I'm not entirely sure what to make of the conflicting reports.

I suspect it is a situation where nobody is wrong or lying.

Even if the Big 12 read on the situation is accurate and ESPN is basically telling them they will not get the PAC T1 rights, they likely technically remain a bidder because they have an offer on the table, or have a number in mind. They may feel the PAC won't sign with them at that number and don't intend to offer more, but I am sure there is a price ESPN would take them for.

I kind of think Dodd made this unnecessarily muddy. It would have been more clear if he tried to make a distinction between being priced out, or unwilling to bid more and not being a bidder, if that is what is going on.

(05-04-2023 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 04:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 03:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 03:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 03:36 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The message we are hearing is that ESPN is strapped for money, so they have to prioritize what they'd be willing to spend it on. A 9th SEC game is probably more valuable than anything else in CFB.

How locked in is the SEC with ESPN? Is there room to build say a Friday night package for an Amazon? Or are they totally dependent upon ESPN?

I fully understand the SEC holding out going to 9 games until they get a network to pay for it. It's definitely a card I would not want to play until I got paid for it.

The SEC is totally locked in with ESPN. Increasing the number of conference games doesn't actually create more total inventory (and in fact could actually reduce the total inventory since a bunch of payday non-conference games will likely go away), albeit the *quality* of the inventory would be improved.

The other thing that came to my mind is that if ESPN isn't willing to pay enough to the SEC for a 9th conference game when the SEC just added Texas and Oklahoma, then people *really* need to put the "ESPN will fund teams moving from the ACC to the SEC" hypotheticals on ice that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars more. That would indicate that ESPN is in total austerity mode.

You are speaking emphatically about details which are yet unknown. Anyone who claims to have the details of the SEC/ESPN contract is lying. They haven't been made public. Only speculation exists as to the amount. It's all a big we'll see. I doubt ESPN or the SEC would be so negligent as to not have contingencies for the number of conference games, especially since ABC wanted some flexibility for additional time slots.

The SEC did sign a contract to provide rights to all of its games outside of the Game of the Week to ESPN several years ago.

The SEC and ESPN then more recently signed a separate deal for the Game of the Week to move over from CBS to ESPN.

You're correct that I have no idea whether ESPN is obligated to pay more for additional SEC conference games or not. However, ESPN definitely has comprehensive rights to all SEC games for the next decade-plus via those two contracts. So, my response isn't about ESPN paying or not paying for more conference games, but rather that the SEC can't carve out a package for Amazon or a different media company unless ESPN gives rights back to the SEC (which my educated guess is that's something ESPN wouldn't reasonably do).

And gee, all this time I thought 100% of the rights covered all of that without any guesswork or speculation to be done! All I was illustrating is that the amount, details, and contingencies are yet unknown. You guys are arguing and speculating about will the SEC be paid for 8 or 9 conference games. All I did was say if there are contingencies, which would be a reasonable assumption for the SEC and ESPN, they are in the contract details which we do not know! How many angels dance on the head of a pin? You were trying to create an issue which either doesn't exist or is unknown. There's plenty of value in an 8 game SEC conference schedule. If it's 9 it just means we have better inventory and a more reasonable way to navigate the rotation. It's a nothing burger and you are asking mustard and ketchup only, or all the way! Last time I checked ABC is in with ESPN and they were the ones who wanted flexibility in scheduling additional time slots. 100% of the rights means 100% of the rights. Nobody has even mentioned selling rights or buying them back or any of the nonsense you introduced into the discussion. You continue to do this, introduce something which nobody has brought up and then use it as an argument. You'll be 10 times better read and followed if you drop that nonsense.

From all the talk its pretty clear ESPN has no obligation to pay more for 9 conference games than 8. But there are look-ins and they would, and almost certainly are, talking about how that creates more value for both parties.

if it was clear, the SEC wouldn't be waffling so much.

(05-04-2023 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 04:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 03:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 03:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 03:36 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The message we are hearing is that ESPN is strapped for money, so they have to prioritize what they'd be willing to spend it on. A 9th SEC game is probably more valuable than anything else in CFB.

How locked in is the SEC with ESPN? Is there room to build say a Friday night package for an Amazon? Or are they totally dependent upon ESPN?

I fully understand the SEC holding out going to 9 games until they get a network to pay for it. It's definitely a card I would not want to play until I got paid for it.

