Thank you, TodgeRodge

(03-07-2015 03:04 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  you have difficulty following along

the Big 12 has plenty of content for a network if they desired.....because again a single school has their own network and another school has two very nice deals with TWC Metro Sports and ESPN and most all of the others have deals with Fox Sports

so that is enough content and every team in the league has at least one 3rd tier game for football guaranteed to be available so that is enough for a game nearly every week

how is my attempt to make a distinction on tiers meaningless when that distinction exist for all conferences except the ACC that sold 100% of their content to ESPN

the SEC has a tier 1 deal with CBS and a tier 2 deal with ESPN......that is CLEARLY different tiers of content and different partners.......how could anyone claim that is meaningless?

the Big 12 has a tier 1 deal with ESPN and a tier 2 deal with Fox.......again how can that be "meaningless"

the Big 10 has tier 1 deals with ESPN for football games in the regular season, CBS for basketball games and Fox for the football CCG and then they have their tier 2 and tier 3 content with the BTN 51% owned by Fox

so again how are "tiers" meaningless when three of the top earning conferences have their media rights sold in tiered packages with different partners owning some or all of those tiers......talk about a worldly fail to recognize a clear distinction between levels of content

next it is really very simple math that anyone with a high school GED could follow

I 100% included the $8.1 million (actually 7.6 million the next year paid out by the BTN)

but again the BTN and the second and third tier content of the BTN is not up for negotiation only the first tier is

so the Big 10 needs to go from a current $136.12 million paid for tier 1 content (that you somehow claim is meaningless as a "tier") divided by what was 12 teams at the time for a total of $11.34 million

when you add that to the $8.1 million you get $19.44......to go from $19.44 to $33 million you need an increase of $13.56 million

but again that is with only 12 teams

if you have 14 teams in the deal like the Big 10 will for a portion of their contract then you have $136.12 / 14 = $9.71

$9.72 + $8.1 = $17.8

$33 - #17.8 = $15.2

$15.2 * 14 teams = $212.8 million in NEW MONEY needed in ADDITION to the already existing $136.12 million

and $212.8 / $136.12 = 156.3%

so the Big 10 needs a 156.3% increase in their FIRST TIER deal over and above the current deal to get to $33 million in TV money

again this was VERY CLEARLY laid out previously for anyone that is even non-all-world in "maths"

again for those that are not "all world"

$136.12 in current money + $212.8 in new tier 1 money = $348.92 total for tier 1 money divide by 14 = $24.92......and when you add $8.1 to that even if you are not "all world" at maths you get $33.02

there you see how simple that was

for the Big 10 to get to $33 million in TV money they will need a 156.3% increase in their tier 1 money and that is using a distribution from the BTN for tier 2 and 3 money that was higher than what the BTN currently pays out and that is the BTN payout with 12 teams not 14

and again as the article CLEARLY states from the BTN the reason for the DECREASE in BTN payout from $8.1 to $7.6 was because of the ADDITION of NU

so....that alone shows that wild new projections about what the BTN might do with an additional "powerhouse program" and a "national brand" like NU might do are dramatically over inflated because the addition of a "national brand" like NU resulted in a decrease

and again many from the ACC (especially their fangirls and their local reporters) expected a payout of $3 million or more per team for the addition/affiliation of ND......this actually resulted in an increase of just over $1 million per team.....so again there are "projections" and there is REALITY

here are some more wildly inflated projections

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/co...56925808/1

the PAC 12 expecting to make $30 million a year or more in just TV MONEY

and now when the numbers are broken down by the SJM it looks like more like 23 million IF THAT......and we know the last total payout with ALL MONEY included for the PAC 12 was $19.1 million which is a LONG WAY (in the REAL WORLD) from even $23 million in TV MONEY much less 30 million in TV MONEY

http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2012/5/21/...rk-big-ten

here we see more WILDLY INFLATED PROJECTIONS

they have the SEC SEC SEC WITHOUT A TV NETWORK at $25 million per school over the life of the 15 year deal

but of course back here on planet earth in the real world portion of earth we already know what the SEC SEC SEC has paid out so far with the addition of A&M and MU and again INCLUDING ALL NCAA AND BOWL MONEY not just TV money and it has not been $25 million

