We've been operating on the theory that with ESPN/2/U/ABC, Fox/FS1/FSN, NBC/NBC-SN and CBS/CBS-SN, there was space on national sports TV for plenty of college football, even for a Tulane vs Memphis or USF vs San Diego State.

Maybe that's not true. NBC-SN and CBS-SN obviously have space, but are very, very cheap. This could be part of why Aresco doesn't have any numbers to show the university presidents. MAybe the networks agree his product is "worth" $50-100M, just not to them. ESPN or Fox would pay that kind of money, but they don't have the timeslots to show it and make it worthwhile, and NBC and CBS aren't spending that kind of money.

ESPN/2/U/ABC is a little too complex for me to lay out what spots they have, but they've been showing about 25 Big East TV package games a year. From the ACC and SEC expanding from 12 to 14, they're basically getting two more games a week. So they're not looking at a big gap that Houston vs UConn football would be filling.

FOX and FoxSports1 would be the next candidates. Figure they want 3 games a week on FoxSports1 while still keeping a Big 12 game on Fox Sports Net, because they need that for Fox Sports Southwest/Oklahoma/etc. They put 18 Saturday games on FOX last year, plus 1 on Friday. Add that up and it's 4x14 = 56 + 19 = 75
They have 22 PAC and I think 30 Big 12 games, total.

So that's 23 spots to fill. But those spots fill up when you remember that FoxSports1 is going to have
--MLB regular season,
--some MLB playoff games
--plus college basketball from the PAC-12 and probably the C-7 league
--maybe Tier 3 basketball from that they now have on Fox College Sports. According to wikipedia, there's stuff from the ACC, SEC, PAC, Big 12, and MAC.
--plus Fox has C-USA Tier One rights. You can take 2-3 games from there, but you don't want a steady diet of Louisiana Tech vs UNT games.

FoxSports1 will have some space, since I think they still want to protect their RSNs and not just move all the good content to FoxSports1. But I don't see them adding a lower-FBS game from the same league every week. They might take 4-5-6 Aresco league games and rotate them with C-USA games, MLB baseball and college basketball, but they're not going to build their network on UConn football.

Good Tallgrass impersonation, but wrong forum. 7/10.

FWIW, I have never bought the idea that media networks were so starved for 'inventory' that a conference with lots of it like the nBE would automatically sign a great deal. In all business, inventory has to be in demand to be valuable. I think ECU football is valiable to me, but recognize that if few others do it's market price wil be low.

Seems like Aresco thought quantity, not quality, is what mattered most and thus has valued our football too high to sign a deal.

(01-17-2013 10:46 AM)carolina pirate Wrote:  Seems like Aresco thought quantity, not quality, is what mattered most and thus has valued our football too high to sign a deal.

I'll bet Aresco knows more about what matters to TV than you do.

(01-17-2013 10:34 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  We've been operating on the theory that with ESPN/2/U/ABC, Fox/FS1/FSN, NBC/NBC-SN and CBS/CBS-SN, there was space on national sports TV for plenty of college football, even for a Tulane vs Memphis or USF vs San Diego State.

Maybe that's not true. NBC-SN and CBS-SN obviously have space, but are very, very cheap. This could be part of why Aresco doesn't have any numbers to show the university presidents. MAybe the networks agree his product is "worth" $50-100M, just not to them. ESPN or Fox would pay that kind of money, but they don't have the timeslots to show it and make it worthwhile, and NBC and CBS aren't spending that kind of money.

ESPN/2/U/ABC is a little too complex for me to lay out what spots they have, but they've been showing about 25 Big East TV package games a year. From the ACC and SEC expanding from 12 to 14, they're basically getting two more games a week. So they're not looking at a big gap that Houston vs UConn football would be filling.

FOX and FoxSports1 would be the next candidates. Figure they want 3 games a week on FoxSports1 while still keeping a Big 12 game on Fox Sports Net, because they need that for Fox Sports Southwest/Oklahoma/etc. They put 18 Saturday games on FOX last year, plus 1 on Friday. Add that up and it's 4x14 = 56 + 19 = 75
They have 22 PAC and I think 30 Big 12 games, total.

