Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Upper hand in future expansion: ESPN or the SEC?
Author Message
johnbragg Offline
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,358
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Upper hand in future expansion: ESPN or the SEC?
(05-26-2023 05:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-26-2023 04:37 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  
(05-26-2023 04:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-26-2023 04:01 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  
(05-26-2023 02:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  This entire post is based on the assumption that there is no provision made for any 9th game, the value it would bring, or expansion in the new SEC contract. Have you seen the contract Frank? Do you know the provisions? Or is this really just more speculative clap trap?

The SEC and ESPN do not operate by Frank the Tank's rules and opinions. Never have. Never will. I suspect you create this argument to defray from the colossal cluster of a foul up with the Big 10's current deal.

If the SEC wants to go to a ninth conference game I'm sure ESPN will negotiate it. Not having a 9th game isn't going to keep Auburn from playing Georgia, or Alabama playing Tennessee, or Texas from playing A&M. That's all hyperbole and that's it.

Now as to the OP, Mangus isn't going to admit to anything which is essentially tortuous interference. That little song and dance is now over 30 years old in this game. The bottom line is still the same. If the school doesn't add profit it isn't invited.

There is in business absolute value in how product is placed, with what other brands it is merchandised, and there is money to be made in shifting pieces. The question is not one of can it be used to earn more revenue. The question is one of what the cost is to do so. The answer will reside in that question and its answer.

The real hissy fit here is over whether the Big 10 ever has access to ACC schools. We are finding out real fast how little value is being declared in adding to the West from what has been the 5th most valuable of the P5 conferences and how little it helps the Big 10 to play catch up to the defections of Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. If the ACC schools are off the market for any reason or were to be merged with the SEC, it's game over for Big 10 aspirations and that is the impetus of the hissy fit.

The Big 10 misplayed its hand, and without Texas, Florida or Georgia recruiting can't really play catch up. It's bleeding house seats to Florida and Texas and in 2 generations those won't be Big 10 fans.

If ESPN can manage to figure out how to hold onto all that it has purchased rights to until 2036 it's a problem for the Big 10, especially if Notre Dame remains aloof. You have a marketing problem, and now a travel problem, and you just can't walk into any area in the South and say we are the Big 10 our academic alliance compels you to join us! Especially when the courts are distinguishing between academic and athletic associations and ruining the ruse of amateurism which the whole Academic/Athletic dichotomy was pinned to with the Big 10.

The world is shifting under your feet Frank and this time it is the North that is living with the past, not the South. How does that feel? And do you think the betrayal of the PAC 12 sits well with the ACC presidents? Do you think your mishandling of additions from the PAC 12 with regard to the contract now being walked back for correction instills confidence in Big 10 leadership?

I say whether the SEC plays 8 or 9 games and what ESPN decides to do in regard to that is a tempest in a teapot and no major rivalry games are at stake. That's an asinine assumption because the ADs would revolt should those games be lost. That is a strawman if ever there was one.

You'd better tend your own garden and quit worrying about ours. When the details of the SEC contract are available for all to discuss we can address them. Until then it's just hot air. And what if anything ESPN decides to do for or about the ACC is their business. And Disney isn't hurting for cash. Layoffs were made because of the uncertainty in the global financial picture. And if they wanted to spend another half billion on doing anything they won't miss it.

We'll see how fast we become a Super 2 and Power 2 or a Super 2 and power 1, but College football is a big ship, and its course has been picking up speed, it will take quite some time to turn it around if we are to head back, and nothing has ordered a course change. The SEC is in the most favorable position because the #1 conference grew out of #3's value. Now the #2 conference has grown out of the #5's value. What did you expect? And this is why you are so damned concerned over what now happens to #4 and finally realize that ESPN holding it until 2036 is a real problem for the Big 10.07-coffee3

I think these are both tempests in teapots. I mean, we're talking about some minor confusion on what games NBC would get in 2023 in November, the first year of a 7 year contract, being different than what people expected for the other 6 years. It's a nothing burger that's clearly getting resolved given the news we're seeing. And the whole Warren sold a conference championship game he couldn't makes ZERO sense given that FOX sat in on the negotiations and that info was public back when the deal was announced. So FOX saw and sat through all that and still LET Warren make that deal with NBC and publicly announce it? Makes 0 sense.

