(07-21-2014 08:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  [quote='stever20' pid='10921651' dateline='1405949651']

Nebraska and Utah aren't getting full shares yet either for the Big 10 and Pac 12. Missouri and A&M got slightly less than full shares last year, although I believe they were at 100% in the most recent distributions.

Utah gets 100% beginning this year. Nebraska does not get full share until 2017.

(07-21-2014 08:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  But the 10 year extension is of value and so the SEC certainly got a decent bump for agreeing to that. I doubt they are still at the $205 million a year average for those 15 years, 2009-2023/4.

No question, it was of value to ESPN to get the SEC on board for 10 more years. The SEC got paid for that. But my point was just that they almost surely got significantly less boost for that extension than they would have gotten had they not been under ESPN's thumb until 2025 to begin with. ESPN didn't get to be arguably the most profitable media property in existence by not knowing how to negotiate. And clearly, given the reality of that 2008 deal, when ESPN and the SEC sat down to talk about the SECN, ESPN had a much stronger hand to play.

(07-21-2014 09:12 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 08:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  [quote='stever20' pid='10921651' dateline='1405949651']

Nebraska and Utah aren't getting full shares yet either for the Big 10 and Pac 12. Missouri and A&M got slightly less than full shares last year, although I believe they were at 100% in the most recent distributions.

Utah gets 100% beginning this year. Nebraska does not get full share until 2017.

The Big Ten additions are slowed largely because of the Big Ten Network. While I believe the schools immediately get all the rights fees paid, what they don't automatically get is the ownership stake in the BTN (the conference owns 49% of the network). Each new school has to pay for the ownership stake it takes in the network from the other schools who lose a portion of their ownership (goes from 1/12 of 49% to 1/14).

(07-21-2014 10:18 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 09:12 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 08:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  [quote='stever20' pid='10921651' dateline='1405949651']

Nebraska and Utah aren't getting full shares yet either for the Big 10 and Pac 12. Missouri and A&M got slightly less than full shares last year, although I believe they were at 100% in the most recent distributions.

Utah gets 100% beginning this year. Nebraska does not get full share until 2017.

The Big Ten additions are slowed largely because of the Big Ten Network. While I believe the schools immediately get all the rights fees paid, what they don't automatically get is the ownership stake in the BTN (the conference owns 49% of the network). Each new school has to pay for the ownership stake it takes in the network from the other schools who lose a portion of their ownership (goes from 1/12 of 49% to 1/14).

Seems like Nebraska really got a raw deal when they joined. Their full-vesting in the B1G media money was what, 8 years delayed? You would think that an elite, top-10 football blue chip brand would have been able to negotiate a much better vesting process.

MD and Rutgers don't seem to have to wait that long.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/sports...-2014.html

"According to the research firm SNL Kagan, the Big Ten Network has just over 50 million subscribers, subscriber revenue of $234.3 million and net advertising revenue of $41.5 million. But Kagan said that the network lost money in the 2009 and 2010 fiscal years, according to the conference’s Internal Revenue Service filings. "

(07-21-2014 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-20-2014 07:12 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(07-20-2014 05:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-20-2014 07:56 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  The above discussion only mentions carriage rates, but everyone needs to remember that the SEC also gets 1/2 of the profit from all advertising made on the SECN and through all digital platforms.

Haters are gonna hate, but the SEC is going to get paid Clay Davis type numbers.

I think the SEC is the platinum and diamonds standard of college athletic conferences, but underlying all of this is the bare fact of the terrible 2008 deal Slive signed with ESPN, a deal which haunts everything since including the terms of the SECN agreement.

No matter what money the SEC makes from the SECN, it will be a lot less than it would have made had Slive not signed that 2008 deal, and the B1G will make tens of millions more than the SEC because he did.

You have been beating that drum for months. Please keep your honor and come back on here and eat crow when the SEC revised contract with ESPN is released.

..........

ESPN is another story. There is no way the SEC extended with ESPN without receiving market value. That is where you are wrong, imo.

We shall see. To me, bottom line is that ESPN got the SEC for 15 years at rock-bottom price, and there is still 10 years to go on that. No way that ESPN would give up much of those extra profits for a 2025-2035 extension. They'd give a little, but not much. Why should they? They have ALL the leverage. If the SEC wanted to recoup substantial amounts of those 2008 losses, ESPN could simply refuse to sign an extension, knowing the SEC could not tolerate being stuck at $21m a year until 2025 while the B1G sees its per-school revenue soar above 30 million in that time and the PAC and Big 12 are already making more than that. ESPN held all the cards in the SECN negotiations.

