Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
SEC Revenue
Author Message
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,227
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #1
SEC Revenue
just saw this-


44.6M per school for 2019-20.

And the SEC deal from CBS will go up from 55m to over 300m on ESPN.... Adding another at least 250m to the pot or another 15+m per school.
01-30-2020 02:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #2
RE: SEC Revenue
Slow increase this year. Maybe SECN is declining? Of course Tier I will soon more than offset that.

Last year:
SEC 43.1 this year 44.6
B12 35.1 this year 38.8

The other conferences don't announce their distributions so they don't come out until someone looks at the tax returns.
FYI last year B10 49.0, P12 31.3. Haven't seen ACC for last year but I'm sure the number is out there somewhere.
01-30-2020 02:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #3
RE: SEC Revenue
ACC was out there. $29.5 million last year per full member. ND was 7.9.
01-30-2020 02:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,884
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #4
RE: SEC Revenue
(01-30-2020 02:25 PM)stever20 Wrote:  just saw this-


44.6M per school for 2019-20.

And the SEC deal from CBS will go up from 55m to over 300m on ESPN.... Adding another at least 250m to the pot or another 15+m per school.

What that tells me Stever, is why the ACCN isn't going to help them play catch up. The increase there over the previous year should have been ~ 2 million with contract escalators. That tells me the SECN revenue was down about 16.5 million or 1.1 million per school share. If the SECN revenue had remained equal the NET payout to the schools this year should have been around 45.7 million.

This tells me in spades that the ACCN isn't going to be a game changer. T1 and T2 revenue is where the future is going to be, not conference networks.

People have talked about big brand schools breaking off. I don't think that will happen, but I can certainly see the day coming when all T3 will be independently paid and by what it can command in streaming. The Finebaum show could go national and be aired by ESPN instead of just concentrating on the SEC.

The Big 10 hasn't released their BTN payout totals in about 3 years. They'll release the total payout like the SEC just did but you'd have to back out the escalators to know if the BTN is still bleeding revenue as well.

Remember, bowl revenue isn't divided equally. The participating schools get 2/15ths of a share while the other conference members (who were bowl eligible and Missouri and Ole Miss were not) get 1/15th.


Edit for Stever: The lowest estimate of the SEC's new deal is 330 million and since that was announced the projections given by others have been much higher. We won't know the amount until after the details are released which I've been told will be sometime in the first quarter of this year. The old deal was for 55 million with CBS. It is widely assumed the new deal will exceed the old deal by at least 300 million which when divided by 15 means 20 million to each school. So in 2024, if the last 3 years of the CBS contract are not bought out by ABC/Disney, the SEC will be making 64.6 million plus escalators. Vince Thompson a noted authority in sports rights contracts has stated on the Finebaum program that when all the details are in the SEC schools may actually be seeing an increase much closer to 40 million than the 20 million that came out with the first press releases. CBS bowed out at 300 million. It was assumed at that time that the offer by ABC was 330 million. But then FOX made a bid the first of the year, and it is assumed that the ABC bid went up. So until the contract is completed and all of the details are in we won't know. It is also very possible that the CCG which was part of the CBS old contract, may be an entity unto itself in the new one. We'll see.
(This post was last modified: 01-30-2020 03:47 PM by JRsec.)
01-30-2020 03:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TIGER-PAUL Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,617
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 34
I Root For: PITT
Location:
Post: #5
RE: SEC Revenue
Interesting , when Delaney started B10 network, everyone said that’s where the money would be.
(This post was last modified: 01-30-2020 10:46 PM by TIGER-PAUL.)
01-30-2020 10:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,884
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #6
RE: SEC Revenue
(01-30-2020 10:44 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Interesting , when Delaney started B10 network, everyone said that’s where the money would be.

And it was at the time. There is a somewhat complicated process that has been going on with each realignment as each one has had different carrots dangled.

In 1989-92 the whole concept of having to have a strong regional draw and the footprint size of the conference being important to revenue got the ball rolling. It was what he networks had to work with since the OU/UGa lawsuit opened it up. Nobody but ABC had had any experience with how the ratings would work and even then ABC just had the only game every week so there was nothing to measure marketing against. Size of a conferences seemed to be as good as any so that's what they decided to base revenue upon.