I don't think the ACC presidents see the PAC12 as being betrayed, given the ones at the big schools there are trying to break out of their GOR to join another conference. I don't see what was mishandled with the USCLA additions, since the snafu is about NBC 2023, not NBC 2024 once the LA schools are in the B1G.

It's weird to me that we can blow up any little turbulence into a "colossal cluster of a foul up" when it's not the SEC but if it's the SEC then we shoot down what's admittedly speculation about what X happening likely means about Y. I don't see why we cannot be self critical at all. Frank is making some pretty valid points I think. We don't know the exact ESPN contract, but if they aren't willing to pay more for a 9th conference game amongst these huge, valuable brands we already have, then it's unlikely that it's accretive to add any ACC teams. It's pretty sound logic.
So, you apologize for Frank and then attempt to make the same bogus point. You don't know that ESPN will not pay for a 9th game, or if the SEC intends to play one, or if the contract has provided for it. You don't know. Which is precisely why I responded as I did about what we do know.

The Big 10's contracts were screwed up. When has that ever happened before? And there is a piece by a reporter today, may be Dodds, which points out that the Big 10 had already been paid for part of what it is claiming in its media revenue which makes the amounts suspect. These are real issues. These aren't speculations. Whether ESPN will pay the SEC for 8 or 9 games, or if it is in the contract, is mere speculation. But do continue to carry the Big 10 water!

I'll be self-critical of the SEC when there is evidence that I need to be. The contract foul up is a fact. The disputed portions which may have already been paid is a question to be answered. Speculation would be did Notre Dame not joining stop further Westward expansion for the Big 10. That would be speculation. Was Warren's deal predicated upon the Irish to pay for Oregon and Washington's full shares? That would be speculation. Did I pounce on those matters are just call them into question when it first happened?

The reality here is that the Big 10 has an actual problem to address. The SEC does not. Even at 8 games the hyperbole that Georgia and Auburn would not play or Tennessee and Alabama would not play, or Texas and A&M is the sky screaming hysterical misdirection of events. ADs would have already blown up in the SEC if there was anything to this nonsense.

You're always the one that's saying people should stop shooting things down and work together because there's always a way when people want the same thing. Which is what's going to happen with the Big Ten deals, and incorporating the LA schools. It's not carrying the Big Ten's water to point out that they aren't an incompetent entity that's bumblefcking their way to revenue and mindshare parity with the SEC despite the fact that they lose to them all the time, every year, in everything. It's not underestimating your adversary.

I don't think the Big Ten has ever actually claimed publicly what the upcoming revenue is going to be. Find me anything about future revenue amounts here: https://bigten.org/news/2022/8/18/genera...story.aspx

ESPN speculated over $7B, The Athletic speculated over $8B, no one knows officially. We cannot just attribute a claim to an entity that didn't make it because someone else said they did. And do we really, really give a crap if the B1G is making slightly more or less media revenue than us? THEY DON'T WIN ANYTHING! Who cares?

I know I don't know those things about the 9th game for a fact. I don't know if the SEC is going to decide to play it, if ESPN wants to pay more for it, or if it's even mentioned in the contract. Which is exactly my point of speculation, if the SEC will only play a 9th game if ESPN ponies up for it, and ESPN declines to pony up for it (whether by breaking a contracted rule or refusing to renegotiate upward) that would indicate that ESPN either does not find sufficient value in the 9th game OR they do not have the money to spend. And this is fine logically, because I'm speculating on the premise, my assumptions, and potential outcomes and what they could mean. I'm not claiming any of it as fact, I'm literally weaving a whole scenario with speculation BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THOSE FACTS, and without the facts, the measure to evaluate is if any part of my premise or assumptions isn't plausible. But hey, instead go off about me being a B1G stooge again. Both conferences would be well served to deeply understand the other, and in the same way that Ohio State is the most SEC like B1G school, you could consider Vanderbilt the most (not that it's much at all though) B1G school.


