1. ESPN $6.61 x 94.5 million homes = $7.5 billion

2. NFL Network $1.31 x 73.6 million homes = $1.16 billion

3. FS1 .99 x 91.2 million homes = $1.08 billion

4. ESPN2 .83 x 94.5 million hiomes = $941.2 million

5. SEC Network .66 x 69.1 million homes = $547.3 million

More here-http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/the-15-most-valuable-sports-networks-050715

None of the math works......

Typical FOX.

Absolutely no way in hell that Fox is getting .99 per subscriber. They were shooting for .80 per subscriber- but had to cave on that to get launched- some got it for .25 per subscriber. So no way that FS1 is that high.

There are too many holes in this article to even make Swiss Cheese with

(05-07-2015 12:56 PM)Dasville Wrote:  None of the math works......

Typical FOX.

Should've said up front it was written by Clay Travis... I could've saved time!

(05-07-2015 12:56 PM)Dasville Wrote:  None of the math works......

Typical FOX.

You gotta multiply times 12 months to get the final number.

A couple of likely errors - First, the per subscriber fee probably varies for conference network, so that the SEC network or Big Ten Network does not get its full price for all US subscribers, only those in the SEC footprint.

Second, advertising revenue is likely to vary wildly between these networks, and not in proportion to their subscription revenues. ESPN2, for instance, generates substantially better ratings than FS1. Even if their subscription revenue is the same, I guaranty ESPN2 is killing them in ad dollars.

Great article, if you actually take the time to read it and understand it before bashing it.

Granted it was a little confusing to have the annual revenue extrapolated from the fiscal year end month data point without explicitly saying so, but they did explain that it was a monthly dollar value and that if you average the subscribers over the year you get lower numbers.

And they explicitly said no ad revenue was included.


SEC network can try to claim twice as much revenue generated, but how much of that is really because of ESPN?? And more importantly, how much is ESPN taking?

The per school payouts from the BTN and SECN is the true number.

(05-07-2015 03:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Great article, if you actually take the time to read it and understand it before bashing it.

Granted it was a little confusing to have the annual revenue extrapolated from the fiscal year end month data point without explicitly saying so, but they did explain that it was a monthly dollar value and that if you average the subscribers over the year you get lower numbers.

And they explicitly said no ad revenue was included.


SEC network can try to claim twice as much revenue generated, but how much of that is really because of ESPN?? And more importantly, how much is ESPN taking?

The per school payouts from the BTN and SECN is the true number.

It's been published a few times that ESPN and the SEC split the profits 50/50. Since each SEC team is getting about $5M x 14 = $70M, we can infer the expenses (and that ESPN is also getting $70M).

(05-07-2015 03:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Great article, if you actually take the time to read it and understand it before bashing it.

Granted it was a little confusing to have the annual revenue extrapolated from the fiscal year end month data point without explicitly saying so, but they did explain that it was a monthly dollar value and that if you average the subscribers over the year you get lower numbers.

And they explicitly said no ad revenue was included.


SEC network can try to claim twice as much revenue generated, but how much of that is really because of ESPN?? And more importantly, how much is ESPN taking?

The per school payouts from the BTN and SECN is the true number.

The revenue numbers for the SEC should come out to 18.24 million per school in year three of the network if all numbers remain the same.

You take half of the the original 547.3 million and that is ESPN's share. The split is 50/50. Then you divide 273.65 million by 15 because the conference gets a full share. Now you are looking at 18.242 million per school except for in years 1 & 2 when the start up overhead which was shared with ESPN as well is due. It means this year we will likely clear about 3 million more than the estimated 5 million per school (which was the conservative estimate given earlier this year.

And I'm afraid the math is correct on this one although I am not a fan of Clay Travis either. Still even at 18.24 million per school it is far less than his original claims. And a side note here: There is a GOR for the SECN and it is for ESPN's protection. The SEC doesn't have one with regards to protecting each other's value, but there is one nonetheless. The figures for the PAC were admitted as being accurarte by some of their own sources.