Because of that everyone looked to push out their boundaries and with the SWC dying (2 state footprint and SMU on the death penalty) Arkansas was ready for a move to the SEC. The Big 8 and 4 from the SWC hoped expanding a 5 state footprint into 6 with Texas would be enough. It wasn't. The ACC had taken Ga Tech in '78 just because they were a good fit and added Florida State for entrance into a growing market. Penn State was solid for the Big 10 and the Arizona schools had been a good add for the PAC.

In 2010 the networks had a lot more data and saw a way to use it to their advantage so they stressed spreading the footprint again, but mostly to break up schools within large states so that they could break the leverage that a single conference might have with such holdings. It worked out to keep Florida State away from the SEC so next they went after North Carolina, Virginia, and Texas. The big plans were for A&M, N.C. State and Virginia Tech to grow the footprint of the SEC, but in each case it would be breaking leverage 1 conference had over a group of schools in a conference. That way the ad revenue paid out to the conferences could justifiably be less than the network was actually getting for holding all of the properties in a state but not having 1 conference also holding the same leverage.

Carolina and Virginia resisted. A&M came on board giving ESPN another in with Texas. Colorado, Missouri and Nebraska left for more stable pastures. Conference networks were the reward for the expansion.

Now they are using national rankings and high content games as the lure for expansion in order to collect brands within a particular conference. It is why FOX will go after Texas and Oklahoma for the Big 10 and ESPN will do the same for the SEC.

If successful the networks would probably push for a couple of leagues instead of 5 P conferences. Conferences will resist but with few national football brands in the ACC and Big 12 and with the PAC isolated without a healthy big brand the pay gap is about to jump to a chasm. Those who choose not move by 2025 will be forced to spend about a decade before they get another chance. It will be a decade where the recalcitrant will lose between 200 million to 300 million if they don't move. That's a huge amount to resist.

If the networks were forward thinking they would make two healthy and competitive conferences out of the smaller three and make some niche moves to finish out the Big 10 and SEC. I just sincerely doubt that it works out that way.
01-30-2020 11:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #7
RE: SEC Revenue
The relative value of football vs. basketball has changed. When the CFA split up and SEC, ACC, BE, SWC and Big 8 did their own deals, the ACC was the best paid of the bunch.
01-30-2020 11:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,401
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 194
I Root For: Return To Stability
Location:
Post: #8
RE: SEC Revenue
(01-30-2020 11:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 10:44 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Interesting , when Delaney started B10 network, everyone said that’s where the money would be.

And it was at the time. There is a somewhat complicated process that has been going on with each realignment as each one has had different carrots dangled.

In 1989-92 the whole concept of having to have a strong regional draw and the footprint size of the conference being important to revenue got the ball rolling. It was what he networks had to work with since the OU/UGa lawsuit opened it up. Nobody but ABC had had any experience with how the ratings would work and even then ABC just had the only game every week so there was nothing to measure marketing against. Size of a conferences seemed to be as good as any so that's what they decided to base revenue upon.

Because of that everyone looked to push out their boundaries and with the SWC dying (2 state footprint and SMU on the death penalty) Arkansas was ready for a move to the SEC. The Big 8 and 4 from the SWC hoped expanding a 5 state footprint into 6 with Texas would be enough. It wasn't. The ACC had taken Ga Tech in '78 just because they were a good fit and added Florida State for entrance into a growing market. Penn State was solid for the Big 10 and the Arizona schools had been a good add for the PAC.

In 2010 the networks had a lot more data and saw a way to use it to their advantage so they stressed spreading the footprint again, but mostly to break up schools within large states so that they could break the leverage that a single conference might have with such holdings. It worked out to keep Florida State away from the SEC so next they went after North Carolina, Virginia, and Texas. The big plans were for A&M, N.C. State and Virginia Tech to grow the footprint of the SEC, but in each case it would be breaking leverage 1 conference had over a group of schools in a conference. That way the ad revenue paid out to the conferences could justifiably be less than the network was actually getting for holding all of the properties in a state but not having 1 conference also holding the same leverage.

Carolina and Virginia resisted. A&M came on board giving ESPN another in with Texas. Colorado, Missouri and Nebraska left for more stable pastures. Conference networks were the reward for the expansion.

