JRsec
Super Moderator
Posts: 38,354
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 8046
I Root For: SEC
Location:
|
RE: B1G
(04-18-2015 11:58 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote: (04-18-2015 11:37 PM)JRsec Wrote: (04-18-2015 11:18 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote: (04-18-2015 10:38 PM)JRsec Wrote: (04-18-2015 10:15 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote: XLance, I know you are TIC, but there seems to be an unexplainable number of naive Pollyannas out there who think "the fix is in;" that the Fairness Fairy will wave her wand and produce five (or four ) conferences of equal size. They will all have the same TV revenue and equal prime time TV slots.
I don't have any inside dope, but a reasonable look at the landscape (current and near future)might help to bust a few myths:
- The P5 conferences are not going to agree to equal pay. They will continue to compete for TV money, on-field talent, and, yes, member schools.
-There is no plan to form conferences of equal size, equal revenue or anything else, except rules and regulations. The conferences will grow, or not, according to the optimum configuration each can attain. The B1G and SEC may never grow to 16. They grow only if the new member adds wealth.
- Conference growth will not be impeded by restrictions, like contiguity, AAU membership, etc. If the B1G had an oppotunity to add Stanford, they would do it.
- The P5 will be considering Delany's proposal for a year of adjustment. They mentioned a random number (7) of additional scholarships for football. That's just the beginning. There will be more proposals, each of which will increase the price of doing business in the P5. When, not if, the P5 withdraw from the NCAA, they will not exclude any school that wishes to come along, Boise, BYU, Connecticut, Cincinnati? But the cost of competing in the new P5 will be so high, that many schools, including some current P5, will decline membership. This will be a very exclusive club.
- Movement of current P5 schools between conferences is not likely to happen until the GoR agreements expire for the Big 12 and the ACC. By then the situation in the ACC may have stabilized with the success of their ACCN. If the ACCN is a flop, there could be blood in the water. God knows what will become of the Big 12. I personally wish they would add San Diego St. and San Jose St. for the TV markets and try to launch a conference network.
It depends ultimately upon who is calling the tune to which we dance. If it was the conferences then what you say would be pretty much spot on. If however it is the networks who pay the fiddler to which the conferences dance it is quite another matter indeed. They like structure because it seems fair and fairness makes the public buy in. I'm not talking about our alums who buy in anyway but rather the general public which command the numbers that drive advertising. The networks want mixes of teams for content, and they like blurred boundaries because they engage different market demographics, and they like representation in playoffs that is broad based and varied because it engages the most potential viewers. And while they are not socialists they do see a greater potential for competitiveness as long as the payouts stay relatively within the same range. Perks exist for the top brands because they are identified by more of the public as schools they would like to watch. It is a drama that has giants and Davids and rich and humble and rivalries that range from the opposite sides of the Civil War to regional biases. For them it is both a business and an entertainment offering so the appeal needs to be within certain parameters.
I do agree with you that separation of the upper tier from others will be voluntary and based upon whether or not schools can hang with the spending required for participation at the highest levels. But once that number is determined then the schools will be arranged to maximize all of the above. That means they will likely be grouped regionally but with overlap at the borders by design.
So we will wait and see whether it is directed by conferences or by the networks, but usually the one who receives the check performs the services to meet the bidding of the one who pays and judging by realignment so far and in knowing how some schools came into play by what the networks were willing to pay, and how other schools were excluded because the networks refused to pay at all, my money is on the networks as being the driving factor behind it all. The schools just needed the money at a time when the economic woes of the country were forcing funding cuts. So a crisis for the schools became an opportunity for the networks.
I saw satirical post that referred to "a member the realignment community" as the source of inside scoop. I thought of that when you referred to "the networks". Now, "the networks" actually exist as a stakeholder in college sports. But "the networks" are not a monolith. If you want to see just how unconnected they are, wait until the B1G "rights auction" begins. These are fiercely competing enemies. They will not agree to share TV rights and then sing Kumbaya.
