Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
San Jose Mercury (Wilner) PAC12 Financial Future
Author Message
TexanMark Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,637
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 1326
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Post: #1
San Jose Mercury (Wilner) PAC12 Financial Future
A multi-part series on analyzing the PAC12's financials. JRsec tipped me off to this...thanks

I'll post more links in the OP as they get added.

Part 1 http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...al-future/

Part 2
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...-be-worth/

Part 3
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...d-big-ten/

Updated
Part 4
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...t-to-sell/
(This post was last modified: 03-06-2015 07:21 PM by TexanMark.)
03-06-2015 09:32 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #2
RE: San Jose Mercury (Wilner) PAC12 Financial Future
(03-06-2015 09:32 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  A multi-part series on analyzing the PAC12's financials. JRsec tipped me off to this...thanks

Excellent find! Thanks to you and JR. 04-cheers
03-06-2015 09:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
domer1978 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,469
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 367
I Root For: Notre Dame/Chaos
Location: California/Georgia
Post: #3
RE: San Jose Mercury (Wilner) PAC12 Financial Future
Good find...
03-06-2015 09:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dasville Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,796
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 246
I Root For: UofL
Location:
Post: #4
RE: San Jose Mercury (Wilner) PAC12 Financial Future
Gotta love a good miniseries!
03-06-2015 10:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,637
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 1326
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Post: #5
RE: San Jose Mercury (Wilner) PAC12 Financial Future
(03-06-2015 10:01 AM)Dasville Wrote:  Gotta love a good miniseries!

04-cheers Going to make some popcorn and read it this weekend. Lots of nuggets.
03-06-2015 10:26 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,637
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 1326
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Post: #6
RE: San Jose Mercury (Wilner) PAC12 Financial Future
03-06-2015 07:21 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


RaiderRed Offline
Banned

Posts: 794
Joined: Nov 2014
I Root For: P5
Location:
Post: #7
RE: San Jose Mercury (Wilner) PAC12 Financial Future
Looks like the PAC 12 needs to find schools in Texas that have a real fan base that will watch those games.

The PAC 12 can't go after regional Universities with small audiences. They need large state Universities who fill up their stadiums and arenas regardless of record or opponent.

They don't have many options.
03-06-2015 08:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chess Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,815
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 219
I Root For: ECU & Nebraska
Location: Chicago Metro
Post: #8
RE: San Jose Mercury (Wilner) PAC12 Financial Future
(03-06-2015 08:42 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  Looks like the PAC 12 needs to find schools in Texas that have a real fan base that will watch those games.

The PAC 12 can't go after regional Universities with small audiences. They need large state Universities who fill up their stadiums and arenas regardless of record or opponent.

They don't have many options.

The Pac 12 could attempt to merge with the Big Ten or have key schools merge with the Big Ten. There is nothing like Southern Cal, UCLA, Stanford, and California determining it is in their best interest to leave the Pac 12.
03-06-2015 08:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,930
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 264
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #9
RE: San Jose Mercury (Wilner) PAC12 Financial Future
generally this guy is pretty good when he uses real world known numbers and he is good at breaking down and finding out the real world numbers especially for the PAC 12

but I think he is way off on this one especially with regards to the Big 10 and SEC and also with regard to the value of the PAC 12 network

lets go over the last one first......if there is "value" in the PAC 12 network then why is the PAC 12 not able to monetize it and what would ESPN or Fox or any other buyer do differently in regards to monetizing that for more gross dollars and even more so more net profit

none of those types of companies need the PAC 12 to do something they are perfectly capable of doing themselves and that is setting up a sports network and selling it to cable companies and clearly the PAC 12 has not done the selling to cable companies part well at all

why would any network reward the PAC 12 with a high price for a portion of the network when the PAC 12 has failed to execute the most important part and why would they pay a premium for a product that represents a great deal of duplication in terms of facilities and personnel.....they won't

now some will say "well Fox and ESPN can leverage their media power to get the PAC 12 on more cable MSOs for higher money"......and that COULD be a possibility, but again why would ESPN or Fox or anyone else reward the PAC 12 for something those networks have to do and for the work and leverage those networks bring to the table......who in the hell says "hey I bring leverage and value and strength here take a big cut of that for nothing"......no one says that it is just a stupid concept especially with all the duplication of effort/facilities/people involved as well......if the PAC 12 has to sell a portion that is a clear sign of a give up

also the whole deal with the PAC 12 network is cable companies are saying "enough" to all these extra channels that content providers want new big money to provide......if the PAC 12 has to sell out to ESPN or Fox that is a sign to cable MSOs of them "winning" and a content provider losing and it is a sign that the cable MSOs were able to hold firm and not provide some content WITHOUT it being detrimental to their subscriber base