Now they are using national rankings and high content games as the lure for expansion in order to collect brands within a particular conference. It is why FOX will go after Texas and Oklahoma for the Big 10 and ESPN will do the same for the SEC.

If successful the networks would probably push for a couple of leagues instead of 5 P conferences. Conferences will resist but with few national football brands in the ACC and Big 12 and with the PAC isolated without a healthy big brand the pay gap is about to jump to a chasm. Those who choose not move by 2025 will be forced to spend about a decade before they get another chance. It will be a decade where the recalcitrant will lose between 200 million to 300 million if they don't move. That's a huge amount to resist.

If the networks were forward thinking they would make two healthy and competitive conferences out of the smaller three and make some niche moves to finish out the Big 10 and SEC. I just sincerely doubt that it works out that way.

Well said, it's been a pastime here to rag on conference networks, ultimately, because certain programs were called up and not others. However, these fans constantly miss the bigger picture. It's not one or two things that decide who goes where. Presidents have to look over loads of data, including alumni profile, median income, market, TV penetration of said market, where high school students live, etc.. Culture is preferred but not if the opportunity cost is too high. Conferences don't add to lose money. A private company could lose money for a couple of quarters if they're convinced the payoff is much larger later. Programs are loathe to lose any % of revenues for any reason. They jealously guard that because they're competing with other programs for coaches, players, other staff, having to cover the cost of Title IX sports, etc.. It's been this way since a long time ago. It's also why they're willing to "erode" tradition with the passage of time. The difference is merely in the execution.
01-31-2020 01:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,007
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2370
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #9
RE: SEC Revenue
(01-30-2020 10:44 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Interesting , when Delaney started B10 network, everyone said that’s where the money would be.

Hmm. I recall that when the BTN move was made, it was controversial. Many thought it was a good move, but many others thought it was risky, with the conference having to absorb startup and other technical costs. As of now though, what was prescient about Delaney's BTN move wasn't the technical structure of having one's own network, it was in keeping 50% of the B1G's rights to that content, so that the B1G could capitalize on them more profitably as value rose in the future.

In contrast, the SEC (2008) and ACC (2010) made the error of signing almost everything over to ESPN very long term, which put them in bondage to the deals signed at those under-valued levels.

That's why the SEC is now making around $10m per school less than the B1G when it should be making the same. That's not chump change.

The SEC does have the saving grace of the content tied up in the CBS deal, which expires in a few years and should allow them to catch back up to the B1G or come close. The ACC doesn't have that.
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2020 08:25 AM by quo vadis.)
01-31-2020 08:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,227
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #10
RE: SEC Revenue
(01-31-2020 08:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 10:44 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Interesting , when Delaney started B10 network, everyone said that’s where the money would be.

Hmm. I recall that when the BTN move was made, it was controversial. Many thought it was a good move, but many others thought it was risky, with the conference having to absorb startup and other technical costs. As of now though, what was prescient about Delaney's BTN move wasn't the technical structure of having one's own network, it was in keeping 50% of the B1G's rights to that content, so that the B1G could capitalize on them more profitably as value rose in the future.

In contrast, the SEC (2008) and ACC (2010) made the error of signing almost everything over to ESPN very long term, which put them in bondage to the deals signed at those under-valued levels.

That's why the SEC is now making around $10m per school less than the B1G when it should be making the same. That's not chump change.

The SEC does have the saving grace of the content tied up in the CBS deal, which expires in a few years and should allow them to catch back up to the B1G or come close. The ACC doesn't have that.

well considering we already know the SEC is going to be making almost 20 million more than that per school from the CBS stuff, that's going to put them 10m up on the Big Ten. For Big Ten to pass the SEC back, they would have to make more than 150m over what they are currently making. Possible? Sure. Likely? Not so sure.
01-31-2020 08:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #11
RE: SEC Revenue
(01-30-2020 11:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  The relative value of football vs. basketball has changed. When the CFA split up and SEC, ACC, BE, SWC and Big 8 did their own deals, the ACC was the best paid of the bunch.

