(06-23-2014 11:37 AM)john01992 Wrote: (06-23-2014 09:15 AM)Maize Wrote: (06-23-2014 09:14 AM)ken d Wrote: (06-23-2014 08:28 AM)Maize Wrote: From the Article:
June 23, 2014
LEXINGTON, Ky.– In one of the most valuable partnerships of its kind in college athletics history, University of Kentucky officials announced Monday that JMI Sports has been awarded UK’s athletics and campus multimedia marketing rights with a 15-year, $210 million agreement.
“This partnership reflects the fact that the University of Kentucky is a national brand with the largest and most loyal fan base in all of intercollegiate athletics,” UK Athletics Director Mitch Barnhart said. “The size of this partnership – and our partnership with an emerging force in college sports in JMI Sports – will enable us to maintain and grow as one of the country’s few financially self-sustaining programs, allowing us to continue to provide incredible educational opportunities to more than 450 young men and women as well as continue to partner with the university in unique and distinctive ways.”
http://www.ukathletics.com/genrel/062314aab.html
I imagine there are more than a few schools that would take exception to that boast. My question, though, is how are these rights different from the ones included the the conference GoR? And do all schools retain similar rights they can sell outside their conference agreements?
This deal doesn't include TV Rights....this is Radio, Internet etc...etc...hellva deal for UK....
Radio rights to UK’s football, men’s and women’s basketball and baseball games;
Stadium and arena corporate signage and game programs for all home UK events, other than those hosted at Rupp Arena;
Naming rights to university athletics facilities and premium areas;
Sponsorship on UKathletics.com;
Game sponsorships and game promotions;
Coaches’ endorsements;
Pre and postgame television shows and specials and postseason highlight DVDs;
Video features on video boards, other than at Rupp Arena;
Opportunities to develop UK Athletics Corporate Partnership Program; and
The potential, at the university’s discretion, to market campus multimedia rights, creating the potential for an integrated approach to multimedia rights and marketing – something few universities are doing.
good summary. id also like to mention that schools make almost as much money in this category (T3) as the other two tiers combined. it is also important to note that just because a school doesn't have a mega contract with IMG or a company like IMG does not mean that they are not making huge $$$ on this stuff. michigan for example managed these revenue streams entirely in house prior to 2008.
every school retains these rights including the P5. the concept that these rights/mega T3 deals are exclusive to the b12 is a fabrication by b12/wvu/fsu fans trying to prop up that conference.
a very unintelligent reply, but expected from one that tries to make their conference media deals appear better than reality
all teams have these types of deals, but the REALITY is that the Big 12 teams have additional property over and above what other conferences have to sell in these deals
I realize this is hard for ACC fans to understand, but it is very simple if one has a clue what they are talking about
here is simple proof
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...e-figures/
this is from June 16th of this year from a reporter that has done a very good job of breaking down the PAC 12 deals and what they actually mean
Then note that all but two or three schools have Third Tier buyback expenses:
When the conference centralized its media rights in order to get the biggest deal possible from ESPN and FOX, it meant compensating the companies that held those rights on a local level (i.e., IMG and Learfield) for their loss of inventory.
That act alone is costing the conference $65 – $70 million over the course of several years, according to a league source.
For most of the schools, the buyback expenses are more than $1 million annually, so subtract that amount from the per-school revenues – it’s not included in the distribution figures.
So for most schools, the net revenue figure isn’t $19.8M. It’s closer to $18.5M
ok for those that are slow (from the ACC) if you read that over and over and over and over and over and over again and again and again what it is saying is that when the PAC 12 network was formed in order to actually have the rights to the content to show on the PAC 12 network the PAC 12 and their member universities had to go to the companies like IMG and Learfield and BUY BACK the TELEVISION CONTENT that they had SOLD to those companies
and that is costing some schools upwards of a million per year or more over several years
and furthermore those COST associated with BUYING BACK CONTENT are NOT reflected in the conference distributions from the PAC 12 so when you look at total TELEVISIONS MEDIA and Conference NCAA distributions if you want to make a fair comparison to other conferences you have to SUBTRACT the EXPENSE of the PAC 12 BUYING BACK the rights to that TELEVISION CONTENT that individual schools had SOLD to companies like IMG and Learfield
and when we look at the IMG website and the Learfield site
http://www.imgcollege.com/our-properties...iversities
http://learfieldsports.com/university-partners/
we see that teams in the PAC 12 still have deals with these companies
so for those that actually have a brain and a brain that is capable of REASONING and that actually have a clue what we can see is that different universities have deals with different companies and some have deals that include various things from a few things like stajium signage and ticket sales to very complex things like stajium beverage and concessions, coaches shows, merchandising and on and on
and different teams have deals that have different values and those values are based on what they have signed over to those companies and what that team brings as far as fans and markets and potential overall sales
