(06-23-2014 04:35 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:25 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:21 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 02:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  and yet OSU makes 11 mill a year on this stuff without giving up a single TV right. so trying to act as if the only way these T3 mega deals are possible is with those retained TV rights is dead wrong.

and once again what you are not intelligent enough to understand is that if OSU had TV content to sell they could sell that content and get MORE than 11 million dollars per year and the ADDITIONAL revenue that is attributable to that additional TV content being sold is the same as selling that TV content through a conference network or through a conference TV deal the only difference is the revenues go directly to the university instead of through the conference

(06-23-2014 03:06 PM)john01992 Wrote:  and you seem to overlook the impact that those same rights carry on the BTN.

as for the bold part: b12 homers have been falsely arguing this point for so long and so frequently that the majority of forum traffic outside of csnbbs actually believe it.

and again what the logic and reason challenged blowhards from the ACC can't understand is that if OSU was selling some TV content through a deal with IMG and or Learfield and that content was bringing in more dollars than a deal with IMG or Learfield would bring in with no TV content then that TV content and the revenue for it counts the same as the revenue that comes from the BTN or another conference TV deal when one looks to compare total TV revenue for a team

and the ACC blowhards have tried so hard to convince themselves that the above is not true that they have gotten to the point of making fools out of themselves trying to show it is not true and ignoring ample evidence that is readily available from multiple sources that TV content can ADD revenues to a deal with IMG or Learfield it is not just something that is tossed in as a freebee

it has been shown with a link in this very thread where a reporter that covers the PAC 12 and has done a great job of it especially on hammering out conference and TV revenues discussed the fact that teams in the PAC 12 are spending a million or more per year to BUY BACK content from Learfield and IMG and even though those teams still have deals with Learfield and IMG there is a cost associated with reacquiring the TV content portion of that deal so that content can then be bundled with the PAC 12 network

and as that reporter correctly pointed out that is an EXPENSE associated with having the PAC 12 network and that EXPENSE is not reflected in conference revenue distributions, but that does not mean it is not a REAL EXPENSE and if one is to compare conference TV and conference overall distributions then to do so equally one would have to deduct that EXPENSE associated with the reacquisition of TV content from Laerfield and IMG so that there could be a PAC 12 network

because when Learfield and IMG signed those deals with those teams they PAID for that TV content and when that TV content was requested to be returned they requested to be COMPENSATED FOR THAT because they had previously PAID FOR IT......it had not just been tossed in as a freebee or a give me or as something for nothing......it had COMPENSATION ASSOCIATED WITH IT

and that COMPENSATION ASSOCIATED WITH THAT TV CONTENT is a PART of the overall deal, but not the ONLY part of it and if it is positive compensation then it counts for comparison purposes as positive revenue revolving around TV content and if there is a cost associated with reacquiring that TV CONTENT that was SOLD as PART OF an overall deal then the cost associated with that is an EXPENSE because REAL DOLLARS WERE TRANSFERRED

so again if it is sold through a conference network then it is reflected in the conference distributions

and if it is SOLD as a part of a deal with Learfield or IMG then that will not be reflected in conference distributions, but that does not mean that it is not relevant for purposes of HONEST comparisons of overall TV and conference distributions when REAL DOLLARS are being paid for that portion of the overall deal

and we know that TV content can have a value of it's own in those deals specifically because we know that the PAC 12 is paying real dollars to get that portion of their overall IMG and Learfield deals back from those companies while still having overall deals with them

and we also know that schools like UT are selling that content to companies like ESPN as a portion of their overall deal with IMG

and we know that KU is selling theirs to ESPN and Time Warner as an overall portion of their deal with IMG

and we know that other members of the Big 12 have sold theirs to Fox Sports as a portion of their overall deal with Learfield or IMG

and if that content was not available for sale then those deals would not happen and instead those conference members would sign less inclusive deals with Learfield and IMG like many other teams do and the values of those deals would depend on what all was included and the overall brand appeal......but at the end of the day the addition of that TV content means MORE REVENUES than what would come in if that content was not available and when that revenue comes in because of the TV content portion of the deal then for a FAIR AND HONEST COMPARISON of total TV and conference distributions that portion of the revenues needs to be included just like the expense to reacquire it would be included for the PAC 12

and if someone can't grasp that or understand it they are just foolish and lack basic logic and reason

hey todgy dodgy ==> OSU = Ohio State you know the Big Ten school

anyone who thinks the b10 schools selling their T3 individually would net more money than if they did it collectively via a conference network is either stupid or a liar.

so which is it????

Do you really think Ohio State and Michigan would earn less if they sold on their own? Get real.

Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern, etc would make less but the biggest schools would beat the 8mm or so the BTN pays out.

do you think if all 14 B10 teams sold their rights individually they would make more combined than they do right now with the BTN?

more inventory = more leverage = more money

#get real

(06-23-2014 04:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:35 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:25 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:21 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 02:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  and yet OSU makes 11 mill a year on this stuff without giving up a single TV right. so trying to act as if the only way these T3 mega deals are possible is with those retained TV rights is dead wrong.

and once again what you are not intelligent enough to understand is that if OSU had TV content to sell they could sell that content and get MORE than 11 million dollars per year and the ADDITIONAL revenue that is attributable to that additional TV content being sold is the same as selling that TV content through a conference network or through a conference TV deal the only difference is the revenues go directly to the university instead of through the conference

(06-23-2014 03:06 PM)john01992 Wrote:  and you seem to overlook the impact that those same rights carry on the BTN.

as for the bold part: b12 homers have been falsely arguing this point for so long and so frequently that the majority of forum traffic outside of csnbbs actually believe it.

and again what the logic and reason challenged blowhards from the ACC can't understand is that if OSU was selling some TV content through a deal with IMG and or Learfield and that content was bringing in more dollars than a deal with IMG or Learfield would bring in with no TV content then that TV content and the revenue for it counts the same as the revenue that comes from the BTN or another conference TV deal when one looks to compare total TV revenue for a team

and the ACC blowhards have tried so hard to convince themselves that the above is not true that they have gotten to the point of making fools out of themselves trying to show it is not true and ignoring ample evidence that is readily available from multiple sources that TV content can ADD revenues to a deal with IMG or Learfield it is not just something that is tossed in as a freebee

it has been shown with a link in this very thread where a reporter that covers the PAC 12 and has done a great job of it especially on hammering out conference and TV revenues discussed the fact that teams in the PAC 12 are spending a million or more per year to BUY BACK content from Learfield and IMG and even though those teams still have deals with Learfield and IMG there is a cost associated with reacquiring the TV content portion of that deal so that content can then be bundled with the PAC 12 network

and as that reporter correctly pointed out that is an EXPENSE associated with having the PAC 12 network and that EXPENSE is not reflected in conference revenue distributions, but that does not mean it is not a REAL EXPENSE and if one is to compare conference TV and conference overall distributions then to do so equally one would have to deduct that EXPENSE associated with the reacquisition of TV content from Laerfield and IMG so that there could be a PAC 12 network

because when Learfield and IMG signed those deals with those teams they PAID for that TV content and when that TV content was requested to be returned they requested to be COMPENSATED FOR THAT because they had previously PAID FOR IT......it had not just been tossed in as a freebee or a give me or as something for nothing......it had COMPENSATION ASSOCIATED WITH IT

and that COMPENSATION ASSOCIATED WITH THAT TV CONTENT is a PART of the overall deal, but not the ONLY part of it and if it is positive compensation then it counts for comparison purposes as positive revenue revolving around TV content and if there is a cost associated with reacquiring that TV CONTENT that was SOLD as PART OF an overall deal then the cost associated with that is an EXPENSE because REAL DOLLARS WERE TRANSFERRED

so again if it is sold through a conference network then it is reflected in the conference distributions

and if it is SOLD as a part of a deal with Learfield or IMG then that will not be reflected in conference distributions, but that does not mean that it is not relevant for purposes of HONEST comparisons of overall TV and conference distributions when REAL DOLLARS are being paid for that portion of the overall deal

and we know that TV content can have a value of it's own in those deals specifically because we know that the PAC 12 is paying real dollars to get that portion of their overall IMG and Learfield deals back from those companies while still having overall deals with them

and we also know that schools like UT are selling that content to companies like ESPN as a portion of their overall deal with IMG

and we know that KU is selling theirs to ESPN and Time Warner as an overall portion of their deal with IMG

and we know that other members of the Big 12 have sold theirs to Fox Sports as a portion of their overall deal with Learfield or IMG

and if that content was not available for sale then those deals would not happen and instead those conference members would sign less inclusive deals with Learfield and IMG like many other teams do and the values of those deals would depend on what all was included and the overall brand appeal......but at the end of the day the addition of that TV content means MORE REVENUES than what would come in if that content was not available and when that revenue comes in because of the TV content portion of the deal then for a FAIR AND HONEST COMPARISON of total TV and conference distributions that portion of the revenues needs to be included just like the expense to reacquire it would be included for the PAC 12

and if someone can't grasp that or understand it they are just foolish and lack basic logic and reason

hey todgy dodgy ==> OSU = Ohio State you know the Big Ten school

anyone who thinks the b10 schools selling their T3 individually would net more money than if they did it collectively via a conference network is either stupid or a liar.

so which is it????

Do you really think Ohio State and Michigan would earn less if they sold on their own? Get real.

Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern, etc would make less but the biggest schools would beat the 8mm or so the BTN pays out.

do you think if all 14 B10 teams sold their rights individually they would make more combined than they do right now with the BTN?

more inventory = more leverage = more money

#get real

The total sum would be in the ballpark but the larger schools would get more and the smaller schools would get less.

Your more money analogy ignores that the money is being split more ways.

