(08-16-2012 10:18 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-16-2012 07:14 PM)General Mike Wrote:  You're wrong about the 30% thing. If the basketball only schools are getting 30% by themselves, that means football is worth less than 30% of the entire contract, and that's not happening either.

Mike, football is currently worth less than 30% of the entire contract right now, which were the numbers I used above for an example. Football is currently worth only 28% of the entire contract as we speak. So you can say "that's not happening, but right now that is the case. Now I woudl expect the football value to go up relative to basketball due to growing football numbers, and the "weakening" of basketball somewhat due to defections, but my point was that even with football being only worth 28% of the total current contract, with expansion even if those ratios stayed the same, the magical 70% umber would STILL almost be reached.

Football is only 28% of the contract because basketball provides almost 3 times as many hours of programming as football does to ESPN and CBS (syndicated games not included)

The Football portion of the contract is valued at an average of $14M currently for 22 games on ESPN/2/U, which comes out to about 77 hours of programming. The per hour average cost is 182K.

ESPN pays an average of 20M for 49 regular season games on ESPN/2, 30 games on ESPNU/3 and the 15 conference tournament games. That comes out to around 190 hours of programming valued at 105K per hour.
CBS pays an average of 8M for 5 conference games and several out of conference games. Lets say 20 hours of programming for simplicity sake. Thats an average of 400K per hour.

Now if you take the football per hour cost of 182K, but increase the number of games to 42, or 3 per weekend, you are looking at 26.7M. That would put the TV contract at basically 50/50 for football/basketball, and that's without even considering how much more the value of football games has increased. You can also add a couple million for the Big East championship game going forward.

(08-16-2012 10:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Caperelli said that the contracts would be negotiated seperately---others have said it will be a package deal. Personally---I wish they would do it seperately as I think it would remove one more source of friction from the conference.

The BE has too much product to be covered by one network. I think it will be split by sport, or perhaps by tiers, or both, so determining the value of FB vs. BB won't be an issue.

(08-16-2012 10:57 PM)General Mike Wrote:  The Football portion of the contract is valued at an average of $14M currently for 22 games on ESPN/2/U, which comes out to about 77 hours of programming. The per hour average cost is 182K.

Now if you take the football per hour cost of 182K, but increase the number of games to 42, or 3 per weekend, you are looking at 26.7M.

But how does 3 games a weekend happen when ESPN's favorite teams (Pitt, WVU, Syracuse) are gone? Since ESPN was already leaving half of the Big East inventory on ESPN3 or in local syndication (Big East Network), why should we think having more teams ESPN doesn't care for means more games on ESPN/2/U?

Trying to think inside your analysis, doesn't adding SDSU, Houston and UCF just mean more low-revenue Big East Network games, and adding Temple, Memphis, SMU, Navy just mean more content for ESPN3?

Stop trolling John. You know the Big East is not signing a deal with just ESPN. That along with the addition of Boise State, UCF, Houston, SMU and Memphis provide plenty of televisable games for NBC SN.

(08-16-2012 10:57 PM)General Mike Wrote:  Football is only 28% of the contract because basketball provides almost 3 times as many hours of programming as football does to ESPN and CBS (syndicated games not included)

.

I understand what you are saying, but you are missing the point I was making. I was showing how meaningless the 70/30 clause in the contract was, by saying that even with basketball CURRENTLY accounting for 71% of the total TV revenue, football schools STILL are getting 64% of the money. And that even if the percentages stayed the same (this was hypothetical) with the new membership breakdown and the increase in all sport members who share in basketball money (10/18 as oppoes to 8/16 in basketball), even if those revenue percentages stayed the same, that number would shift to almost 68.4%. That is even if basketball still accounted for 71% of the revenue.

I never said the new contract would look that way, just that even if it did, this is how the revenue split would look.The presumption is the numbers will come closer together, not go further away, thus the 70% issue is not likely to be of concern.

(08-16-2012 10:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The relative worth of the two contracts in the past doesnt say a whole lot. Rights values on the football have skyrocketed since that aggreement was signed. While basketball values have also risen---they have failed to keep pace with the rise in football values.

Actually, you can't say really say that. Only the Big East has a separate football and basketball contract, which means it will be the only one you can truel valuate the relative increase in value (and even that won't be apples to apples since the membership changed so much). Every other conference that plays both sports has one contract covering both sports, so the relative valuation of one sport versus another is more or less hyperbole.

