(06-16-2015 11:05 AM)Okielite Wrote:  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.

If a conference gets two teams in the playoffs, which in an 8 team playoff would likely happen with 3 conferences, their third best team would be the team available for the Sugar. If a conference got three teams in (which for example the SEC would have this year), then their fourth best team would be available. If the playoffs expanded to 12 teams, the numbers get worse. So basically in every scenario, in an 8 team playoff, the 3 bowls would feature at least one team who was number 3 in their conference 2 out of 3 years (or more), and in some cases both teams.

Quote: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.
.

In an 8 team playoff, on average you would only have one or two P5 conferences total have their number 2 team fall out of the playoffs to these bowls, unless of course one conference dominates and gets three or four teams in, which just undermines their games. Keep in mind, the Orange Bowl contract vs. the other two shows what happens when just one opponent falls down the line - the Orange Bowl is the only of the three that will never pit two conference champions, and their opponent by contract is always a lesser opponent than either the Sugar or Rose unless ND is in (ND is necessarily better, but they can at least be the equivalent of a conference champ), and is set to get the Big Ten/SEC number 2 team, which really means number 3 since their champions are generally in the Playoff. Add another later to that, and there you go.

Now the contract bowls are the equivalent of the Capitol One Bowl, in terms of which team they get. So instead of paying out $40 million per team, like the Sugar and Rose do, they pay out about $4 million per team, like the top tier non-contract/Access Bowl do.

(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.

You could be correct in your assessment - but, IMO, I don't think it is a slam dunk either.

The college football product is a commodity; and, like all commodities, there are price ceilings which eventually come into play. I don't know what that ceiling is, and nobody here does either. No one is arguing that the BiG content is not valuable, the question, IMO, is where is the price point for said commodity where the profit to the media buyer becomes unsatisfactory? I don't know the answer to that question and neither does anyone else here.

Make no mistake, every commodity has a price ceiling. It wasn't too long ago, for instance, that many thought real estate had no ceiling whatsoever and that the prices would just continue to rise. Events in 2008 proved just how wrong those assumptions were.

It wasn't that long ago that many people here were extolling the unlimited potential of the reported financial aspects of the PAC Network. Now, none of us are privy to the details so we can only speculate, but the recent reporting would seem to indicate that some of the speculated projections that people bandied about on these boards may not be realized, at least in the near-term. Again, no way to know, but we shall see.

Again, I am not making any kind of prognostication here one way or another. I am merely suggesting that the laws of economics - specifically, the law of diminishing returns, are just as applicable here as they are in any other part of life. IMO, many of us who are fans that are invested in the futures of our respective schools' teams and conferences sometimes discount this reality. In doing so, we are no different than everyone else in society that often do basically the same thing with things they are invested in. After all, "irrational exuberance" has been part of many economic cycles.

Just my two cents.

Jim

Even if a Conference got their champ in the 8 team playoff and 1 wild card they would still have the #3 team available. That would be the worst case scenario most likely.

So essentially every year you would have 3 power conferences with the #2 team available and 2 power conferences with the #3 team available.

#3 vs #3 or better is just fine for a good bowl match up.


Still don't' see how you could have a match up with #5 teams like you are saying is a possibility. Unless you really think that in a 12 team playoff there could be 4 PAC teams and 4 Big teams and they would be forced to have their #5 teams play in a bowl. But then you would have 3 more power conference champs and the top g-5 team going for the remaining 4 spots. I simply don't see a realistic scenario where 2 power conferences get 8 teams in the playoff. But if you believe that is a possibility you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

(06-16-2015 11:33 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 11:05 AM)Okielite Wrote:  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.

If a conference gets two teams in the playoffs, which in an 8 team playoff would likely happen with 3 conferences, their third best team would be the team available for the Sugar. If a conference got three teams in (which for example the SEC would have this year), then their fourth best team would be available. If the playoffs expanded to 12 teams, the numbers get worse. So basically in every scenario, in an 8 team playoff, the 3 bowls would feature at least one team who was number 3 in their conference 2 out of 3 years (or more), and in some cases both teams.

Quote: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.
.

In an 8 team playoff, on average you would only have one or two P5 conferences total have their number 2 team fall out of the playoffs to these bowls, unless of course one conference dominates and gets three or four teams in, which just undermines their games. Keep in mind, the Orange Bowl contract vs. the other two shows what happens when just one opponent falls down the line - the Orange Bowl is the only of the three that will never pit two conference champions, and their opponent by contract is always a lesser opponent than either the Sugar or Rose unless ND is in (ND is necessarily better, but they can at least be the equivalent of a conference champ), and is set to get the Big Ten/SEC number 2 team, which really means number 3 since their champions are generally in the Playoff. Add another later to that, and there you go.

