(03-15-2011 05:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-15-2011 05:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This danger was explicitly recognized last year in my town, Baton Rouge, when it became known that Cox Louisiana was considering adding the BTN. That created an uproar among influential LSU fans, who said they did not want to see 80 cents a subscriber or whatever in Louisiana going to support Michigan, Penn State, etc.

Seriously? Unless those cable bills were being directly raised, I would want as many cable channels as possible no matter what the content. That's just me.

Seriously. And no, Cox wasn't going to raise rates, just add the service and eat the 10 cents or whatever. But the LSU faithful raised a ruckus and it didn't happen.

Like you, i'd just want the extra content ...

(03-15-2011 05:53 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Even though the Midwest isn't growing as fast as other parts of the country, the flip side is that you're going to find a fairly sizable number of Big Ten alums in pretty much every major market in the country (particularly the fast-growing Sun Belt cities). That's part of the reason why the Big Ten "travels" so well for bowls ...

Yep, same for Notre Dame. It's not that they 'travel' so well, it's that they have catholics and 'subway alumni' everywhere who come out of the wood-work wherever they travel to.

(03-15-2011 01:31 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-15-2011 12:42 PM)solohawks Wrote:  This is why if SEC went the network route, partnering with Comcast was a must. . SEC Network would have had the majority of their footprint covered right off the bat

I am not sure it works quite that easy. Basically, in order for that to work, they would have to raise rates off the bat to offset the channel cost, to in essence pay themselves more money by carrying their own channel. Otherwise, Comcast is IMMEDIATELY taking a loss of half of whatever they are paying themselves per customer. I am not sure that is any eaiser a sell to your customers, as it is to another cable provider.

comcast would probably make up a substantial amount of the difference in increased ad revenue. right now css shows very little of substance so the ad revenue is minuscule. sec network would increase the amount they charge for commercials. plus the channel would be picked up outside of the southeast and non comcast/charter cable systems in the southeast opening up a new revenue stream. i don't think comcast would have to substantially increase rates in order for the sec network to be successful.

(03-15-2011 10:22 PM)solohawks Wrote:  i don't think comcast would have to substantially increase rates in order for the sec network to be successful.

I think you miss what I am saying. If Comcast is the owner of the station, and say a Time Warner Cable system picks it up at $0.75 per scubscriber, they then make an additional $0.75 per subsciber they were not getting before, of which $0.37 is their to keep. That is a net gain for both.

However, if they add the channel to their own systems in network, and "charge" $0.75 per subscriber, but do not raise the rates to cover it to prevent a backlash from their customers (since they get to keep half of the raised fare), then in order to pay the SEC their portion, they are in essense taking $0.38 per subscriber of their own money, money they were reporting as profit the year before, and paying it to the SEC. That is a net loss for Comcast.

Of course they could just not raise the rates and and not give the SEC money for those areas, however since even today the Big Ten network makes 80% of their revenue from subscriber fees, you are serioulsy cutting down your potential revenue. That is why I say that having an automatic carriage deal with the operator of the network in and of itself is not as big a deal as you think. The only benefit is if you are in an area with two cable systems. The reason it worked for the Big Ten Network, is DirecTv was the parter company that carried it imemdiately, and while DTV did not raise rates to cover it, they were able to sign up a lot of new customers. Comcast is usually the majority cable provider in its areas.

(03-16-2011 11:18 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-15-2011 10:22 PM)solohawks Wrote:  i don't think comcast would have to substantially increase rates in order for the sec network to be successful.

I think you miss what I am saying. If Comcast is the owner of the station, and say a Time Warner Cable system picks it up at $0.75 per scubscriber, they then make an additional $0.75 per subsciber they were not getting before, of which $0.37 is their to keep. That is a net gain for both.

However, if they add the channel to their own systems in network, and "charge" $0.75 per subscriber, but do not raise the rates to cover it to prevent a backlash from their customers (since they get to keep half of the raised fare), then in order to pay the SEC their portion, they are in essense taking $0.38 per subscriber of their own money, money they were reporting as profit the year before, and paying it to the SEC. That is a net loss for Comcast.

Of course they could just not raise the rates and and not give the SEC money for those areas, however since even today the Big Ten network makes 80% of their revenue from subscriber fees, you are serioulsy cutting down your potential revenue. That is why I say that having an automatic carriage deal with the operator of the network in and of itself is not as big a deal as you think. The only benefit is if you are in an area with two cable systems. The reason it worked for the Big Ten Network, is DirecTv was the parter company that carried it imemdiately, and while DTV did not raise rates to cover it, they were able to sign up a lot of new customers. Comcast is usually the majority cable provider in its areas.

