(09-11-2013 09:56 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  JR, because this discussion is a rehashing of months and months of the same thing over and over, I really do not have the energy to start this up again. But you are WAAAAYY off base on what the Networks want. Networks, like anyone else, want to buy properties at the lowest prices they can. The REASON conferences have been consolidating is because it gives them leverage to charge more on a per team basis. It does not take much more discussion to prove that assisting conferences in consolidation is NOT in the best interests of networks, as it causes them to pay more for the same product. Especially since larger and larger conferences, essentially mirror the two of smaller conferences that once existed that competed with each other for time slots, bringing the prices down, joined together showing the same product only at a higher price. All of the stuff you said above, not only is not true from their perspective, it doesn't even make sense, logically, financially, or in a common sense evaluation.

Think what you want the proof will be in the pudding. And, I don't recall having hashed out anything with you in the past. Your argument consists of no explanation of your position other than to say the networks would be paying more for the same teams and saying that over and over. They would be paying more for some of the same teams but their additional profit in that is in the arrangement of those teams to enhance content, gain a compelling structure that guarantees interest in all regions throughout the season, and maximized advertising profits. FOX may one day be an ESPN competitor but right now ESPN is comfortable enough to lease them product they are not really interested in. So the two are really cooperating to a certain extent in this matter. And if you think your ideas are on target look at the larger time span. The networks no longer pay the Big 8, SWC, Big East, and WAC. What they are looking for is a closed system with a more static revenue stream without having to compromise quality of product. Who better to deliver top quality product percentage wise than those who spend the most to produce that product. So what we have seen in realignment is not driven by conferences, it is driven by the networks. They dangled the cash to get this rolling. No conference would have added a single team without a larger payment guarantee. If the networks were so darned concerned with stopping leverage then two things would have happened at this juncture of the game: 1. They would never have agreed to pay one dime more to all teams for the addition of one. 2. They would never have wanted to sign 15 year contracts with look in clauses that encouraged expansion. So your insistence on what the networks want flies in the face of what it is that they are doing. And when this got started there was less competition among networks for the product than what we have today. The money and timing of increases (during an economic downturn) are the carrot dangled by the networks (especially ESPN) so that they can get what they want. Of course they will deny it for now since realignment carries with it a big downside in public relations with fans of smaller schools and they don't wish to invite lawsuits by those left behind, but they aren't gunning to pay more forever, just long enough to thin the herd which reduces their operations costs by reducing the central field of coverage to just 60 or 64 teams that will, if they play essentially just each other, guarantee as well as it can be guaranteed, that all of the larger markets will stay tuned each week.

If this wasn't network driven then markets would not be the main factor in these moves. F.S.U. and Clemson would have made a lot more sense to the SEC from a sports, and geographical, and cultural perspective than their hopes to get a Virginia and North Carolina school some day. I'm basing my understanding of the situation upon what I know of corporate business moves from my past experiences and on what I'm actually seeing happen. What are you basing your opinions on?

At the end of the day, all networks want to maximize their profits and return on assets. So they want the inventory that gets them the most advertisers and people watching and paying for cable, etc. So that is why they all want the P5 conferences and Notre Dame. ABC and ESPN have that once they get the Notre Dame contract away from NBC. ESPN and ABC are still the Kings of College Athletics!

(09-10-2013 05:22 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  That was a more specific case because at the time, you had the possibility of the Big 12 South sans Baylor + Colorado going to the PAC, a conference that ESPN did not have locked down.

In ESPNs mind, the LHN was worth preventing the scenario where Fox landed THAT super conference PAC 16 and effectively controlled almost all of major CFB west of I-35.

Now if ESPN had total control of the PAC before and saw a chance to move the major B12 programs away from a B12 that partly went to Fox into their 100% control, their attitude would have been completely different.

oh so instead of letting fox get the b12 south.....they spent 300 mill so fox could get the entire b12

(09-11-2013 10:41 AM)JRsec Wrote:  And, I don't recall having hashed out anything with you in the past.

I didn't say "you" I said the subject. It does get tiring. And no I did not go into detail (the tiring part) I just laid it out in Layman's terms that pretty much negate the need to do so.

(09-11-2013 09:56 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  JR, because this discussion is a rehashing of months and months of the same thing over and over, I really do not have the energy to start this up again. But you are WAAAAYY off base on what the Networks want. Networks, like anyone else, want to buy properties at the lowest prices they can. The REASON conferences have been consolidating is because it gives them leverage to charge more on a per team basis. It does not take much more discussion to prove that assisting conferences in consolidation is NOT in the best interests of networks, as it causes them to pay more for the same product. Especially since larger and larger conferences, essentially mirror the two of smaller conferences that once existed that competed with each other for time slots, bringing the prices down, joined together showing the same product only at a higher price. All of the stuff you said above, not only is not true from their perspective, it doesn't even make sense, logically, financially, or in a common sense evaluation.