so if Fox and ESPN or anyone else takes over it is not like cable MSOs are just going to lay down and roll over and say "ok ok we give up sell us that network content for big high prices"......sure Fox and ESPN or whoever can try the whole "all or nothing" approach, but cable companies are more and more revolting against that and again from the point of view of the PAC 12 getting more money that is ESPN and fox or whoever using THEIR leverage to get that on the cable MSO.....as before why would they reward the PAC 12 for that when the PAC 12 failed to accomplish that and when cable MSOs and cable subscribers have made clear that network is not one they are feigning for

now to the Big 10 and SEC and their money

1. I am of the opinion that the new money the Big 10 will be getting for their first tier deal is over inflated.....now I could be 1005 wrong on that, but I don't think so

lets look at past deals in place

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

the newest deal in place with two tiers of content owned by two different media companies is the Big 12

the above does not break it down by network, but we can look one year prior when the old ESPN deal was in place and the new Fox deal was already in place

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars...-makeovers

so the new combined deal is averaging $200 million per year (it scales like the PAC 12 deal does)

the old deal was ESPN averaging $60 million per year and the newer Fox deal averaging $90 million per year for a combined $150 million per year

so when the Big 12, ESPN and fox all sat down again at the end of 2012 there was a bump of $50 million per year almost all coming from ESPN (it is said Fox tossed in a little to get better picks and choices).....so even if you give 100% of that increase to ESPN and none to Fox that means ESPN went from $60 million per year to $110 million per year while Fox was ay $90 million per year.....for a difference in value between the two tiers of $20 million

now lets look at the SEC SEC SEC.....$205 million per year total......CBS pays $55 million per year and ESPN pays $150 million per year and they were signed at the same time for the same length of time.....now sure not all tier deals for all conferences provide the same amount of content and "choices" in games to carry for tier owners......but again it shows that the divide between content value between tier 1 and tier 2 is closing and the values of that content are no longer based solely on "first pick".....here we actually have second tier paying $95 per year MORE than first tier, but of course CBS only shows limited first picks for the prime content they really desire for over the air

then we can look at the Big 10...theirs is more difficult because I believe the first tier and Big 10 network were done at the same time then they have the basketball and the CCG deal

$100 million per year first tier
$12 basketball
$24.12 CCG

total of $136.12 for "first tier" type content

then the "second tier" BTN which is really 2nd and 3rd tier and it is $112 million per year plus 49% of the profits and that would be $9.33 million per year per team on average.....but of course we know that the BTN has actually paid out $8.1 million max per year and that has declined with the addition of NU and as NU got a larger share of that

but still it shows only a small gap between the $136.12 total for "first tier" type content from the Big 10 and their combined 2nd and 3rd tier content from the BTN.....if you take the $112 at face value it is a difference of $24.12 million......about the same difference as the Big 12 showed

so we have a spread of about $20 million for the Big 12 between the two tiers and for the Big 10 about $24 million (and that is giving the BTN credit for a full $9.33 million per team that they have NEVER paid out they have always paid out less than that so far and declining with the addition of NU so far

and we have the SEC SEC SEC with an actual payment of $95 million MORE for second tier content VS first tier

so to the Big 10 specifically......their content is LOCKED UP past the first tier.....I am of the opinion that they made out very well in the time of sports content blowing through the roof when they piecemealed out content and added a CCG.....I am of the opinion that the sum will be worth less than the parts when the new deal happens specifically because I see the amounts paid for sports programming leveling off and also because as I have shown there is no longer a huge gap between first and second tier values in the more recent deals

the ACC and PAC 12 of course have a single deal two (PAC) or three (ACC) tiers so no way to break out value of each tier per say

but still I think the trend shows that there is not going to be a new massive difference in increased value for the limited amount of content that the Big 10 has coming on the market at least in my opinion and as I see the numbers

now to the SEC SEC SEC and the "potential" $15 or $20 million down the road from the SECN.......this is just stupid.....lets look at the numbers again.....and yes I know I just made the argument that the 2nd tier had closed the gap (or even surpassed for the SEC) on 1st tier value

but again lets look at the numbers again.....we KNOW the PAC 12 is paying out next to nothing for 3rd tier only content and we know what the BTN is paying out for second AND THIRD TIER content and that was a max of $8.1 million per team so far and declining with the addition of NU and their increased share

and again the SECN is THIRD TIER ONLY unlike the BTN and similar to the PAC12N

and the SEC is already getting a ton of money from the 2nd tier deal

and we can even look at the ACC and how their 3rd tier content was treated.....farmed out to Raycom and then to Fox

so we KNOW that the Big 10 is not getting $15 to $20 million per year per team from the BTN that is SECOND AND THIRD TIER and we know the max so far for that was $8.1 million one year

we know the PAC 12 is struggling to get much of anything and we know the ACC 3rd tier only was sold off twice in some cases and not for a significant amount of money