Definitely true.
01-31-2020 08:35 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #12
RE: SEC Revenue
Sorry for the repeat from the ACC board.
The pressure will continue to mount for the Big 12 and the PAC especially for teams in those conferences that have any value. ESPN has also put a lot of pressure on the B1G since they have a renewal coming soon and ESPN pays the B1G a lot to buy a good portion of their inventory.
ESPN bought 12 years time to settle the cable/streaming question with their latest SEC purchase. Schools like Oklahoma or even UCLA/USC are on the clock to make a quick decision about their future.


What we have is a rapidly changing market and ESPN is ready to circle their wagons.
ESPN didn't pay the SEC all of that money for one game per week (old CBS deal). What they contracted for is to wrap up all SEC inventory for a period of time.
With the SEC, ACC, AAC, and Texas locked into long term contracts, ESPN has secured enough quality inventory to continue to be dominant in collegiate sports broadcasting for at least until 2032.
How they can keep all of their inventory happy, remains to be seen.
I would look for ESPN to be buyers of more inventory in the next 5 years, but only at discounted prices.
01-31-2020 08:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
IHAVETRIED Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 561
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 43
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #13
RE: SEC Revenue
The SEC and Big Ten can arrange their for own Championship to be conducted among the most successful teams of their 28-36 "private" member club (36 if they choose to expand...which I don't know why in heaven's name they would)).

Fine with me.

I'm totally OK with the Super 2.

Super Facilities, Super Salaries, Super Coaches, Super Athlete Compensation, Super Athletes.

It's the American Way, and I am totally OK with it.
01-31-2020 11:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,007
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2370
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #14
RE: SEC Revenue
(01-31-2020 11:19 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  The SEC and Big Ten can arrange their for own Championship to be conducted among the most successful teams of their 28-36 "private" member club (36 if they choose to expand...which I don't know why in heaven's name they would)).

Fine with me.

I'm totally OK with the Super 2.

Super Facilities, Super Salaries, Super Coaches, Super Athlete Compensation, Super Athletes.

It's the American Way, and I am totally OK with it.

Conference distributions are of course only a portion of athletic revenues.

For example, in 2018 Louisville had $134m in revenues, $127m if we subtract subsidies. That would put you 9th in the SEC and 8th in the B1G in revenue, which is not too shabby.

Meantime the city's YUM Center debt is approaching $1 Billion while Louisville rakes in the dough from it, LOL.
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2020 11:53 AM by quo vadis.)
01-31-2020 11:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #15
RE: SEC Revenue
(01-31-2020 08:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  With the SEC, ACC, AAC, and Texas locked into long term contracts, ESPN has secured enough quality inventory to continue to be dominant in collegiate sports broadcasting for at least until 2032.

As a fan of an ACC team, it's nice for you to know that your team's games will be available on ESPN channels. If you were an ACC athletic director, though, you would be realizing that between the length of the ACC contract and the big money of the new SEC contract, ESPN has locked the ACC into a long-term and gigantic financial disadvantage behind their geographic neighbors and competitors in the SEC. The other P5 conferences at least have a chance to improve their per-school media revenue in a few years -- they won't reach the SEC's level, might not even get that close, but they will increase their financial advantage over ACC members.
01-31-2020 12:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #16
RE: SEC Revenue
(01-31-2020 12:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-31-2020 08:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  With the SEC, ACC, AAC, and Texas locked into long term contracts, ESPN has secured enough quality inventory to continue to be dominant in collegiate sports broadcasting for at least until 2032.

As a fan of an ACC team, it's nice for you to know that your team's games will be available on ESPN channels. If you were an ACC athletic director, though, you would be realizing that between the length of the ACC contract and the big money of the new SEC contract, ESPN has locked the ACC into a long-term and gigantic financial disadvantage behind their geographic neighbors and competitors in the SEC. The other P5 conferences at least have a chance to improve their per-school media revenue in a few years -- they won't reach the SEC's level, might not even get that close, but they will increase their financial advantage over ACC members.

ACC schools have been behind SEC schools in revenue forever.
Anyone could look at average attendance numbers and realize that. The average ACC crowd is about 50,000 and the average SEC crowd is 80,000. Even with equal media income the average ACC school is $2-3 million behind their SEC counterparts per game ($21 Million per season on average) when you add in concessions, parking etc.
What is important is that we are not behind with our peers.
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2020 01:02 PM by XLance.)
01-31-2020 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 8,319
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 444
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US
Post: #17
RE: SEC Revenue
(01-30-2020 11:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 10:44 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Interesting , when Delaney started B10 network, everyone said that’s where the money would be.