First and foremost the networks want class A marketable product regardless of the cost. The scope of the event will override the price that one has to pay.
That's why the Super Bowl commercials cost more than a regular season game. Do you think that CBS can't make more revenue even with limited commercial time on The Masters broadcasts?
Once there is market demand for a sports broadcast event, even though the content costs the networks more, the profits are much higher.
Larger conferences foster more national appeal, while the smaller versions tend to be more regional. National appeal=bigger markets=more viewers=more revenue, it's simple arithmetic.

WAAAAYY OFF? I doesn't appear that way to me.

(09-11-2013 12:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  First and foremost the networks want class A marketable product regardless of the cost. The scope of the event will override the price that one has to pay.:

That is not the issue here. The issue is networks actively assisting conferences into making themselves stronger so that they can then pay them more money. Especially when the networks end up with the same content. The entire stateemtn I made was that once the conferences get biggier, they essentially operate as the two conferences they used to be, only they can charge more (per team) in doing so.

Futher there is actual proof when both Fox and ESPN bent over backward to keep the Big 12 together, to stop the PAC 16 from forming (which they believed also would lead to the Big Ten and SEC becoming 16 team conferences). They made a choice to allow the Big 12 to keep the same money when Nebraska and Colorado left, taking with them the second most valuable team, largest non-Texas market, and Big XII Conference Championship game with them. That actually gave each team a raise. They then gave Texas their own Network to ensure they would not leave. They then allowed them to keep the same money when Texas A&M and Missouri left and were replaced with TCU and West Virginia. They THEN paid them even more money to ensure the teams stayed together.

You two are dealing in hyperbole and what if's, I am showing you actual physical evidence of the networks actively trying to prevent super conferences. Further the proof is in the pudding. The new conferences actually have LESS marquee matchups now than they did before. The Big Ten will have the same. But the leagues are now MORE powerful and thus can command higher rights fees.

Now again, explain for what purpose networks would have to purposely make the se conferences stronger and thus able to negotiate higher fees? Less conferences with larger memberships and footprints with more networks looking for content gives them more leverage. Not less. That is NOT what ESPN or Fox wants. Smaller conferences, and more of them, puts the leverage back on the network side. I.e." you don't want our offer? Fine we'll offer it to the other conference." That is easy to do when there are 6 power conferences, easier if there are seven or eight. Much harder to do when there are only four.

(09-11-2013 02:06 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 12:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  First and foremost the networks want class A marketable product regardless of the cost. The scope of the event will override the price that one has to pay.:

That is not the issue here. The issue is networks actively assisting conferences into making themselves stronger so that they can then pay them more money. Especially when the networks end up with the same content. The entire stateemtn I made was that once the conferences get biggier, they essentially operate as the two conferences they used to be, only they can charge more (per team) in doing so.

Futher there is actual proof when both Fox and ESPN bent over backward to keep the Big 12 together, to stop the PAC 16 from forming (which they believed also would lead to the Big Ten and SEC becoming 16 team conferences). They made a choice to allow the Big 12 to keep the same money when Nebraska and Colorado left, taking with them the second most valuable team, largest non-Texas market, and Big XII Conference Championship game with them. That actually gave each team a raise. They then gave Texas their own Network to ensure they would not leave. They then allowed them to keep the same money when Texas A&M and Missouri left and were replaced with TCU and West Virginia. They THEN paid them even more money to ensure the teams stayed together.

You two are dealing in hyperbole and what if's, I am showing you actual physical evidence of the networks actively trying to prevent super conferences. Further the proof is in the pudding. The new conferences actually have LESS marquee matchups now than they did before. The Big Ten will have the same. But the leagues are now MORE powerful and thus can command higher rights fees.

Now again, explain for what purpose networks would have to purposely make the se conferences stronger and thus able to negotiate higher fees? Less conferences with larger memberships and footprints with more networks looking for content gives them more leverage. Not less. That is NOT what ESPN or Fox wants. Smaller conferences, and more of them, puts the leverage back on the network side. I.e." you don't want our offer? Fine we'll offer it to the other conference." That is easy to do when there are 6 power conferences, easier if there are seven or eight. Much harder to do when there are only four.