The SEC is totally locked in with ESPN. Increasing the number of conference games doesn't actually create more total inventory (and in fact could actually reduce the total inventory since a bunch of payday non-conference games will likely go away), albeit the *quality* of the inventory would be improved.

The other thing that came to my mind is that if ESPN isn't willing to pay enough to the SEC for a 9th conference game when the SEC just added Texas and Oklahoma, then people *really* need to put the "ESPN will fund teams moving from the ACC to the SEC" hypotheticals on ice that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars more. That would indicate that ESPN is in total austerity mode.

You are speaking emphatically about details which are yet unknown. Anyone who claims to have the details of the SEC/ESPN contract is lying. They haven't been made public. Only speculation exists as to the amount. It's all a big we'll see. I doubt ESPN or the SEC would be so negligent as to not have contingencies for the number of conference games, especially since ABC wanted some flexibility for additional time slots.

The SEC did sign a contract to provide rights to all of its games outside of the Game of the Week to ESPN several years ago.

The SEC and ESPN then more recently signed a separate deal for the Game of the Week to move over from CBS to ESPN.

You're correct that I have no idea whether ESPN is obligated to pay more for additional SEC conference games or not. However, ESPN definitely has comprehensive rights to all SEC games for the next decade-plus via those two contracts. So, my response isn't about ESPN paying or not paying for more conference games, but rather that the SEC can't carve out a package for Amazon or a different media company unless ESPN gives rights back to the SEC (which my educated guess is that's something ESPN wouldn't reasonably do).

And gee, all this time I thought 100% of the rights covered all of that without any guesswork or speculation to be done! All I was illustrating is that the amount, details, and contingencies are yet unknown. You guys are arguing and speculating about will the SEC be paid for 8 or 9 conference games. All I did was say if there are contingencies, which would be a reasonable assumption for the SEC and ESPN, they are in the contract details which we do not know! How many angels dance on the head of a pin? You were trying to create an issue which either doesn't exist or is unknown. There's plenty of value in an 8 game SEC conference schedule. If it's 9 it just means we have better inventory and a more reasonable way to navigate the rotation. It's a nothing burger and you are asking mustard and ketchup only, or all the way! Last time I checked ABC is in with ESPN and they were the ones who wanted flexibility in scheduling additional time slots. 100% of the rights means 100% of the rights. Nobody has even mentioned selling rights or buying them back or any of the nonsense you introduced into the discussion. You continue to do this, introduce something which nobody has brought up and then use it as an argument. You'll be 10 times better read and followed if you drop that nonsense.

Uh - I didn’t introduce this issue. I was responding to a prior poster asking if the SEC could create a new package for someone like Amazon if the SEC and ESPN couldn’t come to an agreement on the 9th conference game.

(05-04-2023 05:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 04:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 03:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 03:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The SEC is totally locked in with ESPN. Increasing the number of conference games doesn't actually create more total inventory (and in fact could actually reduce the total inventory since a bunch of payday non-conference games will likely go away), albeit the *quality* of the inventory would be improved.

The other thing that came to my mind is that if ESPN isn't willing to pay enough to the SEC for a 9th conference game when the SEC just added Texas and Oklahoma, then people *really* need to put the "ESPN will fund teams moving from the ACC to the SEC" hypotheticals on ice that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars more. That would indicate that ESPN is in total austerity mode.

You are speaking emphatically about details which are yet unknown. Anyone who claims to have the details of the SEC/ESPN contract is lying. They haven't been made public. Only speculation exists as to the amount. It's all a big we'll see. I doubt ESPN or the SEC would be so negligent as to not have contingencies for the number of conference games, especially since ABC wanted some flexibility for additional time slots.

The SEC did sign a contract to provide rights to all of its games outside of the Game of the Week to ESPN several years ago.

The SEC and ESPN then more recently signed a separate deal for the Game of the Week to move over from CBS to ESPN.

You're correct that I have no idea whether ESPN is obligated to pay more for additional SEC conference games or not. However, ESPN definitely has comprehensive rights to all SEC games for the next decade-plus via those two contracts. So, my response isn't about ESPN paying or not paying for more conference games, but rather that the SEC can't carve out a package for Amazon or a different media company unless ESPN gives rights back to the SEC (which my educated guess is that's something ESPN wouldn't reasonably do).