And remember, the SEC had to give up a lot to get that what they are getting out of the SECN as well. Unlike say the BTN or LHN, which broadcast residual stuff, allowing them to still sell high-value events to other networks, the SEC had to put events with real value on its network, and it had to add two members to the conference as well.

Why do you think the SEC continually lags in per-school revenue? Look at this year's numbers:

B1G: $25.6 million
Big 12: $22 million
SEC: $20.9 million

The SEC consistently gets less. It is $5 million behind the B1G and how is that gap going to close? Not with the B1G set to sign new deals in 2016.

Back in 2007, Slive and Delany had decisions to make about signing big long-term deals with ESPN or retaining substantial equity. Slive chose ESPN and Delany chose to start the BTN as an equity partner with FOX, and the B1G is going to make tens of millions more over the next 20 years because of it.

Here's how a sports business insider who helped structure the PAC network and negotiate the ESPN/Rose Bowl deal put it:

"Bevilacqua said he believes the SEC missed a big opportunity several years ago by negotiating longterm deals with ESPN and CBS that everybody now knows were fairly under-market deals.

"At the time, they looked like they were fully-valued deals," he said. "But it's fair to say the market accelerated forward and has changed quite dramatically. As a result of those deals, the SEC has to deal with ESPN in a non-free agency matter. It's very difficult because ESPN has the leverage of 15 years worth of future rights to have the preferred structural outcome."

Translation: In the SECN negotiations, ESPN had the SEC by the balls.

And if I'm wrong, yeah I'll eat the crow, LOL.

ESPN held all the cards in the SECN negotiations.


Nonsense. The SEC could have invited FSU and Clemson and that was all the leverage they needed. The SEC did not need ESPN to start a network because each school retained their tier 3 rights, unlike the ACC. Lastly, no way ESPN would not pay the SEC market value and alienate the conference that makes them the most money. Doing such would put a 10 year slaughter date their on their cash cow.

Glad I'm not forced to pay for this.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(07-21-2014 06:58 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  [quote='quo vadis' pid='10921608' dateline='1405947402']
ESPN held all the cards in the SECN negotiations.


Nonsense. The SEC could have invited FSU and Clemson and that was all the leverage they needed. The SEC did not need ESPN to start a network because each school retained their tier 3 rights, unlike the ACC. Lastly, no way ESPN would not pay the SEC market value and alienate the conference that makes them the most money. Doing such would put a 10 year slaughter date their on their cash cow.

The SEC is small potatoes to ESPN. ESPN earns $11B in revenue annually, 10x more than all of the SEC schools athletic revenue put together. And you think they worried about alienating the SEC *11 years from now*? You think ESPN was sweating over the SEC's "tier 3" rights? Seriously? And how does adding Clemson and FSU scare ESPN? That just increases the value of the 11 years they have remaining on the 2008 deal.

Eleven years is forever in the sports world. No, the SEC surely got something for its 10-year extension, and now that the true worth of college sports has been made clear to Slive, more than they get between 2010-2025, but market value, the same value they would have gotten as a free agent negotiating right now without the albatross of Slive's 2008 deal? Not even close.

Slive's bad choice in 2007-2008 will mean the B1G makes at least $5m more per school, per year, for the next 20 years. Just watch.

It's cute how all the other conferences ran on here to tell us how this deal is just not that great.

Such concern.....

(07-22-2014 08:20 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  It's cute how all the other conferences ran on here to tell us how this deal is just not that great.

Such concern.....

FWIW, I live in Baton Rouge and LOVE the SEC, think it's the best conference. Very happy that Cox recently signed on so I will get the SECN from the git-go.

But there's no denying that Slive got taken to the cleaners in 2008 and that this will cost the SEC hundreds of millions over the next 20 years, no matter what new configurations of the deal ESPN and the SEC announce in the meantime.

One thing to kind of remember, SEC victim to some degree of timing much like ACC. Those 2 were both done prior to the massive Pac 12 deal which reset everything.

Also, SEC in 2008 when deal was done was not the 10000 pound gorilla that it is now. Only 2 titles in a row at that point- and just starting to get dominant.

(07-22-2014 08:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 08:20 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  It's cute how all the other conferences ran on here to tell us how this deal is just not that great.

Such concern.....