Now the contract bowls are the equivalent of the Capitol One Bowl, in terms of which team they get. So instead of paying out $40 million per team, like the Sugar and Rose do, they pay out about $4 million per team, like the top tier non-contract/Access Bowl do.

You can't ignore two unbeaten G5 schools like there was when Boise State and TCU at the time. If they go to 12, both teams could get in. It would be nice to see how far Boise can go.

(06-16-2015 09:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  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.

No Quo. Where's you imagination? I certainly don't care about the Big 10. The SEC is fine no matter what. But, things have been relatively slow. And the crowing about the Big 10's upcoming contract fairly extensive. Put those two topics together and it was sure to be a thread participated in. That said, I don't think they are going to roll in the dough on this one. They will do nicely and will likely hit that 35 million per year range with it, but that's about it. We'll wait and see who is correct on this. In the meantime we finally have something to talk about that isn't the usual stuff and which pertains to the P5.

(06-16-2015 12:05 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 11:33 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 11:05 AM)Okielite Wrote:  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.

If a conference gets two teams in the playoffs, which in an 8 team playoff would likely happen with 3 conferences, their third best team would be the team available for the Sugar. If a conference got three teams in (which for example the SEC would have this year), then their fourth best team would be available. If the playoffs expanded to 12 teams, the numbers get worse. So basically in every scenario, in an 8 team playoff, the 3 bowls would feature at least one team who was number 3 in their conference 2 out of 3 years (or more), and in some cases both teams.

Quote: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.
.

In an 8 team playoff, on average you would only have one or two P5 conferences total have their number 2 team fall out of the playoffs to these bowls, unless of course one conference dominates and gets three or four teams in, which just undermines their games. Keep in mind, the Orange Bowl contract vs. the other two shows what happens when just one opponent falls down the line - the Orange Bowl is the only of the three that will never pit two conference champions, and their opponent by contract is always a lesser opponent than either the Sugar or Rose unless ND is in (ND is necessarily better, but they can at least be the equivalent of a conference champ), and is set to get the Big Ten/SEC number 2 team, which really means number 3 since their champions are generally in the Playoff. Add another later to that, and there you go.

Now the contract bowls are the equivalent of the Capitol One Bowl, in terms of which team they get. So instead of paying out $40 million per team, like the Sugar and Rose do, they pay out about $4 million per team, like the top tier non-contract/Access Bowl do.

You can't ignore two unbeaten G5 schools like there was when Boise State and TCU at the time. If they go to 12, both teams could get in. It would be nice to see how far Boise can go.

I agree but in that scenario the second g-5 team would take a wildcard spot. I guess its' possible. Would be one heck of a discussion especially of the g-5 teams played a good schedule. People love the Cinderella story.

(06-16-2015 11:59 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(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.

You could be correct in your assessment - but, IMO, I don't think it is a slam dunk either.

The college football product is a commodity; and, like all commodities, there are price ceilings which eventually come into play. I don't know what that ceiling is, and nobody here does either. No one is arguing that the BiG content is not valuable, the question, IMO, is where is the price point for said commodity where the profit to the media buyer becomes unsatisfactory? I don't know the answer to that question and neither does anyone else here.

Make no mistake, every commodity has a price ceiling. It wasn't too long ago, for instance, that many thought real estate had no ceiling whatsoever and that the prices would just continue to rise. Events in 2008 proved just how wrong those assumptions were.

It wasn't that long ago that many people here were extolling the unlimited potential of the reported financial aspects of the PAC Network. Now, none of us are privy to the details so we can only speculate, but the recent reporting would seem to indicate that some of the speculated projections that people bandied about on these boards may not be realized, at least in the near-term. Again, no way to know, but we shall see.

Again, I am not making any kind of prognostication here one way or another. I am merely suggesting that the laws of economics - specifically, the law of diminishing returns, are just as applicable here as they are in any other part of life. IMO, many of us who are fans that are invested in the futures of our respective schools' teams and conferences sometimes discount this reality. In doing so, we are no different than everyone else in society that often do basically the same thing with things they are invested in. After all, "irrational exuberance" has been part of many economic cycles.

Just my two cents.