And gee, all this time I thought 100% of the rights covered all of that without any guesswork or speculation to be done! All I was illustrating is that the amount, details, and contingencies are yet unknown. You guys are arguing and speculating about will the SEC be paid for 8 or 9 conference games. All I did was say if there are contingencies, which would be a reasonable assumption for the SEC and ESPN, they are in the contract details which we do not know! How many angels dance on the head of a pin? You were trying to create an issue which either doesn't exist or is unknown. There's plenty of value in an 8 game SEC conference schedule. If it's 9 it just means we have better inventory and a more reasonable way to navigate the rotation. It's a nothing burger and you are asking mustard and ketchup only, or all the way! Last time I checked ABC is in with ESPN and they were the ones who wanted flexibility in scheduling additional time slots. 100% of the rights means 100% of the rights. Nobody has even mentioned selling rights or buying them back or any of the nonsense you introduced into the discussion. You continue to do this, introduce something which nobody has brought up and then use it as an argument. You'll be 10 times better read and followed if you drop that nonsense.

Uh - I didn’t introduce this issue. I was responding to a prior poster asking if the SEC could create a new package for someone like Amazon if the SEC and ESPN couldn’t come to an agreement on the 9th conference game.

Neither did I Frank, but you introduced it to me. 100% means 100%. We wait for the details. It's as simple as that.

(05-04-2023 05:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Neither did I Frank, but you introduced it to me. 100% means 100%. We wait for the details. It's as simple as that.

Uh, I introduced the question. I asked if the SEC was locked into ESPN or if it was possible to carve out a package for Amazon to pay for a 9th game if ESPN was not willing to increase the money to the SEC to pay for it.

I think you skipped my post at the center of the question.

(05-04-2023 05:59 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 05:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Neither did I Frank, but you introduced it to me. 100% means 100%. We wait for the details. It's as simple as that.

Uh, I introduced the question. I asked if the SEC was locked into ESPN or if it was possible to carve out a package for Amazon to pay for a 9th game if ESPN was not willing to increase the money to the SEC to pay for it.

I think you skipped my post at the center of the question.

Go back and read Frank's first response to me, he speaks of carving out games to be bought back for other distribution. I didn't miss your post, or his response to it. It's simply not even possible. 100% is 100% and that is what ESPN holds of the SEC rights. There is no wiggle room for such, and there are no available details on the contract to date with which to pontificate. We'll be finding out in a year, I guess. He interjected his explanation to you in his response to me. I wouldn't have raised the issue but it occurs quite frequently.

(05-04-2023 06:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 05:59 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 05:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Neither did I Frank, but you introduced it to me. 100% means 100%. We wait for the details. It's as simple as that.

Uh, I introduced the question. I asked if the SEC was locked into ESPN or if it was possible to carve out a package for Amazon to pay for a 9th game if ESPN was not willing to increase the money to the SEC to pay for it.

I think you skipped my post at the center of the question.

Go back and read Frank's first response to me, he speaks of carving out games to be bought back for other distribution. I didn't miss your post, or his response to it. It's simply not even possible. 100% is 100% and that is what ESPN holds of the SEC rights. There is no wiggle room for such, and there are no available details on the contract to date with which to pontificate. We'll be finding out in a year, I guess. He interjected his explanation to you in his response to me. I wouldn't have raised the issue but it occurs quite frequently.

I guess I’m totally confused on where we’re disagreeing. The very first sentence in my initial post that you’re critiquing was, “The SEC is totally locked in with ESPN” and then my post responding to you says that ESPN has comprehensive rights to the SEC.

I have been telling you Dodd is always been missing a lot with his reportings like his reporting that the Big 12 would implode 2 years ago.

These 2 posts are saying the same thing:

(05-04-2023 04:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ESPN definitely has comprehensive rights to all SEC games for the next decade-plus via those two contracts. So, my response isn't about ESPN paying or not paying for more conference games, but rather that the SEC can't carve out a package for Amazon or a different media company unless ESPN gives rights back to the SEC (which my educated guess is that's something ESPN wouldn't reasonably do).

(05-04-2023 06:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Go back and read Frank's first response to me, he speaks of carving out games to be bought back for other distribution. I didn't miss your post, or his response to it. It's simply not even possible. 100% is 100% and that is what ESPN holds of the SEC rights. There is no wiggle room for such

My thoughts on the subject:

At ESPN they’re SEC, ACC, and partial Big 12 content to distribute among their various holdings and then they’ve got the AAC to fill in around that where need be.