so who in their right mind thinks that the SECN will pay out double or even 2.5X what the well established second and third tier BTN pays out in a similar ownership of network setup anytime in the near future.....that pretty much seems impossible even with the statement of a single AD saying that $5 million (well over half of what the BTN 2nd and 3rd tier pays out) is already a "done deal"

theses numbers are just stupid and there is really no basis to support them when you look at all that has happened and when you look at the REAL WORLD numbers out there

and when you look at the silly stupid claims made by the PAC 12 and their network ($10 million or more per team per year SOON!) and when you look at all the "lookin" talk for the SEC SEC SEC for adding MU and A&M (that has NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED WITH ANY REAL NUMERS EVEN AFTER THE SECN DEAL) and when you look at the stupid money the ACC fangirls thought they would get for ND affiliating VS what they actually got and when you look at what the payment from the BTN has done with the addition so far of NU (declined) anyone of reason and with an ounce of common sense would have to question some of these numbers being tossed out and the validity of them or the chances they will come to fruition anytime soon

even so I think it is clear the PAC 12 will probably be below the Big 10 and SEC and even the Big 12 for the long term future especially if you use any realistic Big 12 3rd tier numbers and if you count NCAA playoff and NCAA Basketball and bowl money ect
03-06-2015 09:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,299
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #10
RE: San Jose Mercury (Wilner) PAC12 Financial Future
The Fox deal jumped from $20 to $90 million per year just before ESPN renewed.

That supports your point in that Tier II showed the really big increase in value.
03-06-2015 09:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,930
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 264
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #11
RE: San Jose Mercury (Wilner) PAC12 Financial Future
(03-06-2015 09:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  The Fox deal jumped from $20 to $90 million per year just before ESPN renewed.

That supports your point in that Tier II showed the really big increase in value.

that is true as well I did not include that thanks for that meaningful addition
03-06-2015 09:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #12
RE: San Jose Mercury (Wilner) PAC12 Financial Future
Right after the Big XII formed and the Pac-10 made the failed run at Texas and Colorado my thought was the mistake was not shedding a couple of Pac-10 teams and four Big XII teams and creating a 16 team league.

The Pac-12 is a great property that has to contend with a market that just isn't as football crazy as the south and Midwest.

What happened with the Big East and ACC may well be instructive in either what the Pac-12 should do or what will happen to it. They need the synergy that can come from greater interest in areas where they have an appealing product.
03-06-2015 11:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,892
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #13
RE: San Jose Mercury (Wilner) PAC12 Financial Future
(03-06-2015 09:32 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  A multi-part series on analyzing the PAC12's financials. JRsec tipped me off to this...thanks

I'll post more links in the OP as they get added.

Part 1 http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...al-future/

Part 2
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...-be-worth/

Part 3
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...d-big-ten/

Updated
Part 4
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...t-to-sell/

This is an issue come full circle. When Delany took Penn State into the Big 10 it sent those in the business of sports broadcasting an unintended message, "Hey the Big 10 is interested in expanding into a larger television market." When Delany wanted the BTN to remain self owned that message translated into "The Big 10 is going to cease to be a cheap product and is looking to capitalize on its own cache and new markets." What that meant was that soon the Big 10 would be trying to take product off of the market for its own purposes. The ESPN reaction was to make sure that the BTN (a new concept to be sure) got off to a rocky start. Distribution problems ensued in part because of the novelty but in part because it represented more of threat to the corporate entities than it realized. The second part of the response was to take the most valuable football property (at that time) out of the targeted area. With Notre Dame safely under its own umbrella (NBC) it meant that Miami, Boston College, and a couple of more needed to be sheltered where ESPN had a firm grip upon them. If Delany wanted to move East as the Penn State move indicated then by all means remove other prospects from the table. When Nebraska was taken to the West suddenly the properties of the Big 12 looked vulnerable. When Colorado left for an independent PAC and the Texahoma offer was being bandied about it was time to act again. In comes Pittsburgh and Syracuse leaving only what the network perceived as less likely targets for the Big 10 with Rutgers and Connecticut in the East. Then the LHN is born to stop PAC expansion and FOX and ESPN shared the burden of support of the Big 12 to keep that property from falling into independent hands. ESPN took a further step in building an attractive landing spot for the Longhorns by permitting another of its vassals (now the SEC was more fully locked down) to take in Missouri and A&M. ESPN didn't realize that its own property was vulnerable. The Big 10 now with a network affiliation with rival FOX moves to take Maryland and picks up Rutgers in the process. The issue was markets but I think ESPN was unprepared because in taking Nebraska and Penn State the Big 10 had gone for brands, one with markets and one less so, but both obviously valuable. This time, however, they took nothing really but markets. The response was the rush to GOR's. There wasn't time to place the valuable gems of the ACC and Big 12 so a stop gap was needed and the GOR's provided it. (Networks don't worry about GOR's too much because they set the valuations. Therefore moves within their property schemes are more readily handled, but it does prevent others from tampering with that property.) Now it starts all over again.