(06-23-2014 04:44 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:35 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:25 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:21 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  and once again what you are not intelligent enough to understand is that if OSU had TV content to sell they could sell that content and get MORE than 11 million dollars per year and the ADDITIONAL revenue that is attributable to that additional TV content being sold is the same as selling that TV content through a conference network or through a conference TV deal the only difference is the revenues go directly to the university instead of through the conference


and again what the logic and reason challenged blowhards from the ACC can't understand is that if OSU was selling some TV content through a deal with IMG and or Learfield and that content was bringing in more dollars than a deal with IMG or Learfield would bring in with no TV content then that TV content and the revenue for it counts the same as the revenue that comes from the BTN or another conference TV deal when one looks to compare total TV revenue for a team

and the ACC blowhards have tried so hard to convince themselves that the above is not true that they have gotten to the point of making fools out of themselves trying to show it is not true and ignoring ample evidence that is readily available from multiple sources that TV content can ADD revenues to a deal with IMG or Learfield it is not just something that is tossed in as a freebee

it has been shown with a link in this very thread where a reporter that covers the PAC 12 and has done a great job of it especially on hammering out conference and TV revenues discussed the fact that teams in the PAC 12 are spending a million or more per year to BUY BACK content from Learfield and IMG and even though those teams still have deals with Learfield and IMG there is a cost associated with reacquiring the TV content portion of that deal so that content can then be bundled with the PAC 12 network

and as that reporter correctly pointed out that is an EXPENSE associated with having the PAC 12 network and that EXPENSE is not reflected in conference revenue distributions, but that does not mean it is not a REAL EXPENSE and if one is to compare conference TV and conference overall distributions then to do so equally one would have to deduct that EXPENSE associated with the reacquisition of TV content from Laerfield and IMG so that there could be a PAC 12 network

because when Learfield and IMG signed those deals with those teams they PAID for that TV content and when that TV content was requested to be returned they requested to be COMPENSATED FOR THAT because they had previously PAID FOR IT......it had not just been tossed in as a freebee or a give me or as something for nothing......it had COMPENSATION ASSOCIATED WITH IT

and that COMPENSATION ASSOCIATED WITH THAT TV CONTENT is a PART of the overall deal, but not the ONLY part of it and if it is positive compensation then it counts for comparison purposes as positive revenue revolving around TV content and if there is a cost associated with reacquiring that TV CONTENT that was SOLD as PART OF an overall deal then the cost associated with that is an EXPENSE because REAL DOLLARS WERE TRANSFERRED

so again if it is sold through a conference network then it is reflected in the conference distributions

and if it is SOLD as a part of a deal with Learfield or IMG then that will not be reflected in conference distributions, but that does not mean that it is not relevant for purposes of HONEST comparisons of overall TV and conference distributions when REAL DOLLARS are being paid for that portion of the overall deal

and we know that TV content can have a value of it's own in those deals specifically because we know that the PAC 12 is paying real dollars to get that portion of their overall IMG and Learfield deals back from those companies while still having overall deals with them

and we also know that schools like UT are selling that content to companies like ESPN as a portion of their overall deal with IMG

and we know that KU is selling theirs to ESPN and Time Warner as an overall portion of their deal with IMG

and we know that other members of the Big 12 have sold theirs to Fox Sports as a portion of their overall deal with Learfield or IMG

and if that content was not available for sale then those deals would not happen and instead those conference members would sign less inclusive deals with Learfield and IMG like many other teams do and the values of those deals would depend on what all was included and the overall brand appeal......but at the end of the day the addition of that TV content means MORE REVENUES than what would come in if that content was not available and when that revenue comes in because of the TV content portion of the deal then for a FAIR AND HONEST COMPARISON of total TV and conference distributions that portion of the revenues needs to be included just like the expense to reacquire it would be included for the PAC 12

and if someone can't grasp that or understand it they are just foolish and lack basic logic and reason

hey todgy dodgy ==> OSU = Ohio State you know the Big Ten school

anyone who thinks the b10 schools selling their T3 individually would net more money than if they did it collectively via a conference network is either stupid or a liar.

so which is it????

Do you really think Ohio State and Michigan would earn less if they sold on their own? Get real.

Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern, etc would make less but the biggest schools would beat the 8mm or so the BTN pays out.

do you think if all 14 B10 teams sold their rights individually they would make more combined than they do right now with the BTN?

more inventory = more leverage = more money

#get real

The total sum would be in the ballpark but the larger schools would get more and the smaller schools would get less.

Your more money analogy ignores that the money is being split more ways.

the bold part: don't kid yourself

and fyi don't BS me with the "they could get more money if they follow an unequal revenue sharing model" line. the b10, pac, acc, & sec are not going down that road and are better off because of that.

(06-23-2014 04:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:44 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:35 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:25 PM)john01992 Wrote:  hey todgy dodgy ==> OSU = Ohio State you know the Big Ten school

anyone who thinks the b10 schools selling their T3 individually would net more money than if they did it collectively via a conference network is either stupid or a liar.

so which is it????

Do you really think Ohio State and Michigan would earn less if they sold on their own? Get real.

Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern, etc would make less but the biggest schools would beat the 8mm or so the BTN pays out.

do you think if all 14 B10 teams sold their rights individually they would make more combined than they do right now with the BTN?

more inventory = more leverage = more money

#get real

The total sum would be in the ballpark but the larger schools would get more and the smaller schools would get less.

