(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