If the PAC wants distribution and an increase in appealing product with markets they are going to have to sell their independence and the rights to monetize their own product. With that sale they get markets, product, and more importantly clear the path for distribution. In other words they bow and kiss the ring of the Godfather of college sports. It won't be FOX's ring they kiss. FOX has title to one viable property, Oklahoma, and even that contract is simply for T3 rights and lasts 7 years. FOX does share rights with ESPN to Big 12 property.

The release of this by the San Jose Mercury News will have the effect of notifying the public of the inevitable and it will cover the talking points by enumerating the reasons why the sale must take place. What it does to realignment might be a whole other matter.

Should the PAC make a large move for Big 12 property (6 to 8 schools) it will force the Big 10 and the SEC both with networks to focus their intentions back upon the ACC. At that point the leverage on the East Coast becomes the same as the West Coast, ESPN's to broker. If Delany gives the Mouse a nice new long T1 deal things will get interesting indeed. Will this mean that the Big 10 is favored over all others? Not at all. But what it will mean is that ESPN will have gained a stake in the PACN by withholding Texas properties from them, ESPN will have thwarted FOX's coup in the Big 10 by locking up the best of its top games, and ESPN will have built the carriage further of its own money maker the SECN. At that point whatever Notre Dame chooses to do if it involves conference affiliation even tangentially they will have to deal with ESPN. It is a masterful, strong-arm, set of moves to consolidate their power and when it is over the last of the red hot TV deals will be over until all contracts are up and competitors realize what they must do to get a piece of the college sports package.

Is it a fete accompli? Not yet. But we'll wait and see because at this point that's about all anyone can do.
(This post was last modified: 03-07-2015 10:21 AM by JRsec.)
03-07-2015 10:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
krup Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 303
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 20
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #14
RE: San Jose Mercury (Wilner) PAC12 Financial Future
(03-06-2015 09:55 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(03-06-2015 09:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  The Fox deal jumped from $20 to $90 million per year just before ESPN renewed.

That supports your point in that Tier II showed the really big increase in value.

that is true as well I did not include that thanks for that meaningful addition

I am not sure I understand why you would use B12 TV deals as a reference for what the B1G is going to get. The B12 lost major schools and added others, while only retaining a small amount of Tier 3 content.

Meanwhile, another conference, the Pac12 is much more comparable in structure (didn't lose any schools, retained enough content for a cable network) to the B1G.

When you see that the P12 with a much smaller population footprint signed (a few years earlier) TV deals that pay them an average of almost $21 million a year, what is so outlandish about Wilner using a guess that the B1G will get $23-25 million?
03-07-2015 11:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CardinalJim Online
Welcome to The New Age
*

Posts: 16,476
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 2968
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Staffordsville, KY
Post: #15
RE: San Jose Mercury (Wilner) PAC12 Financial Future
The reality is we are still over a decade away from The Big 12 or ACC GOR expiring. I doubt the present business model of conference networks lasts in its current form.

Why would The SEC or Big Ten push into ACC markets where their networks are already Tier 1? Why add another mouth to feed when you are not increasing revenues?

The truth is if UNC, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Florida State or any other program in The ACC would have wanted to jump to another conference they would have BEFORE signing the GOR. To hear The ACC haters here every school in the conference had an offer. Does anyone really believe Delaney would have added Maryland if he could have got Virginia or Georgia Tech? Would Slive have added A&M if he could have got Texas or Missouri if he could have got UNC?

As Frank has pointed out numerous times, some schools like where they are. ACC schools like being in The ACC.
CJ


(03-07-2015 10:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-06-2015 09:32 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  A multi-part series on analyzing the PAC12's financials. JRsec tipped me off to this...thanks

I'll post more links in the OP as they get added.

Part 1 http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...al-future/

Part 2
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...-be-worth/

Part 3
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...d-big-ten/

Updated
Part 4
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...t-to-sell/

