(12-12-2012 05:01 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-12-2012 04:46 PM)stever20 Wrote:  SEC has leverage in that they haven't gotten paid yet from A&M and Missouri entering the league. Given the increases that the ACC has had, SEC is due for a pretty hefty raise.... I think SEC is getting more programming from ESPN for the network in exchange for a lower increase in the money paid to the SEC from ESPN.

That's not leverage though. Due to how the SEC contract is worded, ESPNcould choose not to do a thing and the SEC would just have more Tier 3 content. ESPN had to renegotiate with the ACC because they bought everything: thus they were now gettign more games than they were originally paying for. The SEC only sold ESPN and CBS X number of games. They don't "have" to do anything. The SEC is the one stuck because they can't sell the extra games. IF ESPN does renegoitate, expect the SEC to have to add a lot of years and add extra concessions on the Network.

Note that ESPN never "had" to negotiate with the Gib Ten when they added Nebraska. They just sold their CCG to Fox, and let the extra gems flow to the B1G Network.

When they set up the SECN, it will be for a term that goes way beyond the current deal. The base rights may not be extended, but rights for games provided to the SECN will be defined for 25 years or more.

The SEC is buying up the Tier 3 rights previously sold by schools to other programmers. These are up to ten years at the longest - and already paid for (i.e. no extra value to the SEC). SEC members will grant the rights to these games beyond the current expiration for use on the SECN. This will provide more value.

The TAMU and Mizzou expansion provides a big piece of the inventory for the network. Games can be moved to the SECN without reducing the number of games traditionally shown on ESPN networks in 2011 and before. In 2012, ESPN had more games than they could profitably use - on average one game per week. The expansion renegotiation will reflect the ability to use the games on the SECN, which will be substantially more than having more games for ESPNU and ESPN3.

ESPN will likely own 50% of the network and will contribute games that it already owns plus Tier 3 rights that it is buying up, marketing, operations and production. The SEC will "pay" for its share with the extra TAMU and MIzzou games, the Tier 3 rights games not bought separately by ESPN, and a long term contract extension at least for SECN games. I'm looking for the SEC's base rights to be in the $25 million/year/school range (CBS+ESPN+SECN), with profits from SECN split 50/50 between the conference and ESPN.

seems like it would benefit acc the most, but all pretty much have members' data from diff conferences now.
oh well

(12-12-2012 05:15 PM)orangefan Wrote:  When they set up the SECN, it will be for a term that goes way beyond the current deal. The base rights may not be extended, but rights for games provided to the SECN will be defined for 25 years or more.

The SEC is buying up the Tier 3 rights previously sold by schools to other programmers. These are up to ten years at the longest - and already paid for (i.e. no extra value to the SEC). SEC members will grant the rights to these games beyond the current expiration for use on the SECN. This will provide more value.

The TAMU and Mizzou expansion provides a big piece of the inventory for the network. Games can be moved to the SECN without reducing the number of games traditionally shown on ESPN networks in 2011 and before. In 2012, ESPN had more games than they could profitably use - on average one game per week. The expansion renegotiation will reflect the ability to use the games on the SECN, which will be substantially more than having more games for ESPNU and ESPN3.

ESPN will likely own 50% of the network and will contribute games that it already owns plus Tier 3 rights that it is buying up, marketing, operations and production. The SEC will "pay" for its share with the extra TAMU and MIzzou games, the Tier 3 rights games not bought separately by ESPN, and a long term contract extension at least for SECN games. I'm looking for the SEC's base rights to be in the $25 million/year/school range (CBS+ESPN+SECN), with profits from SECN split 50/50 between the conference and ESPN.

Not disputing anything you have said. In fact it is exactly what I have been saying.

But that does not provide leverage to the SEC to force ESPN to renegotiate, unless they give them something. I.E. give ESPN 50% ownership. But ESPN has no reason to give them more money (since they're not buying more games like they did with the ACC), unless the SEC gives them something (more years, more ownership of the network, etc).

(12-12-2012 12:26 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(12-12-2012 11:02 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  1. Once again, you seem to be showing that they do improve academics*, but then claiming that they don't**, because they could do a better job of it. Then you seem to be concluding that they are moot, because they will provide academic support in the form of a MOOC, like Courseshare essentially is....