FWIW, I live in Baton Rouge and LOVE the SEC, think it's the best conference. Very happy that Cox recently signed on so I will get the SECN from the git-go.

But there's no denying that Slive got taken to the cleaners in 2008 and that this will cost the SEC hundreds of millions over the next 20 years, no matter what new configurations of the deal ESPN and the SEC announce in the meantime.

It doesn't really matter Quo. The SEC still managed to have 5 or 6 of the top 10 earners last year (depending upon the source). Contracts for television are only a small part of the total athletic dollar grab. And while the Big 10 will make up some ground if the BTN delivers as many anticipate in the end the SEC will still have the highest percentage of top earners of any conference. If Slive made a mistake it wasn't as critical of one as Swofford made. It's the PAC I have my eye on. I want to see how long the two networks can impinge PACN distribution. As the only remaining self owned network how well they do will tell whether the other three's biggest mistake was in selling their rights period.

(07-22-2014 08:20 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  It's cute how all the other conferences ran on here to tell us how this deal is just not that great.

Such concern.....

I never knew the conferences posted here.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(07-22-2014 08:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  One thing to kind of remember, SEC victim to some degree of timing much like ACC. Those 2 were both done prior to the massive Pac 12 deal which reset everything.

Also, SEC in 2008 when deal was done was not the 10000 pound gorilla that it is now. Only 2 titles in a row at that point- and just starting to get dominant.

....which is why the ACC will fall further behind the B10, PAC 12, SEC, and the B12 (less schools with bigger slices of pie). Consequently, I can see the B10 and SEC eventually becoming more attractive to many ACC schools: They are worth more in the B10 and SEC than as a separate conference. As the $$$ gap grows with each passing year, the ACC will not be able to make up the gap unless it's done in part on the bball court. Adding a bball first school like UCONN could help the ACC lessen the financial gap as it falls behind the other power conferences in $$$.

Moreover, if the SEC were as aggressive as the B10 instead of being a Gentlemen's conference that plays gorilla football, I think the ACC would be a G5 conference by now. All it took was for the SEC to snatch FSU and Clemson; the rest of the conference could have been picked apart by the B10, SEC, and the B12 in my opinion. In fact, the B12 was looking forward to this possibly happening before the ACC implemented a GOR.....

(07-22-2014 08:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  One thing to kind of remember, SEC victim to some degree of timing much like ACC. Those 2 were both done prior to the massive Pac 12 deal which reset everything.

Also, SEC in 2008 when deal was done was not the 10000 pound gorilla that it is now. Only 2 titles in a row at that point- and just starting to get dominant.

The SEC deal was hailed at the time. So was the ACC deal. I think it was more timing than anything else for the SEC. Now the ACC made ESPN partner with Raycom and locked up their Tier III for basically nothing. That part of their deal was a blunder.

(07-22-2014 12:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 08:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 08:20 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  It's cute how all the other conferences ran on here to tell us how this deal is just not that great.

Such concern.....

FWIW, I live in Baton Rouge and LOVE the SEC, think it's the best conference. Very happy that Cox recently signed on so I will get the SECN from the git-go.

But there's no denying that Slive got taken to the cleaners in 2008 and that this will cost the SEC hundreds of millions over the next 20 years, no matter what new configurations of the deal ESPN and the SEC announce in the meantime.

It doesn't really matter Quo. The SEC still managed to have 5 or 6 of the top 10 earners last year (depending upon the source). Contracts for television are only a small part of the total athletic dollar grab. And while the Big 10 will make up some ground if the BTN delivers as many anticipate in the end the SEC will still have the highest percentage of top earners of any conference. If Slive made a mistake it wasn't as critical of one as Swofford made. It's the PAC I have my eye on. I want to see how long the two networks can impinge PACN distribution. As the only remaining self owned network how well they do will tell whether the other three's biggest mistake was in selling their rights period.

Selling it is not a mistake. The Pac has taken a big risk owning 100%. They apparently signed on the carriers with generous agreements (low carriage fees? advertising sharing?) but the risk is all theirs. ESPN has dozens of contracts to spread their risk over.

The Pac may end up with more $, but it still was bad risk management. They could end up negative. The Big 10, SEC and Texas took much better approaches. Each has potential benefits if it does well and each has a heavy hitter (Fox or ESPN) selling to the cable companies.

(07-22-2014 01:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 08:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 08:20 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  It's cute how all the other conferences ran on here to tell us how this deal is just not that great.

Such concern.....

