(10-23-2015 09:34 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 08:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  I had a regular golf game( at Sedgefield in Greensboro ...birthplace of the ACC) with the Director of Purchasing for P. Lorillard for years (Notre Dame Grad). He was always entertaining his vendors. I asked why things were backwards for him (why weren't the vendors entertaining him). He told me that there were so few vendors in the Tobacco industry, that his company needed the vendors more than they needed them.
So it is in the sports broadcast industry. There is much more product (some good, some not so good) than there are outlets to put it on the air.
In other words, it doesn't matter if you are the PAC, B1G or the SEC....you can be replaced. It doesn't matter whether ESPN owns 100% or 50%, they can do whatever they want and you don't have a choice unless you think Chinese ratings will pay your bills or Russian recruits can power your programs.

There are more outlets today than there were 5 years ago. The reason? The sports broadcast industry has been growing in part thanks to new technology that makes live sporting events of greater value to advertisers.

Content can be replaced to a certain degree, but not infinitely and not necessarily to the same quality when done even once. The networks own a certain amount of leverage, yes. The leagues and their members own a certain amount of leverage as well because there will always be a loyal fan base that is school specific, not sport specific.

I think ultimately that is a reason these GOR agreements may be built on flimsy ground because the schools will always own their own content. A brand new season of games is not like a work of art that is produced once and sold over and over again. Rather, the college sports product is reproducing itself anew every week, year after year, decade after decade.

Now certainly, the networks are necessary as a delivery mechanism to the masses, but let's not forget large entities like ESPN wouldn't exist if they couldn't pay others for the rights to broadcast their content. ESPN is so big now, of course, that they don't rely on solely the collegiate sports to fill time, but they'd make a lot less money by ticking off any of their producers.

I agree with most of what you say. What I think that you would agree with is that SEC and B1G football is too big a product to be presented by just anybody. Would you only want SEC football available only through Raycom? Where would your national audience get their feed? How could expand your markets or promote your brand if SEC football was only on a regional network? Where would the BIG money come from?
My point was that the SEC, whether they like it or not, needs ESPN (or FOX) more that the networks need them. The money has gotten so big, that the income from television just can't be replaced by any other source. Not in stadium advertising, higher ticket prices, or alumni contributions. The conferences have become addicted to TV money and can no longer survive without it. If the SEC won't toe ESPN's line, there is another junkie down the line that would be willing to take the fix.