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

(05-03-2013 01:36 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  2. is absolutely correct.
3 depends on the wording of the contract. ESPN may already have the rights to those as Wedge says.

ESPN definitely already has the rights to the ACC content. Last fall ESPN issued a clarifying statement that they had the right to broadcast every ACC event.

Unless I'm missing something, this articles reads as if the only thing ESPN doesn't control is the CBS game:

http://www.oregonlive.com/collegefootbal..._deal.html

For once, you're not missing anything. The SEC now works entirely for ESPN, except for the one CBS game. And as a paid employee, the SEC will get far less than the B1G will get from its network, which truly is "its" network, since it owns a 50% stake.

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.

Maybe, but I bet they'll be in line with the BIG.

More importantly, what does that money for the BIG mean? They're not winning championships in football or basketball.

Can some one answer how adding programs in areas that are already forced to pay for a crappy network like The BTN increases revenue? If you look at cable listings for New Jersey and Maryland those folks have had The BTN since day 1.
CJ

(05-03-2013 01:59 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Can some one answer how adding programs in areas that are already forced to pay for a crappy network like The BTN increases revenue? If you look at cable listings for New Jersey and Maryland those folks have had The BTN since day 1.
CJ

Higher rate and a lower tier with more subs.

IIRC, $0.10/month in non-Big 10 states, $0.80/month and higher tier in Big 10 footprint.

(05-03-2013 01:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:04 PM)krup Wrote:  ESPN does NOT own:
1. The "first pick" SEC game each weekend which falls under the SEC/CBS deal
2. The one game per team (12 total) retained under tier 3
3, the 12-14 additional games brought by the A+M/Mizz expansion

It is number 2 and 3 that the SEC is contributing to the cable network and why they will be paid a lot more than the ACC, because ESPN already controls the rights to ALL ACC football games.

ESPN absolutely owns (3).

When conferences expand, they don't get to exclude from their existing TV contracts the additional games created by expansion. If the contract has a "renegotiation clause" in it, the conference might get some extra money out of expanding, but they don't have the right to sell the "extra" games on the open market.

Go ahead, try to tell ESPN that they don't have the right to broadcast Alabama at TAMU or Notre Dame at Florida State. When you tell them that, I'll be able to hear the laughter in Bristol all the way out here in California.

As a result of the existing contract, ESPN may "own" control of the rights to the additional games, but they had not completed a renegotiation to compensate the SEC for them. Compare that to the ACC who added Pitt/Syr then quickly did a renegotiation that brought the ESPN/ACC deal from 14 to 17mm.

What ESPN owed the SEC for the additional games was settled as part of the deal announced yesterday. The ACC has been compensated for everything (all of their TV rights, the Pitt/Syr addition. the ND arrangement) so they have less to bring to the table.

And the added Louisville and ND games?

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

(05-03-2013 01:36 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  2. is absolutely correct.
3 depends on the wording of the contract. ESPN may already have the rights to those as Wedge says.

ESPN definitely already has the rights to the ACC content. Last fall ESPN issued a clarifying statement that they had the right to broadcast every ACC event.

Unless I'm missing something, this articles reads as if the only thing ESPN doesn't control is the CBS game:

http://www.oregonlive.com/collegefootbal..._deal.html

For once, you're not missing anything. The SEC now works entirely for ESPN, except for the one CBS game. And as a paid employee, the SEC will get far less than the B1G will get from its network, which truly is "its" network, since it owns a 50% stake.

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.

They do have the issue of being bound to ESPN with the 2008 contract. But extending it 10 years changes the dynamics. Like ESPN said, you need to look at actuarial tables. SEC will get paid a substantial amount for going that far in the future. As for the equity stake, they would on average get a better return, but also take a higher risk. And they don't get to average that risk over a bunch of networks, just one. So they could end up doing much better than taking an equity stake. They will certainly get better short term revenues.

(05-03-2013 02:06 PM)IberianPanther Wrote:  IIRC, $0.10/month in non-Big 10 states, $0.80/month and higher tier in Big 10 footprint.