I, perhaps, did a poor job. 1st, I had to first point out what you were apparently unable to find on the websites and then discuss what it actually meant and the differences (as opposed to copy fluff) and then try to explain why it didn't actually impact a university's academics or R&D. Maybe it is just because most aren't familiar with academia...and I assumed too much; as if such things would be obvious. And while I agree with you that there is room for improvement in that these academic consortiums with additional financial backing (and hence the real issue) could be grown to become significant academic alliances for its members, you're previous assertion that you understated your familiarity with these programs, to be blunt, was not understated at all. If you think Indiana offering a distance education for Estonian language is at all significant in recruiting students to Michigan State, than this conversation is already over. (BTW, SU has shared programs with SUNY Upstate that are much more meaningful than anything in the CIC and MOOCs are a big-time direction all universities are looking into...they are likely going to be major part of the future, perhaps a complete paradigm shift in higher ed, including for the Big10 schools...but the field is young and an evolving technology and service) Likewise, if you think getting research experience at the undergrad level isn't important, particularly in STEM fields, then I don't know what to tell you..but then summer programs at other schools aren't really what I'm talking about because those are pretty limited experiences compared to year+ long in-depth research projects that, ideally, result in significant relationships with other scientists and some sort of authorship.

My "bias" comes from spending over 15 years in academic sciences doing research, teaching, and grants administration. Frankly, I know what I'm talking about. Most people waxing on the internet about how important the CIC are absolutely clueless. I see the same myths and misunderstanding repeated over and over again. It's not like these consortiums don't have some good things or that there isn't potential, but generally people are just plain ignorant about it because they don't read past the impressive sounding press releases and have no idea how things inside academia is done or how R&D is funded. Really, whether anyone wants to believe that or not doesn't change the reality of these things one bit. All I'm trying to do is enlighten people to these realities.

And btw, just as a practical and measurable example, PSU, where you did research, is often touted as an example by B10 fan boys of how the CIC enhanced that school's academic and research profile and throw out raw R&D $totals while ignoring the fact that federal appropriations for academic R&D (by far the major source of R&D funding) nearly tripled across the board during that period. The truth is, Penn State's profile has gotten worse when compared to peer universities since it joined the CIC. According to the NSF reports, in FY 1990 Penn State R&D accounted for 1.57% of total R&D funding among US colleges and universities (or 9th out of all colleges and universities in the US). In FY 2010, the latest available numbers, Penn State R&D was 1.27% of total academic R&D spending or #15 nationally. In comparison, Georgia Tech remained steady at 1.0% over the same time period, while Pitt rose from 0.72% (#34) to 1.34% (#11). I guess that makes the Big East football conference the most academically elite research organization in the world! Again, the actual facts are that Penn State has actually fallen in R&D expenditures in comparison to peers since it joined the CIC in 1990. In addition, since 1996 when US News began individual school rankings past 25th place, Penn State has dropped from #41 to #46 this year. Penn State has gotten worse by both measures. Bottom line, the CIC nor the ACCIAC nor SECU nor the AAU nor anything but the institution itself enhances the real world academic or research prowess of said institution.

I actually read that page before I posted my first post. You really, really need to lose the condescending attitude. You also need to stop making assumptions, and you really need to stop trying to argue with me about stuff I neither believe, nor said (i.e. the part about usefulness (or lack thereof) of the CIC role in the B1G pooling their libraries). This isn't a p*ssing contest. I am not trying to one-up you. Stop trying to one-up me with irrelevant facts. There is no reason not to be amicable. We are both on the same side. I want SU to do well, and I want every school in the ACC to do well, especially schools like Pitt, ND, and BC. You are clearly a bright person. You have no need to take the proverbial lower road.

For example, stop trying to argue with me about research. About 80% (maybe more) of your post is about research. However, unless possibly by accident, I have yet to make a single claim about how the CIC/ACCIAC affects research. For the third time, I don't care. I really, really don't. I couldn't care less whether the CIC helped or hurt PSU's research profile (I am actually kind of glad that Pitt passed PSU). You seem bent on convincing me that the CIC doesn't really help schools get research, but I keep telling you that I don't care. For what it's worth, I believe you. I'm sold (see my posts from about 3-4 days ago when I said that the AAU is more or less just a label and it doesn't enhance academics and/or research other than by the reputation gained by getting to put a neat-looking sticker next to your name in brochures). None the less, I do not want Syracuse to turn into a research factory. Obviously, being good at research is good. But, IMO Syracuse should always put academics first, and there is a difference between research and academics. They are two very different things, so the research benefits of the ACCIAC (or lack thereof) are of minimal importance to me.

I only mentioned my pro-research bias, because I think that it adds credibility to my claim that research does not equal academics. You mentioning your bias only seems to add credibility to 1) your claim that you know a lot about research (I believe you), and 2) my belief that you may or may not have a vested interest in the ACCIAC being on equal footing or better than the CIC. However, I can assure you that you do not need to improve your credibility. When it comes to research, I believe you, adn I never doubted/disagreed with you.