and in the case of the Big 12 all of the members of the Big 12 have deals just like every other team and those deals vary in the amounts paid based on fan support and overall potential profits, but what makes the Big 12 different is they also have something that other conferences do not have and that is the ability to sell some football and basketball television broadcast rights
and what the unintelligent amongst us (mostly ACC fans) have a hard time grasping a hold of is that those TV rights have the ability to INCREASE a deal with a company like IMG or Learfield
and so when a school like Kentucky or Alabama signs a huge deal the least intelligent amongst us want to ignore that those schools have a very large fan base beyond their region and a large appeal and they want to come make a fool of themselves by saying "see every school has that and blah blah".........but what they are not smart enough to do or capable of doing through reason and logic is realizing that every school will have a different level of a deal in these types of deals often even if they are selling the exact same "rights and properties", but when one school has the ability to offer more rights and properties that means that individual school has the ability to do better than just selling LESS overall property to a company like IMG and Learfield
so if a school was going to get a 4 million dollar per year deal and they suddenly have TV football and basketball games to sell and they get a 6 million dollar deal well you can attribute that additional 2 million dollars to the addition of TV football and basketball content (unless you are brain dead or just stupid)
and in the case of the Big 12 when all the teams have deals with Learfield and IMG that go back years and years some even before the big 12 was former or before they were in the Big 12 and there is an announcement that the university has signed a deal with a TV network or a cable company like fox Southwest or Time Warner or ESPN to SELL TV CONTENT when they have already had a deal with IMG and or Learfield for things BESIDES TV CONTENT.......well what that means is the money coming in from THAT SPECIFIC DEAL is attributed to TV CONTENT SALES
and then of course you get those with the brain of a sand flea (mostly from the ACC) that will say "well that content has no value and it was just a toss in to get a deal)
which of course is just silly because again
1. these teams already HAVE DEALS WITH IMG AND LEARFIELD.......and the news releases specifically talk of TV CONTENT SALES TO MEDIA AND CABLE COMPANIES which is not the same as their deals with IMG and Learfield even if IMG and Larfield helped facilitate that deal
2. only a dunce cap would claim that "that content has no value" and then try and make the claim that suddenly if that content (with no value) was bundled together it would have HUGE VALUE!......ah the always laughable claim that if you just pile enough worthless crap onto other worthless crap suddenly it will be worth GOLD!!
3. in the case of the ACC specifically it is laughable to consider that a conference that can't get a conference network going because their primary media partner sold off 3rd tier TV content and then that was sometimes further sold off and BUYING IT BACK is TOO EXPENSIVE to make starting a network worth it would be filled with people that still make the claim that piecemeal sold 3rd tier content still has no value
4. we can see from the Mercury News report that PAC 12 teams had to BU"Y BACK TV CONTENT that they had SOLD FOR MONEY to companies like IMG and Learfield and BUYING THAT CONTENT BACK COST REAL MONEY and even AFTER BUYING THAT CONTENT BACK those teams in the AC 12 STILL HAVE DEALS WITH LEARFIELD AND IMG FOR OTHER PROPERTIES BESIDES TV BROADCAST RIGHTS
so how thick does one have to be to ignore that in the case of the PAC 12 they are actually PAYING to get 3rd tier content back that they had sold in prior years for REAL MONEY while they still have other deals with IMG and Learfield and when you look at the PAC 12 TV deal and the money that their teams make individually for TV if you want to make a fair comparison you have to ALSO (as reported in the linked Mercury News Report) subtract the money that those individual teams are paying to BUY BACK that content because that is an expense purely associated with BUYING BACK the rights to that TELEVISION CONTENT and it is apart from any IMG or Learfield deal that they might otherwise have
so again that proves right there that TV content has VALUE apart from overall IMG and Learfield deals for OTHER properties that a school might sell......and it proves that the TV content can be VALUED AND SOLD AND BOUGHT BACK APART FROM other portions of deals that schools have with companies like Learfield and IMG and if you are going to CORRECTLY do as the Mercury News reporter did and say well if you had an EXPENSE associated with BUYING BACK the TV content of your overall deal with IMG and Learfield so that you could bundle it into a conference network well when you compare overall TV payouts you have to subtract that expense......what that also means is that if a school has SOLD TV CONTENT to Learfield and IMG or more importantly in the case of Big 12 schools THROUGH IMG AND LEARFIELD as a separate part of an overall deal with IMG and Learfield well that is INCOME associated with TV CONTENT and thus to mkae a comparison that PORTION of the deal with IMG and Learfield that pertains to TV CONTENT is a PLUS on the ledger of overall TV content profits that particular school receives just like buying it back is an EXPENSE for schools that bought it back to place into a conference network
again it takes a total moron to not be able to reason and understand this especially when their conference has bundled their 3rd tier content and sold it and further resold it (piecing it out) to the point that the expense of buying it back ruins their chance of a conference network......and even worse when there is a CLEAR example of another conference that had to have individual teams BUY BACK TV CONTENT while they maintained a deal with IMG and Learfield for OTHER PROPERTIES BESIDES TV AND TV CONTENT
but hey the world needs people to be clueless too
/
Kentucky signs a 15 Year $210 Million Sports Marketing Deal with JMI