So that's 23 spots to fill. But those spots fill up when you remember that FoxSports1 is going to have
--MLB regular season,
--some MLB playoff games
--plus college basketball from the PAC-12 and probably the C-7 league
--maybe Tier 3 basketball from that they now have on Fox College Sports. According to wikipedia, there's stuff from the ACC, SEC, PAC, Big 12, and MAC.
--plus Fox has C-USA Tier One rights. You can take 2-3 games from there, but you don't want a steady diet of Louisiana Tech vs UNT games.

FoxSports1 will have some space, since I think they still want to protect their RSNs and not just move all the good content to FoxSports1. But I don't see them adding a lower-FBS game from the same league every week. They might take 4-5-6 Aresco league games and rotate them with C-USA games, MLB baseball and college basketball, but they're not going to build their network on UConn football.

Think small packages designed to fill niches. That's the strategy to use. Split the package. If ESPN bought the whole football package for say 40 million, it costs them an awful lot of money for alot the programming they will never broadcast. Say they only need 20% of the nBE programming because they don't have enough slots to show it all.

But what if they just got 25% of the programming for 20 million. The cost to fill thier open slots drops by 50%, the necessary ESPN slots get filled, the nBE actually gets paid more for that portion of their content. By doing this to multiple carriers, the nBE actually cuts programming costs for each network while increasing the total value of thier package.

But, working out individual deals and dividing the rights packages into the right combination of packages to the right combination of networks in just the right way to generate the highest total value possible could take time...and might create a situation where you have no approximate value for the total package until the process is nearly complete.

(01-17-2013 10:50 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(01-17-2013 10:46 AM)carolina pirate Wrote:  Seems like Aresco thought quantity, not quality, is what mattered most and thus has valued our football too high to sign a deal.

I'll bet Aresco knows more about what matters to TV than you do.

Maybe, but so far there is no evidence for that. Heck he is just now realizing that there is a Power 5.

He doesn't have numbers, because he can't tell them how much game stock he has to sell, let alone who will be included.

I think people are over thinking this...

The Big East was pitching a 4-time zone conference, a certain level of game stock, and certain members... then lineup changes changed and then time zones, and number of conference members... all the factors keep changing, you cannot get a contract number without knowing the basics.

I think we now know it will be an Eastern and Central based league -- that settles one question... though we still don't know the amount of game stock the conference can offer OR who will be members. Rumors of MTSU and FAU joining the CUSA this summer instead of 2014, make Tulane and ECU potentially available for the Big East next season.

There is still the C-7 departure date and that of Notre Dame, Louisville, and Rutgers that are somewhat fluid as well (2013 or 2014). However, just as we get answers to some questions, more are asked -- as the Big 12 announces hours after the SDSU decision that it will have meetings on expansion on the 28th, which could have trickle down effects on the Big East membership, thus creating doubt and questions until it plays out.

It is completely out of the control of Big East commissioner Aresco -- the Big East has solid programs in great markets and when the big boys make a move they can take whomever they want from any of the Gang of Five...as any member of those conferences would jump in a heartbeat at the opportunity to be in the power 4 or 5. The only reason the Mountain West appears as stable as it does, is because for the most part, their members are in locations the major conferences don't want, but if offered, any would jump in a heartbeat too!

(01-17-2013 10:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Think small packages designed to fill niches. That's the strategy to use. Split the package. If ESPN bought the whole football package for say 40 million, it costs them an awful lot of money for alot the programming they will never broadcast. Say they only need 20% of the nBE programming because they don't have enough slots to show it all.

The problem is, they barely "need" any. 20% of $40M is $8M. Bump it up a little to $15M. And that's for the 10 or so best Aresco League games.

Quote: By doing this to multiple carriers, the nBE actually cuts programming costs for each network while increasing the total value of thier package.

The problem is the same one the MWC has. The first picker gets the best games, which de-values what everybody else gets.

Quote:But, working out individual deals and dividing the rights packages into the right combination of packages to the right combination of networks in just the right way to generate the highest total value possible could take time...and might create a situation where you have no approximate value for the total package until the process is nearly complete.

