The Southern fixation with seeing failure attributed to anything at all related with the North, it is strong with this one.

(06-15-2015 09:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 09:51 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  The B1G isn't stupid enough to leave ESPN completely. And the World Wide Leader is too smart not to let the B1G go without retaining a sizeable chunk of rights. What you'll see is ESPN keep OTA rights for ABC and two, maybe three games a week on the "Family" of networks in football; about forty to fifty games, maybe more, mostly in-conference in hoops; and more olympic sports coverage. Whatever is left will likely go up for bid.

Rube Dali I don't disagree with your assessment here. My dramatized point is that there is no particular reason to expect a spectacular ESPN deal this time around. I think Bullet is right. It will be fair, but not the irrational sums that many posters predict. That's why I said low to mid thirties after the ESPN money. Then as you say it may bid up a bit from there for the rest of the material.

Posters aren't making up the "irrational" numbers. Big Ten officials have spoken of such. Will it happen? Who knows, but seeing the biggest SEC guy here basically pining for ESPN's attention while hoping the Great Northern Evil fails...well light hearted wrappings that you try to present as your intention are becoming transparent.

(06-16-2015 12:01 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The Big Ten is absolutely going to strike it rich. Why? Because it's the ONLY sports property up for grabs in the next 5-6 years that means much. No P5 conferences are up for bids until the mid 20's. NHL, MLB, NFL, and NBA all signed well into the 20's. Olympics thru '32. World Cup thru '26. To think that the Big Ten won't strike it rich is pretty moronic quite frankly. It's a pure fact of timing. Right place, right time.

I think JRsec you are doing more hope than you are reality. Big Ten is in a great place at the absolutely right time. They are going to get paid big time.

JR thinks that a Northern based media company is going to go all in with the southerners.

What he doesn't realize is that the SEC is merely the workhorses for ESPN. It's not a love affair.

Thoughts:

1. Always enjoy your posts JR.

2. The negotiations have zero to do with ESPN being screwed over or not. ESPN was always going to offer the Big Ten the absolute minimum they thought they can offer to keep it (provided that offer is worth it to them). They do the same with everyone else too. If they come up with a sum worth less than the conferences' value, then someone else will offer more (and ESPN will then either have to counter higher or concede the rights).

3. I agree that no way on this planet does anyone from the Big 12 end up in the Big Ten before the grant of rights comes close to expiring. I think the odds of any movement from the ACC is about the same.

4. Both content and markets are underrated in different ways. I think really there has been kind of a misunderstanding of markets in general. Markets matter to the extent that you can get more people to watch your product (or demand it enough to get it included with cable at a higher price) and have never been more than that. What the conferences have been realizing though is that by combining big names people already know and having them play teams in big population areas, you get maximum attention for a game (and thus maximum viewers and dollars).

Think about Rutgers and Maryland like this: The Big Ten now has regular games in those 2 states. The casual people in those states already have heard of Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, etc. What this changes is that now those teams don't feel like they are from a far away a conference. That makes it more likely for people in Maryland/New Jersey to tune in even for games not involving Maryland/Rutgers. That extra number of people might not be huge, but given a large population to start with, it's also not insignificant.

5. The sport of football has somewhat nationalized and this is where the value of high quality content comes in. People who used to only care about local conferences now watch across the country (and thus watch their own conference a tad less usually). This makes it easier for someone like the Big 12 (with fewer high population markets outside of Texas) to get good deals for first tier rights where the size of the market matters less.

6. The above is less true for tier 2 and especially tier 3. As national interest for both is minimal, local following is more crucial and the size of a market can help make up for a smaller percent following.

7. The networks who have agreements with the conferences matters little imo. No conference has an identical set-up of rights to begin with (when taking into account tier 1, 2, and 3). Even if they did, that doesn't absolve the grant of rights issues. For example, let's say Texas wanted to move to the ACC. Texas TV rights are owned by the Big 12 and under the Big 12 contract with ESPN. The Big 12 would have to sign off on those rights transferring to now be under the ACC contract. Getting that would be next to impossible to begin with, but to even have a chance, ESPN would have to offer the Big 12 as much at 9 teams (without Texas) as it was currently with 10 and then would also have to bump the ACC pay to account for Texas (in effect, paying for Texas twice).