But here's the key point I hope everyone thinks about as it pertains to a 9th game: Can you explain to me how we are going to pick what two teams make the conference championship game in a divisionless setup with only 8 conference games to have a record from? I've only back of the napkin'ed the math, but unless my math is terrible then the likelihood of 4+ 7-1 teams is materially higher than the likelihood of 4+ 8-1 teams. I think it's impossible to get 3+ 8-0 teams with a 1/7/7 schedule but I do think it's possible to get 3+ 8-0 teams with a schedule based on locking 3 annual opponents and rotating the rest.

Just something to chew on. What happens if Texas is 8-0, Alabama is 8-0, and Georgia is 8-0?

Hooey. 1.1 billion, richest deal ever, all of it was all over the news just days after they signed it. Go back and google it. I'll go back later and look for an actual Big 10 source, if there's not one, it is no different from the SEC's situation. But somebody told the press something somewhere or they wouldn't have run with it.

The SBJ's speculation is all that was said about the SEC's numbers.

But none of this changes the fact that the Big 10 has 2 schools on an L.A. Island, nobody else to the West to help those two schools with travel, and what was anticipated didn't happen, the rights to which product at what time were confused for NBC, Notre Dame didn't join, and now the most compelling targets "seem" to be to the East. And in that mix the Big 10 placed a put to sell another 10% of the Big 10 Network to FOX. That had to detract from BTN earnings payouts since FOX now holds 61% of the rights. And then there were significant COVID losses in revenue to boot.

Somewhere in that morass of information resides an explanation as to why we are where we are in this process. And none of it has a thing to do with the SEC or how many games it plays. The whole post which started this was what we once all knew universally as a red herring. And you know that too. My aim is to refocus the issue back on the action, which is tied up in what is going on with the NBC/Big 10 contract and its resolution. I'm sure the other detail will work itself out like a splinter in the next few days.

I was right about Texas's move, right about a Big 10 raid on the PAC 12, right about amateurism and likely pay for play, and right about general structure issues 10 years ago. Maybe somebody should figure out eventually that I may actually know what I'm talking about and then wonder why that's so?

I'm also right about outside paradigm shifts and their impact, though 10 years ago nobody believed that either.

It's going to work itself out whether we like it or not, and motives other than football (athletics) and AAU (academics) are in play. Brand and market has been the SEC's strategy. It has worked very well for us. We will stay the course.

The thread title is about the SEC and ESPN though.

I;ve lost track of what post might have derailed onto what though.
05-26-2023 06:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Upper hand in future expansion: ESPN or the SEC?
(05-26-2023 06:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(05-26-2023 05:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-26-2023 04:37 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  
(05-26-2023 04:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-26-2023 04:01 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  I think these are both tempests in teapots. I mean, we're talking about some minor confusion on what games NBC would get in 2023 in November, the first year of a 7 year contract, being different than what people expected for the other 6 years. It's a nothing burger that's clearly getting resolved given the news we're seeing. And the whole Warren sold a conference championship game he couldn't makes ZERO sense given that FOX sat in on the negotiations and that info was public back when the deal was announced. So FOX saw and sat through all that and still LET Warren make that deal with NBC and publicly announce it? Makes 0 sense.

I don't think the ACC presidents see the PAC12 as being betrayed, given the ones at the big schools there are trying to break out of their GOR to join another conference. I don't see what was mishandled with the USCLA additions, since the snafu is about NBC 2023, not NBC 2024 once the LA schools are in the B1G.