This is an issue come full circle. When Delany took Penn State into the Big 10 it sent those in the business of sports broadcasting an unintended message, "Hey the Big 10 is interested in expanding into a larger television market." When Delany wanted the BTN to remain self owned that message translated into "The Big 10 is going to cease to be a cheap product and is looking to capitalize on its own cache and new markets." What that meant was that soon the Big 10 would be trying to take product off of the market for its own purposes. The ESPN reaction was to make sure that the BTN (a new concept to be sure) got off to a rocky start. Distribution problems ensued in part because of the novelty but in part because it represented more of threat to the corporate entities than it realized. The second part of the response was to take the most valuable football property (at that time) out of the targeted area. With Notre Dame safely under its own umbrella (NBC) it meant that Miami, Boston College, and a couple of more needed to be sheltered where ESPN had a firm grip upon them. If Delany wanted to move East as the Penn State move indicated then by all means remove other prospects from the table. When Nebraska was taken to the West suddenly the properties of the Big 12 looked vulnerable. When Colorado left for an independent PAC and the Texahoma offer was being bandied about it was time to act again. In comes Pittsburgh and Syracuse leaving only what the network perceived as less likely targets for the Big 10 with Rutgers and Connecticut in the East. Then the LHN is born to stop PAC expansion and FOX and ESPN shared the burden of support of the Big 12 to keep that property from falling into independent hands. ESPN took a further step in building an attractive landing spot for the Longhorns by permitting another of its vassals (now the SEC was more fully locked down) to take in Missouri and A&M. ESPN didn't realize that its own property was vulnerable. The Big 10 now with a network affiliation with rival FOX moves to take Maryland and picks up Rutgers in the process. The issue was markets but I think ESPN was unprepared because in taking Nebraska and Penn State the Big 10 had gone for brands, one with markets and one less so, but both obviously valuable. This time, however, they took nothing really but markets. The response was the rush to GOR's. There wasn't time to place the valuable gems of the ACC and Big 12 so a stop gap was needed and the GOR's provided it. (Networks don't worry about GOR's too much because they set the valuations. Therefore moves within their property schemes are more readily handled, but it does prevent others from tampering with that property.) Now it starts all over again.

If the PAC wants distribution and an increase in appealing product with markets they are going to have to sell their independence and the rights to monetize their own product. With that sale they get markets, product, and more importantly clear the path for distribution. In other words they bow and kiss the ring of the Godfather of college sports. It won't be FOX's ring they kiss. FOX has title to one viable property, Oklahoma, and even that contract is simply for T3 rights and lasts 7 years. FOX does share rights with ESPN to Big 12 property.

The release of this by the San Jose Mercury News will have the effect of notifying the public of the inevitable and it will cover the talking points by enumerating the reasons why the sale must take place. What it does to realignment might be a whole other matter.

Should the PAC make a large move for Big 12 property (6 to 8 schools) it will force the Big 10 and the SEC both with networks to focus their intentions back upon the ACC. At that point the leverage on the East Coast becomes the same as the West Coast, ESPN's to broker. If Delany gives the Mouse a nice new long T1 deal things will get interesting indeed. Will this mean that the Big 10 is favored over all others? Not at all. But what it will mean is that ESPN will have gained a stake in the PACN by withholding Texas properties from them, ESPN will have thwarted FOX's coup in the Big 10 by locking up the best of its top games, and ESPN will have built the carriage further of its own money maker the SECN. At that point whatever Notre Dame chooses to do if it involves conference affiliation even tangentially they will have to deal with ESPN. It is a masterful, strong-arm, set of moves to consolidate their power and when it is over the last of the red hot TV deals will be over until all contracts are up and competitors realize what they must do to get a piece of the college sports package.

Is it a fete accompli? Not yet. But we'll wait and see because at this point that's about all anyone can do.
(This post was last modified: 03-07-2015 11:48 AM by CardinalJim.)
03-07-2015 11:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #16
RE: San Jose Mercury (Wilner) PAC12 Financial Future
(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.
03-07-2015 12:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


hawghiggs Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,792
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 124
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #17
RE: San Jose Mercury (Wilner) PAC12 Financial Future
[quote='CardinalJim' pid='11846965' dateline='1425746848']
The reality is we are still over a decade away from The Big 12 or ACC GOR expiring. I doubt the present business model of conference networks lasts in its current form.

Why would The SEC or Big Ten push into ACC markets where their networks are already Tier 1? Why add another mouth to feed when you are not increasing revenues?

The truth is if UNC, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Florida State or any other program in The ACC would have wanted to jump to another conference they would have BEFORE signing the GOR. To hear The ACC haters here every school in the conference had an offer. Does anyone really believe Delaney would have added Maryland if he could have got Virginia or Georgia Tech? Would Slive have added A&M if he could have got Texas or Missouri if he could have got UNC?

As Frank has pointed out numerous times, some schools like where they are. ACC schools like being in The ACC.
CJ


Slive would have taken all four. It was never a either/or situation. The SEC has been trying to lure Arkansas,A&M,and Texas to the SEC since Roy Kramer was the commissioner. But I do agree with you. Just pointing out stuff.
03-07-2015 12:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,930
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 264
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #18
RE: San Jose Mercury (Wilner) PAC12 Financial Future
(03-07-2015 11:26 AM)krup Wrote:  
(03-06-2015 09:55 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(03-06-2015 09:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  The Fox deal jumped from $20 to $90 million per year just before ESPN renewed.

That supports your point in that Tier II showed the really big increase in value.

that is true as well I did not include that thanks for that meaningful addition

I am not sure I understand why you would use B12 TV deals as a reference for what the B1G is going to get. The B12 lost major schools and added others, while only retaining a small amount of Tier 3 content.