Your more money analogy ignores that the money is being split more ways.

the bold part: don't kid yourself

and fyi don't BS me with the "they could get more money if they follow an unequal revenue sharing model" line. the b10, pac, acc, & sec are not going down that road and are better off because of that.

We aren't going to agree. IMO you are massively underestimating how much pull that tOSU, Michigan, PSU, Nebraska, and Wisconsin have in this arena. None of them would be worse off.

(06-23-2014 08:28 AM)Maize Wrote:  From the Article:

June 23, 2014

LEXINGTON, Ky.– In one of the most valuable partnerships of its kind in college athletics history, University of Kentucky officials announced Monday that JMI Sports has been awarded UK’s athletics and campus multimedia marketing rights with a 15-year, $210 million agreement.

“This partnership reflects the fact that the University of Kentucky is a national brand with the largest and most loyal fan base in all of intercollegiate athletics,” UK Athletics Director Mitch Barnhart said. “The size of this partnership – and our partnership with an emerging force in college sports in JMI Sports – will enable us to maintain and grow as one of the country’s few financially self-sustaining programs, allowing us to continue to provide incredible educational opportunities to more than 450 young men and women as well as continue to partner with the university in unique and distinctive ways.”

http://www.ukathletics.com/genrel/062314aab.html

That's a nice sum of money, congratulations Kentucky.

(06-23-2014 04:52 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:44 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:35 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Do you really think Ohio State and Michigan would earn less if they sold on their own? Get real.

Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern, etc would make less but the biggest schools would beat the 8mm or so the BTN pays out.

do you think if all 14 B10 teams sold their rights individually they would make more combined than they do right now with the BTN?

more inventory = more leverage = more money

#get real

The total sum would be in the ballpark but the larger schools would get more and the smaller schools would get less.

Your more money analogy ignores that the money is being split more ways.

the bold part: don't kid yourself

and fyi don't BS me with the "they could get more money if they follow an unequal revenue sharing model" line. the b10, pac, acc, & sec are not going down that road and are better off because of that.

We aren't going to agree. IMO you are massively underestimating how much pull that tOSU, Michigan, PSU, Nebraska, and Wisconsin have in this arena. None of them would be worse off.

and yet those schools share gate revenue with northwestern.

they are not gonna follow the b12 "favored nation" mentality because they understand that having all members equal is the better way to go.

(06-23-2014 04:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:25 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:21 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 02:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  and yet OSU makes 11 mill a year on this stuff without giving up a single TV right. so trying to act as if the only way these T3 mega deals are possible is with those retained TV rights is dead wrong.

and once again what you are not intelligent enough to understand is that if OSU had TV content to sell they could sell that content and get MORE than 11 million dollars per year and the ADDITIONAL revenue that is attributable to that additional TV content being sold is the same as selling that TV content through a conference network or through a conference TV deal the only difference is the revenues go directly to the university instead of through the conference

(06-23-2014 03:06 PM)john01992 Wrote:  and you seem to overlook the impact that those same rights carry on the BTN.

as for the bold part: b12 homers have been falsely arguing this point for so long and so frequently that the majority of forum traffic outside of csnbbs actually believe it.

and again what the logic and reason challenged blowhards from the ACC can't understand is that if OSU was selling some TV content through a deal with IMG and or Learfield and that content was bringing in more dollars than a deal with IMG or Learfield would bring in with no TV content then that TV content and the revenue for it counts the same as the revenue that comes from the BTN or another conference TV deal when one looks to compare total TV revenue for a team

and the ACC blowhards have tried so hard to convince themselves that the above is not true that they have gotten to the point of making fools out of themselves trying to show it is not true and ignoring ample evidence that is readily available from multiple sources that TV content can ADD revenues to a deal with IMG or Learfield it is not just something that is tossed in as a freebee

it has been shown with a link in this very thread where a reporter that covers the PAC 12 and has done a great job of it especially on hammering out conference and TV revenues discussed the fact that teams in the PAC 12 are spending a million or more per year to BUY BACK content from Learfield and IMG and even though those teams still have deals with Learfield and IMG there is a cost associated with reacquiring the TV content portion of that deal so that content can then be bundled with the PAC 12 network

and as that reporter correctly pointed out that is an EXPENSE associated with having the PAC 12 network and that EXPENSE is not reflected in conference revenue distributions, but that does not mean it is not a REAL EXPENSE and if one is to compare conference TV and conference overall distributions then to do so equally one would have to deduct that EXPENSE associated with the reacquisition of TV content from Laerfield and IMG so that there could be a PAC 12 network

because when Learfield and IMG signed those deals with those teams they PAID for that TV content and when that TV content was requested to be returned they requested to be COMPENSATED FOR THAT because they had previously PAID FOR IT......it had not just been tossed in as a freebee or a give me or as something for nothing......it had COMPENSATION ASSOCIATED WITH IT

and that COMPENSATION ASSOCIATED WITH THAT TV CONTENT is a PART of the overall deal, but not the ONLY part of it and if it is positive compensation then it counts for comparison purposes as positive revenue revolving around TV content and if there is a cost associated with reacquiring that TV CONTENT that was SOLD as PART OF an overall deal then the cost associated with that is an EXPENSE because REAL DOLLARS WERE TRANSFERRED