It's weird to me that we can blow up any little turbulence into a "colossal cluster of a foul up" when it's not the SEC but if it's the SEC then we shoot down what's admittedly speculation about what X happening likely means about Y. I don't see why we cannot be self critical at all. Frank is making some pretty valid points I think. We don't know the exact ESPN contract, but if they aren't willing to pay more for a 9th conference game amongst these huge, valuable brands we already have, then it's unlikely that it's accretive to add any ACC teams. It's pretty sound logic.
So, you apologize for Frank and then attempt to make the same bogus point. You don't know that ESPN will not pay for a 9th game, or if the SEC intends to play one, or if the contract has provided for it. You don't know. Which is precisely why I responded as I did about what we do know.

The Big 10's contracts were screwed up. When has that ever happened before? And there is a piece by a reporter today, may be Dodds, which points out that the Big 10 had already been paid for part of what it is claiming in its media revenue which makes the amounts suspect. These are real issues. These aren't speculations. Whether ESPN will pay the SEC for 8 or 9 games, or if it is in the contract, is mere speculation. But do continue to carry the Big 10 water!

I'll be self-critical of the SEC when there is evidence that I need to be. The contract foul up is a fact. The disputed portions which may have already been paid is a question to be answered. Speculation would be did Notre Dame not joining stop further Westward expansion for the Big 10. That would be speculation. Was Warren's deal predicated upon the Irish to pay for Oregon and Washington's full shares? That would be speculation. Did I pounce on those matters are just call them into question when it first happened?

The reality here is that the Big 10 has an actual problem to address. The SEC does not. Even at 8 games the hyperbole that Georgia and Auburn would not play or Tennessee and Alabama would not play, or Texas and A&M is the sky screaming hysterical misdirection of events. ADs would have already blown up in the SEC if there was anything to this nonsense.

You're always the one that's saying people should stop shooting things down and work together because there's always a way when people want the same thing. Which is what's going to happen with the Big Ten deals, and incorporating the LA schools. It's not carrying the Big Ten's water to point out that they aren't an incompetent entity that's bumblefcking their way to revenue and mindshare parity with the SEC despite the fact that they lose to them all the time, every year, in everything. It's not underestimating your adversary.

I don't think the Big Ten has ever actually claimed publicly what the upcoming revenue is going to be. Find me anything about future revenue amounts here: https://bigten.org/news/2022/8/18/genera...story.aspx

ESPN speculated over $7B, The Athletic speculated over $8B, no one knows officially. We cannot just attribute a claim to an entity that didn't make it because someone else said they did. And do we really, really give a crap if the B1G is making slightly more or less media revenue than us? THEY DON'T WIN ANYTHING! Who cares?

I know I don't know those things about the 9th game for a fact. I don't know if the SEC is going to decide to play it, if ESPN wants to pay more for it, or if it's even mentioned in the contract. Which is exactly my point of speculation, if the SEC will only play a 9th game if ESPN ponies up for it, and ESPN declines to pony up for it (whether by breaking a contracted rule or refusing to renegotiate upward) that would indicate that ESPN either does not find sufficient value in the 9th game OR they do not have the money to spend. And this is fine logically, because I'm speculating on the premise, my assumptions, and potential outcomes and what they could mean. I'm not claiming any of it as fact, I'm literally weaving a whole scenario with speculation BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THOSE FACTS, and without the facts, the measure to evaluate is if any part of my premise or assumptions isn't plausible. But hey, instead go off about me being a B1G stooge again. Both conferences would be well served to deeply understand the other, and in the same way that Ohio State is the most SEC like B1G school, you could consider Vanderbilt the most (not that it's much at all though) B1G school.


But here's the key point I hope everyone thinks about as it pertains to a 9th game: Can you explain to me how we are going to pick what two teams make the conference championship game in a divisionless setup with only 8 conference games to have a record from? I've only back of the napkin'ed the math, but unless my math is terrible then the likelihood of 4+ 7-1 teams is materially higher than the likelihood of 4+ 8-1 teams. I think it's impossible to get 3+ 8-0 teams with a 1/7/7 schedule but I do think it's possible to get 3+ 8-0 teams with a schedule based on locking 3 annual opponents and rotating the rest.

