(03-03-2016 10:22 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Wait. Really? They own 0%? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would mean that the SECN is really ESPNX that features exclusively SEC content.

If so, why did the SEC schools buy back their own rights?

Ooh, easy one... because they couldn't license media content to ESPN that they had already sold to some other media outlet, right? Logically, ESPN wouldn't launch an SEC Network unless there was sufficient inventory, so the schools had to reacquire some in order to sell it as one big package.

(03-03-2016 10:27 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 10:22 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Wait. Really? They own 0%? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would mean that the SECN is really ESPNX that features exclusively SEC content.

If so, why did the SEC schools buy back their own rights?

Ooh, easy one... because they couldn't license media content to ESPN that they had already sold to some other media outlet, right? Logically, ESPN wouldn't launch an SEC Network unless there was sufficient inventory, so the schools had to reacquire some in order to sell it as one big package.

Why didn't ESPN just buy the content? Why include middle men?

(03-02-2016 09:36 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Yeah Missouri was as much Confederate as Maryland. Both border states with slavery and people fighting on both sides, but neither left the union.

Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, arrested the Governor of Maryland, and the Mayor of Baltimore without a trial. Of course there were Union backers in Maryland not least of which was Johns Hopkins, who basically allowed the Union to use the B&O railroad for free, but let's not say the leadership of Maryland was not Southern... they were. To this day the lyrics of the State sound Maryland my Maryland shows how much Maryland hated the "Despot" who was at their shore.

(03-03-2016 10:37 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 10:27 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 10:22 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Wait. Really? They own 0%? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would mean that the SECN is really ESPNX that features exclusively SEC content.

If so, why did the SEC schools buy back their own rights?

Ooh, easy one... because they couldn't license media content to ESPN that they had already sold to some other media outlet, right? Logically, ESPN wouldn't launch an SEC Network unless there was sufficient inventory, so the schools had to reacquire some in order to sell it as one big package.

Why didn't ESPN just buy the content? Why include middle men?

Another easy one... ESPN had no distribution channel for the additional content until the SEC Network was launched, and therefore had no appetite for it. If you are asking why didn't ESPN launch an SEC Network without any additional payments to the SEC... I have no idea. Why don't they do that with ACC content for that matter? If it's profitable, why not just do it? I think sometimes companies are so focused on RoR that they miss out on actual dollars! You can't deposit theoretical money!!!

(03-04-2016 08:52 AM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 09:36 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Yeah Missouri was as much Confederate as Maryland. Both border states with slavery and people fighting on both sides, but neither left the union.

Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, arrested the Governor of Maryland, and the Mayor of Baltimore without a trial. Of course there were Union backers in Maryland not least of which was Johns Hopkins, who basically allowed the Union to use the B&O railroad for free, but let's not say the leadership of Maryland was not Southern... they were. To this day the lyrics of the State sound Maryland my Maryland shows how much Maryland hated the "Despot" who was at their shore.

Oh yeah and the Maryland Legislature.

http://teaching.msa.maryland.gov/000001/...l/t17.html

(03-04-2016 08:55 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 10:37 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 10:27 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 10:22 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Wait. Really? They own 0%? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would mean that the SECN is really ESPNX that features exclusively SEC content.

If so, why did the SEC schools buy back their own rights?

Ooh, easy one... because they couldn't license media content to ESPN that they had already sold to some other media outlet, right? Logically, ESPN wouldn't launch an SEC Network unless there was sufficient inventory, so the schools had to reacquire some in order to sell it as one big package.

Why didn't ESPN just buy the content? Why include middle men?

Another easy one... ESPN had no distribution channel for the additional content until the SEC Network was launched, and therefore had no appetite for it. If you are asking why didn't ESPN launch an SEC Network without any additional payments to the SEC... I have no idea. Why don't they do that with ACC content for that matter? If it's profitable, why not just do it? I think sometimes companies are so focused on RoR that they miss out on actual dollars! You can't deposit theoretical money!!!