And I'm saying the money might not be there at all. I was doing estimates based on three packages. I figured they'd have roughly equal value, $10-15-20M each.

1. A game-of-the-week on national cable (ESPN/2/FoxSports1)
2. A buttload of crappy games for a lousy network looking to fill airtime. (NBC-SN, CBS-SN, FSN, ESPN-U and 3 and syndication)
3. And a string of local packages (CSN Houston, TV stations in North Carolina, SportsNet New York) where the local station is getting everything but the game-of-the-week instead of just leftovers.

I'm wondering if the $10-$15-$20M just isn't there anywhere for the game-of-the-week package, especially without Boise State.

FoxSports1, for example. They have some spots projected. They could just fill those games with C-USA stuff that they bought in 2011. But I don't think they want to show FIU-Charlotte, ODU-Marshall, UNT-Louisiana Tech week after week. Even if the ratings were better, it makes the network look small time. Well, outside Florida and North Carolina, does ECU-UCF look that different than FIU-Charlotte? ODU-Marshall vs Temple-Navy? SMU-Tulane vs UNT-LT?

Maybe Fox bumps a couple of games up from C-USA games up from FSN to FoxSports1. Maybe they'd bump a few Aresco LEague games up from FSN to FS1. But not enough to buy it as a separate package.

ESPN could buy the game-of-the-week package. Or they could just fill those slots with MAC or Sun Belt games and tell America it's just as good.

What was supposed to be the Big East advantage, going last, could be turning into a disadvantage. You're selling in a market where the buyers have pretty much already bought up what they need.

(01-17-2013 11:22 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  He doesn't have numbers, because he can't tell them how much game stock he has to sell, let alone who will be included.

It is completely out of the control of Big East commissioner Aresco -- the Big East has solid programs in great markets and when the big boys make a move they can take whomever they want from any of the Gang of Five...as any member of those conferences would jump in a heartbeat at the opportunity to be in the power 4 or 5.

By this standard, Aresco will never secure a TV contract. Because you'll never be sure that a power conference won't move the next day.

And this stuff was also all true of the Big 12 in 2010, and they got a fat contract with no obvious guarantees that Texas wasn't leaving.

(01-17-2013 11:35 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-17-2013 10:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Think small packages designed to fill niches. That's the strategy to use. Split the package. If ESPN bought the whole football package for say 40 million, it costs them an awful lot of money for alot the programming they will never broadcast. Say they only need 20% of the nBE programming because they don't have enough slots to show it all.

The problem is, they barely "need" any. 20% of $40M is $8M. Bump it up a little to $15M. And that's for the 10 or so best Aresco League games.

Quote: By doing this to multiple carriers, the nBE actually cuts programming costs for each network while increasing the total value of thier package.

The problem is the same one the MWC has. The first picker gets the best games, which de-values what everybody else gets.

Quote:But, working out individual deals and dividing the rights packages into the right combination of packages to the right combination of networks in just the right way to generate the highest total value possible could take time...and might create a situation where you have no approximate value for the total package until the process is nearly complete.

And I'm saying the money might not be there at all. I was doing estimates based on three packages. I figured they'd have roughly equal value, $10-15-20M each.

1. A game-of-the-week on national cable (ESPN/2/FoxSports1)
2. A buttload of crappy games for a lousy network looking to fill airtime. (NBC-SN, CBS-SN, FSN, ESPN-U and 3 and syndication)
3. And a string of local packages (CSN Houston, TV stations in North Carolina, SportsNet New York) where the local station is getting everything but the game-of-the-week instead of just leftovers.

I'm wondering if the $10-$15-$20M just isn't there anywhere for the game-of-the-week package, especially without Boise State.

FoxSports1, for example. They have some spots projected. They could just fill those games with C-USA stuff that they bought in 2011. But I don't think they want to show FIU-Charlotte, ODU-Marshall, UNT-Louisiana Tech week after week. Even if the ratings were better, it makes the network look small time. Well, outside Florida and North Carolina, does ECU-UCF look that different than FIU-Charlotte? ODU-Marshall vs Temple-Navy? SMU-Tulane vs UNT-LT?