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...on-revenue

last May it was $20.9 million for ALL MONEY not just TV money

so again in THE REAL WORLD $20.9 in TOTAL MONEY is not $25 million in TV money that was "projected" for the SEC WITHOUT A SECN

and we also know what the CURRENT SEC SEC SEC Deals are for tier 1 and 2 as well

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars...sion-deals

and while that says "under negotiation" here in THE REAL WORLD we know that HAS NEVER HAPPENED....there HAS BEEN NO RENEGOTIATION....there was NO LOOKIN

and those that can do basic math realize that a tier 1 and tier 2 contract that averages $14.6 in TV Money OVER THE 15 YEARS OF THE CONTRACT does not somehow "scale to" $25 million average over the contract AS WAS PROJECTED WITHOUT A SECN

and again there HAS BEEN NO RENEGOTIATION....NONE....CBS HAS NOT DONE A "LOOK IN" with the SEC.....and when the SEC and ESPN did a network there was ZERO announcement of ANY change in the tier 2 deal....NONE

so again there are VERY CLEAR REAL WORLD EXAMPLES of "projections" of money NOT COMING TRUE

how much more clear can it be for anyone that lives in the real world portion of planet earth

and again lastly....I do expect the Big 10 to get SOME increase.....but your non-real world claim of the Big 10 being far behind in "tier 1" money (tiers do not apparently exist in your world though) really does not hold up

because again the Big 12 is getting $1.43 billion over 13 years for their tier 1 deal or $110 million per year.....that is currently UNDER what the Big 10 gets at $136.12 million......and true the Big 10 has the CCG and the CCG is paying them $24.1 million per year so right there using "all world" maths we can see that would make up a large portion of the difference

the SEC SEC SEC is making $825 over 15 years or $55 million per year......now of course that is for a smaller package of total content because CBS took the content they wanted strictly for over the air and CBS has no sports cable network

but again the second tier (the tier I have shown with "all world" irrefutable math) that has gone up in value the most is $2.25 billion over 15 years or $150 million per year

and again there HAS BEEN TO DATE NO RENEGOTIATION FROM THOSE NUMBERS and Neal Pilson the former head of CSB sports said there would be no need for and no reason for CBS to have a "look in" and again there was ZERO word about new tier 2 money from ESPN with the formation of the SECN

so again there is ZERO proof to support your claim that the Big 10 is dramatically under paid for their tier 1 content relative to any other conference that as a specific "tier 1" deal in place

and there is even less to support the notion that the Big 10 will get a new tier contract that will move them from the current $136.12 million per year to the needed $348.92 million per year that when divided by 14 teams and added to the (not all world) $8.1 million would get a 14 team Big 10 to $33 million in TV money

and again there is AMPLE real world verified and proven examples of where "people" (not all world at making TV money projections apparently) have very dramatically over stated the amount of money that conferences and conference members would get with new contracts and with new members being added

so congratulations on your all world being wrong and proven so very very clearly

because again the numbers are right there and very very simple to follow and again the articles are too numerous to link to, but several are provided and VERY simple math is used to show how "projections' have failed to meet reality time and again and again and again

I will tell you exactly why your "tier" distinction is meaningless. Because the Tiers mean different things in different conferences!
Just because the SEC has something they call a Tier 1 and the B1G has something they call a Tier 1 doesn't make them comparable when the SEC's Tier 1 is 15 games (one game per week) and the B1G's is 40+ games.

What you call "Tier 1" for the B1G is what the Pac 12 went to market with and got a deal averaging $20.8 million a year for, and for other conferences would be considered "Tier 1 plus a lot of Tier 2"

Also, when I asked you to provide an example where a conference's TV contract THAT WENT TO MARKET was underwhelming compared to projections, and your evidence was the ACC that didn't go to market, the SEC that didn't go to market, and the PAC12 whose cable network, not their TV deal, underperformed.

Next time try apples to apples. For example the Pac12, who went to market like the B1G is about to, exceeded expectations with their Fox/ESPN deal.

(03-07-2015 12:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-07-2015 10:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Should the PAC make a large move for Big 12 property (6 to 8 schools)

Can't happen under current conditions because
(a) UT has to be part of any such move, and
(b) UT has the financial leverage to say no to equal revenue sharing with anyone.

The way to break that logjam, obviously, is to stop sharing media revenue equally.

IMO we will eventually get to the point where unequal conference revenue sharing becomes the norm. Maybe after Delany retires, the next Big Ten commissioner won't have enough political juice to stop Ohio State from demanding a conference revenue share based on their market value to TV, rather than just the same amount that Minnesota and Purdue get. And maybe after Scott moves on to his next gig, USC will step up and demand they get a larger share (as they did before Scott was hired). Etc., etc.

Once that effect works its way around, it's easier to expand or realign conferences because you no longer have to worry about giving every new member the same equal share. You negotiate a deal with each based on their market value. If UT ever wants to move to the Pac-12, or the Big Ten, and wants some local "friends" so that they still have nearby rivals, the fact that none of the "friends" have anywhere near the Longhorns' market value isn't an obstacle because they'll just be offered a much smaller revenue share than UT. And if School X overplays its hand and demands the same amount of money that UT gets, the expanding conference can just pass School X by and invite School Y or School Z instead, who will be happy to take a smaller share of a very large pie.