Jim

Hear, hear. Someday there won't be any more road left to kick the can down. Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy may be the end of the road. We'll see.

But back to the original post, I do see content becoming the central drum beat for larger payouts. Just having markets will quickly become an unreliable model upon which to declare value. Meaningful, or must see games will simply not lose their luster. In that regard a somewhat diminished Nebraska coupled with Rutgers and Maryland aren't sure fired payout icons. Nebraska paired with the usual Big 10 leaders will do well, but I don't know if the Huskers can pull of interest against the rest of the conference. Really if you look at just content it is as I said and Adcorbett reemphasized, all the Big 10 has done is water down its content. Cable trends are going down and is quietly a reflection of personal choices in what continues to be a quiet recession. I do think we are getting close to a ceiling. How the end of this year plays out financially could impact what the Big 10 gets. Nothing here is a done deal, or a slam dunk, for record payouts.

(06-16-2015 12:25 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The Southern fixation with seeing failure attributed to anything at all related with the North, it is strong with this one.

I would say that this statement could be written as vice versa and I write this as a Yankee.

It is a two-way, culture street.

(06-16-2015 12:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 11:59 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(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.

You could be correct in your assessment - but, IMO, I don't think it is a slam dunk either.

The college football product is a commodity; and, like all commodities, there are price ceilings which eventually come into play. I don't know what that ceiling is, and nobody here does either. No one is arguing that the BiG content is not valuable, the question, IMO, is where is the price point for said commodity where the profit to the media buyer becomes unsatisfactory? I don't know the answer to that question and neither does anyone else here.

Make no mistake, every commodity has a price ceiling. It wasn't too long ago, for instance, that many thought real estate had no ceiling whatsoever and that the prices would just continue to rise. Events in 2008 proved just how wrong those assumptions were.

It wasn't that long ago that many people here were extolling the unlimited potential of the reported financial aspects of the PAC Network. Now, none of us are privy to the details so we can only speculate, but the recent reporting would seem to indicate that some of the speculated projections that people bandied about on these boards may not be realized, at least in the near-term. Again, no way to know, but we shall see.

Again, I am not making any kind of prognostication here one way or another. I am merely suggesting that the laws of economics - specifically, the law of diminishing returns, are just as applicable here as they are in any other part of life. IMO, many of us who are fans that are invested in the futures of our respective schools' teams and conferences sometimes discount this reality. In doing so, we are no different than everyone else in society that often do basically the same thing with things they are invested in. After all, "irrational exuberance" has been part of many economic cycles.

Just my two cents.

Jim

Hear, hear. Someday there won't be any more road left to kick the can down. Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy may be the end of the road. We'll see.

But back to the original post, I do see content becoming the central drum beat for larger payouts. Just having markets will quickly become an unreliable model upon which to declare value. Meaningful, or must see games will simply not lose their luster. In that regard a somewhat diminished Nebraska coupled with Rutgers and Maryland aren't sure fired payout icons. Nebraska paired with the usual Big 10 leaders will do well, but I don't know if the Huskers can pull of interest against the rest of the conference. Really if you look at just content it is as I said and Adcorbett reemphasized, all the Big 10 has done is water down its content. Cable trends are going down and is quietly a reflection of personal choices in what continues to be a quiet recession. I do think we are getting close to a ceiling. How the end of this year plays out financially could impact what the Big 10 gets. Nothing here is a done deal, or a slam dunk, for record payouts.

Let me expand on that:

The one thing that no one is talking about is ESPN and the service providers. Let's assume that they pay all the money to the Big Ten and their contract renewal with the providers is around the same time. Do anyone really think that the providers will fold if ESPN hits them with $10-15 a subscriber, regardless of how much content they have? I sure don't. The providers will go way out their way to make it a very pubic feud against ESPN/Disney and the high cost and the advertisers will follow.

Trust me, the Digital network will not carry them and keep in mind, there is a huge segment that don't even watch any kind of sports and will just pull the plug just on cost alone.

ESPN will find out the hard way that content is not always king when they are bleeding serious red ink with no subscriber base. That will kill all of the insane contracts with the conferences.

(06-16-2015 01:01 PM)lance99 Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 12:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 11:59 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(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.

You could be correct in your assessment - but, IMO, I don't think it is a slam dunk either.

The college football product is a commodity; and, like all commodities, there are price ceilings which eventually come into play. I don't know what that ceiling is, and nobody here does either. No one is arguing that the BiG content is not valuable, the question, IMO, is where is the price point for said commodity where the profit to the media buyer becomes unsatisfactory? I don't know the answer to that question and neither does anyone else here.