8. Back on content, it matters, but every conference must have winners and loosers every year and the winners always get more attention than the loosers. Getting high profile teams gives conferences temporary boosts, but over time either that new team will push current teams in the conference down or it will be pushed down a little instead.

(06-15-2015 09:51 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  The B1G isn't stupid enough to leave ESPN completely. And the World Wide Leader is too smart not to let the B1G go without retaining a sizeable chunk of rights. What you'll see is ESPN keep OTA rights for ABC and two, maybe three games a week on the "Family" of networks in football; about forty to fifty games, maybe more, mostly in-conference in hoops; and more olympic sports coverage. Whatever is left will likely go up for bid.

Yeah, ESPN is trying to get the top G5 schools into the P5. There are a lot of G5 schools pulling in better ratings than Iowa State, Kansas, Colorado, Miami Flo., Duke, Wake Forest and a few others. The tv fans or sports fans change. The old guards are not doing it anymore, and it brings down tv contracts like the ACC and so forth. The Big 12 conference wants old guard schools like West Virginia and TCU. They treated Louisville like they are treating Cincinnati, UCF, East Carolina and so forth,

Am I the only one who wonders if the launch of the ACC Network is tied to the outcome of the B1G rights auction? ESPN and ACC officials always refer to a "possible cable channel" or say that a cable channel is "part of the discussion". They should surely know by now what's what.
If ESPN strikes out with the B1G and gets little or no content, will they need to use ACC games to fill the void? If they get a boatload of B1G games, does that tell them that they need an additional outlet (ACCN) for their ACC content?

ESPN will be all in trying to get a piece of B10. The B10 will hit TV gold big time.

ESPN has no reason to want to move top of G5 up. They get good ratings already, and they have them on the cheap.

(06-15-2015 09:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 09:51 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  The B1G isn't stupid enough to leave ESPN completely. And the World Wide Leader is too smart not to let the B1G go without retaining a sizeable chunk of rights. What you'll see is ESPN keep OTA rights for ABC and two, maybe three games a week on the "Family" of networks in football; about forty to fifty games, maybe more, mostly in-conference in hoops; and more olympic sports coverage. Whatever is left will likely go up for bid.

Rube Dali I don't disagree with your assessment here. My dramatized point is that there is no particular reason to expect a spectacular ESPN deal this time around. I think Bullet is right. It will be fair, but not the irrational sums that many posters predict. That's why I said low to mid thirties after the ESPN money. Then as you say it may bid up a bit from there for the rest of the material.

This was the jist of the debate that I had with H1 on another thread, where he slams anyone who feels otherwise. The points you are making, are the reasons why the Big Ten pretty much MUST keep their TV package as one package as it is now. Because if not, ESPN and Fox will just each pay to take one side of it, and be done with it. If they keep the TV package as one, then Fox will go after it hard. And then ESPN, who will not let it just walk without either trying to keep it, or making Fox pay out the nose to get it, will get in a bidding war. That will somewhat negate the issue you speak of. I don't think the additions of Maryland and Rutgers are that bad, when you include they also added Nebraska. But What it does do, as mentioned by you above, is reduce the number of their long standing marquee games that are played every year. No more Wisc vs. Ohio St/Mich annually, for example.

ESPN may not feel like paying a ton more than they already are, but if the B10 follows this plan, it puts ESPN in a bind. Last year they had 20 Big Ten games on ABC, 5 on ESPN, 15 on ESPN 2, 14 on ESPNU and News. That is 50 games to replace. So if the crunch is put on, all or nothing, it puts a lot of pressure on ESPN, because they can't lose the Big Ten altogether either. It also really appetizes Fox, because a package like that, would be a game changer for them. The Big Ten currently makes $100MM a year from TV rights from ESPN. Using this strategy, I can see them easily getting well more than the $250MM per year the PAC 12 gets. Probably getting $300-350 million without breaking a sweat.

The problem for those that don't expect this to be a huge deal is that like I said, it's the only live sports rights coming up for bids that really matters in the next 5-6 years. For Fox, it's a must win. For ESPN, they know they shut Fox out here, and Fox will be struggling for quite a while.

I look at what happened with the NBA. Many thought they would get a small increase. But ESPN/Turner were bound and determined to keep Fox out, and look what happened. NBA got a huge raise.