I get what you are saying, but I tend to think that Comcast would be able to factor in the benefits and costs of converting CSS into the SEC network without having to raise their own rates. I think that is the beauty of converting CSS to the SEC Network. The costs are already built into the Comcast Machine which currently carries the channel.

Now of course converting CSS into the SEC Network would make it a more valuable channel and thus Comcast would end up having to pay themselves more for the channel.

Lets say right now Comcast pays itself $.05 per subscriber for CSS and that rate went up to $.80 per Subscriber once the channel became SEC Network with Comcast getting $.40 and SEC Network getting $.40. Comcast has to make up a $.40 difference since Comcast and SEC will split the $.80 in half and Comcast will pay itself back with its $.40 share. The difference should be offset by Comcast being able to push the SEC Network on enough new subscribers not to mention those who switch to Comcast from Directv and Dish Network because of a SEC Network/Directv Carriage Dispute, which there would inevitably be unless Directv pays Comcast more than necessary to avoid such a thing, I know Dish Network will not so Comcast will gain some customers there too.

I think Comcast could make it work financially and the SEC would start with most of their hardcore fans covered under their current basic cable subscription eliminating most of the we can watch the game backlash the Big 10 had and the SEC does not want.

I believe the SEC could not get everyone on board for a network idea because their 3rd tier rights are so valuable. As stated early, its tough to convince Florida to give up its multimillion dollar guaranteed up front deal with Sun Sports to take a chance on an SEC network

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dail...12-TV.aspx

Tack on another $30 million. Make that deal w/Big 12 worth $90 million per year.

(03-16-2011 03:50 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dail...12-TV.aspx

Tack on another $30 million. Make that deal w/Big 12 worth $90 million per year.

Oh yes, the Big 12 schools are going to be nice and happy to stay in the conference with that kind of money rolling in.

============2010======2011======2012
Baylor----------- $6,140,417 -- $7,317,750 -- $11,545,000
Iowa St.-------- $5,215,417 -- $6,392,750 -- $10,005,000
Kansas---------- $7,422,917 -- $8,600,250 -- $13,045,000
Kansas St.------ $6,840,417 -- $8,017,750 -- $12,215,000
Missouri--------- $7,250,417 -- $8,427,750 -- $12,975,000
Oklahoma------- $7,187,917 -- $8,365,250 -- $12,665,000
Oklahoma St.--- $6,770,417 -- $7,947,750 -- $12,175,000
Texas------------ $8,215,417 -- $9,392,750 -- $13,215,000
Texas A&M------ $6,985,417 -- $8,162,750 -- $12,035,000
Texas Tech------ $5,697,917 -- $6,875,250 -- $10,125,000

Matt, are those figures just TV contract projected payout? Not including their own TV network

From the tax records, what the conference payout to their members for the 2008-09 season

BIG 12 2008-09 REVENUE SHARING
1. Oklahoma, $12.2 million
2. Texas, $11.8 million
3. Kansas, $11.5 million
4. Missouri, $10.4 million
5. Texas A&M, $10.2 million
6. Oklahoma State, $10.0 million
7. Colorado, $9.77 million
8. Nebraska, $9.73 million
9. Texas Tech, $9.2 million
10. Baylor, $9.1 million
11. Iowa State, $8.9 million
12. Kansas State, $8.4 million

From the Big East 2008-09 Revenue Sharing
1. Connecticut, $9,783,196
2. Pittsburgh, $9,666,415
3. Cincinnati, $8,476,537
4. Louisville, $8,471,242
5. Rutgers, $8,230,510
6. West Virginia, $8,196,811
7. Syracuse, $6,974,496
8. South Florida, $6,925,603

(03-16-2011 04:53 PM)SO#1 Wrote:  ============2010======2011======2012
Baylor----------- $6,140,417 -- $7,317,750 -- $11,545,000
Iowa St.-------- $5,215,417 -- $6,392,750 -- $10,005,000
Kansas---------- $7,422,917 -- $8,600,250 -- $13,045,000
Kansas St.------ $6,840,417 -- $8,017,750 -- $12,215,000
Missouri--------- $7,250,417 -- $8,427,750 -- $12,975,000
Oklahoma------- $7,187,917 -- $8,365,250 -- $12,665,000
Oklahoma St.--- $6,770,417 -- $7,947,750 -- $12,175,000
Texas------------ $8,215,417 -- $9,392,750 -- $13,215,000
Texas A&M------ $6,985,417 -- $8,162,750 -- $12,035,000
Texas Tech------ $5,697,917 -- $6,875,250 -- $10,125,000

Matt, are those figures just TV contract projected payout? Not including their own TV network

From the tax records, what the conference payout to their members for the 2008-09 season