I think a good point. I think it will be tough to pry UT without an unequal sharing model in the new conference.

The Pac 12 may eventually sell half of their network to ESPN as Wilner suggests, but it won't happen until the Pac 12 expands and increases their subscriber base by adding new states to their footprint.

Otherwise, they would shortchange themselves.

Part 4 coming on Tuesday

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...al-future/

So check back Tuesday for a look at the expense side of the Pac-12′s financial equation, which will be followed by an examination of potential new revenue streams (Wednesday) and then a summation of the situation (Thursday).

(03-07-2015 06:37 PM)krup Wrote:  I will tell you exactly why your "tier" distinction is meaningless. Because the Tiers mean different things in different conferences!
Just because the SEC has something they call a Tier 1 and the B1G has something they call a Tier 1 doesn't make them comparable when the SEC's Tier 1 is 15 games (one game per week) and the B1G's is 40+ games.

What you call "Tier 1" for the B1G is what the Pac 12 went to market with and got a deal averaging $20.8 million a year for, and for other conferences would be considered "Tier 1 plus a lot of Tier 2"

Also, when I asked you to provide an example where a conference's TV contract THAT WENT TO MARKET was underwhelming compared to projections, and your evidence was the ACC that didn't go to market, the SEC that didn't go to market, and the PAC12 whose cable network, not their TV deal, underperformed.

Next time try apples to apples. For example the Pac12, who went to market like the B1G is about to, exceeded expectations with their Fox/ESPN deal.

but one can still make a comparison when they know what is available and what is being paid

CBS gets 15 games per season (game of the week) and the SEC CCG

they pay $55 million per year for that

the BTN gets 41 football games a season

the Big 12 tier 1 is 23 games for ESPN starting in 2016 and 100 to 105 BB games

the Big 10 deals are $100 million per year for the football not in the BTN (BTN getting 41 games)

CBS Basketball 24 games + tournament $12 million

Fox CCG $24.1 million per year

ESPN pays the Big 12 $110 million per year for what they are getting

so you are saying the Big 10 is currently "undervalued" relative to the SEC and to others

so if you take the SEC $55 million per year and you divide that by 15 you get $3.67 million per game

just like this article comes up with

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ver-092314

BUT CBS does not get only 15 games they get 15 games PLUS the CCG

if you vale the CCG at exactly the same value as the ig 10 CCG for the SEC (24 million per year) then you are not over valuing or undervaluing either one of them relative to the other you are assigning them the same value and if you subtract the $24 million for a CCG (valuing it the same as the Big 10) you get $31 million for those 15 games regular season games

so $31 million / 15 = $2.07 million per game

so again for the $825 million for 15 years ($55 million per year) for 15 regular season games and a CCG we have valued the SEC CCG the same as the Big 10 CCG and then divided the remainder of that money on a per regular season game basis to get $2.07 million per game

and we need to remember that CCG deal for the Big 10 was for 6 years ending in 2016 so it is a very recent deal it is not an older deal.....so that is a very reasonable valuation

so now out of the $136.12 million the Big 10 gets for all the content that is available we have accounted for the CCG so far

now we need to do the math for the regular season football games

the BTN gets 41 games per season

there are currently 12 teams in the Big 10.....each plays 12 regular season games......12 X 12 = 144

but again not all of those games are property of the Big 10 because of road games in the OOC

and also more importantly since really the 144 is not actually "games played" it is TOTAL WINS AND LOSSES we need to remember that in conference games it is two conference teams playing one that gets a win and one that gets a loss

so we have 12 teams playing 8 conference games (really actually 12 teams having either 8 wins or 8 losses or some combination of that)

so that is 12 X 8 = 96.....but remember each game represents one win and one loss......so we cut that 96 in half to get the actual number of games contested to get to 96 wins and losses in 8 conference games played in a 12 team conference