(06-16-2015 09:29 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The problem for those that don't expect this to be a huge deal is that like I said, it's the only live sports rights coming up for bids that really matters in the next 5-6 years. For Fox, it's a must win. For ESPN, they know they shut Fox out here, and Fox will be struggling for quite a while.

Here is the way I look at it. The Big Ten right now has a contract worth $100MM per year. The PAC 12 signed one 4 years ago worth $250MM. Does anyone not think the Big Ten will get more than that? So already we are at a 150% increase, or 2.5 times the original value (note when you add the additional teams from 11 to 14, it is a doubling per team). This just assumes the Big Ten gets what the PAC 12 got. Let's start from there. So no matter what, they are getting a HUGE increase. The question is how much more. I think it will be closer to $350 million per year than $250MM. It could go higher, but I don't think ESPN would go higher purely because they don't want to start getting calls from the new SEC commissioner, ACC, etc (I didn't mention the other two since they are not wholly signed with ESPN).

(06-16-2015 07:25 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  ESPN will be all in trying to get a piece of B10. The B10 will hit TV gold big time.

ESPN has no reason to want to move top of G5 up. They get good ratings already, and they have them on the cheap.

Look at Boise State's bowl game last year? Almost near 10 shares. That is a lot for a school in a state with 1 million people. Advertisers would advertise Boise games because they cause a buzz and stir in sports fans as the little guys beat the giants. That is what drives viewers to watch, and the advertisers will go where people will watch.

ESPN though won't have a choice. It's either pay the piper or lose an extremely important property which immediately legitimizes FS1. That's the big dilemma for ESPN.

This post comes across as the wishful thinking of an SEC fan frightened of B1G earning potential. And believe me, as someone who much prefers the SEC to the B1G, I appreciate that sentiment.

IMO, the B1G will get a very good offer from ESPN, simply because the B1G is a very valuable college football property.

The B1G is really in the cat bird's seat, what with its BTN and half its rights now up for renewal.

Bottom line: When it signs its new deal, the B1G will make $5m to $10m more per year than the SEC, and a good $15m to $20m more than the ACC.

And that's because 8-9 years ago, Delany smartly decided to form a BTN, whereas Slive and Swofford decided to sign themselves away to ESPN for peanuts.

(06-16-2015 09:48 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 07:25 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  ESPN will be all in trying to get a piece of B10. The B10 will hit TV gold big time.

ESPN has no reason to want to move top of G5 up. They get good ratings already, and they have them on the cheap.

Look at Boise State's bowl game last year? Almost near 10 shares. That is a lot for a school in a state with 1 million people. Advertisers would advertise Boise games because they cause a buzz and stir in sports fans as the little guys beat the giants. That is what drives viewers to watch, and the advertisers will go where people will watch.

I agree. I think the CFB playoff needs to look at the NCAA tournament and realize that Cinderellas make great stories that people love to follow. We all know about Butler, VCU, Gonzaga, etc in the NCAA tournament.

I'd love to see a 16 team playoff with all the FBS champs getting a spot. Still have room for some extra p-5 schools who deserve a shot.

(06-15-2015 11:21 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Not sure the Worldwide Leader in Sports wants to have to contend with the SEC on CBS and the B1G on FOX at 3:30 PM slot each and every week.

Why? CBS and Fox have NFL games all afternoon on Sundays. That hasn't caused ESPN to collapse. When the NFL last bid out the Sunday night games, they made one bid to get those games for ABC and then let NBC outbid them; they decided that having the Monday games on ESPN was enough for them.

The same pattern is there with other sports. ESPN wants a piece of almost everything, but they don't feel the need to win a bidding war for an entire package or even necessarily for the "best" piece of the package.

(06-16-2015 09:58 AM)Okielite Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 09:48 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 07:25 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  ESPN will be all in trying to get a piece of B10. The B10 will hit TV gold big time.

ESPN has no reason to want to move top of G5 up. They get good ratings already, and they have them on the cheap.

Look at Boise State's bowl game last year? Almost near 10 shares. That is a lot for a school in a state with 1 million people. Advertisers would advertise Boise games because they cause a buzz and stir in sports fans as the little guys beat the giants. That is what drives viewers to watch, and the advertisers will go where people will watch.