Meanwhile, another conference, the Pac12 is much more comparable in structure (didn't lose any schools, retained enough content for a cable network) to the B1G.

When you see that the P12 with a much smaller population footprint signed (a few years earlier) TV deals that pay them an average of almost $21 million a year, what is so outlandish about Wilner using a guess that the B1G will get $23-25 million?

1. I did not just use the Big 12 as a comparison I showed the same thing (tier 2 moving up in value a great deal more retaliative to tier 1) with the SEC as well and even if you look at the Big 10 deals that are for tier 1 content broken in parts and then tier 2 and tier 3 combined into the BTN you see where the Big 10 is getting $136.12 million per year for all of that combined and soon to be available tier 1 content (11.34 million per team per year) and they SHOULD be getting 9.33 million for what the BTN contract states, but we know from past releases directly from the BTN network that the highest the BTN has paid out is $8.1 million per team and that has decreased with the increased share for NU

so again the available "tier 1" content that the Big 10 has to sell does not currently hold a great deal more value than the value of the remaining content of the BTN (tier 2 and 3)......and sing the SEC and Big 12 as examples (because they are the ones with deals that are with different companies for tier 1 and tier 2 UNLIKE THE PAC 12 or ACC).......you can again see my point that tier 2 content is actually the content that has increased the greatest in value.....and this is specifically NOT the content that the Big 10 has available to bring to market in their upcoming contract

2. losing schools has nothing to do with anything and in fact your arguments are not supported by your points at all

lets go over what happened the Big 12 lost two schools, they signed a new tier 2 contract with Fox (the one Bullet referenced) that took the tier 2 value from $20 million per year to $90 million per year (a jump of $70 million in value after "losing two teams") and then when the Big 12 lost MU and A&M they were able to keep that contract whole with the addition of WVU and TCU and then ESPN came to the table several years early and raised their $60 million dollar tier 1 contract to $110 million (with Fox back taking part in a small part of that for different picks) for a total of $200 million per year for a 10 team Big 12

so again the tier 2 content jumped in value more than the tier 1 content and the Big 12 after losing 4 teams and gaining 2 has a contract that to date had paid out more annually than the PAC 12, ACC and kept right in line with the SEC when total conference distributions are taken into account

and even with the jump of nearly 100% for the early renegotiation of the Big 12 first tier ESPN deal (from $60 million to $110 million per year) that % increase pales in comparison to the increase the year earlier tier 2 deal with Fox increased from $20 million to $90 million per year

3. the PAC 12 deal is not comparable to the Big 10 because the Big 10 only has "tier 1" content available to sell......the content that I am saying has moved up in value the least over the last few years with several examples to support that

the PAC 12 deal was for tier 1 and tier two content......so the PAC 12 to get their new deal sold both tiers of content......the Big 10 only has the very limited amount of content available the "tier 1" to sell

4. I don't know why you claim the Big 12 retained very limited tier 3 content when that is exactly the same thing the PAC 12 retained for their network......the only reason theirs is "enough to make a network" is because they aggregated it as a group VS selling it off individually like the Big 12 and a single Big 12 member Texas has a full network with their retained tier 3 content so clearly the Big 12 as a whole would have had enough content for a full network if they had all gone in together instead of on their own

and not only that to date Texas and OK and KU have INDIVIDUALLY probably made more actual revenue to their program than all of the PAC 12 members combined have made from the PAC 12 network

Texas is getting $11 million per year (or whatever it is after IMG gets their cut) and OU 8 and KU about the same and they have done so for 2 years I believe........the PAC 12 network to date has paid out about $12 million TOTAL for ALL teams to split (about $1 million per team or less)

so clearly there is enough 3rd tier content for a Big 12 network if the Big 12 desired one because a single Big 12 member HAS A NETWORK and they have single handed taken in more money for that network than all the PAC 12 members combined have for their network

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/...n-network/

the above article is from 8-8-2011 discussing Texas and games shown on the LHN THAT SEASON and also talking about Fox and ESPN talking about content ownership and picks between tier owners

it shows Texas and 10.98 million (11 million) with IMG getting the rest of the $15 million

so the LHN has been up and running for several years and PAYING Texas while the PAC 12 network only in the last round of distributions paid the PAC 12 members anything at all and it was under $1 million per team

here are the KU deals (they do not mention money specifically, but that is out there)

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/...-with-espn

one with ESPN for 3rd tier

one with Time Warner Cable for more 3rd tier

http://www2.kusports.com/weblogs/tale-ta...nounced-t/

now some will try and say "well Alabama has an IMG deal and blah blah"

but again here are the KEY WORDS

from the first article...