Just something to chew on. What happens if Texas is 8-0, Alabama is 8-0, and Georgia is 8-0?

Hooey. 1.1 billion, richest deal ever, all of it was all over the news just days after they signed it. Go back and google it. I'll go back later and look for an actual Big 10 source, if there's not one, it is no different from the SEC's situation. But somebody told the press something somewhere or they wouldn't have run with it.

The SBJ's speculation is all that was said about the SEC's numbers.

But none of this changes the fact that the Big 10 has 2 schools on an L.A. Island, nobody else to the West to help those two schools with travel, and what was anticipated didn't happen, the rights to which product at what time were confused for NBC, Notre Dame didn't join, and now the most compelling targets "seem" to be to the East. And in that mix the Big 10 placed a put to sell another 10% of the Big 10 Network to FOX. That had to detract from BTN earnings payouts since FOX now holds 61% of the rights. And then there were significant COVID losses in revenue to boot.

Somewhere in that morass of information resides an explanation as to why we are where we are in this process. And none of it has a thing to do with the SEC or how many games it plays. The whole post which started this was what we once all knew universally as a red herring. And you know that too. My aim is to refocus the issue back on the action, which is tied up in what is going on with the NBC/Big 10 contract and its resolution. I'm sure the other detail will work itself out like a splinter in the next few days.

I was right about Texas's move, right about a Big 10 raid on the PAC 12, right about amateurism and likely pay for play, and right about general structure issues 10 years ago. Maybe somebody should figure out eventually that I may actually know what I'm talking about and then wonder why that's so?

I'm also right about outside paradigm shifts and their impact, though 10 years ago nobody believed that either.

It's going to work itself out whether we like it or not, and motives other than football (athletics) and AAU (academics) are in play. Brand and market has been the SEC's strategy. It has worked very well for us. We will stay the course.

The thread title is about the SEC and ESPN though.

I;ve lost track of what post might have derailed onto what though.

Post #2. Next to last sentence. A tag on to an otherwise obvious statement.
And to answer the OP, right now the SEC's objectives and ESPN's objectives share a common trajectory, and have since 2011.
05-26-2023 06:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,358
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Upper hand in future expansion: ESPN or the SEC?
(05-26-2023 06:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-26-2023 06:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(05-26-2023 05:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-26-2023 04:37 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  
(05-26-2023 04:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So, you apologize for Frank and then attempt to make the same bogus point. You don't know that ESPN will not pay for a 9th game, or if the SEC intends to play one, or if the contract has provided for it. You don't know. Which is precisely why I responded as I did about what we do know.

The Big 10's contracts were screwed up. When has that ever happened before? And there is a piece by a reporter today, may be Dodds, which points out that the Big 10 had already been paid for part of what it is claiming in its media revenue which makes the amounts suspect. These are real issues. These aren't speculations. Whether ESPN will pay the SEC for 8 or 9 games, or if it is in the contract, is mere speculation. But do continue to carry the Big 10 water!

I'll be self-critical of the SEC when there is evidence that I need to be. The contract foul up is a fact. The disputed portions which may have already been paid is a question to be answered. Speculation would be did Notre Dame not joining stop further Westward expansion for the Big 10. That would be speculation. Was Warren's deal predicated upon the Irish to pay for Oregon and Washington's full shares? That would be speculation. Did I pounce on those matters are just call them into question when it first happened?

The reality here is that the Big 10 has an actual problem to address. The SEC does not. Even at 8 games the hyperbole that Georgia and Auburn would not play or Tennessee and Alabama would not play, or Texas and A&M is the sky screaming hysterical misdirection of events. ADs would have already blown up in the SEC if there was anything to this nonsense.