And it was at the time. There is a somewhat complicated process that has been going on with each realignment as each one has had different carrots dangled.

In 1989-92 the whole concept of having to have a strong regional draw and the footprint size of the conference being important to revenue got the ball rolling. It was what he networks had to work with since the OU/UGa lawsuit opened it up. Nobody but ABC had had any experience with how the ratings would work and even then ABC just had the only game every week so there was nothing to measure marketing against. Size of a conferences seemed to be as good as any so that's what they decided to base revenue upon.

Because of that everyone looked to push out their boundaries and with the SWC dying (2 state footprint and SMU on the death penalty) Arkansas was ready for a move to the SEC. The Big 8 and 4 from the SWC hoped expanding a 5 state footprint into 6 with Texas would be enough. It wasn't. The ACC had taken Ga Tech in '78 just because they were a good fit and added Florida State for entrance into a growing market. Penn State was solid for the Big 10 and the Arizona schools had been a good add for the PAC.

In 2010 the networks had a lot more data and saw a way to use it to their advantage so they stressed spreading the footprint again, but mostly to break up schools within large states so that they could break the leverage that a single conference might have with such holdings. It worked out to keep Florida State away from the SEC so next they went after North Carolina, Virginia, and Texas. The big plans were for A&M, N.C. State and Virginia Tech to grow the footprint of the SEC, but in each case it would be breaking leverage 1 conference had over a group of schools in a conference. That way the ad revenue paid out to the conferences could justifiably be less than the network was actually getting for holding all of the properties in a state but not having 1 conference also holding the same leverage.

Carolina and Virginia resisted. A&M came on board giving ESPN another in with Texas. Colorado, Missouri and Nebraska left for more stable pastures. Conference networks were the reward for the expansion.

Now they are using national rankings and high content games as the lure for expansion in order to collect brands within a particular conference. It is why FOX will go after Texas and Oklahoma for the Big 10 and ESPN will do the same for the SEC.

If successful the networks would probably push for a couple of leagues instead of 5 P conferences. Conferences will resist but with few national football brands in the ACC and Big 12 and with the PAC isolated without a healthy big brand the pay gap is about to jump to a chasm. Those who choose not move by 2025 will be forced to spend about a decade before they get another chance. It will be a decade where the recalcitrant will lose between 200 million to 300 million if they don't move. That's a huge amount to resist.

If the networks were forward thinking they would make two healthy and competitive conferences out of the smaller three and make some niche moves to finish out the Big 10 and SEC. I just sincerely doubt that it works out that way.


Okay JR, here's something that I keep looking at, and I know you don't like criticism of ESPN or hearing about the NFL, so I will make this relevant to college sports, but the NFL is the only example I have of this: the NFL lost Los Angeles as a market for at least ten years, if not more. LA residents showed indifference to having a team, but yet the NFL put a high priority on getting the LA market back. Now this is my question: how long is ESPN going to tolerate not having a monopoly in Los Angeles?? How long will it be before ESPN tells the SEC, hey we will give you crazy $$'s if you give Southern California and UCLA an invitation?? Also, ESPN's parent corporation Disney is based in.... wait for it.....Los Angeles. Isn't ESPN embarrassed that they really don't have a monopoly of a property in their backyard, so to speak??
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2020 01:06 PM by DawgNBama.)
01-31-2020 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BatonRougeEscapee Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,179
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 111
I Root For: GEAUX TIGERS &
Location:
Post: #18
RE: SEC Revenue
(01-31-2020 11:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-31-2020 11:19 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  The SEC and Big Ten can arrange their for own Championship to be conducted among the most successful teams of their 28-36 "private" member club (36 if they choose to expand...which I don't know why in heaven's name they would)).

Fine with me.

I'm totally OK with the Super 2.

Super Facilities, Super Salaries, Super Coaches, Super Athlete Compensation, Super Athletes.

It's the American Way, and I am totally OK with it.

Conference distributions are of course only a portion of athletic revenues.