Meanwhile, FOX, CBS, and NBC seem hesitant to compete against each other:

Noon——
Fox—their top Big 10 game
CBS—probably nothing
NBC—probably nothing

3:30——
Fox—a lesser Big 10 game or Big 12
CBS—their top Big 10 game
NBC—ND half the time

Prime time——
Fox—a lesser Big 10 game or Big 12
CBS—maybe a good MWC if they’ve got one
NBC—their best Big 10 game

There just doesn’t seem a lot of room for PAC 10 content at 3:30 and prime time and no one is excited to pay a large sum for what will likely be the 3rd or 4th most watched game for the time slot.

Going to a steamer for 1st and 3rd tier while selling 2nd tier to ESPN for the late night runs the the risk of relegating the league to obscurity, something they can ill afford to do. Honestly, for streamers, I’m not sure the PAC 10 is the best partner to work with due to their limited audience. For someone like Amazon, signing a Friday night exclusive with a big brand league like the Big 10 would make more sense. (I for one think the Big 10 could use the Friday package to bankroll the additions of UO and UW.)

At this juncture, the PAC 10 is probably more valuable parsed out between the Big 10 and Big 12. ESPN gets their late night package under the Big 12 banner. The Big 10 gets more West Coast presence.

(05-03-2023 08:21 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Truth or fiction?

CBSSports:Pac-12's murky future finds shred of clarity ...

This is what the Monty Show has been reporting since October... Now Dodd is reporting it.... To funny!

(05-04-2023 09:17 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  

(05-03-2023 08:21 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Truth or fiction?

CBSSports:Pac-12's murky future finds shred of clarity ...

This is what the Monty Show has been reporting since October... Now Dodd is reporting it.... To funny!

I’m sold. I originally sided with The Athletic/SI/Matt Brown - but now that the Monty Show is backing Dodd’s report - I’m flipping back.

(05-04-2023 09:31 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 09:17 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  This is what the Monty Show has been reporting since October... Now Dodd is reporting it.... To (sic) funny!

I’m sold. I originally sided with The Athletic/SI/Matt Brown - but now that the Monty Show is backing Dodd’s report - I’m flipping back.

'Mazin Monty. Dynamic Dodd.

Let the congregation say 'Celebratize.'

Time is running out on the Pac-12/10. They either need to all agree within 60 days or teams will be bailing.

(05-04-2023 12:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Either way you take Mark it is damaging. If true it is indicative of the situation of the conference. If false it is indicative of how the recruiters feel the prospects of landing the recruit are if they tell the truth, "We are stuck in a mortally wounded conference." The recruiter made those remarks thinking they would be more positive than the reality of "We don't know."
....

So a conference is at a psychological disadvantage ?

(05-04-2023 04:41 PM)U-C-FKnights Wrote:  I'm not entirely sure what to make of the conflicting reports.

I suspect it is a situation where nobody is wrong or lying.

Even if the Big 12 read on the situation is accurate and ESPN is basically telling them they will not get the PAC T1 rights, they likely technically remain a bidder because they have an offer on the table, or have a number in mind. They may feel the PAC won't sign with them at that number and don't intend to offer more, but I am sure there is a price ESPN would take them for.

I kind of think Dodd made this unnecessarily muddy. It would have been more clear if he tried to make a distinction between being priced out, or unwilling to bid more and not being a bidder, if that is what is going on.

I don't know why we all just assume that ESPN's offer was open-ended. They offered around $25m, perhaps a bit less, for all the Pac t1-t3 rights last fall, that offer was turned down...why would they say "hey Kliavkoff, this offer is good until 2025, just let us know"? They were willing to pay that much last fall, but now? Who konws? The market has definitely changed for the worse.

(05-04-2023 09:48 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Time is running out on the Pac-12/10. They either need to all agree within 60 days or teams will be bailing.

60 days?

Try 1/10th of that number.

(05-04-2023 09:51 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(05-04-2023 12:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Either way you take Mark it is damaging. If true it is indicative of the situation of the conference. If false it is indicative of how the recruiters feel the prospects of landing the recruit are if they tell the truth, "We are stuck in a mortally wounded conference." The recruiter made those remarks thinking they would be more positive than the reality of "We don't know."
....

So a conference is at a psychological disadvantage ?

Indeed! Some were going, some were staying, and no one was saying. So, the G5 parade was staged to make it look like something was happening when no options were available.

Yes, same song second verse. The same refrain as bad as the first.