And for those mentioning that this doesn't include ad revenue well that's true. But the SEC has the most viewers nationwide and the highest saturation numbers for their own footprint of anyone. We will never match the corporate networks ad revenue, but you better believe that among Conference networks we will do very well.

What you are looking at here boils down to this:

1. The justification for the PAC to go hard after 6 to 8 Big 12 schools in order to boost their own numbers and broaden their markets for the PACN. I'd bet if they did go hard after Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, etc., that ESPN landing a share of the PACN would be part of the deal.

2. That Texas and Oklahoma will see these numbers and the growing spread and decide that sooner rather than later would be the time to react.

3. That pressure will only go way up in Tallahassee and Clemson and perhaps Blacksburg the longer a delay in the ACCN occurs.

4. The SEC will not initiate further realignment but might well wait for the Big 10 and PAC to move before deciding how to finish this. Also remember this is a safe claim because ESPN has a stake in the top properties in the Big 12 (Oklahoma less so) and total ownership of the ACC broadcast rights. Since the SEC won't be taking schools from the Big 10 or PAC it means that if ESPN brokers out any of its product in order to gain property rights that the SEC will likely become an even wealthier repository for schools that ESPN wishes to hold onto.

In other words the growing disparity will only heighten the urgency that some schools will feel with regard to conference loyalty.

(05-07-2015 12:18 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  1. ESPN $6.61 x 94.5 million homes = $7.5 billion

2. NFL Network $1.31 x 73.6 million homes = $1.16 billion

3. FS1 .99 x 91.2 million homes = $1.08 billion

4. ESPN2 .83 x 94.5 million hiomes = $941.2 million

5. SEC Network .66 x 69.1 million homes = $547.3 million

More here-http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/the-15-most-valuable-sports-networks-050715

A lot of cable companies Dropped Fox channels because it got too expensive for the Sports channels. Same thing will start to happen to the evil mouse Networks.

As the Networks concern? It is how much forced households who get them, but it does not mean people are watching those channels. I do not watch the evil SEC Network.

(05-08-2015 08:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 12:18 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  1. ESPN $6.61 x 94.5 million homes = $7.5 billion

2. NFL Network $1.31 x 73.6 million homes = $1.16 billion

3. FS1 .99 x 91.2 million homes = $1.08 billion

4. ESPN2 .83 x 94.5 million hiomes = $941.2 million

5. SEC Network .66 x 69.1 million homes = $547.3 million

More here-http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/the-15-most-valuable-sports-networks-050715

A lot of cable companies Dropped Fox channels because it got too expensive for the Sports channels. Same thing will start to happen to the evil mouse Networks.

As the Networks concern? It is how much forced households who get them, but it does not mean people are watching those channels. I do not watch the evil SEC Network.

A whole hell of a lot easier for cable companies to drop fox than it is ESPN... You don't drop for instance any network that has NFL on it. That's suicide...

(05-07-2015 03:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 03:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Great article, if you actually take the time to read it and understand it before bashing it.

Granted it was a little confusing to have the annual revenue extrapolated from the fiscal year end month data point without explicitly saying so, but they did explain that it was a monthly dollar value and that if you average the subscribers over the year you get lower numbers.

And they explicitly said no ad revenue was included.


SEC network can try to claim twice as much revenue generated, but how much of that is really because of ESPN?? And more importantly, how much is ESPN taking?

The per school payouts from the BTN and SECN is the true number.

It's been published a few times that ESPN and the SEC split the profits 50/50. Since each SEC team is getting about $5M x 14 = $70M, we can infer the expenses (and that ESPN is also getting $70M).

Considering the B1G schools were getting $7.9million back in 2012, how does the SEC's $5million per school get them ranked ahead of the B1G?

Another Clay Travis work of mathematical genius.

(05-08-2015 08:42 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 08:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 12:18 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  1. ESPN $6.61 x 94.5 million homes = $7.5 billion

2. NFL Network $1.31 x 73.6 million homes = $1.16 billion

3. FS1 .99 x 91.2 million homes = $1.08 billion

4. ESPN2 .83 x 94.5 million hiomes = $941.2 million

5. SEC Network .66 x 69.1 million homes = $547.3 million

More here-http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/the-15-most-valuable-sports-networks-050715

A lot of cable companies Dropped Fox channels because it got too expensive for the Sports channels. Same thing will start to happen to the evil mouse Networks.