For example, in 2018 Louisville had $134m in revenues, $127m if we subtract subsidies. That would put you 9th in the SEC and 8th in the B1G in revenue, which is not too shabby.

Meantime the city's YUM Center debt is approaching $1 Billion while Louisville rakes in the dough from it, LOL.

Louisville's basketball program was the most profitable before the YUM center and will remain so if they move to another facility. UofL did not ask for the YUM center to be built, it is not their facility, and it is not their job to fund it. They actually had an agreement with the state to play in a new facility at the fairgrounds at the time the YUM facility was approved. The city and state built it and it is their job to make it profitable, not the University. UofL is merely a tenant.

Louisville does not earn piles of cash because of the YUM, they earn piles of cash because the fans pay some of the highest yearly ticket costs in the country and they have a very large fan base. If the YUM wants to play hardball with their major tenant then I imagine UofL will break ground on their own on campus arena within a couple of seasons.
01-31-2020 01:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #19
RE: SEC Revenue
(01-31-2020 12:58 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 11:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 10:44 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Interesting , when Delaney started B10 network, everyone said that’s where the money would be.

And it was at the time. There is a somewhat complicated process that has been going on with each realignment as each one has had different carrots dangled.

In 1989-92 the whole concept of having to have a strong regional draw and the footprint size of the conference being important to revenue got the ball rolling. It was what he networks had to work with since the OU/UGa lawsuit opened it up. Nobody but ABC had had any experience with how the ratings would work and even then ABC just had the only game every week so there was nothing to measure marketing against. Size of a conferences seemed to be as good as any so that's what they decided to base revenue upon.

Because of that everyone looked to push out their boundaries and with the SWC dying (2 state footprint and SMU on the death penalty) Arkansas was ready for a move to the SEC. The Big 8 and 4 from the SWC hoped expanding a 5 state footprint into 6 with Texas would be enough. It wasn't. The ACC had taken Ga Tech in '78 just because they were a good fit and added Florida State for entrance into a growing market. Penn State was solid for the Big 10 and the Arizona schools had been a good add for the PAC.

In 2010 the networks had a lot more data and saw a way to use it to their advantage so they stressed spreading the footprint again, but mostly to break up schools within large states so that they could break the leverage that a single conference might have with such holdings. It worked out to keep Florida State away from the SEC so next they went after North Carolina, Virginia, and Texas. The big plans were for A&M, N.C. State and Virginia Tech to grow the footprint of the SEC, but in each case it would be breaking leverage 1 conference had over a group of schools in a conference. That way the ad revenue paid out to the conferences could justifiably be less than the network was actually getting for holding all of the properties in a state but not having 1 conference also holding the same leverage.

Carolina and Virginia resisted. A&M came on board giving ESPN another in with Texas. Colorado, Missouri and Nebraska left for more stable pastures. Conference networks were the reward for the expansion.

Now they are using national rankings and high content games as the lure for expansion in order to collect brands within a particular conference. It is why FOX will go after Texas and Oklahoma for the Big 10 and ESPN will do the same for the SEC.

If successful the networks would probably push for a couple of leagues instead of 5 P conferences. Conferences will resist but with few national football brands in the ACC and Big 12 and with the PAC isolated without a healthy big brand the pay gap is about to jump to a chasm. Those who choose not move by 2025 will be forced to spend about a decade before they get another chance. It will be a decade where the recalcitrant will lose between 200 million to 300 million if they don't move. That's a huge amount to resist.

If the networks were forward thinking they would make two healthy and competitive conferences out of the smaller three and make some niche moves to finish out the Big 10 and SEC. I just sincerely doubt that it works out that way.


Okay JR, here's something that I keep looking at, and I know you don't like criticism of ESPN or hearing about the NFL, so I will make this relevant to college sports, but the NFL is the only example I have of this: the NFL lost Los Angeles as a market for at least ten years, if not more. LA residents showed indifference to having a team, but yet the NFL put a high priority on getting the LA market back. Now this is my question: how long is ESPN going to tolerate not having a monopoly in Los Angeles?? How long will it be before ESPN tells the SEC, hey we will give you crazy $$'s if you give Southern California and UCLA an invitation?? Also, ESPN's parent corporation Disney is based in.... wait for it.....Los Angeles. Isn't ESPN embarrassed that they really don't have a monopoly of a property in their backyard, so to speak??

