(09-26-2022 12:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (09-26-2022 12:29 PM)Poster Wrote: Does anybody else think that the Big Ten only gets more TV money than the SEC because they don't sign these ridiculously long term deals? The Big Ten currently realizes that even in a period of just three years, the money in college football goes up substantially.
FWIW, I've been saying that for years.
IMO, the SEC is "naturally" a bit more valuable than the B1G. Meaning, had the SEC had its entire package up for bid this year, same as the B1G, the SEC would have gotten a little bit more.
I think the B1G gets a bit more because of decisions made 15 or so years ago, when the SEC signed a 15-year deal with ESPN while IIRC the B1G signed for 10 years with its partners, then smartly signed for only six years in 2016. This pattern of signing for fewer years has IMO enabled the B1G to capture rising rights fees more frequently than the SEC, which I believe accounts for their apparent advantage.
Of course, if sports rights fees level off, or decline, in the next few years, then having a longer deal will be the better strategy. But over the past 15 years, it hasn't been.
To be sure, it wasn't luck for the Big Ten. It was all a calculated and intentional strategy. The irony of the image of the Big Ten being an old school "3 years and a cloud of dust" league that's wedded to the Rose Bowl on-the-field is that it is has consistently been a substantial risk taker off-the-field for the past two decades with all of its media rights. That was seen with Jim Delany's leadership and it looks like Kevin Warren is taking the same path.
People seem to forget that the creation of the BTN was a massive risk at the time (particularly when the league's schools themselves were taking equity in the network). In fact, Mike Slive's reaction to the BTN was essentially, "We wouldn't ever think of doing that" and promptly signed 15-year deals with ESPN and CBS afterwards. Of course, when the BTN became successful, the SEC formed its own network with the SECN within a few years, but they don't get the same financial upside because the SEC has no equity stake. (The SECN is really one large rights fees deal with a smaller element of profit participation, but not anywhere near the level of what the Big Ten schools get with their direct ownership stake in the BTN.) The Big Ten got a first mover advantage with conference networks that continues to this day.
Similarly, the Big Ten chose a short term deal in 2016 even though all of the other P5 leagues signed 10 or even 20-year deals. Once again, people seem to forget that this was a major risk since cord cutting was already well-known as an issue at that time. It wasn't a foregone conclusion that sports rights fees would continue to climb at all.
All of those risks have paid off for the Big Ten up to this point. Now, once again, it's a risk for the Big Ten to have just signed another relatively short-term deal now. It's also a risk that they've moved away from ESPN entirely. It's not a guarantee that sports rights fees will continue on their current trajectory in 2030 when the Big Ten will go to market again with its TV rights. On the flip side, if sports rights fees *do* continue on their current trajectory, the Big Ten will get yet another bite at the apple to increase their rights fees even further before both the SEC and ACC even get a chance.
Now, I do think there's a bit of discounting of which league is more "naturally" valuable between the SEC and Big Ten. As I've stated elsewhere, I believe that the SEC has a tick higher interest in its own footprint home markets compared to the Big Ten, but the Big Ten has viewers that cover a wider range of markets nationally. (This is evidenced by the data that Big Ten alums simply move to a lot more national markets outside of its own footprint at a higher rate than any of the other leagues.) Essentially, the SEC's ratings are goosed by running up the score with NFL-level viewer numbers in home markets like Atlanta, Birmingham and Nashville (similar to how NASCAR viewership is distributed), while the Big Ten might have a lesser share in many of its home markets (outside of Columbus) but gets relatively more penetration nationally.
Plus, the Big Ten has had 3 of the top 4 TV markets (NYC, Chicago and Philly) and will now be adding the #2 TV market with LA, so it's the main power conference in all of the top 4 TV markets. That will continue to be a massive selling point for the league because there aren't just more viewers in larger markets in terms of quantity, but there are more viewers with the "quality" demographics based on income and education levels.
We can quibble over how much Rutgers actually brings in the NYC market, but always remember that these media executives virtually ALL live in NYC and LA. They buy what they know and they simply know their home markets and the larger Northern and Coastal markets better than the Southern markets. Now, that doesn't mean that they're not aware of the popularity of the SEC, but it's more that they're buying it like they know conceptually that it's popular outside of the NYC/LA coastal bubble and want to reach that audience (akin to doing deals with the WWE and NASCAR or broadcasting country music awards shows) yet don't quite *live* it beyond the data that they see in front of them. It's like the comfort level to offer a lot for a house that you have personally seen in a neighborhood that you personally have walked versus bidding for a house in a place that you haven't visited and solely basing it on online pictures and favorable on-paper data. That latter house might very well be worth more on paper, but the buyer is naturally going to have a higher comfort level in making an offer on the former house. Even prior to adding Maryland and Rutgers, there was still a lot more familiarity with the Big Ten in the NYC/LA media circles - Michigan and Northwestern are particularly dominant feeder schools to the media and entertainment industries along with the financial industry and investor community on Wall Street, the league has the Rose Bowl connection in LA, etc.
There's no single thing that says, "This is why the Big Ten gets paid more than the SEC," but rather a combination of all of the factors above.
/
Sankey on Texas and Oklahoma and When They May Possibly Join, ...But the....