And the providers in Washington DC and New York aren't paying the premium for Maryland and Rutgers either. If they don't the Big Ten made a gigantic mistake adding those two.

(05-03-2013 02:12 PM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 02:06 PM)IberianPanther Wrote:  IIRC, $0.10/month in non-Big 10 states, $0.80/month and higher tier in Big 10 footprint.

And the providers in Washington DC and New York aren't paying the premium for Maryland and Rutgers either. If they don't the Big Ten made a gigantic mistake adding those two.

I think Delany was going to use to tactic of holding Maryland and Rutgers off the channel unless BTN was put on the basic tier. I wonder if they'll call his bluff.

(05-03-2013 02:08 PM)krup Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:04 PM)krup Wrote:  ESPN does NOT own:
1. The "first pick" SEC game each weekend which falls under the SEC/CBS deal
2. The one game per team (12 total) retained under tier 3
3, the 12-14 additional games brought by the A+M/Mizz expansion

It is number 2 and 3 that the SEC is contributing to the cable network and why they will be paid a lot more than the ACC, because ESPN already controls the rights to ALL ACC football games.

ESPN absolutely owns (3).

When conferences expand, they don't get to exclude from their existing TV contracts the additional games created by expansion. If the contract has a "renegotiation clause" in it, the conference might get some extra money out of expanding, but they don't have the right to sell the "extra" games on the open market.

Go ahead, try to tell ESPN that they don't have the right to broadcast Alabama at TAMU or Notre Dame at Florida State. When you tell them that, I'll be able to hear the laughter in Bristol all the way out here in California.

As a result of the existing contract, ESPN may "own" control of the rights to the additional games, but they had not completed a renegotiation to compensate the SEC for them. Compare that to the ACC who added Pitt/Syr then quickly did a renegotiation that brought the ESPN/ACC deal from 14 to 17mm.

What ESPN owed the SEC for the additional games was settled as part of the deal announced yesterday. The ACC has been compensated for everything (all of their TV rights, the Pitt/Syr addition. the ND arrangement) so they have less to bring to the table.

ACC went over 20 after they signed the GOR.

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

(05-03-2013 01:36 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  2. is absolutely correct.
3 depends on the wording of the contract. ESPN may already have the rights to those as Wedge says.

ESPN definitely already has the rights to the ACC content. Last fall ESPN issued a clarifying statement that they had the right to broadcast every ACC event.

Unless I'm missing something, this articles reads as if the only thing ESPN doesn't control is the CBS game:

http://www.oregonlive.com/collegefootbal..._deal.html

For once, you're not missing anything. The SEC now works entirely for ESPN, except for the one CBS game. And as a paid employee, the SEC will get far less than the B1G will get from its network, which truly is "its" network, since it owns a 50% stake.

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

(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:  

(05-03-2013 01:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Unless I'm missing something, this articles reads as if the only thing ESPN doesn't control is the CBS game:

http://www.oregonlive.com/collegefootbal..._deal.html

For once, you're not missing anything. The SEC now works entirely for ESPN, except for the one CBS game. And as a paid employee, the SEC will get far less than the B1G will get from its network, which truly is "its" network, since it owns a 50% stake.

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.

(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:  

(05-03-2013 01:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  For once, you're not missing anything. The SEC now works entirely for ESPN, except for the one CBS game. And as a paid employee, the SEC will get far less than the B1G will get from its network, which truly is "its" network, since it owns a 50% stake.

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

(05-03-2013 02:18 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 02:08 PM)krup Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:04 PM)krup Wrote:  ESPN does NOT own:
1. The "first pick" SEC game each weekend which falls under the SEC/CBS deal
2. The one game per team (12 total) retained under tier 3
3, the 12-14 additional games brought by the A+M/Mizz expansion

It is number 2 and 3 that the SEC is contributing to the cable network and why they will be paid a lot more than the ACC, because ESPN already controls the rights to ALL ACC football games.

ESPN absolutely owns (3).

When conferences expand, they don't get to exclude from their existing TV contracts the additional games created by expansion. If the contract has a "renegotiation clause" in it, the conference might get some extra money out of expanding, but they don't have the right to sell the "extra" games on the open market.