96/2 = 48 conference games that the Big 10 owns in their entirety

now we have the remaining out of conference games.....each of these games will be an actual individual game because of course only 1 of the teams is a Big 10 team......but of course not all of those OOC games will be home games and thus owned by the conference

we have 12 teams that will have some combination of 12 wins or losses for 144 total......we have removed 96 of those with conference games

that leaves 48 OOC games.....if we said that 100% of those games were HOME GAMES for the Big 10 and thus would be owned by the Big 10 that would be 48 games owned by the Big 10......if none of them were home games then 0 games would be big 10 games.....if half were home and half were away then it would be 24 games owned by the conference

now we are trying to place a per game value on the Big 10 games NOT OWNED BY THE BTN.......41 games per season of the total Big 10 owned games go to the BTH

so far we have 48 conference games

we know that many Big 10 teams play more than 6 home games....they will often play 7 home games and only 5 away games because they will buy in a 1 and done game

so what we will say is that 75% of the OOC games for the Big 10 are games owned by the Big 10 instead of saying 50/50

by counting more of the OOC games for Big 10 ownership this will increase the number of Big 10 games that divide the $100 million the Big 10 gets from ESPN for the first tier football games that ESPN pays that $100 million for

and by by increasing the number of game to divide that $100 million by we will decrease the per game value.....by decreasing the per game value we will have a better chance of making the Big 10 look unfairly compensated on a per game basis relative to what CBS pays the SEC....and remember the SEC is a straight comparison of CBS getting 15 games and a CCG so we do not have to do the reverse math like for the Big 10

so now 48 OOC games X .75 = 36

so we have 48 conference games the Big 10 owns and 36 OOC games the Big 10 owns for a total of 84 games

the BTN gets 41 of those leaving 43 for the ESPN $100 million to cover

so we have $100,000,000 per year / 43 games = $2.326 million per game

so when we compare the SEC is getting $2.07 million per game from CBS for 15 games (the game of the week) and we can see here that the Big 10 is actually getting MORE than that on a per game basis with the ESPN deal they have

so again it is not possible or factually supported to make the claim that the Big 10 is currently under-compensated relative the the SEC for games in the "first tier deal"

here is where the 41 football game number comes from

http://www.hawkeyesports.com/genrel/111707aac.html

We are televising 41 football games in 2007 (38 in HD) and 140 men's basketball games this winter, including 64 conference match-ups and three Big Ten Men's Basketball Tournament games.

so now we have taken car of the $100 million (ESPN for football) and the $24.12 million Fox CCG for the $136.12 of money the Big 10 has coming due

that leaves basketball

a min of 24 games for CBS paying $12 million plus the tournament

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars...sion-deals

or $500,000 per game if you count the tournament as "free" and it would be less as you give larger value to the tournament

and just for kicks to make a different caparison

if you called the SEC as $55 million for 16 games (tossing in the CCG as just a regular game) and the Big 10 as $124.12 for 44 games (tossing the CCG and the CCG compensation all in one basket

you would get $55 / 16 for the SEC or $3.44 million per game

for the Big 10 you get $124.12 / 44 = $2.84 million per game

so I suppose if you tried to call the CCG "just another game" and did the math like that you could say the Big 10 is undervalued on a "per game basis" instead of actually compensated more on a per game basis relative to the SEC if you valued the CCG equally and then split the remaining money on a per game basis

then there is an additional factor

the Big 10 has added two teams

so lets to that math

14 teams X 12 games = 168 wins and losses total

now you have 8 of those as conference games so 14 X 8 = 112 games......but one game will take 2 of those total wins and losses

so you have 56 games there

then you have 14 X 4 OOC games = 56 games.....we will still go with the 75% home (owned by the Big 10) and 25% away

56 X .75 = 42 games

so we have 56 conference contest and 42 non conference contest for a total of 98 games

we will continue to say that the BTN only gets 41 of those games.....by doing this it makes more games available to the first tier of games up per bid and if we go with a "per game" comparison then more games available means more total first tier dollar potential

so 98 total = 41 = 57 games available for "first tier" to bid on

so now if we used the "per game" SEC comparison where we counted the SEC CCG as "just another game" we have that valued at $3.44 million per game (which again is really not a very comparison, but we will give ALL BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT) to trying to make the Big 10 cracklacking huge new dolla dolla billz!

and not only that we will give the Big 10 a 25% raise over the SEC based on you and all the other pie in the sky "predicted" types happy

so $3.44 million X .25 = $860,000

so $3.44 + $860,000 = $4.3 million per game

$4.3 million per game X 57 games = $245,100,000

so then we still have the CCG up for sale in that package

and remember we counted the SEC CCG for comparison sake as worth just another game while we will count the Big 10 CCG as "something special"

so we will say the value for it goes up 33%

$24.12 X .33 = $7.9596 + 24.12 = $32.0796

we will say the basketball games available go up 100% to $24 million

so we have a grand total of $245,100,000 + 32,0796,000 + $24,000,000 = $301,179,600

if we take $301,179,600 / 14 = $21.51 milion

if we then take the highest the BTN has EVER paid out $8.1 million (even though we know that has decreased to $7.9 million and then decreased AGAIN to $7.2 million as shown below) we still do not get close to $33 million per year in Big 10 TV MONEY as has been predicted by the SJMNews