The ACC completely surrendered to ESPN for a fixed amount in their rights deal. Nobody else has been that careless. The SEC is all-in with ESPN, as well, but not for a fixed amount. They will be paid a percentage of whatever their network earns. The B1G will play these TV guys one against the other and the networks will overpay, just to prevent the competition from sweepnig the B1G rights.
These networks are in the entertainment industry, but not as a hobby. This is business to them, hard competitive business with huge finacial stakes. The B1G will demonstrate how to exploit the fear/hatred/distrust that these networks harbor toward each other.
The revenue gap is about to expand.
I agree that they are competitors. But right now ESPN holds the leverage, especially in terms of product. I'm sure the revenue gap will widen. But then it will close again, especially if the SEC gets them to agree to a renegotiation clause after the Big 10 has expanded. Wash, rinse, repeat. The only thing is we are getting much closer to the final cycle for this round of realignment. But make no mistake, the networks who also do business with one another (sublets and the like) will not overpay just for spite of the other. There will be some phone calls after the initial offers each make are discovered and behind the scenes they will make sure that they don't overreach the price target. They are in it for money. FOX I expect to remain somewhat conciliatory until they have a better position to make a run for top product. They are much more likely to set the ceiling at a figure that guarantees their profit than to recklessly raise it. As you get older you will realize just how much honor there actually is among thieves. And as far as the Big 10 is concerned they don't want FOX owning them outright because FOX right now is a second rate network compared to ESPN. All the Big 10 has to do is look to how the Big 12 dropped off the charts by having to rely upon FOX viewership for numbers. Delany needs to raise the exposure of Rutgers and Maryland, not bury it. The Big 10 will negotiate for the best deal they can get but they are hardly in a position to bluff ESPN.
You suggest that there would be phone calls made after the initial offers? Better be very secret phone calls. Jail time, or at least huge fines, result from collusion and/or violating confidentiality. That's not some of that honor among thieves you mentioned is it? The bargaining will follow each network's assessment of how much they can pay and stay profitable, how much they guess their competitors can pay, and how little they can offer to get a done deal.
Ineresting to see your assessment of the two cable network invilved. Watch the BTN consume the NYC tristate market in the next few years using their parnership with Fox. ESPN would not be able to do that for them. And remember that Tier 1 rights are being sought by OTA networks, too. Many suitors bidding for these games.
Phone calls is a euphemism for contact and there would not be an electronic or paper trail. Don't pretend to be such a boy scout. Have you not paid attention to the milliseconds of advantage that the electronic traders on Wall Street were using to skim profits. Do you deny insider trading goes on? You do know that Bernie Madoff once directed the Securities and Exchange Commission? Shoot the politicians came up with another word for bribe. They call it lobbying. There are so many schemes and scams in corporate business it would make your head spin just examining the angles. I bet you even believe that Saban runs a clean program. Yes there will be other bidders I'm sure, but where have these mighty forces of television been for the other negotiations? Is your own SEC so worthless that they didn't show up to challenge ESPN in bidding for our business? Slive went with ESPN because they are the best and because the SEC dominates ratings, attendance, and produces on the field. Well at least they ultimately produced 7 of the last 9 years. The Big 10 doesn't need to consume the tri state market as FOX essentially owned it through professional sports broadcast associations. But that doesn't give the Big 10 anything on the level of exposure of an ESPN, ESPN2 or ESPNU. One is very regional and the other very national with wonderful regional ability. No, the Big 10 wants to be on ESPN. There is one sports Giant and one rival network. FOX serves the Big 10 Network as well as anybody could. But nobody is going to touch ESPN for broadcasting nationally viewed games across multiple channels and throughout multiple time slots. I bet FOX will get there eventually but still not for a few years. They have to build their brand. NBC and CBS don't want to dominate it, just offer 1 prime time game a week that the nation wants to tune into. Just ask the Big 10 guys if they want anyone other than ESPN to carry their Saturday Morning and Afternoon games. And that as they say is about it. If you disagree fine. We'll wait and see won't we.
|
|