(05-26-2018 01:14 AM)Kaplony Wrote: (05-26-2018 01:09 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote: (05-26-2018 12:19 AM)Kaplony Wrote: (05-25-2018 11:59 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote: (05-25-2018 11:40 PM)Kaplony Wrote: I'd put money on JR being able to back up his position before you can back up yours.
Why the change of tune? As I recall you were one one the biggest "money doesn't matter" folks. Why the change? What is the athletic department you are a fan of doing to try and rectify this?
Good for you. Maybe you should actually look into things and then come back and examine some of the irreconcilable garbage he is posting about "tier 3" assuming start up and production costs don't exist.
The words come from athletic directors expressing recognition of the gap.
As a fan, I don't derive my joy from athletic department books.
Nah dude...you are the one who said he was a kook. Present something other than your own opinion to back it up.
I'll say this....JR has confided with me unsolicited information that I have personally heard directly from prominent IPTAY boosters and wasn't public information even among general Clemson fans and only available to people directly connected to various programs. He's a hell of a lot more legitimate of a source than you where I stand. You want to call him a kook then provide something to back it up other than your own opinion.
I already have. And I have more than opinion.
Like I figured. You are full of ****.
Well yeah, I'm full of **** because I deal in facts and not press releases and kook sound bites that try to puff out some conferences' financial chest. Let's take one part of his original post I commented on where he was wrong that the OU deal was $7m a year. It was $5.8m a year over 10 years according to Sports Business Journal article (which I'm sure you can find on Google). Then he realizes that and says that it is $7m a year now because because it is backloaded. Well guess what, every single media deal in sports is backloaded, but that doesn't change what the average per year amount, nor total amount, that the deal was for. Then he adds that Boren said it nets $3 million. So in a few posts we went from $7m a year to $3m, but for how many years and what was that net actually a net on? Clearly it ignores the stated $5 million in start up costs and the 95 people they hired, full and part time, to get it up and going, not to mention those needed to continue production for 10 years. That's all on OU. And who is footing that at the university? Are all or part of their salaries coming out of the athletic budget or the university budget, because the latter would effectively be a university subsidy. Are they counting the money coming in from Learfield that controls selling the commercial slots and corporate sponsorships for this TV deal? Who do you think facilitated the deal with Fox for OU? As I said, OU certainly was doing this primarily for marketing and branding, and the end financial benefit for the rights to these left over athletic events, which are often conflated with the entirety of "Tier 3 rights" that every school has to sell, is minor to negligible.
And don't lose sight of his entire original point: that the left over broadcast rights to these events that only the B12 retains, that are typically incorrectly suggested as the bulk of the value of "Tier 3 rights" (absolutely makes me cringe because it is so inaccurate), and for which include a handful of garbage non-conference basketball games in December and an FCS football game and various Olympic sports are included, are some sort of significant financial benefit for B12 schools. That's not true, at all, and if it were true no other conferences would have started their own networks to bundle these leftover rights together in the first place, as all other four have done. And the conference networks, including the Long Horn Network, are not even technically "Tier 3", at least as far as it is popularly misdefined. They're all partly "Tier 2" because their media partners selectively place content there purposefully to maintain the value of those networks, and how much so depends on how they are structured. So the LHN is not a "Tier 3" network, although it broadcasts "Tier 3" events and lots of filler garbage. Actual conference networks wouldn't work if all they had were just those leftover portions. Yet he was suggesting OU was clearing $7m a year off of these rights which is in the range or more than some reports the Big Ten Network and SEC Network in recent years, and that is with national cable and satellite distribution. And what OU does make from that deal isn't just left over rights to these bottom rung sports events, it is also all sorts of shoulder programing (slot fillers) like coaches and highlight shows, things every school still can produce and "monetize" but are typically rolled in with their rights deals with Learfield, IMG, or the like. And mostly, as mentioned already, when you see "Tier 3" numbers thrown around, they are almost always conflated with rights to everything else: corporate sponsorships, web, signage, radio. Those are things every single school, whether part of a conference network or not, has to sell. At this point, no one is clearing $7m a year on regional distribution of one FCS football game, 8 non-conference hoops cupcakes, and Olympic sports. And yes, when you see someone use the term "Tier 3" in the context of some sort of financial advantage for the B12, it is straight kook speak. All the B12 schools would drop these rights in a nano-second for a linear conference network if they could get UT out of the LHN.
But watch him weave in completely unrelated issues about other media contracts that no one is debating. Straw man.
And I've watched your shtick for years.