Go ahead, try to tell ESPN that they don't have the right to broadcast Alabama at TAMU or Notre Dame at Florida State. When you tell them that, I'll be able to hear the laughter in Bristol all the way out here in California.

As a result of the existing contract, ESPN may "own" control of the rights to the additional games, but they had not completed a renegotiation to compensate the SEC for them. Compare that to the ACC who added Pitt/Syr then quickly did a renegotiation that brought the ESPN/ACC deal from 14 to 17mm.

What ESPN owed the SEC for the additional games was settled as part of the deal announced yesterday. The ACC has been compensated for everything (all of their TV rights, the Pitt/Syr addition. the ND arrangement) so they have less to bring to the table.

ACC went over 20 after they signed the GOR.

Which is my point. The ACC previously sold all of their games to ESPN and was getting 14. Then they added games with Pitt/Syr and renegotiated and got 17. Then they did the Louisville/ND thing, renegotiated and got up to 20.

The SEC added games with A+M and Missouri before the ACC did either of those things, yet you never heard anything about their deal with ESPN being renegotiated. The SEC held back that chip to use in the negotiation over the cable network.

The ACC does not have a chip like that (let alone the other 12 tier 3 games the SEC controls) to play with ESPN, so they will get less than the SEC did.

(05-03-2013 05:45 PM)krup Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 02:18 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 02:08 PM)krup Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:04 PM)krup Wrote:  ESPN does NOT own:
1. The "first pick" SEC game each weekend which falls under the SEC/CBS deal
2. The one game per team (12 total) retained under tier 3
3, the 12-14 additional games brought by the A+M/Mizz expansion

It is number 2 and 3 that the SEC is contributing to the cable network and why they will be paid a lot more than the ACC, because ESPN already controls the rights to ALL ACC football games.

ESPN absolutely owns (3).

When conferences expand, they don't get to exclude from their existing TV contracts the additional games created by expansion. If the contract has a "renegotiation clause" in it, the conference might get some extra money out of expanding, but they don't have the right to sell the "extra" games on the open market.

Go ahead, try to tell ESPN that they don't have the right to broadcast Alabama at TAMU or Notre Dame at Florida State. When you tell them that, I'll be able to hear the laughter in Bristol all the way out here in California.

As a result of the existing contract, ESPN may "own" control of the rights to the additional games, but they had not completed a renegotiation to compensate the SEC for them. Compare that to the ACC who added Pitt/Syr then quickly did a renegotiation that brought the ESPN/ACC deal from 14 to 17mm.

What ESPN owed the SEC for the additional games was settled as part of the deal announced yesterday. The ACC has been compensated for everything (all of their TV rights, the Pitt/Syr addition. the ND arrangement) so they have less to bring to the table.

ACC went over 20 after they signed the GOR.

Which is my point. The ACC previously sold all of their games to ESPN and was getting 14. Then they added games with Pitt/Syr and renegotiated and got 17. Then they did the Louisville/ND thing, renegotiated and got up to 20.

The SEC added games with A+M and Missouri before the ACC did either of those things, yet you never heard anything about their deal with ESPN being renegotiated. The SEC held back that chip to use in the negotiation over the cable network.

The ACC does not have a chip like that (let alone the other 12 tier 3 games the SEC controls) to play with ESPN, so they will get less than the SEC did.

For the record, Pitt and SU moved it from 13 (12.9 I think) to 17 (17.14), not 14-17. I realize that's outside the scope of your point, but I thought that I would defend my school's contribution none the less. Anyway, back to the debate...

(05-03-2013 05:45 PM)krup Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 02:18 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 02:08 PM)krup Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:04 PM)krup Wrote:  ESPN does NOT own:
1. The "first pick" SEC game each weekend which falls under the SEC/CBS deal
2. The one game per team (12 total) retained under tier 3
3, the 12-14 additional games brought by the A+M/Mizz expansion

It is number 2 and 3 that the SEC is contributing to the cable network and why they will be paid a lot more than the ACC, because ESPN already controls the rights to ALL ACC football games.

ESPN absolutely owns (3).

