In the attached article, Mr. SEC makes the case that the new SEC Network is positively brilliant because of the relationship that has been forged between the league and ESPN.

It goes on to laud the SEC's decision to buy back all of its Tier III rights and bundle them together.

Here's a quote:

"The SportsBusiness Daily reported on Monday that the SEC has bought back all of its third-tier television rights from groups like IMG, Learfield Sports, and CBS Collegiate Sports Properties. In addition, the conference also bought back its digital rights from XOS Digital, the group currently behind the SEC Digital Network and SECSports.com.

Moving forward, ESPN will be allowed to sell all of those rights together. Instead of XOS Digital selling this chunk, IMG selling that chunk, and ESPN selling another chunk, now the league will have an ESPN sales force packaging all its products.

That aspect of the deal — even more than the new SEC Network alone — will fill the conference’s coffers like never before. The television network will be a big part of it, to be sure, but it’s the ability to bundle television, digital (internet), and syndication rights together that is at the heart of this new SEC/ESPN coupling."

Here's what I don't understand. All I have heard and read over the past few years on this board and in the media is what a flaming (and possibly corrupt) idiot John Swofford was for doing what would appear for all the world to be THE EXACT SAME PHUCKING THING!

Same company. Same model. Same agreement. Same every phucking thing!!! When one does it, he's a "fool" and an "idiot" who has doomed his league forever. When the other does it a year or so later, he's a "genius" and a "visionary" who has set his league up for permanent success.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

Well, there was one significant difference in their respective approaches. Swofford and company had the foresight to bundle things in the first place whereas Slive and his group did not - which forced them to buy back those rights.

Go ahead parse away. Just make sure that you use a whole bunch phony math when you do it so that your blatant double standard appears to have more legitimacy than it otherwise might.

I want to make it clear that I'm neither calling Slive and idiot or Swofford a genius. I just tire of this discussion where every single thing Slive, Delany and Scott do is sheer genius of unprecedented proportions whereas anything the others do is proof of their incompetence and/or corruptness. There has to be more intelligent discussion than that.

For example, I continue to believe that the B1G's decision to add Rutgers and Maryland when they did was a mistake and may well prove to have been an ENORMOUS mistake. If what some are saying is true, they could have had Florida State and Georgia Tech. If that's true then their decision to take the Northern pair was downright moronic, IMHO.

People always counter that with, "It was driven by television markets and NYC and DC are two of the largest markets in the country." I understand that shallow argument but Atlanta is also a HUGE television market and Florida State would have gotten the BTN on throughout the Sunshine State. That would have equaled even more markets. Also, college football is so much more popular in the South than it is in the North that the viewership wouldn't have been close. Also, Maryland and New Jersey are good states at providing talent but they are nowhere near what an entree into Florida and Georgia would have provided.

I'm sorry but it was dumb, dumb, dumb.

Finally, if this is all about television markets then how does that jibe with the league's decision just two years earlier to pass on Missouri - with two top 35 markets - to add major market-less Nebraska? Let me guess, Nebraska is different because of their historical success, right? Well, then why doesn't that also apply to Florida State?

Dumb. At the very least, extremely inconsistent.

And if rendering the ACC unstable was part of the goal, as we have consistently been told is the case, which would have accomplished that more effectively, losing two of their best football playing schools or losing one perennial bottom dweller and a school from another league?

Dumb.

If what we have been told is the truth then taking Rutgers and Maryland over Florida State and Georgia Tech was a curious decision to say the least. However, because it was Jim Delany and the Big Ten making such a bizarre choice, it is lauded as "bold" and "daring" with "an eye towards the future."

That's all a bunch of bullschitt from rah-rah fanboys and a lazy, never rock the boat media.

The newest one of course is that, "Well, they didn't take FSU and GT now because they are going to 16...or 18...or 20...or 24...or 32...or 64 teams and they are going to be phased in later."

Well, who knows? That may indeed happen one day. However it hasn't happened yet and it may never happen. Those schools may end up in the SEC or the B12. Hell, they may end up in a strengthened ACC. Nobody can predict the future.

However we can analyze the past and in my analysis the B1G made an ego-driven, foolish mistake by adding RU and UMD when it did.

it's an interesting agruement. I think one major difference between the two is Swofford doing it at the beginning of the negotiating period, while Slive doing it at the end of the period(so able to get full value). So the concept being good, but Slive able to fully monetize it(or at least more fully monetize it).