Maybe Fox bumps a couple of games up from C-USA games up from FSN to FoxSports1. Maybe they'd bump a few Aresco LEague games up from FSN to FS1. But not enough to buy it as a separate package.

ESPN could buy the game-of-the-week package. Or they could just fill those slots with MAC or Sun Belt games and tell America it's just as good.

What was supposed to be the Big East advantage, going last, could be turning into a disadvantage. You're selling in a market where the buyers have pretty much already bought up what they need.

The problem with your analysis is that its so biased and slanted to the negative that while it may actually have some logic to it, its largely canceled out by the overly anti-nBE sentimate. Keep in mind, this is coming from a person who has now morphed into a poster with a fairly negative view of the nBE now that we have gone "regional".

Once again, I will go to ESPN sources themselves. The MW renegotiated thier pacakge with ESPN. The ONLY change is that the MW was able to reaquire approximately half of thier tier 2 inventory (after CBS selects the top five games and then alternates picks with other networks for 10 more). ESPN sources claimed that the value increased from 8 million at present to 25 million (that was before Boise even joined). If half of the MW picked over tier 2 rights is worth 17 million, then your estimates above are simply far too negatively slanted to even be taken seriously.

We will know in Feb 2013. My guess is that we will see a 5-7 million per team package. 50-70 million dollars per year divided between multiple networks. Fact is, they are only selling 5 games a week in footbal during the conference season. There are plenty of open spots to carry that inventory.

(01-17-2013 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The problem with your analysis is that its so biased and slanted to the negative that while it may actually have some logic to it, its largely canceled out by the overly anti-nBE sentimate. Keep in mind, this is coming from a person who has now morphed into a poster with a fairly negative view of the nBE now that we have gone "regional".

Ok, but I think my bias is more "negative" than anti-BE. I think the claims that the MWC we have today gets $25M are a bit of a stretch.

Quote:If half of the MW picked over tier 2 rights is worth 17 million, then your estimates above are simply far too negatively slanted to even be taken seriously.

I don't think that the MWC Tier 2 package IS worth $17M. That's more than the C-USA 2011 package was. I think that, to get to that number, you're also including the separate Boise package. That's $5-10M, and the filler games are probably worth less than $8M. That's your $21-26M for the MWC.

Quote:Fact is, they are only selling 5 games a week in footbal during the conference season. There are plenty of open spots to carry that inventory.

No there aren't, or there wouldn't be a ton of MAC and SBC games--that ESPN has already paid for--on ESPN3, and there would be a C-USA game of the week on FX leading into the Big 12 or PAC games.

The only "open spots" are on CBS-SN and NBC-SN and maybe Fox Sports Net syndication. And they don't pay squat.

(01-17-2013 12:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-17-2013 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The problem with your analysis is that its so biased and slanted to the negative that while it may actually have some logic to it, its largely canceled out by the overly anti-nBE sentimate. Keep in mind, this is coming from a person who has now morphed into a poster with a fairly negative view of the nBE now that we have gone "regional".

Ok, but I think my bias is more "negative" than anti-BE. I think the claims that the MWC we have today gets $25M are a bit of a stretch.

Quote:If half of the MW picked over tier 2 rights is worth 17 million, then your estimates above are simply far too negatively slanted to even be taken seriously.

I don't think that the MWC Tier 2 package IS worth $17M. That's more than the C-USA 2011 package was. I think that, to get to that number, you're also including the separate Boise package. That's $5-10M, and the filler games are probably worth less than $8M. That's your $21-26M for the MWC.

Quote:Fact is, they are only selling 5 games a week in footbal during the conference season. There are plenty of open spots to carry that inventory.

No there aren't, or there wouldn't be a ton of MAC and SBC games--that ESPN has already paid for--on ESPN3, and there would be a C-USA game of the week on FX leading into the Big 12 or PAC games.

The only "open spots" are on CBS-SN and NBC-SN and maybe Fox Sports Net syndication. And they don't pay squat.

