Well, it's definitely a difference of opinion on our TV value.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...s-lifetime

Hmm is from McMurphy he has written NOTHING positive on the league. By the way the Big12 just gt a huge tv increase eventhough they added TCU and WV which were bringing less than a quarter of what they get in the Big12. So why isn't there any question on their great increase?
How about the new Pac12 contract by adding Colorado and Utah.

Listen McMurphys goal in life is to work for ESPN.

"Is it possible those executives are minimizing the Big East's value as part of a multimillion-dollar poker game or that's the actual worth of the league? The Big East is getting ready to find out."

-- let's not forget that BMM works for CBS sports who is not in the business to praise their competitors at NBC, ESPN or Fox.

I also find it funny how he keeps writing that the departing schools left b/c the conference turned down ESPN's contract, yet it was the President's from those departing schools that voted to turn the deal down.

(05-24-2012 04:38 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Hmm is from McMurphy he has written NOTHING positive on the league. By the way the Big12 just gt a huge tv increase eventhough they added TCU and WV which were bringing less than a quarter of what they get in the Big12. So why isn't there any question on their great increase?
How about the new Pac12 contract by adding Colorado and Utah.

Listen McMurphys goal in life is to work for ESPN.

Even the lowest figures projected is a win/win for SDSU and Boise State.

But of course we would really like to hit the lottery.

(05-24-2012 04:34 PM)Jassbale Wrote:  Well, it's definitely a difference of opinion on our TV value.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...s-lifetime

As with the above, EVERY major new contract signed over the last 2-3 years has BLOWN AWAY any and all projections.

McMurhphy's employer, CBS Sports, has a hand in trying to slam the conf as much as they can...hoping the value "drops" so they can get some/all of the Big East TV at a "steal".

Not worried at all...as the major TV networks all had a hand on who they wanted invited to join the conf and what markets would be most valuable for the conf.

One day it's two billion, the next day it's 60 million.

Oh yeah and Boise is going back to the MWC. And the Big East is going to get raided by CUSA... Blah blah blah.

The nay sayers have been wrong every time.

Hard to predict where this will come out in the end, but I do think it's going to be pretty good. For Boise, who made a step up last year going to the MWC, and still only received about 1.35, will be happy at 6. But like SDSU, getting up in the 8-9 (or more) would be wonderful for our programs which typically operate on a shoestring budget!

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?

(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

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 the bigger the market, the better your chance is to penetrate it for higher numbers, especially if you actually start advertising some. And especially since you will be able to show games in 4 times zones. And even more if you go to NBC and can tag onto the ND game.

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.

(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.

(05-24-2012 05:17 PM)BE Tex Wrote:  SMU and Houston don't carry the market in their cities....Otherwise, CUSA would have a greater deal than they do now.

All that, and that's what you got? I didn't say they had to carry their markets. That's a ridiculous argument. They just have to have a market with potential. And the bigger the better.

And if the network that wins the bid can get a rights fee from local cable programmers, based on the number of subscribers, as is now commonly done, then YES, the size of the market matters, REGARDLESS of the penetration.

(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.

Nobody carries the Houston market exclusively. I am not going to go dig them up, but the nielson ratings in Houston say otherwise. I know UH vs. USM last year did over 10. But, whatever I am not going to argue with a secondary login name.

We will see later this year. This article certainly paints a different picture than all the others I've read.

As for the Houston example, I think they will do fine tv-wise...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/...f-houston/

Get used to this type of stuff, ESPN doesn't play nice when they are negotiating. They have a scorched earth style and ruffle a lot of feathers.

The haters are back again. What a shock.

The Big East will be paid pretty well, a little lower or right around the ACC but much better than everone else lower than them. From a money standpoint they are still going much closer to the top of the food chain than the bottom.

I really don't trust CBS or ESPN or anybody that is trying to keep the Big East on the cheap. I hope NBC or Fox would make the Big East a flagship brand.

Another thing that people are not talking about is mobile streaming of games. Right now ESPN is ahead of the others in terms of content. Every Big East football and basketball game should be available on your computer, tablet, phone, or whatever new tech is out there. Can NBC and Fox give us that?

Moving back to TV, every game has to be in HD. All football games should either be on national or regional tv. NBC reversed mirror with NBC Sports, Fox with Fox Sports Net, ABC with ESPN. Moving away from ESPN and weeknight football games would be huge. Why is the Cincinnati-Louisville game a weeknight game again.

(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.

"Is it possible those executives are minimizing the Big East's value as part of a multimillion-dollar poker game or that's the actual worth of the league? The Big East is getting ready to find out."

This does sound like McMurphy, in his whimsical McMurphian way, suggesting this is part of the negotiation process. I mean I hope it's the opening lowball bid.

(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.