As far as the Big Ten is concerned, I think them taking Maryland was actually pretty smart. What they have done is made it where if they could get UVA, thereby forcing VT to go SEC, they have split the ACC in half, making it extremely unstable and unsustainable. BC, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh become an island basically.

You're making the assumption that the people ripping on Swofford are the same ones who are praising Slive. My guess is that if you actually look at the posts, you'll find that few people are doing both.

That's the downside of the internet. The loudest and most passionate about any topic sound like they're the majority, and there's different people who are passionate for different topics. Come to think of it, that's also the downside of politics.

The Big Ten actually showed their weakness when the only schools they could get were a cash-strapped Maryland and Rutgers.

(04-17-2013 08:09 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  For example, I continue to believe that the B1G's decision to add Rutgers and Maryland when they did was a mistake and may well prove to have been an ENORMOUS mistake. If what some are saying is true, they could have had Florida State and Georgia Tech. If that's true then their decision to take the Northern pair was downright moronic, IMHO.

The Big 10 took those schools to keep Penn State from deciding to leave for the ACC.

The only thing keeping PSU in the Big 10 was the better research schools in the Big 10 and the short-term money advantage due to the BTN and the ACC's below-market contract. But PSU is too far away from many of the Big 10 schools (Wisconsin, Minnesota) to gain the maximum from the CIC. And the addition of Pitt gave the ACC serious cred in that area, nixing the first advantage. And in the next round of TV contracts, the ACC would have probably come out the same or even ahead of the Big 10 in money. The cultural ties would have drawn Penn State to the ACC.

It's a brilliant move IMO. The Big 10 turned a short-term advantage into a long-term one. In the process they turned themselves from the Midwestern conference to the #1 conference in almost the whole North (40% of the US population).

Great thread Doctor!

I recall posting back in 2010 that, after Texas and ND said no thanks to the B1G, that the principal targets should have been Texas A&M and Florida St. The B1G's major weakness is declining demographics. Its biggest needs are TV HH for the BTN and fertile recruiting grounds. TAMU and FSU would have been instant cures. Florida + Texas = 55 million people/18 million TV HH and growing, and they are 2 of the 3 biggest producers of FBS talent. I guess it's ood for the rest of us that they are so "conservative."

(04-17-2013 09:02 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The Big 10 took those schools to keep Penn State from deciding to leave for the ACC.

The only thing keeping PSU in the Big 10 was the better research schools in the Big 10 and the short-term money advantage due to the BTN and the ACC's below-market contract. But PSU is too far away from many of the Big 10 schools (have drawn Penn State to the ACC.

Wow, I never heard that before.
I never heard anyone suggest that Penn State was -- at any time since joining in 1990 -- even *thinking* about leaving the B1G.

(04-17-2013 08:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  it's an interesting agruement. I think one major difference between the two is Swofford doing it at the beginning of the negotiating period, while Slive doing it at the end of the period(so able to get full value). So the concept being good, but Slive able to fully monetize it(or at least more fully monetize it).

As far as the Big Ten is concerned, I think them taking Maryland was actually pretty smart. What they have done is made it where if they could get UVA, thereby forcing VT to go SEC, they have split the ACC in half, making it extremely unstable and unsustainable. BC, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh become an island basically.

Louisville, ND? That "island" is bigger than the one you describe.

What about adding Cincinnati and/or UConn to that group?

Hello Northern Division of the ACC.

Why would the ACC have been made "extremely unstable and unsustainable" if Virginia and Virginia Tech ( the latter of which I don't think is happening) both left?

Even if those two left, it would not be like the Soviets shutting down all land traffic to Berlin in 1949.

Planes carrying teams from the two divisions could fly over Virginia without having to get state permission or worry about the Virginia Air Force shooting them down.

Bus traffic probably would not be impeded either. I just don't see the "loss" of the state of Virginia as some kind of death blow to the ACC.

(04-17-2013 08:44 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  You're making the assumption that the people ripping on Swofford are the same ones who are praising Slive. My guess is that if you actually look at the posts, you'll find that few people are doing both.

That's the downside of the internet. The loudest and most passionate about any topic sound like they're the majority, and there's different people who are passionate for different topics. Come to think of it, that's also the downside of politics.

Ultimately, I think it is representative of the downside of humanity.

(04-17-2013 10:41 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 08:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  it's an interesting agruement. I think one major difference between the two is Swofford doing it at the beginning of the negotiating period, while Slive doing it at the end of the period(so able to get full value). So the concept being good, but Slive able to fully monetize it(or at least more fully monetize it).

