(05-03-2013 04:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 04:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 04:03 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:36 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  And since you don't know what the SEC is getting from this you can't really say that.

Nobody outside of ESPN/SEC knows the exact numbers, but we do know this: The great bulk of the SEC's value was tied up in the 2008 contract with ESPN and CBS, and unless those networks are filled with idiots, since the new content that ESPN is selling them as part of the new "network" is nowhere near as valuable as the content they already have bought, there's no way they will alter the fundamental terms of those contracts, since the terms are so favorable to them.

Therefore, whatever the SEC will be getting, it will be a lot less than it could have gotten had it taken the equity route. That's just basic finance and logic at work.

Texas might disagree considering they gave up an equity share for a guaranteed $15 million a year for a network that probably isn't producing half of that revenue yet.

Btw, that guaranteed figure is about 40% more than the Big Ten institutions get from the BTN at the moment.

Long term the BTN is probably in better shape since I suspect the LHN will go belly up over the next 2-3 years and this assumes a la carte doesn't come about and impact the BTN negatively.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't think you can compare LHN to a bona fide business arrangement for anyone's conference network. The $15 million a year for LHN is a bribe paid to keep the Horns in the Big 12.

True, but it's also a "bribe" that had a conditional clause in it whereby ESPN can end said contract if the network doesn't generate enough revenue. Of course, I'm sure FOX will pick up if ESPN decides to tank it.

So UT was smart to take the "guaranteed" $$$ rather then share in the expenses and wait years to for it to generate "true revenue", which they also had the option of doing.

I believe I read somewhere that the BTN didn't generate enough revenue in its first three years of its existence so a clause in that contract kicked in that flipped the equity share from 51/49 in their favor to 51/49 in FOX's favor.

Sometimes taking the guaranteed $$$ is better, just depends upon the circumstances.

Cheers,
Neil

ESPN is on the hook for 20 years. There's no opt out anywhere in the contract which is in the public domain.

OU is going to be making $7 million more selling their content to Fox and apparently still has their Tier 3 football game to sell. So rather than a bribe, it was an aggressive bid by ESPN thinking they could make money (and they still have about 17 years to do so). LHN came AFTER Texas had already committed to Big 12.

(05-03-2013 09:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 09:09 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Guess I should should pick up my toys and go home.

Dominate College Sports? LOL
Give me a break...

In the first couple of years of the last BCS evaluation cycle, the Big 10 was sitting in 7th position behind the MWC, ACC and BE.

The Pac 12 has more titles than any other conference.

The Big 12 will be making more in 2014 per school than any other conference.

So if you aren't paying attention, its easy to think the SEC and Big 10 are guaranteed to dominate college sports.

The SEC dominates in almost every sport it competes, but that really is not the point. The point is the advert of national conference networks are going to shape college sports in all aspects; the facilities of every conference member, recruiting, exposure, money, rules on and off the field, and sports as culture. When I said dominate college sports I was not just talking about championships, and make no mistake they will continue to come in bunches, I was talking everything related to college sports. The SECN will be an ubiquitous draw to most sport fans, and that will bring money, power and celebrity to the SEC schools. The same will be true for the B1G.

Do you understand that Mississippi State will likely be on national television twice as many times, maybe three times as often, as any team in the Big 12? (Not including UT with the LHN that nobody watches) If the SEC network is as successful as some think it's going to be then Vandy will earn more in media revenue than Texas.

This changes everything.

Quote:Do you understand that Mississippi State will likely be on national television twice as many times, maybe three times as often, as any team in the Big 12?

Last season Oklahoma was on national TV eight times. Heck, Kansas State was on national TV 10 times. I suppose Mississippi State is going to figure out how to be on national TV 16 or 20 times.

(05-03-2013 10:45 PM)moo Wrote:  

Quote:Do you understand that Mississippi State will likely be on national television twice as many times, maybe three times as often, as any team in the Big 12?

Last season Oklahoma was on national TV eight times. Heck, Kansas State was on national TV 10 times. I suppose Mississippi State is going to figure out how to be on national TV 16 or 20 times.

I believe most of those games were regional.

Nope, they were national broadcasts on networks like FX, Fox, ESPN/ABC.

Indiana and Minnesota are on national TV every bloody week and have been since 2007. So congratulations, Mississippi State has caught up to Indiana.

(05-03-2013 09:04 AM)krup Wrote:  -The SEC controlled 26 of the 45 football games (12 tier-3 games plus the addtl games brought by Mizz/A+M expansion). I don't know the SEC bb situation. According to the WSJ the SEC will receive significant annual payments for the cable network, but will have 0% equity in the venture. The SEC also extended their ESPN deal TEN YEARS as part of the deal.