The problem with MOOCs is in the grading. You cannot grade 100,000 students. All of the MOOCs of which I know have student-grading. Users have to grade something like 3 other user's papers, and they have their paper graded by 3 other students. If the other 3 students don't know what they are talking about, or don't take their assignment seriously, then you are SOL. So, the feedback is very questionable. However, although a professor cannot give grades for 100,000 students, one can grade 50-100 students, and you can have classes of 50-100 students in multiple locations (see PSU's Dickinson School of Law). For credit (i.e. not for free) MOOCs can only grow so big. The instructor needs to be able to grade the class, and the instructor (or TA's) need to be able to answer questions. Conceivably you could "Wal-Mart it" and have a pre-recorded video of lessons and readings that get updated every couple of years, and a TA for every 50 students, grades assignments and answers questions (via the internet), but I don't think that will ever carry the same weight as a credit earned in a class small enough to where the professor could conceivably know every student's name, so I don't think that any serious university will take that approach (Stanford and MIT admins agree with me, and they are "industry leaders" in the field of MOOCs - and yes, I know they give certificates, but they do not award credits via MOOCs). Programs like Courseshare establish the groundwork for inter-college learning. There might not be enough interest amongst either Pitt or Syracuse students to justify hiring an extra professor and offering classes in an obscure aspect of physical therapy. And, there might not be enough interest amongst either Pitt or Syracuse students to justify hiring an extra professor and offering classes in healthcare design. But Syracuse's #2 ranked architecture college could very well justify adding an extra professor if it meant that Syracuse students could take classes in Pitt's #2 ranked Physical Therapy college, because the two schools could pool demands. That would allow small/medium-sized universities to counter MASSIVE public schools. For example, one of PSU's selling points is that they offer a program in just about anything under the sun (go to State College and watch TV for 30 minutes if you don't believe me - I think that they might even actually use the phrase "anything under the sun"). If SU or Pitt could make the same claim, schools like PSU would lose one of their MAJOR selling points. I do not understand how you reach the conclusion that either A) programs like Courseshare do not establish the groundwork for inter-institutional classes, and/or B) how such classes are not a HUGE recruiting advantage.

Yes, I understand that the ACCIAC has a pilot program, but the CIC’s is better. The B1G offers cross-learning at a graduate level, and they do it at an undergraduate level. Unless I am missing something, and you have yet to show me anything that leads me to believe that I am, the ACCIAC does not. The ACCIAC does offer similar programs for graduate (mostly, if not entirely, for phd students), but not undergrads. Given that schools are rated based on undergrad performance and perception of undergrad programs, I am MUCH more concerned with undergrad programs.

Now, with all that said, you are right about SUNY ESF (and probs SUNY Upstate to a limited extent), but that doesn't change anything. Also, if you know anythign about either SUNY ESF, or SUNY Upstate, then I am sure that you will agree with me when I say that they are very limited. ESF is a great school for environmental sciences, but there aren't a lot of other options on the ESF campus (they rely on Syracuse). So, while they do provide excellent environmental science-related resources, that's about all they provide. The basic concept of sharing academic resources is a good one, and there are a lot of advantages.

I get that Pitt is in an urban environment and a top 15 research institution (well done, btw ), but that isn't true for many ACC schools. for instance, ND, SU, and BC all have great academics, but none of them are AAU, and, out of the three of them, only BC is in an urban environment. If the ACC wants to fill the UMD void, we need to do more than just market our CIC (the ACCIAC) better. Anyway, how many schools can match SU architecture (#2), SU Comm. (#3), SU gov. (#1), BC undergrad business (#9), ND undergrad business (#1 I think), Pitt physical therapy (#2), an dso on? I can almost promise you that there isn't a school "just down the street" that can come close to offering the same resources that any of those colleges can. And, that was just a short list from 3 schools and I only mentioned the specific colleges off the top of my head. Come up with a full list and drill into individual programs, and there is a HUGE amount of untapped value.

(12-12-2012 05:02 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-12-2012 04:56 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  It was based on BCS finishes. So the point about being from separate conferences isn't as important as was being made out to be.

IT still is, because there are only a finite number of wins and losses within a conference. By taking teams from two conferences, you essentailly inflate the number of teams who can go undefeated or only have one loss, and finish high. Right now you have 4 teams in 2003 with a combined 4 conference losses In 2004 the top five teams have a combined 7 conference losses.