As far as the Big Ten is concerned, I think them taking Maryland was actually pretty smart. What they have done is made it where if they could get UVA, thereby forcing VT to go SEC, they have split the ACC in half, making it extremely unstable and unsustainable. BC, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh become an island basically.

Louisville, ND? That "island" is bigger than the one you describe.

What about adding Cincinnati and/or UConn to that group?

Hello Northern Division of the ACC.

Why would the ACC have been made "extremely unstable and unsustainable" if Virginia and Virginia Tech ( the latter of which I don't think is happening) both left?

Even if those two left, it would not be like the Soviets shutting down all land traffic to Berlin in 1949.

Planes carrying teams from the two divisions could fly over Virginia without having to get state permission or worry about the Virginia Air Force shooting them down.

Bus traffic probably would not be impeded either. I just don't see the "loss" of the state of Virginia as some kind of death blow to the ACC.

Virginia doesn't go unless VT has a spot as well somewhere other than the ACC.

The gap of Maryland/Virginia is a lot bigger than you think. Not physically but culturally. Pitt, BC, Syracuse(even UConn and Cincy) have nothing in common with the other schools. It may not be immediate, but eventually things break down.

The difference is two fold.
1. CBS owns the right to a portion of the SEC's Tier 1 rights. In the ACC ESPN owns them all.

2. I think the part that Mr. SEC finds brilliant is that the SEC owns the majority interest in its network. ESPN is now the broker of the the third tier content, not its owner. The distinction may not seem like much Yinz, but it is. Mr. SEC found that model to be more flexible should market forces change the delivery modes in the future.

That's about it.

Your defense of Swofford using this line of argumentation is a valid one with one noteworthy exception. Setting up his son's success with the Raycom deal was suspect. A worthy and interesting post.

(04-17-2013 07:56 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Here's what I don't understand. All I have heard and read over the past few years on this board and in the media is what a flaming (and possibly corrupt) idiot John Swofford was for doing what would appear for all the world to be THE EXACT SAME PHUCKING THING!

You haven't been paying attention. Just the other day i said that this new "SEC Network" is really just a re-packaging of the same awful 2008 deal the SEC signed with ESPN (and CBS) and that despite the new window-dressing the fundamental awfulness (it pays the SEC way less than what their open-market value would be today and going forward) is not changed, and that this deal - authored by Slive - might actually prove FATAL to the SEC since it means that over the next 10 years, the B1G is likely to make far more money, and thus be in a position to raid SEC teams.

Slive and Swofford were really dumb, primarily because they tied their conferences down to 15 year deals.

(04-17-2013 10:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The difference is two fold.
1. CBS owns the right to a portion of the SEC's Tier 1 rights. In the ACC ESPN owns them all.

Seriously, what is the difference here? Whether CBS has the rights to pay the SEC far less than what it is worth for the next 10 years or whether ESPN has the right to do they same thing doesn't matter much, eh?

(04-17-2013 08:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  it's an interesting agruement. I think one major difference between the two is Swofford doing it at the beginning of the negotiating period, while Slive doing it at the end of the period(so able to get full value). So the concept being good, but Slive able to fully monetize it(or at least more fully monetize it).

As far as the Big Ten is concerned, I think them taking Maryland was actually pretty smart. What they have done is made it where if they could get UVA, thereby forcing VT to go SEC, they have split the ACC in half, making it extremely unstable and unsustainable. BC, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh become an island basically.

Agreed. Maryland, even if they have been subpar on-the-field lately, is a no-brainer from a conference realignment perspective. Rutgers is the risky bet by the Big Ten.

(04-17-2013 11:05 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 08:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  it's an interesting agruement. I think one major difference between the two is Swofford doing it at the beginning of the negotiating period, while Slive doing it at the end of the period(so able to get full value). So the concept being good, but Slive able to fully monetize it(or at least more fully monetize it).

As far as the Big Ten is concerned, I think them taking Maryland was actually pretty smart. What they have done is made it where if they could get UVA, thereby forcing VT to go SEC, they have split the ACC in half, making it extremely unstable and unsustainable. BC, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh become an island basically.

Agreed. Maryland, even if they have been subpar on-the-field lately, is a no-brainer from a conference realignment perspective. Rutgers is the risky bet by the Big Ten.

I have no idea why Maryland is disparaged around here. It has everything any conference could want- it's a huge flagship located 8 miles from the most powerful government in the world, strong academics and research position, a huge base of high-earning alumni, a rich old-money basketball tradition and a long football history as well. Maryland is a jewel from every angle.