Make no mistake, every commodity has a price ceiling. It wasn't too long ago, for instance, that many thought real estate had no ceiling whatsoever and that the prices would just continue to rise. Events in 2008 proved just how wrong those assumptions were.

It wasn't that long ago that many people here were extolling the unlimited potential of the reported financial aspects of the PAC Network. Now, none of us are privy to the details so we can only speculate, but the recent reporting would seem to indicate that some of the speculated projections that people bandied about on these boards may not be realized, at least in the near-term. Again, no way to know, but we shall see.

Again, I am not making any kind of prognostication here one way or another. I am merely suggesting that the laws of economics - specifically, the law of diminishing returns, are just as applicable here as they are in any other part of life. IMO, many of us who are fans that are invested in the futures of our respective schools' teams and conferences sometimes discount this reality. In doing so, we are no different than everyone else in society that often do basically the same thing with things they are invested in. After all, "irrational exuberance" has been part of many economic cycles.

Just my two cents.

Jim

Hear, hear. Someday there won't be any more road left to kick the can down. Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy may be the end of the road. We'll see.

But back to the original post, I do see content becoming the central drum beat for larger payouts. Just having markets will quickly become an unreliable model upon which to declare value. Meaningful, or must see games will simply not lose their luster. In that regard a somewhat diminished Nebraska coupled with Rutgers and Maryland aren't sure fired payout icons. Nebraska paired with the usual Big 10 leaders will do well, but I don't know if the Huskers can pull of interest against the rest of the conference. Really if you look at just content it is as I said and Adcorbett reemphasized, all the Big 10 has done is water down its content. Cable trends are going down and is quietly a reflection of personal choices in what continues to be a quiet recession. I do think we are getting close to a ceiling. How the end of this year plays out financially could impact what the Big 10 gets. Nothing here is a done deal, or a slam dunk, for record payouts.

Let me expand on that:

The one thing that no one is talking about is ESPN and the service providers. Let's assume that they pay all the money to the Big Ten and their contract renewal with the providers is around the same time. Do anyone really think that the providers will fold if ESPN hits them with $10-15 a subscriber, regardless of how much content they have? I sure don't. The providers will go way out their way to make it a very pubic feud against ESPN/Disney and the high cost and the advertisers will follow.

Trust me, the Digital network will not carry them and keep in mind, there is a huge segment that don't even watch any kind of sports and will just pull the plug just on cost alone.

ESPN will find out the hard way that content is not always king when they are bleeding serious red ink with no subscriber base. That will kill all of the insane contracts with the conferences.

well considering ESPN right now does 6, it's not going up to 10 no matter what happens here. Just stop the hyperbole.

Bottom line, no provider is going to be able to take ESPN out. None. If they do, that provider would lose a lot of their subscribers so fast it'd make their head spin. The providers know that.

(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.

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.

They have enough inventory w/o the Big 10, but they would prefer to keep them. They have all the ACC and roughly half of the Pac 12, Big 12 and SEC. And then they have some G5 as well.

(06-16-2015 01:07 PM)stever20 Wrote:  well considering ESPN right now does 6, it's not going up to 10 no matter what happens here. Just stop the hyperbole.

Bottom line, no provider is going to be able to take ESPN out. None. If they do, that provider would lose a lot of their subscribers so fast it'd make their head spin. The providers know that.

No hyperbole, a legitimate question. It comes to a point to where the cost is unsustainable, any business owner will tell you that. ESPN will have to raise it at some point. After all, the are a business at the end of the day.

(06-16-2015 11:59 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(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.

You could be correct in your assessment - but, IMO, I don't think it is a slam dunk either.

The college football product is a commodity; and, like all commodities, there are price ceilings which eventually come into play. I don't know what that ceiling is, and nobody here does either. No one is arguing that the BiG content is not valuable, the question, IMO, is where is the price point for said commodity where the profit to the media buyer becomes unsatisfactory? I don't know the answer to that question and neither does anyone else here.

Make no mistake, every commodity has a price ceiling. It wasn't too long ago, for instance, that many thought real estate had no ceiling whatsoever and that the prices would just continue to rise. Events in 2008 proved just how wrong those assumptions were.

It wasn't that long ago that many people here were extolling the unlimited potential of the reported financial aspects of the PAC Network. Now, none of us are privy to the details so we can only speculate, but the recent reporting would seem to indicate that some of the speculated projections that people bandied about on these boards may not be realized, at least in the near-term. Again, no way to know, but we shall see.