I agree. I think the CFB playoff needs to look at the NCAA tournament and realize that Cinderellas make great stories that people love to follow. We all know about Butler, VCU, Gonzaga, etc in the NCAA tournament.

I'd love to see a 16 team playoff with all the FBS champs getting a spot. Still have room for some extra p-5 schools who deserve a shot.

The college basketball experience is exactly why we don't have a bigger tournament in my mind. The NCAA Tournament is one of the premier sporting events of the entire year, but the regular season is, as a result, fairly regional with few must watch national games. The college football regular season gets those games that feel like win or give up your national championship hopes throughout a season (even if one loss can be made up from, it's not guarenteed and even the absolute best can lose unexpectedly).

(06-16-2015 10:14 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 09:58 AM)Okielite Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 09:48 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 07:25 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  ESPN will be all in trying to get a piece of B10. The B10 will hit TV gold big time.

ESPN has no reason to want to move top of G5 up. They get good ratings already, and they have them on the cheap.

Look at Boise State's bowl game last year? Almost near 10 shares. That is a lot for a school in a state with 1 million people. Advertisers would advertise Boise games because they cause a buzz and stir in sports fans as the little guys beat the giants. That is what drives viewers to watch, and the advertisers will go where people will watch.

I agree. I think the CFB playoff needs to look at the NCAA tournament and realize that Cinderellas make great stories that people love to follow. We all know about Butler, VCU, Gonzaga, etc in the NCAA tournament.

I'd love to see a 16 team playoff with all the FBS champs getting a spot. Still have room for some extra p-5 schools who deserve a shot.

The college basketball experience is exactly why we don't have a bigger tournament in my mind. The NCAA Tournament is one of the premier sporting events of the entire year, but the regular season is, as a result, fairly regional with few must watch national games. The college football regular season gets those games that feel like win or give up your national championship hopes throughout a season (even if one loss can be made up from, it's not guarenteed and even the absolute best can lose unexpectedly).

The football playoff will expand in the future. Even the NCAA has more than 64 teams at this point. Football will be next to expand, might only be to 8 but 12 or 16 is certainly an option. If you think it will stay at 4 teams you are going to be disappointed.

Simply going to an 8 team playoff is not going to hurt the regular season IMO. If anything it will put more focus on the CC's as they essentially could be play in games for the playoff much like conference basketball tournaments are for the NCAA.

People love a Cinderella story. Boise is a perfect example of what can help get casual fans interested in a game instead of watching the same dozen teams play for a championship.

(06-16-2015 10:00 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 11:21 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Not sure the Worldwide Leader in Sports wants to have to contend with the SEC on CBS and the B1G on FOX at 3:30 PM slot each and every week.

Why? CBS and Fox have NFL games all afternoon on Sundays. That hasn't caused ESPN to collapse. When the NFL last bid out the Sunday night games, they made one bid to get those games for ABC and then let NBC outbid them; they decided that having the Monday games on ESPN was enough for them.

Two things here. One, ESPN doesn't and never has had any real valuable content on Sunday afternoons. Certainly not during football season. So NFL games really do no harm to them. But they do have valuable content on Saturdays, on ESPN and ABC. Having other marquee games on during that time, would harm their ratings share, and would not be ideal. Especially when they have the option to help stop it from happening. So what Neil is mentioning is valid.

Two, your description of how ESPN lost Sunday Night football is not accurate. It was not because ESPN thought that one night was good enough. It was because ESPN thought the NFL was bluffing when they said someone submitted a higher offer. ESPN was outright outbid. Then ABC, ensuring the same mistake did not happen, secured the bid for Monday Night Football. They then had to move it to ESPN, because ESPN stood to lose a lot of subscriber fee income if they did not retain live primetime NFL games. But they lost a lot on that, because whereas MNF used to be the main game of the week, and Sunday Night football was the C game (ranking went MNF game, National TV 4:00 game, other network star 1:00 game, SNF game), it now reversed with Sunday Night football on NBC being the marquee game. ESPN more or less remained even having the same caliber game, but the company as a whole lost their marquee game that used to be on ABC. This was actually the catalyst that caused ESPN to take over the ABC Sports division and merge it into one. Once that happened, they moved the game. That was not calculated decision on ESPN's part to lose Sunday Night Football.