You obviously own the right to your opinion. Im just saying that the ESPN sources, that are likley to have a better idea of the value, differ greatly from your opinion. You have set the bar so low, that even taking the middle ground represents a huge difference in value. Let me use an example you are very familiar with. The intial estimates from ESPN on the C-7 value were 2-3 million a school. The contract offer from Fox, represents 4.2 million per school. They were actually 25% low in thier estimate---and the 500 million dollar bid may not represent the actual final value. It could be higher. Secondly, I am not including the Boise package. The 25 million dollar estimate apepared the day the contract was renegotiated (Dec 21rst I think). Boise was still in the nBE at that time. Now I will admit that since Boise joined the MW, the same 25 million dollar number has been used. That could be sloppy reporting, or it could reflect the fact that the Boise package is not part of the 25 million CBS pacakge--or it could represent a reduced value estimate for the 2nd tier rights.

However, I think we can assume that Boise is no more valuable than BYU. So BYU is worth 4, values have gone up---so Boise is unlikely to be worth more than 6 million a year. 17-6 = 11 million. So just half of the MW picked over tier 2 inventory is still being estimated at 11 million in value. Thats nearly all of what you say the nBE is worth in total. Even using the 11 million dollar figure, we get a 44 million dollar value for nBE, and that gives ZERO credit for the nBE having 5 times more people in this footprint. Just a 10 to 20% premium on that estimate for additional population could bump the nBE to well over 50 million (5 million+ a team).

(01-17-2013 12:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im just saying that the ESPN sources, that are likley to have a better idea of the value, differ greatly from your opinion.

Sportswriters don't tend to know a lot about sports economics, etc. I really think when the ESPN writer put down "$25M", he was parroting what Craig Thompson said, much like our friend A Jersey Guy will parrot what Aresco says.

Quote: You have set the bar so low, that even taking the middle ground represents a huge difference in value. Let me use an example you are very familiar with. The intial estimates from ESPN on the C-7 value were 2-3 million a school. The contract offer from Fox, represents 4.2 million per school. They were actually 25% low in thier estimate---and the 500 million dollar bid may not represent the actual final value. It could be higher.

I did undervalue the C-7 package. But the factors that I think drove up the C-7 value to Fox--filling air time and covering another region of the country--work against the Aresco LEague. We'll see.

(01-17-2013 12:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-17-2013 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The problem with your analysis is that its so biased and slanted to the negative that while it may actually have some logic to it, its largely canceled out by the overly anti-nBE sentimate. Keep in mind, this is coming from a person who has now morphed into a poster with a fairly negative view of the nBE now that we have gone "regional".

Ok, but I think my bias is more "negative" than anti-BE. I think the claims that the MWC we have today gets $25M are a bit of a stretch.

Quote:If half of the MW picked over tier 2 rights is worth 17 million, then your estimates above are simply far too negatively slanted to even be taken seriously.

I don't think that the MWC Tier 2 package IS worth $17M. That's more than the C-USA 2011 package was. I think that, to get to that number, you're also including the separate Boise package. That's $5-10M, and the filler games are probably worth less than $8M. That's your $21-26M for the MWC.

Quote:Fact is, they are only selling 5 games a week in footbal during the conference season. There are plenty of open spots to carry that inventory.

No there aren't, or there wouldn't be a ton of MAC and SBC games--that ESPN has already paid for--on ESPN3, and there would be a C-USA game of the week on FX leading into the Big 12 or PAC games.

The only "open spots" are on CBS-SN and NBC-SN and maybe Fox Sports Net syndication. And they don't pay squat.

lol...C';mon now. NBC has Notre Dame home games. When thats not on they show ice skating. Theres plenty of spots for 5 games. If theres no spots for nBE football then the C-7 will never be on TV in November, because basketball cant come close to competing with college football for viewers. Your reaching to defend a ridiculously negative position.

(01-17-2013 11:22 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  He doesn't have numbers, because he can't tell them how much game stock he has to sell, let alone who will be included.

I think people are over thinking this...

The Big East was pitching a 4-time zone conference, a certain level of game stock, and certain members... then lineup changes changed and then time zones, and number of conference members... all the factors keep changing, you cannot get a contract number without knowing the basics.