Kansas will have its spring game and one football game broadcast on ESPN3 as part of an agreement with ESPN.

so again KU signing a deal with ESPN......a deal WITH ESPN....not a deal with IMG.....but IMG did broker the deal as part of their existing IMG deal with KU......but again as the next article states it is NEW revenues

http://www2.kusports.com/weblogs/tale-ta...nounced-t/

The news regarding a broadcasting deal between Kansas Athletics, IMG College and Time Warner Cable/MetroSports to create a revamped Jayhawk Network has produced quite a bit of confusion from fans throughout Jayhawk Nation.

so again it was KU and IMG as their broker signing a deal with TWC.....NOT KU signing a deal with IMG

and as the article below states

http://cjonline.com/sports/2013-06-18/ku...er-content

IMG College controls KU's multimedia rights, a contract that generates more than $6 million in annual revenue. The distribution deal with Time Warner will result in incremental revenue gains, but the primary benefit is in increased exposure, said Jim Marchiony, KU's associate athletic director for public affairs.

so again KU had an EXISTING 6 million dollar per year deal with IMG for "licensing and branding" (like MANY schools do that pay different rates depending on what all is sold and brokered)......but the IMPORTANT info is the new deal with TWC MetroSports is that it PROVIDES NEW INCREMENTAL REVENUES......just like the ESPN 3rd tier did as well

so again another example of a Big 12 member (not even a football power) that has enough 3rd tier content left available to sell off not only to one media partner, but to two media partners TWC MetroSports and also ESPN and that is in addition to the money they were already getting from IMG (just like the LHN is in addition to the money Texas gets from IMG)

so again clearly the Big 12 and their individual teams are left with enough content to monetize it

and those articles are from 6-2013 and they show that the first season they take place for football would be the upcoming 2013 season so those deals for KU paid out for the 2013 football season and the 2014 football season and when you combine those two years they have probably paid out more than all of the PAC 12 teams COMBINED have so far been paid for the PAC 12 network because again it has paid out a very small amount only a single distribution so far per team

so again I used the SEC and the Big 12 and even the Big 10 to a degree because they are the conferences that have deals with different companies that show the increases in value of the tier rights relative to one another (tier to tier comparison) and that is a much more similar comparison to hat the Big 10 has VS the PAC 12 or the ACC.....PAC 12 having two tiers nder one deal so no ability to break out the increase in value of the individual tiers over the last deal and the ACC having all 3 tiers under one deal so no ability to make a per tier increase comparison tier to tier or old deal to new deal

and again with the examples shown and the limited tier 1 content the Big 10 has available I think is is a stretch to expect that they will get a massive increase in their tier 1 value especially now that it will most likely be sold as a whole package instead of being put in the market in pieces back when TV content was making the highest jumps in value

and when you also consider that the Big 10 now has 14 mouths to feed not 12 and I was using a 12 team average to get the annual per team value of $11..3 million dollars

the Big 12 tier 1 deal jumped 83.3%

if the current Big 10 deal of $136.12 million per year jumped that same % it would go to $250 million per year.....but that is divided by 14 teams....so that is $17.8 million per team

that is a far cry from $23 to 25 million and again the PAC 12 deal you are using is for two tiers of content not one and the big 10 only has 1 tier available

in the SJM articles he is expecting/projecting the Big 10 to get 33 million per year JUST FOR TV revenues no bowl or NCAA or playoff money

again WE KNOW what the BTN pays out for tier 2 and tier 3

http://btn.com/2013/05/06/report-big-ten...7-million/

that is from 2 years ago, but it is directly from the BTN and it shows that the highest distribution from the BTN was $8.1 million and that DECLINED to $7.6 and it has not surpassed that $8.1 since then

so with my (I could be wrong) highest projections of the Big 10 getting at best a similar increase in tier 1 value to the Big 12 of 83.3% (I do not think it will be that big of an increase) the Big 10 would get to $17.8 million for first tier deals with 14 teams

if you add in the highest amount the BTN has ever paid out of $8.1 million you get to $26 million.....that is a LONG WAY from $33 million that is being projected......it would be a lot more than the PAC 12 makes which is the point of the SJM articles, but still nowhere close to $33 million for TV ONLY

if you kept the $8.1 million and you wanted to get to $33 million you would need an increase of $24.9 million per team * 14 teams = $384.6 million

the current deals are $136.12 million

so $384.6 - $136.12 = $212.48 million

$212.48 / $136.12 = 156.1%

so for the Big 10 to get to $33 million in TV money with 14 teams and the BTN paying out the highest it has paid out to date and IGNORING the fact that the ADDITION OF NU DECREASED THE BTN PAYOUT the Big 10 would need a 156.1% increase in their current tier 1 TV deals which would be a 2 fold increase over what the Big 12 got for theirs

and I do not think that is possible or even remotely possible because the addition of teams to conferences has NOT proven to bring big new money as the lack of any "look in" money for the SEC has shown......adding the affiliation of ND to the ACC resulted in about $1 million in new money per conference member VS the "projected $3 million plus per team that was so often tossed out there (see again over inflated expectations)