Not sure where you are getting your numbers for SEC football, but I don't believe its close to correct. For one, the SEC controlled zero of its football or basketball games. There were existing Tier 1, 2, and 3 contracts. Just with different providers. That is a stark contrast to the Big 10. It is my understanding that the SEC bought back its Tier 3 rights, but those don't come for free. I know the SEC hopes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts (i.e. they will make more money than it cost to buy back all those rights) and it is probably correct.

Second, existing Tier 1 and 2 contracts may just take all the football. This isn't the Big 12 where a football game on Tier 3 is guaranteed. My understanding was that recently no football was slipping through.

Third, The Missouri and A&M inventory is owned by ESPN and the other existing deals, although there is surely a right to renegotiate price.

Fourth, even assuming each school actually got a Tier 3 game, that would mean 14 games out of a possible 90 or so. But even 14 is likely way too high a number. The Tier 3 stuff the SEC bought back was mainly basketball and other sports.

(05-03-2013 11:41 PM)moo Wrote:  Nope, they were national broadcasts on networks like FX, Fox, ESPN/ABC.

Indiana and Minnesota are on national TV every bloody week and have been since 2007. So congratulations, Mississippi State has caught up to Indiana.

Broadcasts on national networks is not the same as being broadcast nationally. Most national networks break up their broadcasts so that different games are played in different regions.

The CBS game of the week has always been national. The same is true with ND on NBC. The new conference network games are/will be national. Most of the rest are not.

Quote:Broadcasts on national networks is not the same as being broadcast nationally. Most national networks break up their broadcasts so that different games are played in different regions.

Fox's broadcasts last year were national, though there might be a point in the future when they regionalize games. ESPN broadcasts are national.

FSN broadcasts are mostly the regional ones. ABC does some regional broadcasts (most often for the 3:30 window) but mirrors some of the broadcasts on ESPN2 so they're actually national.

(05-03-2013 09:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 04:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 04:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 04:03 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Nobody outside of ESPN/SEC knows the exact numbers, but we do know this: The great bulk of the SEC's value was tied up in the 2008 contract with ESPN and CBS, and unless those networks are filled with idiots, since the new content that ESPN is selling them as part of the new "network" is nowhere near as valuable as the content they already have bought, there's no way they will alter the fundamental terms of those contracts, since the terms are so favorable to them.

Therefore, whatever the SEC will be getting, it will be a lot less than it could have gotten had it taken the equity route. That's just basic finance and logic at work.

Texas might disagree considering they gave up an equity share for a guaranteed $15 million a year for a network that probably isn't producing half of that revenue yet.

Btw, that guaranteed figure is about 40% more than the Big Ten institutions get from the BTN at the moment.

Long term the BTN is probably in better shape since I suspect the LHN will go belly up over the next 2-3 years and this assumes a la carte doesn't come about and impact the BTN negatively.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't think you can compare LHN to a bona fide business arrangement for anyone's conference network. The $15 million a year for LHN is a bribe paid to keep the Horns in the Big 12.

True, but it's also a "bribe" that had a conditional clause in it whereby ESPN can end said contract if the network doesn't generate enough revenue. Of course, I'm sure FOX will pick up if ESPN decides to tank it.

So UT was smart to take the "guaranteed" $$$ rather then share in the expenses and wait years to for it to generate "true revenue", which they also had the option of doing.

I believe I read somewhere that the BTN didn't generate enough revenue in its first three years of its existence so a clause in that contract kicked in that flipped the equity share from 51/49 in their favor to 51/49 in FOX's favor.

Sometimes taking the guaranteed $$$ is better, just depends upon the circumstances.

Cheers,
Neil

ESPN is on the hook for 20 years. There's no opt out anywhere in the contract which is in the public domain.

OU is going to be making $7 million more selling their content to Fox and apparently still has their Tier 3 football game to sell. So rather than a bribe, it was an aggressive bid by ESPN thinking they could make money (and they still have about 17 years to do so). LHN came AFTER Texas had already committed to Big 12.

The LHN was prior to the commitment otherwise the Pac-12 wouldn't have been asked to make concessions on it as a condition of UT's acceptance into their league, concessions they were unwilling to make.

Cheers,
Neil

A 7 page thread on this....here are the facts:
1. 3 of the 5 Power Leagues now have a or will have a Conference TV Network.
2. Apparently the leadership of these leagues feel it the way to go.