That's what I was asking, and what's RoR?

(03-03-2016 11:02 AM)5thTiger Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 07:02 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 05:38 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 04:15 PM)Dasville Wrote:  So correct me if I'm wrong here. Any school that has the choice between joining the SEC or B1G, and currently runs a deficit to the SEC in conference revenue, will lock themselves into at least 6 more years of being behind all the SEC teams if they join the B1G?

If the new contract pushes the Big Ten distribution above the SEC distribution, then that wouldn't necessarily be correct, because 100% Big Ten share would not be needed to match the SEC share.

And that is only if there was a 100% SEC from the beginning while a buy in from the Big Ten, while in reality the SEC would also require a buy in, so it would be an arithmetic dance between what percentage share would be available for corresponding years and what the ratio is in the payout between the two conferences.

Why would the SEC require a buy in? What about exit fees and the costs associated with leaving a former conference? If a partial B1G share is more than a 100% share from the SEC, how would that fly with the SEC schools?

SEC does not require buy in. Exit fees depend from conference to conference, B1G helped Maryland, but SEC didn't help Missouri or A&M. Doesn't really matter how it would fly, SEC has no bearing on B1G negotiations. It is all but determined that the new B1G contract will pay higher than the SEC. There is a decent chance that a partial share will equal the SEC payout.

Part of that comes from the difference in organization and ownership, but it also comes from a difference in times.

You and a lot of others are going to be really disappointed when the new B1G contract is negotiated. ESPN and Fox are not going to open up the vault like you think. They will pay market rate to slightly above market rate. If anything, I could see the B1G get the same money for fewer games and trying to use the B1G network to drive additional revenue.

ESPN is laying people off. If they reset the market rate for the B1G, they aggrivate the other conferences because they are now underpaid.

These are long term decisions not what money you get for the first four years. In the B1G you get more money long term. If the first 3-4 years are that important than your situation is already FUBAR.

(03-04-2016 10:11 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 11:02 AM)5thTiger Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 07:02 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 05:38 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 04:15 PM)Dasville Wrote:  So correct me if I'm wrong here. Any school that has the choice between joining the SEC or B1G, and currently runs a deficit to the SEC in conference revenue, will lock themselves into at least 6 more years of being behind all the SEC teams if they join the B1G?

If the new contract pushes the Big Ten distribution above the SEC distribution, then that wouldn't necessarily be correct, because 100% Big Ten share would not be needed to match the SEC share.

And that is only if there was a 100% SEC from the beginning while a buy in from the Big Ten, while in reality the SEC would also require a buy in, so it would be an arithmetic dance between what percentage share would be available for corresponding years and what the ratio is in the payout between the two conferences.

Why would the SEC require a buy in? What about exit fees and the costs associated with leaving a former conference? If a partial B1G share is more than a 100% share from the SEC, how would that fly with the SEC schools?

SEC does not require buy in. Exit fees depend from conference to conference, B1G helped Maryland, but SEC didn't help Missouri or A&M. Doesn't really matter how it would fly, SEC has no bearing on B1G negotiations. It is all but determined that the new B1G contract will pay higher than the SEC. There is a decent chance that a partial share will equal the SEC payout.

Part of that comes from the difference in organization and ownership, but it also comes from a difference in times.

You and a lot of others are going to be really disappointed when the new B1G contract is negotiated. ESPN and Fox are not going to open up the vault like you think. They will pay market rate to slightly above market rate. If anything, I could see the B1G get the same money for fewer games and trying to use the B1G network to drive additional revenue.

ESPN is laying people off. If they reset the market rate for the B1G, they aggrivate the other conferences because they are now underpaid.