You're always the one that's saying people should stop shooting things down and work together because there's always a way when people want the same thing. Which is what's going to happen with the Big Ten deals, and incorporating the LA schools. It's not carrying the Big Ten's water to point out that they aren't an incompetent entity that's bumblefcking their way to revenue and mindshare parity with the SEC despite the fact that they lose to them all the time, every year, in everything. It's not underestimating your adversary.

I don't think the Big Ten has ever actually claimed publicly what the upcoming revenue is going to be. Find me anything about future revenue amounts here: https://bigten.org/news/2022/8/18/genera...story.aspx

ESPN speculated over $7B, The Athletic speculated over $8B, no one knows officially. We cannot just attribute a claim to an entity that didn't make it because someone else said they did. And do we really, really give a crap if the B1G is making slightly more or less media revenue than us? THEY DON'T WIN ANYTHING! Who cares?

I know I don't know those things about the 9th game for a fact. I don't know if the SEC is going to decide to play it, if ESPN wants to pay more for it, or if it's even mentioned in the contract. Which is exactly my point of speculation, if the SEC will only play a 9th game if ESPN ponies up for it, and ESPN declines to pony up for it (whether by breaking a contracted rule or refusing to renegotiate upward) that would indicate that ESPN either does not find sufficient value in the 9th game OR they do not have the money to spend. And this is fine logically, because I'm speculating on the premise, my assumptions, and potential outcomes and what they could mean. I'm not claiming any of it as fact, I'm literally weaving a whole scenario with speculation BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THOSE FACTS, and without the facts, the measure to evaluate is if any part of my premise or assumptions isn't plausible. But hey, instead go off about me being a B1G stooge again. Both conferences would be well served to deeply understand the other, and in the same way that Ohio State is the most SEC like B1G school, you could consider Vanderbilt the most (not that it's much at all though) B1G school.


But here's the key point I hope everyone thinks about as it pertains to a 9th game: Can you explain to me how we are going to pick what two teams make the conference championship game in a divisionless setup with only 8 conference games to have a record from? I've only back of the napkin'ed the math, but unless my math is terrible then the likelihood of 4+ 7-1 teams is materially higher than the likelihood of 4+ 8-1 teams. I think it's impossible to get 3+ 8-0 teams with a 1/7/7 schedule but I do think it's possible to get 3+ 8-0 teams with a schedule based on locking 3 annual opponents and rotating the rest.

Just something to chew on. What happens if Texas is 8-0, Alabama is 8-0, and Georgia is 8-0?

Hooey. 1.1 billion, richest deal ever, all of it was all over the news just days after they signed it. Go back and google it. I'll go back later and look for an actual Big 10 source, if there's not one, it is no different from the SEC's situation. But somebody told the press something somewhere or they wouldn't have run with it.

The SBJ's speculation is all that was said about the SEC's numbers.

But none of this changes the fact that the Big 10 has 2 schools on an L.A. Island, nobody else to the West to help those two schools with travel, and what was anticipated didn't happen, the rights to which product at what time were confused for NBC, Notre Dame didn't join, and now the most compelling targets "seem" to be to the East. And in that mix the Big 10 placed a put to sell another 10% of the Big 10 Network to FOX. That had to detract from BTN earnings payouts since FOX now holds 61% of the rights. And then there were significant COVID losses in revenue to boot.

Somewhere in that morass of information resides an explanation as to why we are where we are in this process. And none of it has a thing to do with the SEC or how many games it plays. The whole post which started this was what we once all knew universally as a red herring. And you know that too. My aim is to refocus the issue back on the action, which is tied up in what is going on with the NBC/Big 10 contract and its resolution. I'm sure the other detail will work itself out like a splinter in the next few days.

I was right about Texas's move, right about a Big 10 raid on the PAC 12, right about amateurism and likely pay for play, and right about general structure issues 10 years ago. Maybe somebody should figure out eventually that I may actually know what I'm talking about and then wonder why that's so?

I'm also right about outside paradigm shifts and their impact, though 10 years ago nobody believed that either.