As the Networks concern? It is how much forced households who get them, but it does not mean people are watching those channels. I do not watch the evil SEC Network.

A whole hell of a lot easier for cable companies to drop fox than it is ESPN... You don't drop for instance any network that has NFL on it. That's suicide...

The wild part is that Fox actually wound up with one less sports channel when Fox Soccer became FXX. But since it dares to compete with the four-letter network, it is now the bad guy in the cable industry; being the last of the big four hurt Fox in that regard.

ESPN would have faced a steep cut in rates had it not won the rights to Monday Night Football. If CBS and Fox were smart about their sports networks, they'd carve one game out of the Sunday broadcast windows for use on CBSSN and FS1; it would effectively be a second national game, and could still be shown OTA in the teams' home markets.

(05-08-2015 11:13 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 08:42 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 08:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 12:18 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  1. ESPN $6.61 x 94.5 million homes = $7.5 billion

2. NFL Network $1.31 x 73.6 million homes = $1.16 billion

3. FS1 .99 x 91.2 million homes = $1.08 billion

4. ESPN2 .83 x 94.5 million hiomes = $941.2 million

5. SEC Network .66 x 69.1 million homes = $547.3 million

More here-http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/the-15-most-valuable-sports-networks-050715

A lot of cable companies Dropped Fox channels because it got too expensive for the Sports channels. Same thing will start to happen to the evil mouse Networks.

As the Networks concern? It is how much forced households who get them, but it does not mean people are watching those channels. I do not watch the evil SEC Network.

A whole hell of a lot easier for cable companies to drop fox than it is ESPN... You don't drop for instance any network that has NFL on it. That's suicide...

The wild part is that Fox actually wound up with one less sports channel when Fox Soccer became FXX. But since it dares to compete with the four-letter network, it is now the bad guy in the cable industry; being the last of the big four hurt Fox in that regard.

ESPN would have faced a steep cut in rates had it not won the rights to Monday Night Football. If CBS and Fox were smart about their sports networks, they'd carve one game out of the Sunday broadcast windows for use on CBSSN and FS1; it would effectively be a second national game, and could still be shown OTA in the teams' home markets.

it's utterly amazing how many folks think CBS and Fox can do that. They aren't. The contract is for the games to be on OTA channels with directv sunday ticket supporting it.

(05-08-2015 08:42 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 08:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 12:18 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  1. ESPN $6.61 x 94.5 million homes = $7.5 billion

2. NFL Network $1.31 x 73.6 million homes = $1.16 billion

3. FS1 .99 x 91.2 million homes = $1.08 billion

4. ESPN2 .83 x 94.5 million hiomes = $941.2 million

5. SEC Network .66 x 69.1 million homes = $547.3 million

More here-http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/the-15-most-valuable-sports-networks-050715

A lot of cable companies Dropped Fox channels because it got too expensive for the Sports channels. Same thing will start to happen to the evil mouse Networks.

As the Networks concern? It is how much forced households who get them, but it does not mean people are watching those channels. I do not watch the evil SEC Network.

A whole hell of a lot easier for cable companies to drop fox than it is ESPN... You don't drop for instance any network that has NFL on it. That's suicide...

Some cable companies did drop ESPN for a bit. NASCAR shot themselves in the foot in dropping ABC/ESPN for Fox. NASCAR racing is on Fox and FS1. Sometimes the FOX is part of the Media Corp package with FX, FXX, Fox Movie Channel, Fox News and so forth. That is why college football ratings on the Fox channels are much lower than ESPN. This is why some of the G5 schools are media darlings on ESPN like Boise State, Houston, Fresno State, Air Force, Colorado State, Nevada, Cincinnati, SMU and many more.

(05-08-2015 10:22 PM)krup Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 03:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 03:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Great article, if you actually take the time to read it and understand it before bashing it.