BIG 12 2008-09 REVENUE SHARING
1. Oklahoma, $12.2 million
2. Texas, $11.8 million
3. Kansas, $11.5 million
4. Missouri, $10.4 million
5. Texas A&M, $10.2 million
6. Oklahoma State, $10.0 million
7. Colorado, $9.77 million
8. Nebraska, $9.73 million
9. Texas Tech, $9.2 million
10. Baylor, $9.1 million
11. Iowa State, $8.9 million
12. Kansas State, $8.4 million

From the Big East 2008-09 Revenue Sharing
1. Connecticut, $9,783,196
2. Pittsburgh, $9,666,415
3. Cincinnati, $8,476,537
4. Louisville, $8,471,242
5. Rutgers, $8,230,510
6. West Virginia, $8,196,811
7. Syracuse, $6,974,496
8. South Florida, $6,925,603

That is purely TV money from the Big 12. Doesn't include this new $30 million in my figures for 2012 either.

Congrats to B12 for getting it done. Let's see, they lose 2 teams and increased their revenue by 350%. Some here like to believe BE would lucky to double its current pathetic TV contract. Something does not add up here.

(03-16-2011 12:37 PM)solohawks Wrote:  The difference should be offset by Comcast being able to push the SEC Network on enough new subscribers not to mention those who switch to Comcast from Directv and Dish Network because of a SEC Network/Directv Carriage Dispute

If Comcast has 3 million subscribers in SEC markets where they could add this channel, they would be paying the SEC $1.2 million a month. If you assume the profit margin on a basic cable package of $40 per month is 10%, they would have to pick up 300,000 new subscribers to break even, in markets where they are already a monopoly. And, you can forget an SEC Network / Directv dispute. Directv prides itself on sports. They would pick it up. This ain't versus. And based on the expected content (ESPN and CBS have no incentive to give up control of the top games) the only states that will be gung ho about it are Kentucky and Mississippi: Comcast is not in Kentucky.

I am not saying it can't be done, just that the network partner being able to push distribution of it will not necessarily pay off in dollars right away, until they can effectively sell the price increase to pay themselves. Maybe they can, but I just meant it is not as easy as it sounds.

(03-16-2011 06:08 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  Congrats to B12 for getting it done. Let's see, they lose 2 teams and increased their revenue by 350%. Some here like to believe BE would lucky to double its current pathetic TV contract. Something does not add up here.

Your implication holds unless the media firms perceive a significant difference in the value of the Big 12 compared to the Big East.

(03-16-2011 06:08 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  Congrats to B12 for getting it done. Let's see, they lose 2 teams and increased their revenue by 350%. Some here like to believe BE would lucky to double its current pathetic TV contract. Something does not add up here.

350% on cable revenue only. When coupled with the ABC deal not being renegotiated, the increase is slightly under 2x overall TV revenue from 80 million to 150 million.

EDIT: Didn't take into account change in conference size. It will be over 2X.

(03-16-2011 06:08 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  Congrats to B12 for getting it done. Let's see, they lose 2 teams and increased their revenue by 350%. Some here like to believe BE would lucky to double its current pathetic TV contract. Something does not add up here.

If you take the likely new average payout for a Big 12 school with:
ESPN 6 mil per team avg
Fox 9 mil avg
You get 15 million on average vs 6.625 before. This is a 226% increase in the overall contract.

If you apply this percentage to the BE's 3.8 all sports share you get 8.646 each and 4.1 for non-fb. This is virtually equal to the ACC's tier 1 & 2 rights and would be a very good outcome for the BE.

(03-16-2011 10:46 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  If you apply this percentage to the BE's 3.8 all sports share you get 8.646 each and 4.1 for non-fb. This is virtually equal to the ACC's tier 1 & 2 rights and would be a very good outcome for the BE.

If we can somehow manage to get the same deals the ACC has, that would indeed be a very good outcome for us.

(03-16-2011 10:46 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  If you apply this percentage to the BE's 3.8 all sports share you get 8.646 each and 4.1 for non-fb. This is virtually equal to the ACC's tier 1 & 2 rights and would be a very good outcome for the BE.

The football schools getting 8.646 M for all sports is not a good deal.

(03-17-2011 04:48 PM)General Mike Wrote:  The football schools getting 8.646 M for all sports is not a good deal.

On another thread I did a chart showing how revenue would increase if we were able to get the suggested increase to 230% of the current value. If we are able to get this type of increase per game (football and basketball), then with the addition of TCU we would see an increase to about $9Million per football school. If Villanova is added for football, and we are able to get the same price per game, we can get up to $10 million per school. However, that estimate included third tier rights as well.