so again if it is sold through a conference network then it is reflected in the conference distributions

and if it is SOLD as a part of a deal with Learfield or IMG then that will not be reflected in conference distributions, but that does not mean that it is not relevant for purposes of HONEST comparisons of overall TV and conference distributions when REAL DOLLARS are being paid for that portion of the overall deal

and we know that TV content can have a value of it's own in those deals specifically because we know that the PAC 12 is paying real dollars to get that portion of their overall IMG and Learfield deals back from those companies while still having overall deals with them

and we also know that schools like UT are selling that content to companies like ESPN as a portion of their overall deal with IMG

and we know that KU is selling theirs to ESPN and Time Warner as an overall portion of their deal with IMG

and we know that other members of the Big 12 have sold theirs to Fox Sports as a portion of their overall deal with Learfield or IMG

and if that content was not available for sale then those deals would not happen and instead those conference members would sign less inclusive deals with Learfield and IMG like many other teams do and the values of those deals would depend on what all was included and the overall brand appeal......but at the end of the day the addition of that TV content means MORE REVENUES than what would come in if that content was not available and when that revenue comes in because of the TV content portion of the deal then for a FAIR AND HONEST COMPARISON of total TV and conference distributions that portion of the revenues needs to be included just like the expense to reacquire it would be included for the PAC 12

and if someone can't grasp that or understand it they are just foolish and lack basic logic and reason

hey todgy dodgy ==> OSU = Ohio State you know the Big Ten school

anyone who thinks the b10 schools selling their T3 individually would net more money than if they did it collectively via a conference network is either stupid or a liar.

so which is it????

it is neither because you are attempting to say that I am making an argument that I am not making

I never made an argument that a team would make more or less for selling third tier TV rights as an individual program VS a conference network

what I CLEARLY stated was that if a school sells TV content as part of an overall deal with Learfield or IMG if one was going to make a comparison of per team TV and conference distributions then the dollars gained from the portion of the deal with Learfield or IMG would need to be included in their overall deal

again there was no discussion about which method would garner more dollars for the school the discussion is about the FACT that Big 12 schools derive income from selling TV content and that is apart from other income that comes from deals with Learfield and IMG and we know this because we know that those schools have signed deals through Learfield and IMG where the TV content that they had available to sell was sold to companies like ESPN, Fox Sports and Time Warner

and if that content was not available to sell those deals would not have taken place even though all those Big 12 teams would still have deals with Learfield and IMG for other marketing and media and merchandising

so you are either not very smart or you can't read or you have a hard time understanding what is being discussed....I think it might be all 3!

sorry dude but a well known b12 troll has no room to talk here. the b12 T3 model is inefficient and is designed to do what is best for Texas and not the b12.

wow that is a "strong' argument right up to and until you realize that the Big 12 counting just 1st and 2nd tier deals and counting no revenue (that we KNOW exist for 3rd tier TV content) makes more per team than the PAC 12 and their precious network and that is BEFORE as the Mercury News author pointed out SUBTRACTING revenues for teams in the PAC 12 BUYING BACK 3rd tier content from IMG and Learfield and the Big 12 on a per team basis would make more than the PAC 12 teams even if TCU and WVU got a full share and even if Utah still got a partial share like they do

and we know that the Big 12 without counting any 3rd tier money is also very competitive with the SEC SEC SEC on a per team basis even if equally divided and we know they are ahead of the ACC as well even with the ACC selling all 3 tiers

so there is no proof that the Big 12 is using an "inefficient model" (whatever that actually is suppose to mean anyway) because the Big 12 is competitive with a conference that has the "efficient" model of a conference network they fully own along with the "efficiencies" of running that network and BUYING BACK 3rd tier content from IMG and Learfield and we also know the big 12 is ahead of another conference that sold all 3 tiers of their content as a full package and we know the Big 12 is ahead of or very close to the SEC SEC SEC that is undergoing change in their "efficiencies"

and we also know that several Big 12 teams are ahead of the Big 10 teams on a per team basis when their ACTUAL AND REALISTIC 3rd tier TV dollars are counted and we also know that the "efficient" BTN model has actually seen a DECREASE on per team payouts with the addition of NU to the league

so really it is not possible to make a full comparison of how an individual conference would fare under each model because that would require knowing the actual revenues of each of those models with the actual conference teams in place, but we do know that the Big 12 and their "efficiencies" are quite "efficient" at getting revenues to each conference member that are competitive with pretty much anyone else out there and often ahead and we do know that the one conference with the "efficiency" of a conference network is paying out LESS per team with the addition of a nationally know brand called Nebraska much less with teams like Rutgers and Maryland soon to be mixed in and we also know that CableVision which is the main cable company in the NYC area and other parts of NY State and some other east coast cities just won a lawsuit today against cable content providers being able to force them to take networks they do not want in order to get those they do want

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/...challenge/

so we know that cable companies are fighting back against network cramming and being told that you must carry these networks and fighting back against higher content fees in general like directTV has with the PAC 12 network

and again the PAC 12 network does not seem too "efficient" when they spend so much to run it and return so little to each conference member

(06-23-2014 04:54 PM)Otacon Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 08:28 AM)Maize Wrote:  From the Article:

June 23, 2014

LEXINGTON, Ky.– In one of the most valuable partnerships of its kind in college athletics history, University of Kentucky officials announced Monday that JMI Sports has been awarded UK’s athletics and campus multimedia marketing rights with a 15-year, $210 million agreement.