I think we now know it will be an Eastern and Central based league -- that settles one question... though we still don't know the amount of game stock the conference can offer OR who will be members. Rumors of MTSU and FAU joining the CUSA this summer instead of 2014, make Tulane and ECU potentially available for the Big East next season.

There is still the C-7 departure date and that of Notre Dame, Louisville, and Rutgers that are somewhat fluid as well (2013 or 2014). However, just as we get answers to some questions, more are asked -- as the Big 12 announces hours after the SDSU decision that it will have meetings on expansion on the 28th, which could have trickle down effects on the Big East membership, thus creating doubt and questions until it plays out.

It is completely out of the control of Big East commissioner Aresco -- the Big East has solid programs in great markets and when the big boys make a move they can take whomever they want from any of the Gang of Five...as any member of those conferences would jump in a heartbeat at the opportunity to be in the power 4 or 5. The only reason the Mountain West appears as stable as it does, is because for the most part, their members are in locations the major conferences don't want, but if offered, any would jump in a heartbeat too!

^^^^^This. Thanks for being the voice of reason. It's nice to see someone is paying attention.

(01-17-2013 12:46 PM)nastar36 Wrote:  

(01-17-2013 11:22 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  He doesn't have numbers, because he can't tell them how much game stock he has to sell, let alone who will be included.

I think people are over thinking this...

The Big East was pitching a 4-time zone conference, a certain level of game stock, and certain members... then lineup changes changed and then time zones, and number of conference members... all the factors keep changing, you cannot get a contract number without knowing the basics.

I think we now know it will be an Eastern and Central based league -- that settles one question... though we still don't know the amount of game stock the conference can offer OR who will be members. Rumors of MTSU and FAU joining the CUSA this summer instead of 2014, make Tulane and ECU potentially available for the Big East next season.

There is still the C-7 departure date and that of Notre Dame, Louisville, and Rutgers that are somewhat fluid as well (2013 or 2014). However, just as we get answers to some questions, more are asked -- as the Big 12 announces hours after the SDSU decision that it will have meetings on expansion on the 28th, which could have trickle down effects on the Big East membership, thus creating doubt and questions until it plays out.

It is completely out of the control of Big East commissioner Aresco -- the Big East has solid programs in great markets and when the big boys make a move they can take whomever they want from any of the Gang of Five...as any member of those conferences would jump in a heartbeat at the opportunity to be in the power 4 or 5. The only reason the Mountain West appears as stable as it does, is because for the most part, their members are in locations the major conferences don't want, but if offered, any would jump in a heartbeat too!

^^^^^This. Thanks for being the voice of reason. It's nice to see someone is paying attention.

No kidding. You can't sell, what you don't own. We are just beginning to stabilize.

(01-17-2013 10:40 AM)MickMack Wrote:  Good Tallgrass impersonation, but wrong forum. 7/10.

Exactly. I could have sworn this was the BIG EAST board.

Perhaps you should post your "Aresco League" drivel on the C7 board. That's a better fit for propaganda of that sort.

He can't get numbers yet because more teams are leaving. Aresco knows that, and so do the networks. I think they have a pretty good idea who is leaving but not nothing is firm enough to give Aresco solid numbers yet.

(01-17-2013 12:51 PM)billetingman1 Wrote:  He can't get numbers yet because more teams are leaving. Aresco knows that, and so do the networks. I think they have a pretty good idea who is leaving but not nothing is firm enough to give Aresco solid numbers yet.

Houston is going to the Pac, rt?

Yes, and the C7 got an offer despite it being contingent on adding several unknown teams.

(01-17-2013 11:38 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-17-2013 11:22 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  He doesn't have numbers, because he can't tell them how much game stock he has to sell, let alone who will be included.

It is completely out of the control of Big East commissioner Aresco -- the Big East has solid programs in great markets and when the big boys make a move they can take whomever they want from any of the Gang of Five...as any member of those conferences would jump in a heartbeat at the opportunity to be in the power 4 or 5.

By this standard, Aresco will never secure a TV contract. Because you'll never be sure that a power conference won't move the next day.

And this stuff was also all true of the Big 12 in 2010, and they got a fat contract with no obvious guarantees that Texas wasn't leaving.