There is only one instance that shows the inherant increase in value. The NCAA recently signed a new TV contract as did the BCS. The NCAA tournament contract increased 44% over the previous one they opted out of. The new BCS contract wass worth 24% more than the the previosu one. Both contracts included a move from broadcast TV to cable, where the product is more valuable (actually the NCAA contract is only partially on cable, with the championship games still on network for the majority fo the contract). This is only one example, but it shows that basketball is definitely an increasingly valuable commodity.

The daily traffic of basketball not only helps build networks (ESPN 2, ESPNU, and the Big Ten network owe their distribution to basketball), but they drive people to stick around and watch your most profitable shows (pregame, post game, and sportcenter type shows). Especially for a league like the Big East who save for possibly one marquee game every couple of weeks, is likely not to draw large numbers of casual fans to a new network that doesn't begin with an E, whereas Big East basketball games DO draw large numbers of causal viewers as compared to other leagues because there are many more marquee games. Football is more expensive to produce, and has lower profit margins due to the rights expenses (the NFL is a humongous money loser for every network as a stand alone product). basketball is cheaper to produce, draws traffic every day, and draws people to your more profitable shows. Plus I think their may be another suitor who would really value Big East basketball as a compliment to their other investment, who may pay to be a part of it.

(08-17-2012 08:58 AM)General Mike Wrote:  Stop trolling John. You know the Big East is not signing a deal with just ESPN. That along with the addition of Boise State, UCF, Houston, SMU and Memphis provide plenty of televisable games for NBC SN.

Of course Big East football is most likely to go to NBC-SN. And, yes, NBC-SN could very well go with Big East games at 1, 4, 7 and 10 Eastern every Saturday, with Boise State in the primetime game and SDSU locked in for the 10pm game (if you can play a game on Wednesday night at 7 or 8 for TV, why can't you play a home game at 10pm on a Saturday night once every other year when SDSU comes to town?) But that doesn't mean that NBC-SN is going to pay ESPN rates ($300,000 an hour) for those games. NBC is more likely to pay enough to beat out ESPN and whatever Fox offers. And with Fox having 22 Pac games, 40 Big 12 games and a sizable number of C-USA crap games they don't have a lot of dead air to fill on Saturdays. Sure, Houston games >>> Rice games but at what price?

You were saying or at least implying that more games=more money. How is that true when half of the Old BE football games were being dumped on ESPN3 or the Big East Network? (I don't think BEN was bringing in a whole lot of revenue.) Old Big East football had 28 league games, and about 24 OOC games. So ESPN was dumping about 60% (30/52) of Old Big East football games as practically worthless.

I don't think I'm trolling here. I think I'm making a legitimate point that just adding conference games doesn't necessarily add valuable games.

For my daughter::domokun:

John, you actually missed on key elelment. I have no idea what the outocme will be. But NBC, as a "startup" so to speak, has to overpay to get a conference to leave the known commodity of ESPN. Meaning if ESPN's offer was for $300,000 per hour of programming as you suggested, Comcast is not likely to win with an offer of $310,000 per hour. Anyone, who is not a name brand, leaving ESPN by choice has to be paid handsomely to take that leap of faith, or the BE will remain with ESPN, who is the known commodity. Fox perhaps could be a bit different since they have more of a track record. But NBC or any other new comer has to pay more.

(08-17-2012 10:28 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  John, you actually missed on key elelment. I have no idea what the outocme will be. But NBC, as a "startup" so to speak, has to overpay to get a conference to leave the known commodity of ESPN. Meaning if ESPN's offer was for $300,000 per hour of programming as you suggested, Comcast is not likely to win with an offer of $310,000 per hour. Anyone, who is not a name brand, leaving ESPN by choice has to be paid handsomely to take that leap of faith, or the BE will remain with ESPN, who is the known commodity. Fox perhaps could be a bit different since they have more of a track record. But NBC or any other new comer has to pay more.

But ESPN is only going to bid $300,000 for the hours that they want, and the rest gets thrown on ESPN3 or syndicated for peanuts. Let's say that ESPN would show 20 Big East games @ $2M a game. It's the $40M that NBC has to beat, not the $2M a game, if NBC wants to show 80 games @ $1M each, the number that matters is $80M, not $1M a game or $300,000 an hour, etc.

(This assumes that ESPN is not afraid of Big East football on NBC-SN. ESPN was not afraid of hockey on NBC-SN, and didn't bid much. They were afraid of PAC-12 football on NBC-SN, and broke open the piggy bank.)

(08-17-2012 09:40 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-16-2012 10:57 PM)General Mike Wrote:  Football is only 28% of the contract because basketball provides almost 3 times as many hours of programming as football does to ESPN and CBS (syndicated games not included)

.