“This partnership reflects the fact that the University of Kentucky is a national brand with the largest and most loyal fan base in all of intercollegiate athletics,” UK Athletics Director Mitch Barnhart said. “The size of this partnership – and our partnership with an emerging force in college sports in JMI Sports – will enable us to maintain and grow as one of the country’s few financially self-sustaining programs, allowing us to continue to provide incredible educational opportunities to more than 450 young men and women as well as continue to partner with the university in unique and distinctive ways.”

http://www.ukathletics.com/genrel/062314aab.html

That's a nice sum of money, congratulations Kentucky.

Yup...Mitch Barnhart did a fantastic job in getting this done...

(06-23-2014 04:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  I never made an argument that a team would make more or less for selling third tier TV rights as an individual program VS a conference network

what I CLEARLY stated was that if a school sells TV content as part of an overall deal with Learfield or IMG if one was going to make a comparison of per team TV and conference distributions then the dollars gained from the portion of the deal with Learfield or IMG would need to be included in their overall deal

It all comes back to Big 12 fans wanting to seem like their Tier 3 model is superior to other conferences BUT it is only superior for ONE school. The TV portion of those other Tier 3 deals is in the neighborhood of $1-$2 million dollars TOPS except for Texas' $15 million!

Try to use deductive reasoning here. ESPN/SEC bought back those games needed for the SECN for around $1 million per school. If the ACC doesn't get a conference network, ESPN will pay an additional $2 million per school. I can't imagine anyone paying much more than that to watch WVU vs Towson in football and K-State play Stephen F Austin along with basketball games of Louisiana-Lafayette, Charleston Southern, Hardin-Simmons, Northwestern State , Oral Roberts, Savannah State, UNC-Wilmington, Texas A&M-Corpus Christi, etc

Bottom line, it is true the Big 12 teams can monetize their own deals for 1 football game and 5 basketball games. I'm sure they make some money on that. The problem is no one besides Texas can tell you how much it is. All the deals announced include EVERYTHING like this UK deal and others do. For the record, the UK deal is phenomenal!

So as an olive branch to you, feel free to say "but that doesn't include tier 3" when conference distributions are announced and you feel threatened because others are close . I know you bank on the per team average being more because of the 12 team deal that was in danger of being null when you dropped to 8 teams and saved by getting back to 10.

At the end of the day, all of the conferences like the SEC, ACC, Big 10, Pac 12 and Big 12 make money. The tier 1 and 2 Tv deals are pretty close, the bowl and playoff money is close, the basketball units are performance based. The only difference is the SEC, Big 10 and Pac 12 have an OPPORTUNITY to grow outside norm due to having a conference network. The ACC is positioned to either grow based on getting a network of their own or getting a boost from ESPN of $2 million per team if they don't. The Big 12 seems to be stuck because I can't imagine Fox or anyone paying more to an individual school for that content they have to sell the next time around. I can't imagine Texas getting more money the next time around either if the network even makes it that far.

(06-24-2014 09:04 AM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  I never made an argument that a team would make more or less for selling third tier TV rights as an individual program VS a conference network

what I CLEARLY stated was that if a school sells TV content as part of an overall deal with Learfield or IMG if one was going to make a comparison of per team TV and conference distributions then the dollars gained from the portion of the deal with Learfield or IMG would need to be included in their overall deal

The TV portion of those other Tier 3 deals is in the neighborhood of $1-$2 million dollars TOPS except for Texas' $15 million!

OU brought in around 8.5 million.
Most schools are around 3-4 million.
The lower end is around 2 million.

(06-24-2014 09:10 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 09:04 AM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  I never made an argument that a team would make more or less for selling third tier TV rights as an individual program VS a conference network

what I CLEARLY stated was that if a school sells TV content as part of an overall deal with Learfield or IMG if one was going to make a comparison of per team TV and conference distributions then the dollars gained from the portion of the deal with Learfield or IMG would need to be included in their overall deal

The TV portion of those other Tier 3 deals is in the neighborhood of $1-$2 million dollars TOPS except for Texas' $15 million!

OU brought in around 8.5 million.
Most schools are around 3-4 million.
The lower end is around 2 million.

prove it. How much is each school's tier 3/multimedia deal worth. All inclusive or separated?

(06-23-2014 12:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 10:31 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 10:16 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  So how will WHAS fit in or will They be out on Radio Broadcasts?

Really...it almost to the point that "Old Radio" is kinda out...especially with the age of the internet/iPhone/Androids.....

The digital age doesn't help either. In the old analog dial days, I could pick up WHAS at night in Houston whenever I wanted, along with WLW.

Their signal strength was amazing back in the day.