When conferences expand, they don't get to exclude from their existing TV contracts the additional games created by expansion. If the contract has a "renegotiation clause" in it, the conference might get some extra money out of expanding, but they don't have the right to sell the "extra" games on the open market.

Go ahead, try to tell ESPN that they don't have the right to broadcast Alabama at TAMU or Notre Dame at Florida State. When you tell them that, I'll be able to hear the laughter in Bristol all the way out here in California.

As a result of the existing contract, ESPN may "own" control of the rights to the additional games, but they had not completed a renegotiation to compensate the SEC for them. Compare that to the ACC who added Pitt/Syr then quickly did a renegotiation that brought the ESPN/ACC deal from 14 to 17mm.

What ESPN owed the SEC for the additional games was settled as part of the deal announced yesterday. The ACC has been compensated for everything (all of their TV rights, the Pitt/Syr addition. the ND arrangement) so they have less to bring to the table.

ACC went over 20 after they signed the GOR.

Which is my point. The ACC previously sold all of their games to ESPN and was getting 14. Then they added games with Pitt/Syr and renegotiated and got 17. Then they did the Louisville/ND thing, renegotiated and got up to 20.

The SEC added games with A+M and Missouri before the ACC did either of those things, yet you never heard anything about their deal with ESPN being renegotiated. The SEC held back that chip to use in the negotiation over the cable network.

The ACC does not have a chip like that (let alone the other 12 tier 3 games the SEC controls) to play with ESPN, so they will get less than the SEC did.

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.

Guess I should should pick up my toys and go home.

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

(05-03-2013 09:01 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 05:45 PM)krup Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 02:18 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 02:08 PM)krup Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  ESPN absolutely owns (3).

When conferences expand, they don't get to exclude from their existing TV contracts the additional games created by expansion. If the contract has a "renegotiation clause" in it, the conference might get some extra money out of expanding, but they don't have the right to sell the "extra" games on the open market.

Go ahead, try to tell ESPN that they don't have the right to broadcast Alabama at TAMU or Notre Dame at Florida State. When you tell them that, I'll be able to hear the laughter in Bristol all the way out here in California.

As a result of the existing contract, ESPN may "own" control of the rights to the additional games, but they had not completed a renegotiation to compensate the SEC for them. Compare that to the ACC who added Pitt/Syr then quickly did a renegotiation that brought the ESPN/ACC deal from 14 to 17mm.

What ESPN owed the SEC for the additional games was settled as part of the deal announced yesterday. The ACC has been compensated for everything (all of their TV rights, the Pitt/Syr addition. the ND arrangement) so they have less to bring to the table.

ACC went over 20 after they signed the GOR.

Which is my point. The ACC previously sold all of their games to ESPN and was getting 14. Then they added games with Pitt/Syr and renegotiated and got 17. Then they did the Louisville/ND thing, renegotiated and got up to 20.

The SEC added games with A+M and Missouri before the ACC did either of those things, yet you never heard anything about their deal with ESPN being renegotiated. The SEC held back that chip to use in the negotiation over the cable network.

The ACC does not have a chip like that (let alone the other 12 tier 3 games the SEC controls) to play with ESPN, so they will get less than the SEC did.

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.

BIG and SEC may make the most money but let's hold off on the coronation. BIG hasn't won a national championship in football or basketball in over 10 years. Neither conference will dominate basketball. That distinction belongs to the ACC. At some point, someone will dethrone the SEC football dynasty. SEC will win their fair share of football titles but BIG, please.

(05-03-2013 01:49 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

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

(05-03-2013 01:36 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 01:28 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Unless I'm missing something, this articles reads as if the only thing ESPN doesn't control is the CBS game:

http://www.oregonlive.com/collegefootbal..._deal.html

For once, you're not missing anything. The SEC now works entirely for ESPN, except for the one CBS game. And as a paid employee, the SEC will get far less than the B1G will get from its network, which truly is "its" network, since it owns a 50% stake.

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.

Maybe, but I bet they'll be in line with the BIG.

More importantly, what does that money for the BIG mean? They're not winning championships in football or basketball.

Championships make fans feel good but athletic programs exist to promote a school, to help it make money.

(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.