Again, I am not making any kind of prognostication here one way or another. I am merely suggesting that the laws of economics - specifically, the law of diminishing returns, are just as applicable here as they are in any other part of life. IMO, many of us who are fans that are invested in the futures of our respective schools' teams and conferences sometimes discount this reality. In doing so, we are no different than everyone else in society that often do basically the same thing with things they are invested in. After all, "irrational exuberance" has been part of many economic cycles.

Just my two cents.

Jim

NBC's ceiling is lower than ESPN as they don't have the ratings and # of channels. I see Fox and ESPN more likely to cooperate than to have a death match. But still, neither is going to go beyond what is profitable.

And Big 10 ratings now are only a little higher than the Pac 12, ACC and Big 12. Advertisers don't pay for "potential." So the Big 10 will likely make a little more than the $21 million/school the pac 12 is making for their Tier I and II.

(06-16-2015 01:18 PM)lance99 Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 01:07 PM)stever20 Wrote:  well considering ESPN right now does 6, it's not going up to 10 no matter what happens here. Just stop the hyperbole.

Bottom line, no provider is going to be able to take ESPN out. None. If they do, that provider would lose a lot of their subscribers so fast it'd make their head spin. The providers know that.

No hyperbole, a legitimate question. It comes to a point to where the cost is unsustainable, any business owner will tell you that. ESPN will have to raise it at some point. After all, the are a business at the end of the day.

Yeah maybe from 6 to 7-8. But no way it's going up to 10-15- that's just ignorant on your part.

(06-16-2015 01:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 11:59 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(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.

You could be correct in your assessment - but, IMO, I don't think it is a slam dunk either.

The college football product is a commodity; and, like all commodities, there are price ceilings which eventually come into play. I don't know what that ceiling is, and nobody here does either. No one is arguing that the BiG content is not valuable, the question, IMO, is where is the price point for said commodity where the profit to the media buyer becomes unsatisfactory? I don't know the answer to that question and neither does anyone else here.

Make no mistake, every commodity has a price ceiling. It wasn't too long ago, for instance, that many thought real estate had no ceiling whatsoever and that the prices would just continue to rise. Events in 2008 proved just how wrong those assumptions were.

It wasn't that long ago that many people here were extolling the unlimited potential of the reported financial aspects of the PAC Network. Now, none of us are privy to the details so we can only speculate, but the recent reporting would seem to indicate that some of the speculated projections that people bandied about on these boards may not be realized, at least in the near-term. Again, no way to know, but we shall see.

Again, I am not making any kind of prognostication here one way or another. I am merely suggesting that the laws of economics - specifically, the law of diminishing returns, are just as applicable here as they are in any other part of life. IMO, many of us who are fans that are invested in the futures of our respective schools' teams and conferences sometimes discount this reality. In doing so, we are no different than everyone else in society that often do basically the same thing with things they are invested in. After all, "irrational exuberance" has been part of many economic cycles.

Just my two cents.

Jim

NBC's ceiling is lower than ESPN as they don't have the ratings and # of channels. I see Fox and ESPN more likely to cooperate than to have a death match. But still, neither is going to go beyond what is profitable.

And Big 10 ratings now are only a little higher than the Pac 12, ACC and Big 12. Advertisers don't pay for "potential." So the Big 10 will likely make a little more than the $21 million/school the pac 12 is making for their Tier I and II.

Even if that's true- take 21 million/school for Tier 1/2, then 8 for Big Ten Network, and then 10 for everything else, and Big Ten will be pushing 40 million dollars for distribution to each school.

(06-16-2015 12:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 09:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  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.

No Quo. Where's you imagination? I certainly don't care about the Big 10. The SEC is fine no matter what. But, things have been relatively slow. And the crowing about the Big 10's upcoming contract fairly extensive. Put those two topics together and it was sure to be a thread participated in. That said, I don't think they are going to roll in the dough on this one. They will do nicely and will likely hit that 35 million per year range with it, but that's about it. We'll wait and see who is correct on this. In the meantime we finally have something to talk about that isn't the usual stuff and which pertains to the P5.

I apologize for a lack of imagination.

Yes, we will see who is correct. I sure hope you are.