(06-24-2014 09:04 AM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  I never made an argument that a team would make more or less for selling third tier TV rights as an individual program VS a conference network

what I CLEARLY stated was that if a school sells TV content as part of an overall deal with Learfield or IMG if one was going to make a comparison of per team TV and conference distributions then the dollars gained from the portion of the deal with Learfield or IMG would need to be included in their overall deal

It all comes back to Big 12 fans wanting to seem like their Tier 3 model is superior to other conferences BUT it is only superior for ONE school. The TV portion of those other Tier 3 deals is in the neighborhood of $1-$2 million dollars TOPS except for Texas' $15 million!

Try to use deductive reasoning here. ESPN/SEC bought back those games needed for the SECN for around $1 million per school. If the ACC doesn't get a conference network, ESPN will pay an additional $2 million per school. I can't imagine anyone paying much more than that to watch WVU vs Towson in football and K-State play Stephen F Austin along with basketball games of Louisiana-Lafayette, Charleston Southern, Hardin-Simmons, Northwestern State , Oral Roberts, Savannah State, UNC-Wilmington, Texas A&M-Corpus Christi, etc

Bottom line, it is true the Big 12 teams can monetize their own deals for 1 football game and 5 basketball games. I'm sure they make some money on that. The problem is no one besides Texas can tell you how much it is. All the deals announced include EVERYTHING like this UK deal and others do. For the record, the UK deal is phenomenal!

So as an olive branch to you, feel free to say "but that doesn't include tier 3" when conference distributions are announced and you feel threatened because others are close . I know you bank on the per team average being more because of the 12 team deal that was in danger of being null when you dropped to 8 teams and saved by getting back to 10.

At the end of the day, all of the conferences like the SEC, ACC, Big 10, Pac 12 and Big 12 make money. The tier 1 and 2 Tv deals are pretty close, the bowl and playoff money is close, the basketball units are performance based. The only difference is the SEC, Big 10 and Pac 12 have an OPPORTUNITY to grow outside norm due to having a conference network. The ACC is positioned to either grow based on getting a network of their own or getting a boost from ESPN of $2 million per team if they don't. The Big 12 seems to be stuck because I can't imagine Fox or anyone paying more to an individual school for that content they have to sell the next time around. I can't imagine Texas getting more money the next time around either if the network even makes it that far.

The SEC network timing was in part because those deals expired. Delaying it eliminated the need to buyback most of them. The Pac 12 was done quickly and cost about 65-70 million to buyback. And there is no one who will honestly say the Pac 12 had more value.

The conference network model works for the Big 10 and will for the SEC as long as there is forced carriage. If that goes away, the biggest advantage of that model goes away. And that model works for the Big 10 and SEC where lots of schools have large followings. Whether it will work for the Pac 12 remains to be seen. They have the opposite situation where none of the schools have the level of following common in the Big 10 and SEC. The ACC is still exploring the conference network. They sold everything to ESPN.

Here's from the Milner article linked earlier:
That act alone is costing the conference $65 – $70 million over the course of several years, according to a league source.

For most of the schools, the buyback expenses are more than $1 million annually, so subtract that amount from the per-school revenues – it’s not included in the distribution figures.

(06-24-2014 09:18 AM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 09:10 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 09:04 AM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  I never made an argument that a team would make more or less for selling third tier TV rights as an individual program VS a conference network

what I CLEARLY stated was that if a school sells TV content as part of an overall deal with Learfield or IMG if one was going to make a comparison of per team TV and conference distributions then the dollars gained from the portion of the deal with Learfield or IMG would need to be included in their overall deal

The TV portion of those other Tier 3 deals is in the neighborhood of $1-$2 million dollars TOPS except for Texas' $15 million!

OU brought in around 8.5 million.
Most schools are around 3-4 million.
The lower end is around 2 million.

prove it. How much is each school's tier 3/multimedia deal worth. All inclusive or separated?

On Baylor I got the information from someone who would know and is seperate from the 3mm+ existing deal we had before. Good luck getting a release with financial info out of any private school.

OU is clearly seperate and well reported.

Tech was reported in the 3mm range as it was 5% of their budget that year (64mm) and a couple months later came out with TexasTech.tv, a subscription service for digital rights for both live and on demand broadcast.

http://www.texastech.com/genrel/110112aac.html
http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/...orts.html/

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...ahoma.aspx

The University of Oklahoma’s block of branded programming on Fox Sports Net will result in upward of $7 million in new annual revenue from both Fox and the school’s multimedia rights holder, Learfield Sports.

Oklahoma’s agreement to have branded content — including live games — run on Fox regionals in Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas will pay the school $58 million over 10 years, industry sources say. Some of that money will go toward the production of events.