Let's not forget when they lost the BCS for four years to Fox as well, who to their detriment, was not set up to take advantage of it yet (they didn't have an FS1 type channel, or the content during the season to make it count). The basketball contract mentioned above, the coupling with Fox to snag the PAC 12, doubling the NBA contract before it even hit the open market, and for that matter renewing MNF five years early. It sort of shows ESPN is concerned to some extent, of losing their monopoly. So that idea cannot be dismissed.

(06-16-2015 10:23 AM)Okielite Wrote:  Simply going to an 8 team playoff is not going to hurt the regular season IMO. If anything it will put more focus on the CC's as they essentially could be play in games for the playoff much like conference basketball tournaments are for the NCAA.

No, but it will kill those big pay days for the contract/access bowls, and devalue the CCG's. Think about it. This year the conference championship games had better viewership than ever, because people were watching to see not only who won, but how they looked, to see which of the five teams would take the four spots, knowing that it wasn't guaranteed the winner got in (FSU and Ohio State were not guaranteed to be in for example, and if they lost the teams that beat them were guaranteed to not be in). A lot of that goes away if you expand the field. And that Sugar Bowl Deal? Rose Bowl Deal? Orange Bowl deal? That **** goes by the wayside when it is not the third or even fourth place team in a conference in many cases. And that is before you get to the potential devaluing of regular season contracts (that may be overblown, but it is still there), and the fact that you harm the dual revenue stream of the bowl games/playoff games, as you will not get people to travel to first round games in a three round tournament.

Some of these things can be worked out, so I am not saying the playoff will never expand. That is not what I am saying. However I am saying assuming it is guaranteed to do so ignores a LOT of economic realities. The reason the 4 team playoff works is it allows for the best of both worlds, playoff money, old bowl money, and a valuable regular season. In fact the 4 team playoff probably makes the regular season more valuable, because it strikes the right cord of being inclusive, while also being exclusive, as compared to the old BCS system, or an 8 team or more playoff system.

(06-16-2015 10:45 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 10:23 AM)Okielite Wrote:  Simply going to an 8 team playoff is not going to hurt the regular season IMO. If anything it will put more focus on the CC's as they essentially could be play in games for the playoff much like conference basketball tournaments are for the NCAA.

No, but it will kill those big pay days for the contract/access bowls, and devalue the CCG's. Think about it. This year the conference championship games had better viewership than ever, because people were watching to see not only who won, but how they looked, to see which of the five teams would take the four spots, knowing that it wasn't guaranteed the winner got in (FSU and Ohio State were not guaranteed to be in for example, and if they lost the teams that beat them were guaranteed to not be in). A lot of that goes away if you expand the field. And that Sugar Bowl Deal? Rose Bowl Deal? Orange Bowl deal? That **** goes by the wayside when it is not the third or even fourth place team in a conference in many cases. And that is before you get to the potential devaluing of regular season contracts (that may be overblown, but it is still there), and the fact that you harm the dual revenue stream of the bowl games/playoff games, as you will not get people to travel to first round games in a three round tournament.

Some of these things can be worked out, so I am not saying the playoff will never expand. That is not what I am saying. However I am saying assuming it is guaranteed to do so ignores a LOT of economic realities. The reason the 4 team playoff works is it allows for the best of both worlds, playoff money, old bowl money, and a valuable regular season. In fact the 4 team playoff probably makes the regular season more valuable, because it strikes the right cord of being inclusive, while also being exclusive, as compared to the old BCS system, or an 8 team or more playoff system.

I don't see it the same way I guess. CC's will be even more important if it was a guaranteed spot in the playoff. So in actuality is could make the CC's even more important as they would essentially be an extension of the playoff as well.

What scenario would a conference not have its' #3 or #4 team available for a bowl such as the SEC/B12 or PAC/B1G? Getting 4 teams in the playoff from 1 conference is simply not reasonable. In reality the #2 team will more than likely be available and worst case #3. Not sure how you could not have the #4 team available like you described being a possibility.

I have no doubt that the playoff will expand past 4 teams in the next few years. My guess is 8. All 5 P-5 champs along with the highest rated g-5 champ and 2 wild cards.