FWIW, I live in Baton Rouge and LOVE the SEC, think it's the best conference. Very happy that Cox recently signed on so I will get the SECN from the git-go.

But there's no denying that Slive got taken to the cleaners in 2008 and that this will cost the SEC hundreds of millions over the next 20 years, no matter what new configurations of the deal ESPN and the SEC announce in the meantime.

It doesn't really matter Quo. The SEC still managed to have 5 or 6 of the top 10 earners last year (depending upon the source). Contracts for television are only a small part of the total athletic dollar grab. And while the Big 10 will make up some ground if the BTN delivers as many anticipate in the end the SEC will still have the highest percentage of top earners of any conference. If Slive made a mistake it wasn't as critical of one as Swofford made. It's the PAC I have my eye on. I want to see how long the two networks can impinge PACN distribution. As the only remaining self owned network how well they do will tell whether the other three's biggest mistake was in selling their rights period.

Selling it is not a mistake. The Pac has taken a big risk owning 100%. They apparently signed on the carriers with generous agreements (low carriage fees? advertising sharing?) but the risk is all theirs. ESPN has dozens of contracts to spread their risk over.

The Pac may end up with more $, but it still was bad risk management. They could end up negative. The Big 10, SEC and Texas took much better approaches. Each has potential benefits if it does well and each has a heavy hitter (Fox or ESPN) selling to the cable companies.

The bolded part is the most important point. The Pac stands to make a lot of money and has good deals with cable companies, but as far as getting maximum coverage, the experience with DirecTV shows that having ESPN or Fox in your corner to strong-arm the cable/satellite bullies is a big advantage, and IMO Scott overlooked that.

(07-22-2014 08:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  One thing to kind of remember, SEC victim to some degree of timing much like ACC. Those 2 were both done prior to the massive Pac 12 deal which reset everything.

Also, SEC in 2008 when deal was done was not the 10000 pound gorilla that it is now. Only 2 titles in a row at that point- and just starting to get dominant.

Concerning (1), I'd say that the job of a commissioner is to recognize what way the wind is blowing, in this case that rights to college sports were undervalued and a big boom was coming. The PAC commissioner certainly saw it, as did Delany, since he decided to keep equity in the BTN. Slive simply failed to see where the market was going.

And (2), winning national titles isn't what makes a conference valuable. The B1G wasn't has won't any major national titles in over a decade and yet it has never been bigger and will surely sign a massive new deal in 2016 to go along with the BTN. Nobody in the industry is saying "if the B1G had just won a few national titles recently they would be getting a huge boost, but since they haven't their deal is going to be disappointing". Conference appeal is based on fan interest, and the SEC led the way in that in 2008 as they do now.

(07-22-2014 12:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 08:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 08:20 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  It's cute how all the other conferences ran on here to tell us how this deal is just not that great.

Such concern.....

FWIW, I live in Baton Rouge and LOVE the SEC, think it's the best conference. Very happy that Cox recently signed on so I will get the SECN from the git-go.

But there's no denying that Slive got taken to the cleaners in 2008 and that this will cost the SEC hundreds of millions over the next 20 years, no matter what new configurations of the deal ESPN and the SEC announce in the meantime.

It doesn't really matter Quo. The SEC still managed to have 5 or 6 of the top 10 earners last year (depending upon the source). Contracts for television are only a small part of the total athletic dollar grab. And while the Big 10 will make up some ground if the BTN delivers as many anticipate in the end the SEC will still have the highest percentage of top earners of any conference. If Slive made a mistake it wasn't as critical of one as Swofford made.

Yes, TV dollars aren't that massive, e.g., Alabama had revenues of $130 million last year and maybe $25 million max was from media revenue from all sources. Still, the dollars aren't trivial, either.

And I'd agree about the ACC, since Swofford had the example of Slive's error to learn from, except that let's face it, the ACC just isn't a very valuable property compared to the SEC and B1G. I'm not sure anyone would have paid the ACC any more than they got and I don't think they could have made more by establishing their own network.

I think the goal of the PAC when it comes to their own network is to have an outlet of their own as an insurance against one of the major media companies trying to denigrate their product. Let's face it. The ESpin name is not for no reason. They will do what's necessary for their bottom line, even at the expense of their clients. The Big East thought they had a friend in the Four-Letter Mouse Network, then watch as one valuable school after another bolt. Both the PAC and B1G understand this quite well, which is why they spread their content around for better exposure. The SEC seems to be in love with the Four-Letter, since they've been the beneficiaries of the marketing machine.