At the end of the day, we really, really need to get our **** together. Honestly, every team has underachieved over the last 10 years, and we have gotten what could be out last "get out of jail free" card. It's time to put up, or shut up. It's as simple as that.

Side note: G*d, I hope Miami doesn't get too screwed. The ACC could really, really used a Miami to counter USC, and a FSU to counter Oregon. I think VTech can counter UCLA, Clemson can counter Stanford, Syracuse/Pitt/UNC can counter OSU/UW/'Zona, and GT, UL, and BC have the potential to throw something at the Pac-12 that the Pac can counter.

Actually, if Miami/FSU/Clemson/VTech can counter Texas/OU/OSU/WVU, then I think that the ACC can even matchup with the Big XII.

We pretty much had no choice but to agree to work with ESPN on the 3rd tier stuff. Since they had first dibs on everything if we didn't agree they would have simply exercised that right and the only time Clemson baseball would have been on TV would be on the road or in the postseason (when the NCAA controls the rights) Don't start getting the idea that ESPN is doing us any favors out of the goodness of their heart.

(12-12-2012 06:02 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Not disputing anything you have said. In fact it is exactly what I have been saying.

But that does not provide leverage to the SEC to force ESPN to renegotiate, unless they give them something. I.E. give ESPN 50% ownership. But ESPN has no reason to give them more money (since they're not buying more games like they did with the ACC), unless the SEC gives them something (more years, more ownership of the network, etc).

Doesn't the SEC get the same opportunity for adding TAMU and Mizzou as the ACC got for adding SU and Pitt? Plus the oppurtunity to extend the term of the deal, even if only for SECN games?

(12-12-2012 08:43 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(12-12-2012 06:02 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Not disputing anything you have said. In fact it is exactly what I have been saying.

But that does not provide leverage to the SEC to force ESPN to renegotiate, unless they give them something. I.E. give ESPN 50% ownership. But ESPN has no reason to give them more money (since they're not buying more games like they did with the ACC), unless the SEC gives them something (more years, more ownership of the network, etc).

Doesn't the SEC get the same opportunity for adding TAMU and Mizzou as the ACC got for adding SU and Pitt? Plus the oppurtunity to extend the term of the deal, even if only for SECN games?

Yes, but here's where people are getting confused, IMO. You could show easily that before that last renegotiation the ACC was being grossly underpaid compared to TV ratings, etc. Even so, ESPN only paid market rate for the additional games - added through 2 more teams and 2 more years. The reason ACC TV money is still behind is because of the original, under market deal.

The SEC has the same issue. They could accept market rate for the additional games and get a decent bump, but it seems like they are trying the SEC network approach instead. IMO there's no guarantee that will make them more money, as CBS and ESPN would still have first choice of games and the SEC Network would get what's left - but maybe Slive can get them a better deal? If not, they'll probably go to $21 million per year and be done with it.

(12-12-2012 08:43 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Doesn't the SEC get the same opportunity for adding TAMU and Mizzou as the ACC got for adding SU and Pitt? Plus the oppurtunity to extend the term of the deal, even if only for SECN games?

Not necessarily. Because ESPN only purchases a specified number of games from the SEC, as does CBS. Just because the SEC increases its inventory does not mean they "have" to buy more. And ESPN doesn't really have room for any more SEC games on their networks with all of their commitments to other conferences, so they're not going to buy more anyway, or at least they don't have to. However the SEC can still monetize those games themselves as each team now has two Tier 3 games instead of one. So it's not like they would be gettign screwed if ESPN didn't. So ESPN doesn't "have to do anything.

Now they may choose to so as to lenghten the deal or make money off an SEC network, which if they do will be why they renegotiate. But as the Big Ten showed, you don't have to do anything (they choose to leave it alone, add more gmaes to the B1G network) and wait for free agency and not delay it by renegotiating.

On the other hand, ESPN and Raycom literally bought all of the ACC inventory by contract. Thus if they now have more games, and if ESPN or Raycom wants them (they make a lot of meony off the ACC Tier 3 games), they have to renegotiate to have them all. Thus they did.

Conference realignment does not necessarily force the rights holder to renegotiate, except under rare conditions (the ACC and Big East contracts would have forced it since ESPN promised to buy ALL rights). Outside of that, because most of the contracts specifiy a set number of games between a set list of teams, they only do so if it's mutually beneficial. That's why they did with the ACC, they are looking to with the SEC, but also why the B1G chose not to.