I understand what you are saying, but you are missing the point I was making. I was showing how meaningless the 70/30 clause in the contract was, by saying that even with basketball CURRENTLY accounting for 71% of the total TV revenue, football schools STILL are getting 64% of the money. And that even if the percentages stayed the same (this was hypothetical) with the new membership breakdown and the increase in all sport members who share in basketball money (10/18 as oppoes to 8/16 in basketball), even if those revenue percentages stayed the same, that number would shift to almost 68.4%. That is even if basketball still accounted for 71% of the revenue.

I never said the new contract would look that way, just that even if it did, this is how the revenue split would look.The presumption is the numbers will come closer together, not go further away, thus the 70% issue is not likely to be of concern.

(08-16-2012 10:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The relative worth of the two contracts in the past doesnt say a whole lot. Rights values on the football have skyrocketed since that aggreement was signed. While basketball values have also risen---they have failed to keep pace with the rise in football values.

Actually, you can't say really say that. Only the Big East has a separate football and basketball contract, which means it will be the only one you can truel valuate the relative increase in value (and even that won't be apples to apples since the membership changed so much). Every other conference that plays both sports has one contract covering both sports, so the relative valuation of one sport versus another is more or less hyperbole.

There is only one instance that shows the inherant increase in value. The NCAA recently signed a new TV contract as did the BCS. The NCAA tournament contract increased 44% over the previous one they opted out of. The new BCS contract wass worth 24% more than the the previosu one. Both contracts included a move from broadcast TV to cable, where the product is more valuable (actually the NCAA contract is only partially on cable, with the championship games still on network for the majority fo the contract). This is only one example, but it shows that basketball is definitely an increasingly valuable commodity.

I don't think anyone is saying basketball isn't a growing commodity. It is, it's just not growing like football.

They're talking $500 million/year for the three game "playoff" compared to $174 million for the five BCS games.

(08-17-2012 10:37 AM)k5james Wrote:  I don't think anyone is saying basketball isn't a growing commodity. It is, it's just not growing like football.

They're talking $500 million/year for the three game "playoff" compared to $174 million for the five BCS games.

Until it's signed it's hyperbole. But that is not a fair comparison because you are not selling the same item, BCS bowsl versus a playoff. I showed two situations where the same product was reupped, one football and one basketball, and th ebasketball product had a higher increase. that's all I'm saying, and to date, it is the only proof we have of how one's value has changed compared to the other, as every ohter conference has an umbrella contract.

(08-17-2012 10:43 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-17-2012 10:37 AM)k5james Wrote:  I don't think anyone is saying basketball isn't a growing commodity. It is, it's just not growing like football.

They're talking $500 million/year for the three game "playoff" compared to $174 million for the five BCS games.

Until it's signed it's hyperbole. But that is not a fair comparison because you are not selling the same item, BCS bowsl versus a playoff. I showed two situations where the same product was reupped, one football and one basketball, and th ebasketball product had a higher increase. that's all I'm saying, and to date, it is the only proof we have of how one's value has changed compared to the other, as every ohter conference has an umbrella contract.

You're still not comparing the same thing. You're comparing a basketball playoff to a group of five bowl games. They aren't the same thing.

N uou have it backeards. I am comparing apples to apples. I compared the increase, as a percentage, of the value fromthe group to five bowl games" from one contract to the next, to the increase in value of the basketball tournament from one contract to the next. Apples to apples as both formats remained mostly unchanged (unless one thinks the three additional "first four" games are really worth $200 million per year). Your comparison is flawed because you are comparing
1) a hypothetical contract to one that was signed, and
2) a change in format from bowl games to a playoff, in which the change has more to do with affecting the value of the contract than the time value increase of the value of football in general.

(08-17-2012 10:43 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-17-2012 10:37 AM)k5james Wrote:  I don't think anyone is saying basketball isn't a growing commodity. It is, it's just not growing like football.

They're talking $500 million/year for the three game "playoff" compared to $174 million for the five BCS games.

Until it's signed it's hyperbole. But that is not a fair comparison because you are not selling the same item, BCS bowsl versus a playoff. I showed two situations where the same product was reupped, one football and one basketball, and th ebasketball product had a higher increase. that's all I'm saying, and to date, it is the only proof we have of how one's value has changed compared to the other, as every ohter conference has an umbrella contract.

In 2008 Fox was paying 82 million per year for the entire BCS package (minus the Rose Bowl). In 2012 the rights to the new champions bowl---which is just ONE of the 6 BCS Bowls was sold to ESPN for 80 million dollars. Thats over a 400% increase over 4 years.

ESPN currently pays the Rose Bowl 30 million a year for broadcast rights. The exention signed in 2012 wil pay the Rose Bowl 80 million per year---thats a 266% increase.