No, the B1G would get paid the market rate which is higher than what the other conferences get paid. The Pac-12 deal reset the rate and the B1G is about to get adjusted to that rate. What they are worth is much much more than the ACC. You think they were laying people off and wont bid up for the B1G? More than likely was that they were laying people off so they COULD afford to bid on the B1G. All you B1G haters (especially the former Big East schools now in the ACC) need to realize that you are right back in the same situation where your conference is the prime target for the bigger fish to gobble up.

(03-04-2016 10:11 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 11:02 AM)5thTiger Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 07:02 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-03-2016 05:38 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 04:15 PM)Dasville Wrote:  So correct me if I'm wrong here. Any school that has the choice between joining the SEC or B1G, and currently runs a deficit to the SEC in conference revenue, will lock themselves into at least 6 more years of being behind all the SEC teams if they join the B1G?

If the new contract pushes the Big Ten distribution above the SEC distribution, then that wouldn't necessarily be correct, because 100% Big Ten share would not be needed to match the SEC share.

And that is only if there was a 100% SEC from the beginning while a buy in from the Big Ten, while in reality the SEC would also require a buy in, so it would be an arithmetic dance between what percentage share would be available for corresponding years and what the ratio is in the payout between the two conferences.

Why would the SEC require a buy in? What about exit fees and the costs associated with leaving a former conference? If a partial B1G share is more than a 100% share from the SEC, how would that fly with the SEC schools?

SEC does not require buy in. Exit fees depend from conference to conference, B1G helped Maryland, but SEC didn't help Missouri or A&M. Doesn't really matter how it would fly, SEC has no bearing on B1G negotiations. It is all but determined that the new B1G contract will pay higher than the SEC. There is a decent chance that a partial share will equal the SEC payout.

Part of that comes from the difference in organization and ownership, but it also comes from a difference in times.

You and a lot of others are going to be really disappointed when the new B1G contract is negotiated. ESPN and Fox are not going to open up the vault like you think. They will pay market rate to slightly above market rate. If anything, I could see the B1G get the same money for fewer games and trying to use the B1G network to drive additional revenue.

ESPN is laying people off. If they reset the market rate for the B1G, they aggrivate the other conferences because they are now underpaid.

All of ESPN's college football contracts put together cost less than ESPN is paying the NFL just to get one MNF game a week, and those college contracts provide many more hours of live content than the NFL does.

With the risk of the world changing to a subscription model the south-heavy ESPN lineup needs the B1G more than ever. The B1G will get paid and what the other conferences think means squat because they are all locked up for another 10 or more years.

(03-04-2016 10:03 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-04-2016 08:55 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If you are asking why didn't ESPN launch an SEC Network without any additional payments to the SEC... I have no idea. Why don't they do that with ACC content for that matter? If it's profitable, why not just do it? I think sometimes companies are so focused on RoR that they miss out on actual dollars! You can't deposit theoretical money!!!

That's what I was asking, and what's RoR?

Rate of Return. I've seen businesses shut down product lines which were bringing in millions just because the RoR wasn't high enough (although still better than the MARR = minimum attractive rate of return, such as the interest your could get from a bank, etc.). Oh, generally those lower (but still good) profit margin products are mature and have almost NO risk associated with them. Ah, Greed...

(03-05-2016 05:43 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-04-2016 10:03 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-04-2016 08:55 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If you are asking why didn't ESPN launch an SEC Network without any additional payments to the SEC... I have no idea. Why don't they do that with ACC content for that matter? If it's profitable, why not just do it? I think sometimes companies are so focused on RoR that they miss out on actual dollars! You can't deposit theoretical money!!!

That's what I was asking, and what's RoR?

Rate of Return. I've seen businesses shut down product lines which were bringing in millions just because the RoR wasn't high enough (although still better than the MARR = minimum attractive rate of return, such as the interest your could get from a bank, etc.). Oh, generally those lower (but still good) profit margin products are mature and have almost NO risk associated with them. Ah, Greed...

:/ That's either really good management or really bad management, depending on the reasoning and if the company's internal hurdle rate is accurate based on the investor profile and is part of your MARR.