Last time: The PAC is owned by the PAC and even as Wedge points out their media deals operate similarly to the other conferences. ESPN and FOX will never be totally assured of access and will have much less control over product located there. Texas is the top product and Oklahoma is in the top 10 and fluctuates a position or two every year. Neither FOX nor ESPN want to lose some say over those two products. Kansas was evidently important enough for ESPN to tie them down with a great tier 3 contract. Not allowing a Texahoma move to the PAC is not proof of your point but rather our point that the networks are in control. As to the reasons we've listed over and over you simply choose not to acknowledge them. You fail to acknowledge the content boost. A&M in the SEC vs any of the top SEC programs is a major product boost. It was thought that Missouri basketball would provide the same but so far the SEC's rest of the league is not stepping up. It's not Mizzou's fault.

Syracuse basketball in the ACC vs all of the top ACC hoops program is a content coup. We'll see about Pitt.

The very conferences you cite has having more power to demand more money and say are not content boosted all have content boosts with the possible exception of the Big 10 which was strictly a market play, but apparently one that will command more money. FOX will be paying for a lot of that move, but I guess they are just stupid at FOX.

And you still haven't addressed why the networks failed to refuse to pay for anything but the additional teams added in expansion! They upped the payout for the very danged content boost that you refuse to acknowledge. Why? Because the additions of those schools did elevate the value of the whole. So that is what those backwards networks paid for. You did not address why the networks put the escalator and look in clauses into these new fat contracts that according to you were "not in their best interest and something that according to you they didn't want". Yet those clauses are what permit the ongoing realignment to occur and indeed offer re-negotiations for more money if they are exercised! I guess the Networks are just comprised of idiots that operate and encourage behavior that is counter to their interests according to you. Or, could it just be that their long term goals are served by the very realignment that you claim is not in their interest but which they continue through contract to encourage. I'll waste no more words on you. I've got nothing against you but you called me illogical and I still fail to see an iota's worth of logic in your position.

(09-11-2013 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Kansas was evidently important enough for ESPN to tie them down with a great tier 3 contract. Not allowing a Texahoma move to the PAC is not proof of your point but rather our point that the networks are in control.

I think you agree that the networks are in control to some extent.

The difference is that you're saying the networks are exerting their influence to move the top conferences toward 16 or more teams, while adcorbett is saying that the networks are trying to move the top conferences away from concentrating the best brands within fewer and fewer leagues.

(09-11-2013 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Last time: The PAC is owned by the PAC and even as Wedge points out their media deals operate similarly to the other conferences ESPN and FOX will never be totally assured of access and will have much less control over product located there.

I am not even sure what you are talking about. I am talking about stuff that happened prior to the PAC 12 NEtwork ever coming to fruition. What you are saying is irrelvanet.

If you want to talk about the PAC, realize that neither ESPN nor Fox were the top bidders for the PAC contract. Then you will begin to realize there is a much bigger picture you have to realize.

I worked for ESPN. I have worked in the media. I have an idea of how they think. They most certainly want all of the programming they can get. But they want to control it. They don't like competition, hence why they teamed with Fox to cut out NBC, why they started the LHN to prevent a possible Big XII Network (and they hoped to prevent a PAC 12 Network before Fox and NBC spoiled their fun) and why they wrote in their contracts that neither the SEC or ACC could have conference networks (those agreements have since been altered). They don't like competition. And they most certainly don't like granting power to those they televise, which alters both their ability to corner the market, the amount they pay for it, and the ability to dictate terms.

That is how they operate. They actively tried to stop conference expansion. They are involved with in certain capacities because they cannot stop it, and they try to make the terms more favorable to them. But they do not want super conferences, and do not want conferences having more power. Do you think they like paying triple for the Rose Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, and the Orange Bowl over what they paid last year, when they will inherently be worse matchups due to the playoffs? According to your logic that was that they wanted. They did not want that. They don't even want a playoff all that much, because it will likely cost them a lot more money for not a ton more viewership. Do you know why all fo that happened? It all happened because the Rose Bowl was pissed when they were forced to take a non-BCS team.

The Rose Bowl got pissed, they set up a new system, and now ESPN is paying $550 million a year for what they paid $125 million a year for last year. And that was because the bowls and the conferences got together and leveraged it. The same thing that happens with super conferences. That is NOT what they want.

(09-11-2013 02:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Kansas was evidently important enough for ESPN to tie them down with a great tier 3 contract. Not allowing a Texahoma move to the PAC is not proof of your point but rather our point that the networks are in control.