Yes, basketball is also increasing---but football is skyrocketing.

Also...in regards to 'different products'....March Madness is a totally different product than "regular season college basketball".

Networks pay more $$$$$ to the NCAA for just one week of March Madness coverage vs what ALL the networks pay ALL conferences for the ENTIRE regular season (Nov-early March).

As most know...all the MARCH MADNESS $$$$ goes to the NCAA first...before expenses and formulas are taken out in regards to how its ultimately shared.

March Madness is the biggest money raiser for the NCAA HQ each and every year.

The new bowl games of course, as with the current ones, will continue to remain OUTSIDE the NCAA control (in regards to payment).

The 70/30 split is a red herring. The only significance that such split has is that Boise State can leave for a reduced exit fee if football has something lower than 70%. However, if Boise ends up getting $10 million plus per year and that happens to represent a 60% split for football, then I guarantee you that they're not going to care. The money is still green and obviously way more than they could ever possibly receive in the MWC. Otherwise, there's nothing out there that mandates a 70/30 split. The market is ultimately going to dictate what each side is worth. If a network wants to pay 50/50 but it's worth a ton of money overall, no one is going to focus about how the split looks when everyone is getting paid.

Attack, the bcs went from an average rod $25 millik per game with fox (and including the rose bowl on abc) to $31 million now. The NCAA tournament went from an average of $545 million to $785. Basketball went up more in value. The champions bowl is not fon$80 million per year btw.

Knight, I did not compare the overall value d NCAA basketball versus regular basketball. I points doutthe only actual true comparison we have to show the overall increase in value from one sport to another are these two. As much as you guys want to argue to try and prove love preconceived notions, the numbers show that basketball has increased as much, if not more in value, in a like situation than football. Especially when talking about valuable basketball commodites likw the ncaa tournament, acc basketball, or in this case big east basketball. My statement is nothing more, nothing less than that.

Now compared to big east football, basketball has probably taken a perception hit,
Meaning a monetary hit, whole football has expanded and is probably more sought
Than before, so the gap will close. But my point was thtthe big easy marquee asset, basketball, will still be more valuable than football as an overall number, not necessarily per team or per game, but as a number.

Fine, take the Rose Bowl then...

Quote:The Rose Bowl’s new $80 million annual rights fee represents a 167 percent jump from the $30 million the network currently pays.

http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal...offs.aspx?

Btw I'm or trying to start fights or argue with you guys. Just pointing out that basketball has more
Value than some think.

(08-17-2012 02:17 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Attack, the bcs went from an average rod $25 millik per game with fox (and including the rose bowl on abc) to $31 million now. The NCAA tournament went from an average of $545 million to $785. Basketball went up more in value. The champions bowl is not fon$80 million per year btw.

Knight, I did not compare the overall value d NCAA basketball versus regular basketball. I points doutthe only actual true comparison we have to show the overall increase in value from one sport to another are these two. As much as you guys want to argue to try and prove love preconceived notions, the numbers show that basketball has increased as much, if not more in value, in a like situation than football. Especially when talking about valuable basketball commodites likw the ncaa tournament, acc basketball, or in this case big east basketball. My statement is nothing more, nothing less than that.

Now compared to big east football, basketball has probably taken a perception hit,
Meaning a monetary hit, whole football has expanded and is probably more sought
Than before, so the gap will close.

???? Big East football lost 3/8, and counting since 2005, 3 of the 7 BCS appearances, 5 of the 12 conference champs and co-champs. Andre Ware wasn't following ESPN talking points when he trashed the Big East, he was regurgitating the common media impression. (Yes, ESPN has a huge role in shaping it, but we can't wish that away.)

And the new members don't make up for the losses--Boise State has higher prestige right now than West Virginia, but Syracuse and Pitt are established BCS-level programs and the New Big East members are not.

Big East basketball, on the other hand, lost one national power and two strong programs, while adding two pretty strong programs. Perception-wise, swapping West Virginia and Pitt for Temple and Memphis is only a narrow loss. West Virginia and Memphis have both been to Final Fours lately, and Temple has been to the tournament 5 straight years while Pitt has gone dancing for 10 years straight(before this year).

On the other hand, Big East basketball dropped from a clear-cut No. 1 to being one of several power conferences.

(08-17-2012 02:41 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Btw I'm or trying to start fights or argue with you guys. Just pointing out that basketball has more
Value than some think.

Just lurking and reading, not debating, but I agree with you. But why worry about it, on either side? It's gonna be whatever the market dictates, it's likely going to be easy to delineate, b/c both sports will likely be chopped up between networks, and there won't be any issues, IMO, b/c everybody's gonna get paid.