even with the PAC 12 adding CU and Utah their total tier 1 and tier 2 deals are very similar to the Big 12 that had a net loss of 2 teams and that people consider to have lost 4 power teams and replaced them with two "lesser" teams yes the Big 12 still surpasses the PAC 12 and ACC in total conference distributions and is ahead of the ACC in TV money and is pretty much even with the PAC 12 in tier 1 and tier 2 money and greatly ahead in TV money when you look at tier 3 deals

so again that is way too big of an increase in % value.....there is nothing to show that the addition of warm bodies brings new value because the addition of A&M and MU to the SEC brought ZERO "look in money" to their existing deals.....the addition of NU brought ZERO new money to existing Big 10 deals other than the addition of a CCG.......the addition of NU DECREASED the BTN payout.......adding CU and Utah only helped the PAC 12 stay even with the Big 12.........adding ND to the ACC (affiliating) brought a great deal less money than was "projected"........tier 2 content (that the Big 10 does not have available to sell) is what has jumped in value the most as shown by me.........cable subscribers are down.....and I do not feel that the Big 10 will get more for the sum total of what they have to market relative to piecing it out like they did back when tier 1 content was increasing in value the most

I am not saying they will get NO increase, but I am saying they are a hell of a long way from $33 million in TV money starting with $8.1 that the BTN paid out for THE BEST YEAR and with only 12 teams instead of 14

and what I am saying is that so far pretty much 100% of the "projections" about TV money by anyone from any source for any and all tiers and conferences with the addition of and loss of any and all teams has been WILDLY OVER INFLATED and there is NOTHING to contest that simple fact and I do not think that the Big 10 tier 1 content will break that trend of wildly overinflated projections not coming true
03-07-2015 01:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
krup Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 303
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 20
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #19
RE: San Jose Mercury (Wilner) PAC12 Financial Future
The Pac 12 is comparable to the B1G because they retained control of enough content for a cable network, and sold the rights off for everything else. That is what the B1G is also doing, and your wordy attempts to make some distinction about "Tiers" are meaningless.

"clearly there is enough 3rd tier content for a Big 12 network if the Big 12 desired one because a single Big 12 member HAS A NETWORK " The B12 didn't retain control of enough games to show a live football game every week of the season. That is the minimum you need for a VIABLE network. If you are going to ignore all of the factors specific to why ESPN gave Texas a network at the time they did I can't help you.

"what I am saying is that so far pretty much 100% of the "projections" about TV money by anyone from any source for any and all tiers and conferences with the addition of and loss of any and all teams has been WILDLY OVER INFLATED and there is NOTHING to contest that simple fact" ????? What P5 conference WHOSE CONTRACT HAS GONE TO THE OPEN MARKET received less money than some wildly inflated projections?

"I am not saying they will get NO increase, but I am saying they are a hell of a long way from $33 million in TV money starting with $8.1 that the BTN paid out for THE BEST YEAR and with only 12 teams instead of 14" the B1G doen't have to get from 8.1 to 33. They have to get from 19.1 (8.1 BTN + 11 ESPN) to 33, which is not unreasonable considering the 11 is well below what the other P5 conferences are getting now.
03-07-2015 01:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,930
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 264
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #20
RE: San Jose Mercury (Wilner) PAC12 Financial Future
(03-07-2015 01:52 PM)krup Wrote:  The Pac 12 is comparable to the B1G because they retained control of enough content for a cable network, and sold the rights off for everything else. That is what the B1G is also doing, and your wordy attempts to make some distinction about "Tiers" are meaningless.

"clearly there is enough 3rd tier content for a Big 12 network if the Big 12 desired one because a single Big 12 member HAS A NETWORK " The B12 didn't retain control of enough games to show a live football game every week of the season. That is the minimum you need for a VIABLE network. If you are going to ignore all of the factors specific to why ESPN gave Texas a network at the time they did I can't help you.

"what I am saying is that so far pretty much 100% of the "projections" about TV money by anyone from any source for any and all tiers and conferences with the addition of and loss of any and all teams has been WILDLY OVER INFLATED and there is NOTHING to contest that simple fact" ????? What P5 conference WHOSE CONTRACT HAS GONE TO THE OPEN MARKET received less money than some wildly inflated projections?

"I am not saying they will get NO increase, but I am saying they are a hell of a long way from $33 million in TV money starting with $8.1 that the BTN paid out for THE BEST YEAR and with only 12 teams instead of 14" the B1G doen't have to get from 8.1 to 33. They have to get from 19.1 (8.1 BTN + 11 ESPN) to 33, which is not unreasonable considering the 11 is well below what the other P5 conferences are getting now.

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 (and there are games that do not get picked up that are available) and in case you missed this fact sports networks run year around not just football season

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
(This post was last modified: 03-07-2015 03:07 PM by TodgeRodge.)
03-07-2015 03:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.