My advice, in the future if you wanna watch your schools....make sure for have a service that carries your league network...just saying.

(05-03-2013 09:01 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  Just read the thread, and krup gets it. The others do not. I am a big UGA fan and I possess conference pride; therefore I'm biased, but anyone that does not understand how the SEC and the B1G will dominate college sports over the next quarter century is in denial or has not been paying attention.

You mean Alabama, LSU, and Florida will dominate? The Big Ten hasn't won in over a decade and Georgia fans shouldn't be taking credit for others work in the SEC.

(05-03-2013 10:45 PM)moo Wrote:  

Quote:Do you understand that Mississippi State will likely be on national television twice as many times, maybe three times as often, as any team in the Big 12?

Last season Oklahoma was on national TV eight times. Heck, Kansas State was on national TV 10 times. I suppose Mississippi State is going to figure out how to be on national TV 16 or 20 times.

The contracts have all changed. The Pac 12 and Big 12 are on nationally much more than in the past.

(05-04-2013 06:13 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 09:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 04:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 04:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 04:03 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Texas might disagree considering they gave up an equity share for a guaranteed $15 million a year for a network that probably isn't producing half of that revenue yet.

Btw, that guaranteed figure is about 40% more than the Big Ten institutions get from the BTN at the moment.

Long term the BTN is probably in better shape since I suspect the LHN will go belly up over the next 2-3 years and this assumes a la carte doesn't come about and impact the BTN negatively.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't think you can compare LHN to a bona fide business arrangement for anyone's conference network. The $15 million a year for LHN is a bribe paid to keep the Horns in the Big 12.

True, but it's also a "bribe" that had a conditional clause in it whereby ESPN can end said contract if the network doesn't generate enough revenue. Of course, I'm sure FOX will pick up if ESPN decides to tank it.

So UT was smart to take the "guaranteed" $$$ rather then share in the expenses and wait years to for it to generate "true revenue", which they also had the option of doing.

I believe I read somewhere that the BTN didn't generate enough revenue in its first three years of its existence so a clause in that contract kicked in that flipped the equity share from 51/49 in their favor to 51/49 in FOX's favor.

Sometimes taking the guaranteed $$$ is better, just depends upon the circumstances.

Cheers,
Neil

ESPN is on the hook for 20 years. There's no opt out anywhere in the contract which is in the public domain.

OU is going to be making $7 million more selling their content to Fox and apparently still has their Tier 3 football game to sell. So rather than a bribe, it was an aggressive bid by ESPN thinking they could make money (and they still have about 17 years to do so). LHN came AFTER Texas had already committed to Big 12.

The LHN was prior to the commitment otherwise the Pac-12 wouldn't have been asked to make concessions on it as a condition of UT's acceptance into their league, concessions they were unwilling to make.

Cheers,
Neil

You're confusing 2010 when the Pac 16 nearly happened with 6 Big 12 schools with the 2011 OU flirtation with the Pac 12.

(05-04-2013 08:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 06:13 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 09:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 04:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 04:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I don't think you can compare LHN to a bona fide business arrangement for anyone's conference network. The $15 million a year for LHN is a bribe paid to keep the Horns in the Big 12.

True, but it's also a "bribe" that had a conditional clause in it whereby ESPN can end said contract if the network doesn't generate enough revenue. Of course, I'm sure FOX will pick up if ESPN decides to tank it.

So UT was smart to take the "guaranteed" $$$ rather then share in the expenses and wait years to for it to generate "true revenue", which they also had the option of doing.

I believe I read somewhere that the BTN didn't generate enough revenue in its first three years of its existence so a clause in that contract kicked in that flipped the equity share from 51/49 in their favor to 51/49 in FOX's favor.

Sometimes taking the guaranteed $$$ is better, just depends upon the circumstances.

Cheers,
Neil

ESPN is on the hook for 20 years. There's no opt out anywhere in the contract which is in the public domain.

OU is going to be making $7 million more selling their content to Fox and apparently still has their Tier 3 football game to sell. So rather than a bribe, it was an aggressive bid by ESPN thinking they could make money (and they still have about 17 years to do so). LHN came AFTER Texas had already committed to Big 12.

The LHN was prior to the commitment otherwise the Pac-12 wouldn't have been asked to make concessions on it as a condition of UT's acceptance into their league, concessions they were unwilling to make.

Cheers,
Neil

You're confusing 2010 when the Pac 16 nearly happened with 6 Big 12 schools with the 2011 OU flirtation with the Pac 12.

Probably. As a Texas fan, I'll defer to your knowledge on this.

Cheers,
Neil