Granted it was a little confusing to have the annual revenue extrapolated from the fiscal year end month data point without explicitly saying so, but they did explain that it was a monthly dollar value and that if you average the subscribers over the year you get lower numbers.

And they explicitly said no ad revenue was included.


SEC network can try to claim twice as much revenue generated, but how much of that is really because of ESPN?? And more importantly, how much is ESPN taking?

The per school payouts from the BTN and SECN is the true number.

It's been published a few times that ESPN and the SEC split the profits 50/50. Since each SEC team is getting about $5M x 14 = $70M, we can infer the expenses (and that ESPN is also getting $70M).

Considering the B1G schools were getting $7.9million back in 2012, how does the SEC's $5million per school get them ranked ahead of the B1G?

Another Clay Travis work of mathematical genius.

Actually this time Clay's math is just fine. It is the particulars that he left out. But then I explained the math in an earlier post in this thread that many of you just simply chose to deny. The per team share this year will be $18.24 million. But the first two years of SECN operations cover our 50% of the start up costs and therefore will cost each school a little under 20 million spread across those two years. So the earlier estimate that each SEC school would receive about $5 million a year was a touch conservative. It looks more like we are going to get a payout this year of between 8-9 million per member school. After next year that jumps to 18.24 at present subscription rates,(not potential households, paying households). I'm surprised that this much information has leaked out already. The idea originally was to let the BTN contract renegotiation conclude before the SEC had to report actual earnings and by deducting the overhead in the first two years that meant that the actual fiscal earnings would not have to be reported until June of 2017. But the figures are correct. The Big 10 is going to have to get a payout of close to 8 million more per team to keep pace.

So actually comparing the SECN this year (while it's paying back its portion of the start up costs) at between 8 to 9 million to the already established BTN revenue of about equal proportions should be alarming to everyone else. The partnership is 50/50. The SEC paid half of the start up costs and gets half of the profits split 15 ways since the SEC Conference Office operates on 1 full share of all broadcast revenue.

Trying to figure the overhead by projecting forward from a figure already adjusted to cover overhead is the backwards math here. To make matters simple for you the SEC (at today's numbers) will pay out 18.24 million per school per year beginning in 2017 when all of the overhead for start up has been covered. That's when the gap widens significantly with the earnings of other conferences. The Big 10 will have a chance to gain ground on that figure when they renegotiate their contracts, provided they add markets or content. The need to close the gap is what means that there is more realignment on the horizon. The ACC, Big 12, and PAC won't be able to keep pace and they know it. That's why all the smoke is being blown into the media right now by their spokespersons. For the Big 12 it is the talk about an 8 team playoff coming "perhaps" as soon as the next 5 or 6 years (the time at which buying out the remaining GOR penalties becomes affordable). For the ACC it is always the promise that the "ACCN" is coming soon. At least the PAC makes no excuses and publishes the truth about its own situation. But it is why they are talking about selling a percentage in the PACN to get network help in keeping pace, and perhaps in acquiring new time zones and brands with realignment targets that the networks presently control.

The truth about realignment is that it has, is, and will be money driven because state and federal funding is dicey and bureaucracies like higher education don't function well with budget cuts. The networks knew this when they had their rush to sign up properties and to lure others to the conferences that they controlled. This will end with those same networks seeking to elevate the content of every week of the schedule for college football while locating properties in the highest paying advertising zones. The SEC and Big 10 are two conferences that do a supreme job of maximizing their eyeballs. That is why no SEC or Big 10 school is leaving their conference. That is why they earn the most. The PAC is isolated for the most part and that has been the greatest obstacle to bringing this endeavor to an end. The Big 12 offers the fewest potential viewers of any market. That is why the speculation of their demise will continue to be with us. The ACC utilizes fewer of its viewers than any of the major conferences. That is their Achilles heel. They also focus on basketball which is only about 1/4 to 1/3 rd of the TV revenue generator that football is.

So the smallest and the one with the least saturation are the two most vulnerable conferences in a race to divide the college football world into spheres that maximize advertising revenue and which promises a plethora of marquee matches each week. That's realignment. It is also why the Big 10 and SEC get paid what they are paid.