we would in fact be at $29.61 million which is $3.39 million short of that

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...money-race


so again when we use extremely inflated first tier football numbers for the SEC counting their CCG as worth nothing other than another regular season game

when we say that the Big 10 will have all 14 teams play only one road OOC game and 3 home OOC games

when we give a LARGE increase to that already inflated per game value of 25%

when we could the CCG for the Big 10 has having major value and we give a large increase to that of 33% and when we double the value of the basketball games and when we include the highest payout of the BTN ever even though that payout has decreased two times in a row just with the addition of NU and the Big 10 not has two additional teams......we are still $3.39 million short of getting to $33 million in Big 10 TV MONEY

and what we have also shown is that you can use "tiers" and what "tiers contain" to give comparative value to conference contracts and we have shown that currently the Big 10 when you make a FAIR AND REASONABLE COMPARISON so the SEC is already getting MORE dollars on a per game basis from their $100 million ESPN first tier deal than the SEC is getting from CBS....and as one of the first articles listed mentioned (the entire premise of the article)....CBS is NOT going to do a "look in" for adding MU and A&M

so again when you make a specific comparison to the SEC (the second or third highest TV money conference tight there with the Big 12) and when you look at the PAC 12 and ACC as well you can already see that the Big 10 is far and away not close to being able to claim they are "under compensated" relative to any other conference in any way shape of form in total dollars.....total dollars per team or on a per game basis and even if you just hand them big new increases in spite of the fact that there is no basis of merit to make that claim of under-compensation they still do not get close to $33 million they are several million away from that

and just for quick math of you do a more fair comparison we will take the $2.326 million the Big 10 gets now on a per football game basis.....we will give it a 33% raise $2,907,500 per game X 57 games = $176,334,060

we will give a 33% raise to the CCG = $32,079,600

and a 33% raise to the basketball = $15,960,000

= $224,373,660 total / 14 teams = $16,026,690 add to that the inflated past highest BTN payout $8,100,000 = $24,126,690 in TV MONEY not including NCAA playoff or basketball or bowl money

and that is nowhere near $33 million in TV MONEY as predicted or estimated or hoped for and that is giving a very large 33% increase across the board to all available properties.....that is ignoring that as far as "tier 1" goes adding two more teams really means more games being shown that compete against each other for viewers because there are only so many prime football viewing hours in the day and and again that is using a per game starting value of $2.326 million (vs the easy to calculate $2.07 million for the SEC if you value the SEC CCG the same as the Big 10 currently) and that is counting ALL 14 teams having 7 home games and 5 away games and all of those games assigned to the new network

(03-09-2015 05:23 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  and that is nowhere near $33 million in TV MONEY as predicted or estimated or hoped for

Here's the source of that "$33 million" projection: http://www.jconline.com/story/sports/col...e/8187133/

Key quotes:

Quote:Maryland and Rutgers officially join the Big Ten on July 1, but neither will receive full shares immediately. Traviolia said the two schools have a six-year financial integration plan — the same as Nebraska — and start receiving full revenue shares beginning in the 2020-21 school year.

Quote:The Big Ten is anticipating 12 schools will receive roughly $33 million in 2017-18 from television revenue alone — about a $10 million per school increase from 2016-17 projection, the final year of a 10-year, $1 billion deal which started in 2007-08.

The Big Ten will still be "shorting" Rutgers and Maryland in 2017-2018. If (as a guess) Rutgers and Maryland are each getting a half-share in that year, that means there are 12 full shares and 2 half-shares that year, so it's $33 million/share x 13 = $429 million projected for the conference in "television revenue" which would be BTN plus ESPN/Fox/NBCSN/whomever.

If they're projecting about $130 million of that from BTN -- they claim BTN will deliver about $10 million/year to each Big Ten school, and again it's 12 full shares and 2 half-shares in that year -- then the Big Ten is projecting that the conference will get roughly $300 million/year from ESPN/Fox/NBCSN/whomever in their next TV deal. Given that the Pac-12 gets $250 million/year from ESPN/Fox for 44 FB games, plus the conf. title game, plus about half of the basketball, and given that the Big Ten will probably sell ESPN/Fox/etc. at least 10 more FB games and 20 more BB games than the Pac-12 sells (b/c the Big Ten has 14 teams and more games to sell), $300 million/year from ESPN/Fox/etc. is in the right ballpark. Might be a bit less, might be a bit more, but it's in the right ballpark. It would be roughly the same dollar amount per game that the Pac-12 gets.