(04-17-2013 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 10:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The difference is two fold.
1. CBS owns the right to a portion of the SEC's Tier 1 rights. In the ACC ESPN owns them all.

Seriously, what is the difference here? Whether CBS has the rights to pay the SEC far less than what it is worth for the next 10 years or whether ESPN has the right to do they same thing doesn't matter much, eh?

A couple of years ago I was a huge Jim Delany fan for having the fortitude to stand up to the Mouse and start his own network. I considered the move to be both prescient and brilliant. He was stonewalled on carriage initially. The industry, as with many today, doesn't tolerate new ideas and the mavericks who push them. They saw the threat to their cheaply produced high yield profit stream that is college sports, particularly football.

I was then a huge proponent of the SEC following Delany's lead. My fear was that corporate control of the leading universities was a possibility that could become reality if the schools did not protect, develop, and market their own products so that they reaped the maximum benefits of what has been uniquely theirs. From the corporate perspective this was undervalued product to be taken over and streamlined to enhance its value (hence realignment). Beyond that, my concern was that as the states tax base continued to shrink and as demographic trends encountered the job market head on that there would be, sooner than later, a downsizing of higher education because of the perfect storm of a working public that was earning less and competing more stringently for available jobs, that the standard of living in the U.S. would not have sufficiently declined to bring jobs back from overseas, and that the generation coming along would see no benefit to receiving a college education when the prospects of paying back their investment in that education were more dire. So, what began as an initial takeover of an undervalued industry, college sports, would become an opportunity for the corporations to do much more by becoming the chief means of support for the universities they could hem up intellectual property more easily.

To the latter there had already been indications that corporate grants were becoming very sticky legal wickets to negotiate to make sure that the schools could retain said property. Therefore the suspicion was warranted when universities began hiring legal teams to read the terms of grants before they were accepted.

Your view point is on target in my opinion. But, Delany has now yielded to FOX. Why? The industry wasn't going to reward the Big 10 as lucratively until it submitted in some fashion to their control. I think Mike Slive realizes that the windows that existed to do what Delany initially accomplished are in the process of being closed through regulatory actions and that the SEC may as well recognize that any attempt to be independent will only meet with active resistance and cost more than the university presidents are willing to spend to fight it. I see the contract as a capitulation to the draconian control that is now freely wielded by corporate hegemony. In other words he is making the best of a bad situation. I still admire Delany for his efforts.

(04-17-2013 11:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 11:05 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 08:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  it's an interesting agruement. I think one major difference between the two is Swofford doing it at the beginning of the negotiating period, while Slive doing it at the end of the period(so able to get full value). So the concept being good, but Slive able to fully monetize it(or at least more fully monetize it).

As far as the Big Ten is concerned, I think them taking Maryland was actually pretty smart. What they have done is made it where if they could get UVA, thereby forcing VT to go SEC, they have split the ACC in half, making it extremely unstable and unsustainable. BC, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh become an island basically.

Agreed. Maryland, even if they have been subpar on-the-field lately, is a no-brainer from a conference realignment perspective. Rutgers is the risky bet by the Big Ten.

I have no idea why Maryland is disparaged around here. It has everything any conference could want- it's a huge flagship located 8 miles from the most powerful government in the world, strong academics and research position, a huge base of high-earning alumni, a rich old-money basketball tradition and a long football history as well. Maryland is a jewel from every angle.

The B1G's addition of UMD resembles the SEC's addition of Missouri -- great school, good sized state, decent athletic program, overall solid addition. The SEC's addition of Texas A&M, by comparison, was a huge home run. The State of Texas has 27 million residents, 8 million TV HH, and is the single biggest source of fb recruits in the country, and TAMU has the statewide support to leverage these assets for the SEC.

(04-17-2013 10:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The difference is two fold.
1. CBS owns the right to a portion of the SEC's Tier 1 rights. In the ACC ESPN owns them all.

2. I think the part that Mr. SEC finds brilliant is that the SEC owns the majority interest in its network. ESPN is now the broker of the the third tier content, not its owner. The distinction may not seem like much Yinz, but it is. Mr. SEC found that model to be more flexible should market forces change the delivery modes in the future.

That's about it.

Your defense of Swafford using this line of argumentation is a valid one with one noteworthy exception. Setting up his son's success with the Raycom deal was suspect. A worthy and interesting post.

JR, it's Swofford.

Why doesn't anyone ever talk about John Swofford's daughter who was a soccer player at Florida State?