Learfield, the longtime rights holder at Oklahoma, is rewriting its deal with the Sooners to include new rights and terms that will increase the payout to the school from its current $7.5 million a year. The extension between Learfield and Oklahoma is expected to take the relationship out to 2022 and increase the revenue to the school by $1 million to $2 million annually. The old deal would have ended in 2017.

so what that says for some of the slower members of the forum is that Fox Regionals will pay OU 5.8 million per year with some of that goings towards production cost and then Learfield will INCREASE an existing 7.5 million dollar deal by 1-2 million annually

so that is between 6.8 and 7.8 million in new revenues related to the sale of that TV content less some production cost for OU

so if OU did not have that content to sell they would be getting ZERO from the Fox Regionals and they would still be getting 7.5 million per year under an existing Learfield deal that would end in 2017

so again that is not down to the last dollar, but it is easily quantifiable and significant revenue for OU related specifically to the availability to sell third tier content and that was OUTSIDE the scope of their current 7.5 million dollar Learfield deal

(06-24-2014 09:52 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...ahoma.aspx

The University of Oklahoma’s block of branded programming on Fox Sports Net will result in upward of $7 million in new annual revenue from both Fox and the school’s multimedia rights holder, Learfield Sports.

Oklahoma’s agreement to have branded content — including live games — run on Fox regionals in Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas will pay the school $58 million over 10 years, industry sources say. Some of that money will go toward the production of events.

Learfield, the longtime rights holder at Oklahoma, is rewriting its deal with the Sooners to include new rights and terms that will increase the payout to the school from its current $7.5 million a year. The extension between Learfield and Oklahoma is expected to take the relationship out to 2022 and increase the revenue to the school by $1 million to $2 million annually. The old deal would have ended in 2017.

so what that says for some of the slower members of the forum is that Fox Regionals will pay OU 5.8 million per year with some of that goings towards production cost and then Learfield will INCREASE an existing 7.5 million dollar deal by 1-2 million annually

so that is between 6.8 and 7.8 million in new revenues related to the sale of that TV content less some production cost for OU

so if OU did not have that content to sell they would be getting ZERO from the Fox Regionals and they would still be getting 7.5 million per year under an existing Learfield deal that would end in 2017

so again that is not down to the last dollar, but it is easily quantifiable and significant revenue for OU related specifically to the availability to sell third tier content and that was OUTSIDE the scope of their current 7.5 million dollar Learfield deal

That also doesn't include the one FB game which they PPV out.

(06-24-2014 09:42 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  On Baylor I got the information from someone who would know and is seperate from the 3mm+ existing deal we had before.

OU is clearly seperate and well reported.

Tech was reported in the 3mm range as it was 5% of their budget that year (64mm) and a couple months later came out with TexasTech.tv, a subscription service for digital rights for both live and on demand broadcast.

I appreciate your input but proving it means some sort of article or something. Even OU's figure is not a breakdown of TV only.

It seems like a selling point such as this(tier 3 tv money), like the Big 12 fans try to use, should be broken down and publicized more easily than it is. It's like trying to find out and uncover money used to fund Al-Queda or something.

It shouldn't be too hard to have a chart 1-9 what each team makes on TV only in their tier 3 deals. Even Kansas's deal has internet stuff in it like this UK deal does. It should NOT be this difficult. Hell UofL has CardsTv like you said Texas Tech has. I have no idea how much it brings in though. I know I pay $9.95 a month for it.

If it is something to brag about, believe me, teams find a way to put it out or their media outlets do. Remember WVU's original $100 million deal before it was nullified?? It was broadcast everywhere by their outlets and Big 12 outlets alike but it included all the other things like the UK deal has in it too.

I appreciate the effort but "I heard from a guy who should know" is not the proof I imagined.

(06-24-2014 09:42 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Tech was reported in the 3mm range as it was 5% of their budget that year (64mm) and a couple months later came out with TexasTech.tv, a subscription service for digital rights for both live and on demand broadcast.

http://www.texastech.com/genrel/110112aac.html
http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/...orts.html/

we have the same thing Tech has
http://www.gocards.com/cardstv/

(06-24-2014 09:58 AM)dopeordogfood Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 09:42 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  On Baylor I got the information from someone who would know and is seperate from the 3mm+ existing deal we had before.

OU is clearly seperate and well reported.

Tech was reported in the 3mm range as it was 5% of their budget that year (64mm) and a couple months later came out with TexasTech.tv, a subscription service for digital rights for both live and on demand broadcast.

I appreciate your input but proving it means some sort of article or something. Even OU's figure is not a breakdown of TV only.

It seems like a selling point such as this(tier 3 tv money), like the Big 12 fans try to use, should be broken down and publicized more easily than it is. It's like trying to find out and uncover money used to fund Al-Queda or something.

It shouldn't be too hard to have a chart 1-9 what each team makes on TV only in their tier 3 deals. Even Kansas's deal has internet stuff in it like this UK deal does. It should NOT be this difficult. Hell UofL has CardsTv like you said Texas Tech has. I have no idea how much it brings in though. I know I pay $9.95 a month for it.

If it is something to brag about, believe me, teams find a way to put it out or their media outlets do. Remember WVU's original $100 million deal before it was nullified?? It was broadcast everywhere by their outlets and Big 12 outlets alike but it included all the other things like the UK deal has in it too.

I appreciate the effort but "I heard from a guy who should know" is not the proof I imagined.

This is a person with very good contacts at BU and is strictly for TV rights. I'm not going to say anymore than that. Put your head in the sand if you wish.