I think you agree that the networks are in control to some extent.

The difference is that you're saying the networks are exerting their influence to move the top conferences toward 16 or more teams, while adcorbett is saying that the networks are trying to move the top conferences away from concentrating the best brands within fewer and fewer leagues.

In a nutshell, yes that is what I am saying. There is more to it than that, but that is the bottom line.

(09-11-2013 03:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 02:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Kansas was evidently important enough for ESPN to tie them down with a great tier 3 contract. Not allowing a Texahoma move to the PAC is not proof of your point but rather our point that the networks are in control.

I think you agree that the networks are in control to some extent.

The difference is that you're saying the networks are exerting their influence to move the top conferences toward 16 or more teams, while adcorbett is saying that the networks are trying to move the top conferences away from concentrating the best brands within fewer and fewer leagues.

In a nutshell, yes that is what I am saying. There is more to it than that, but that is the bottom line.

Then the real difference in our views are one of time. Your views are based upon what ESPN may have set out initially to accomplish. I'm speaking of what they are doing now because of the changes in the college football world via the presence of some competing interests and the sitz im leben because of them. Obviously ESPN's best properties are the SEC and ACC and naturally they had to adapt to hold the interests of those parties and to keep good will with the top product and the top market respectively. Hence the escalators, look ins, and other contractual allowances granted in the last round of contracts including concessions on the SEC network. The ACCN is something to watch yet as its future is uncertain as of now.

If ESPN shares the Big 12 with FOX in this environment of course they want to maintain a close tie to the best product there as well. So certainly they cut them a deal to keep them out of the PAC which is a less controllable entity because of its independence.

But, the game has changed, and getting it to a definable end point to control overhead is what I originally stated and that is where we are headed. Whether that is 3 conferences of 20 or four conferences of 16 or some mixture of those configurations in the end there will be between 60 to 64 (maybe 65) teams under contract to FOX and ESPN with NBC trying to hang on to the Irish and CBS keeping the 3:30 time slot with the SEC, and everyone else buying rights from either FOX or ESPN, except for the case of the PAC who will lease their rights to whomever they please since they have not had to rely upon someone else handling the cost of their production and are therefore not as obligated as the Big 10 (help with distribution), SEC, some of the Big 12 members, and the ACC (with overhead costs deferred).

The new reality is that those who spend the most to produce the product (the top schools) are going to want more exclusivity to the product they help to create (and therefore more guarantees of playoff money and spots and big bowl money) and that means a separate division at least, and perhaps as much as a new association. Capping that separation, sculpting it for profitability, and utilizing its markets are the new ball game. That's where we are headed and enhancing content will be an extremely important aspect that will involved product placement. The Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl are now going to be worth the money as they have positioned themselves as potential playoff rounds in the future and in certain years the host of the championship game. Bowl tie ins will remain profitable and indeed the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl deal (throw in the Orange in certain years) represent the proof of network approval, or in your view conciliation, to the playoff concept. Hence proof that structuring a playoff system that the networks can control and which maximize the nation's interest will also be a priority. Once the product is capped how it is rearranged will not affect total payout, but can enhance revenues.

All games between schools not in the upper tier will become a lower cost filler for non prime time slots. And hey as for working at ESPN at one time that's great. I have family that works for Comcast and NBC. It is what it is. But I can see how what you are saying may have been the original direction of ESPN, but it is obviously no longer their approach, present contracts and clauses as evidence.

(09-11-2013 02:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Kansas was evidently important enough for ESPN to tie them down with a great tier 3 contract. Not allowing a Texahoma move to the PAC is not proof of your point but rather our point that the networks are in control.

I think you agree that the networks are in control to some extent.

The difference is that you're saying the networks are exerting their influence to move the top conferences toward 16 or more teams, while adcorbett is saying that the networks are trying to move the top conferences away from concentrating the best brands within fewer and fewer leagues.

Wedge are you wearing a black and white striped shirt?

(09-11-2013 04:16 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 02:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Kansas was evidently important enough for ESPN to tie them down with a great tier 3 contract. Not allowing a Texahoma move to the PAC is not proof of your point but rather our point that the networks are in control.

I think you agree that the networks are in control to some extent.

The difference is that you're saying the networks are exerting their influence to move the top conferences toward 16 or more teams, while adcorbett is saying that the networks are trying to move the top conferences away from concentrating the best brands within fewer and fewer leagues.

Wedge are you wearing a black and white striped shirt?

Nah! But his distinction was helpful in seeing where Adcorbett was coming from.

The networks are in total control at this point.