Should be interesting, at the least...

http://www.elevenwarriors.com/college-fo...ion-a-year

(06-16-2015 01:38 PM)Topkat Wrote:  Should be interesting, at the least...

http://www.elevenwarriors.com/college-fo...ion-a-year

The article provided a nice gloss to the timeline. Delany deserves kudos for standing up to ESPN but the upshot of that was the same kind of distribution problems that the PACN is facing which stunted the initial growth of the BTN. FOX helped them get that distribution but at the cost of no longer have a 100% self owned network. That too foreshadows the fate of the PACN. The Big 10 really only started to truly capitalize on their network after the distribution issues were cleared.

I just don't think the numbers head north of the low 40's for quite sometime. We'll see.

(06-15-2015 08:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I know it's just business but what if ESPN on a point of pride and principle decided not to pay the Big 10 oodles more for taking their property (Maryland) and decided that Rutgers wasn't a content add that they were willing to pay big bucks for?

1. I believe that this next round of realignment will be more about content than markets. Why? The paradigms are shifting already. There are only so many eyes you can theoretically claim and the hedge bet now with streaming becoming a viable option might well be to pay the money in future realignment for providing multipliers of content. How many people nationwide are telling themselves that they just have to watch the next Wisconsin / Rutgers game? How about Maryland / Michigan? Face it the Big 10 gained no marquee match ups with their last round of realignment. So why would any network want to bump them to 40 million for a multiplier of 2 schools that not many want to watch play football?

2. Why does ESPN want to reward the Big 10 for taking Maryland? I mean think about the precedent it might set. Hey if you want to screw us over and possibly demean the value of a conference we own 100% of the rights to we'll be happy to reward you financially for the effort! I don't think so.

3. Why would ESPN who carefully sewed up the best available realignment property by sheltering the best of the Big East in the ACC and some of the semi-key schools of the Big 12 in the SEC, and went to the trouble of creating the LHN to hold Texas in place and paid Kansas a handsome T3 deal to have dibs on them, willingly let their prime investments move to a conference where the network is 51% owned by FOX? I mean really do you use Texas to multiply the value of Big 10 football on behalf of creating better T3 supply for FOX? Do you do the same with Kansas for their T3 basketball cache? I think not. But what you might well do is enhance the value of the SEC or ACC properties and maximize that multiplier by placing those schools where they add the most value to ESPN.

If you ask me, I think the Big 10 has painted itself into the corner. If the Big 12 survives the ACC survives and there is nobody left for Delany outside of Connecticut, except maybe Buffalo. If the Big 12 goes Kansas and Texas might be more inclined to go to the hand that feeds them the best. Oklahoma has to deal with the issue of being isolated in the Big 10 should they opt for that route. Just look at once mighty Nebraska. It cut itself off from traditional recruiting grounds and has become a solid mid tier program who constantly plays second fiddle to Ohio State and Wisconsin. Does Oklahoma dance to the same tune? No. Frankly I just don't see it happening because their big money donors won't let it happen.

No sir, ESPN has played this hand very well. If they get Big 10 T1 rights again they won't have to pay $40 million to get it. I say more like $32-35. I'd say if Delany wants to expand to coastal markets he better start eyeing California, Washington, Oregon, U.C.L.A., Stanford, Colorado, and U.S.C., especially if FOX wants to help them out. The price of staying independent for the PAC may be that they place themselves on the menu of a hungry predator who is locked out of the buffet on the East Coast.

M-I-C (C because you can't always get what you want.) K-E-Y (Y because you pissed us off with Maryland) M-O-U-S-E (E-Enjoy the West Coast) See you next contract renewal Boys and Girls in the Big 10!

Here is why ESPN is going to reward the Big 10 for taking Maryland and Rutgers.

#1. If they don't Fox gets the whole ball of wax and between their piece of the Pac-12 and piece of the Big XII, Fox becomes a big-time player in college football and helps Fox gain leverage in the carriage fee game by holding exclusive content of significant value in the Midwest.
#2. Fox would be involved directly with three of the P5 (vs. ESPN's four) but a closer working relationship can help Fox if they choose to start seriously pursuing bowls and the playoff.
#3. Big 10 has a number of games that can and will draw audiences away from ESPN content.
#4. FS1 has lacked the sort of content that has gotten people into the habit of tuning to FS1. It isn't a default to channel yet. It won't be in many people's 17 channels they regularly watch (Nielsen study says average American watches 17 channels near exclusively).

ESPN is going to bid high because they don't want to lose market share and they don't want to see FS1 successfully demanding higher carriage fees that will permit them to big even more competitively for other content.

ESPN is better served keeping FS1 from gaining equality.