(12-13-2012 06:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The SEC has the same issue. They could accept market rate for the additional games and get a decent bump, but it seems like they are trying the SEC network approach instead. IMO there's no guarantee that will make them more money, as CBS and ESPN would still have first choice of games and the SEC Network would get what's left - but maybe Slive can get them a better deal? If not, they'll probably go to $21 million per year and be done with it.

They have another issue with an SEC Network. Not sure if you saw th elist above that I made of the games that were Tier 3 this year (shown on the SEC Network Syndication package or PPV). Even for die hard SEC fans, that is a ****** list. I swear people don't want to beleive it at times, but the biggest draw for the Big Ten Network has been their basketball. With rare exception, even though they withheld far more content than the SEC did, the major teams only showed up on there once or twice, usually a 1AA game and a MAC game, and the games were just not good enough to get people to switch to DirecTV to get the B1G Network, and force cable companies to add them. Even in columnbus and Detroit. Wasn't til basketball season started and fans were mising double digit basketball games that people strarted taking notice. Then cable comapnies saw people leave to go to DirecTV in droves, and were bombarded with calls. Only then, did they start adding the Big Ten Network.

I can't see that happening with SEC basketball. Who knows, maybe the additions of Missorui anf aTm help, but consider how bad SEC basketball is on ESPN or ESPN 2. Now imagine how bad the third tier games, Auburn vs. Valparaso must be?

(12-13-2012 11:14 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-13-2012 06:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The SEC has the same issue. They could accept market rate for the additional games and get a decent bump, but it seems like they are trying the SEC network approach instead. IMO there's no guarantee that will make them more money, as CBS and ESPN would still have first choice of games and the SEC Network would get what's left - but maybe Slive can get them a better deal? If not, they'll probably go to $21 million per year and be done with it.

They have another issue with an SEC Network. Not sure if you saw th elist above that I made of the games that were Tier 3 this year (shown on the SEC Network Syndication package or PPV). Even for die hard SEC fans, that is a ****** list. I swear people don't want to beleive it at times, but the biggest draw for the Big Ten Network has been their basketball. With rare exception, even though they withheld far more content than the SEC did, the major teams only showed up on there once or twice, usually a 1AA game and a MAC game, and the games were just not good enough to get people to switch to DirecTV to get the B1G Network, and force cable companies to add them. Even in columnbus and Detroit. Wasn't til basketball season started and fans were mising double digit basketball games that people strarted taking notice. Then cable comapnies saw people leave to go to DirecTV in droves, and were bombarded with calls. Only then, did they start adding the Big Ten Network.

I can't see that happening with SEC basketball. Who knows, maybe the additions of Missorui anf aTm help, but consider how bad SEC basketball is on ESPN or ESPN 2. Now imagine how bad the third tier games, Auburn vs. Valparaso must be?

AD,

I know that this is your area of expertise since you studied sports management in college. So what is your opinion on the chances of the Acc getting its own network off the ground in the future? This league will definitely have the most elite basketball. Its other olympic sports are very good as well. I have to imagine that the chances are pretty good.

I have no expertise in this area.

Purely having to guess, and I know this sounds strange, I think it is better than the SEC. the quality of the football games is about the same from what I can tell - looking at the SEC Tier 3 schedule versus the ACC one, both are full of the bottom tier teams (anyone think Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, or Miss St are dramatically better than Wake, Duke, Virginia, and Maryland? Plus there are more Tier 3 ACC games since ESPN and CBS pick up more SEC football games). And a big driving force, basketball, will really help. People assume that SEC fans will watch anything with regards to their conference or teams? You should see how abysmal those PPV games do. And yes I am talking about Alabama and Tennessee, who have both had them. Their own fans don’t buy them. And the best draw an SEC network will have, are the one or two body bag games per year played by Florida, Alabama, and LSU. Conference Networks are literally built on the backs of your worst teams. The ones who will be on there the most.

The thing you have to remember about football on a conference network is you are literally looking at the worst game the conference has to offer at a given time, while their better games are on an ESPN station. The only people who watch them, generally, are fans of the teams playing. With basketball, that is not necessarily the case, especially during the week. You are at least competing against teams from other conferences who may be on TV that night, So if Monday's ESPN has a BE game and a Big XII game on ESPN, and women's ball on ESPN2, well if Syracuse and Pitt are playing on a Monday, it literally might be on the ACC Network. Which one are you watching?

I know there were times when I would rather watch the Big East Network game on SNY over the SEC game on ESPN. I have watched Big Ten basketball games on the B1G overt the ESPN games. But I have never, ever, chosen to watch a game on the B1G Network over another one airing on ESPN or Fox.