Haven't you heard that UCLA is exploring ACC membership?

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-fo...th-pac-12/
01-31-2020 01:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,884
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #20
RE: SEC Revenue
(01-31-2020 12:58 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 11:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-30-2020 10:44 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Interesting , when Delaney started B10 network, everyone said that’s where the money would be.

And it was at the time. There is a somewhat complicated process that has been going on with each realignment as each one has had different carrots dangled.

In 1989-92 the whole concept of having to have a strong regional draw and the footprint size of the conference being important to revenue got the ball rolling. It was what he networks had to work with since the OU/UGa lawsuit opened it up. Nobody but ABC had had any experience with how the ratings would work and even then ABC just had the only game every week so there was nothing to measure marketing against. Size of a conferences seemed to be as good as any so that's what they decided to base revenue upon.

Because of that everyone looked to push out their boundaries and with the SWC dying (2 state footprint and SMU on the death penalty) Arkansas was ready for a move to the SEC. The Big 8 and 4 from the SWC hoped expanding a 5 state footprint into 6 with Texas would be enough. It wasn't. The ACC had taken Ga Tech in '78 just because they were a good fit and added Florida State for entrance into a growing market. Penn State was solid for the Big 10 and the Arizona schools had been a good add for the PAC.

In 2010 the networks had a lot more data and saw a way to use it to their advantage so they stressed spreading the footprint again, but mostly to break up schools within large states so that they could break the leverage that a single conference might have with such holdings. It worked out to keep Florida State away from the SEC so next they went after North Carolina, Virginia, and Texas. The big plans were for A&M, N.C. State and Virginia Tech to grow the footprint of the SEC, but in each case it would be breaking leverage 1 conference had over a group of schools in a conference. That way the ad revenue paid out to the conferences could justifiably be less than the network was actually getting for holding all of the properties in a state but not having 1 conference also holding the same leverage.

Carolina and Virginia resisted. A&M came on board giving ESPN another in with Texas. Colorado, Missouri and Nebraska left for more stable pastures. Conference networks were the reward for the expansion.

Now they are using national rankings and high content games as the lure for expansion in order to collect brands within a particular conference. It is why FOX will go after Texas and Oklahoma for the Big 10 and ESPN will do the same for the SEC.

If successful the networks would probably push for a couple of leagues instead of 5 P conferences. Conferences will resist but with few national football brands in the ACC and Big 12 and with the PAC isolated without a healthy big brand the pay gap is about to jump to a chasm. Those who choose not move by 2025 will be forced to spend about a decade before they get another chance. It will be a decade where the recalcitrant will lose between 200 million to 300 million if they don't move. That's a huge amount to resist.

If the networks were forward thinking they would make two healthy and competitive conferences out of the smaller three and make some niche moves to finish out the Big 10 and SEC. I just sincerely doubt that it works out that way.


Okay JR, here's something that I keep looking at, and I know you don't like criticism of ESPN or hearing about the NFL, so I will make this relevant to college sports, but the NFL is the only example I have of this: the NFL lost Los Angeles as a market for at least ten years, if not more. LA residents showed indifference to having a team, but yet the NFL put a high priority on getting the LA market back. Now this is my question: how long is ESPN going to tolerate not having a monopoly in Los Angeles?? How long will it be before ESPN tells the SEC, hey we will give you crazy $$'s if you give Southern California and UCLA an invitation?? Also, ESPN's parent corporation Disney is based in.... wait for it.....Los Angeles. Isn't ESPN embarrassed that they really don't have a monopoly of a property in their backyard, so to speak??
If ESPN wants that they will buy out the whole Big 12 contract and add those schools to the Big 12 because nobody in the SEC and nobody at those two California schools would consider the proposition you suggest. But adding U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and B.Y.U. to the Big 12 makes money and sense. Let the Big 10 add Stanford and California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington and look East for one more.

But in order to do that the PAC schools would have to want to separate. They don't.

But this is not a discussion of the SEC Revenue. This is a general speculation about realignment.
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2020 01:23 PM by JRsec.)
01-31-2020 01:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.