area even with the NFL
OSU/Oregon have the entire state.
WSU/UW have the entire state even with the NFL
ASU/UA have the entire state even with a NFL like team (jk!)
Utah has 1/2 of SLC
CU well they count part of Denver but the NFL Broncos carry the day.

CU and Utah were added to have a CCG so that is their real intrinsic value.

just my 2 cents.

You're nuts. Legit crazy.

Yes, yes I am. Just my experience of growing up in the Northwest and Cal area.

You are way off in your projections. It is not even close and this comes from a person who loves college FB who is living in the Bay Area. Most people here could careless about Cal or Stanford. Most people are about the 49ers and Giants.

The only similarity between West and East coasts are that they are both dominated by pro teams. That's the major difference between East and West vs. South and Midwest. College FB is important but it is down the list vs. pro teams.

I heard about McMurphy report and just go on here and haven't read the post but all this means to me is that TV Networks IMO don't expect UConn, Louisville & Rutgers to be around the BIG EAST very long.

(05-24-2012 07:54 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  I live in the Bay Area. Anyone who thinks Cal and Stanford own the Bay Area needs to have his/her head examined. Most PAC-12 markets are dominated by pro teams and the Bay Area is no different. I will admit USC/UCLA own bigger part of LA, but they don't OWN it like say Nebraska own Nebraska.

Trust me, no one is talking Stanford/Cal game other than people that graduated from those schools. They do have a ton of alums but to say they own this market is a joke. It is like SU fans saying they are NYC's team. It is just laughable.

When Stanford sucks, no one is paying attention. When Cal sucks, no one cares. It wasn't too long ago Cal had attendance in the 20K range.

This is my experience as a huge college sports fan that lived in NoCal until I was 24 and the next 34 years in SoCal.

It was once thought USC and UCLA "owned" San Diego. TV ratings from the last 2 years of the Aztecs going head to head with SC and UCLA in the San Diego market prove that to be untrue.