It's going to work itself out whether we like it or not, and motives other than football (athletics) and AAU (academics) are in play. Brand and market has been the SEC's strategy. It has worked very well for us. We will stay the course.

The thread title is about the SEC and ESPN though.

I;ve lost track of what post might have derailed onto what though.

Post #2. Next to last sentence. A tag on to an otherwise obvious statement.

Here's the post, next to last sentence highlighted.

(05-26-2023 09:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Without ESPN, there is no additional money for the SEC. The SEC can’t go to the open market. As we see in the other thread, it’s an open question whether ESPN will even fund a 9th SEC conference game with freaking Texas and Oklahoma (who are more valuable brands than FSU and Clemson). If ESPN won’t kick in money so that UT-A&M is reinstated or preserving games like Alabama-Tennessee or UGA-Auburn, then they’re showing me that the extra value of adding games like FSU-UGA or Clemson-Alabama actually is NOT as important as keeping costs down. ESPN can instantly get a bunch of more marquee college football games with the SEC *now* but they’re wavering on spending anything on it.

That seems entirely on-topic for the thread on who has the power, SEC or ESPN. ESPN has (has had) the power because they control the purse strings and can (could) lay enough money on the table to persuade most anybody in sports of most anything. But they can't any more.

ESPN still "has the power" relative to the SEC, but it's working in a different direction now. ESPN's decision still stands, but ESPN is now constrained by Wall STreet.

Quote:And to answer the OP, right now the SEC's objectives and ESPN's objectives share a common trajectory, and have since 2011.

Fair enough. that's a theme you have explained in detail.
05-26-2023 06:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Upper hand in future expansion: ESPN or the SEC?
(05-26-2023 06:54 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(05-26-2023 06:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-26-2023 06:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(05-26-2023 05:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-26-2023 04:37 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  You're always the one that's saying people should stop shooting things down and work together because there's always a way when people want the same thing. Which is what's going to happen with the Big Ten deals, and incorporating the LA schools. It's not carrying the Big Ten's water to point out that they aren't an incompetent entity that's bumblefcking their way to revenue and mindshare parity with the SEC despite the fact that they lose to them all the time, every year, in everything. It's not underestimating your adversary.

I don't think the Big Ten has ever actually claimed publicly what the upcoming revenue is going to be. Find me anything about future revenue amounts here: https://bigten.org/news/2022/8/18/genera...story.aspx

ESPN speculated over $7B, The Athletic speculated over $8B, no one knows officially. We cannot just attribute a claim to an entity that didn't make it because someone else said they did. And do we really, really give a crap if the B1G is making slightly more or less media revenue than us? THEY DON'T WIN ANYTHING! Who cares?

I know I don't know those things about the 9th game for a fact. I don't know if the SEC is going to decide to play it, if ESPN wants to pay more for it, or if it's even mentioned in the contract. Which is exactly my point of speculation, if the SEC will only play a 9th game if ESPN ponies up for it, and ESPN declines to pony up for it (whether by breaking a contracted rule or refusing to renegotiate upward) that would indicate that ESPN either does not find sufficient value in the 9th game OR they do not have the money to spend. And this is fine logically, because I'm speculating on the premise, my assumptions, and potential outcomes and what they could mean. I'm not claiming any of it as fact, I'm literally weaving a whole scenario with speculation BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THOSE FACTS, and without the facts, the measure to evaluate is if any part of my premise or assumptions isn't plausible. But hey, instead go off about me being a B1G stooge again. Both conferences would be well served to deeply understand the other, and in the same way that Ohio State is the most SEC like B1G school, you could consider Vanderbilt the most (not that it's much at all though) B1G school.


But here's the key point I hope everyone thinks about as it pertains to a 9th game: Can you explain to me how we are going to pick what two teams make the conference championship game in a divisionless setup with only 8 conference games to have a record from? I've only back of the napkin'ed the math, but unless my math is terrible then the likelihood of 4+ 7-1 teams is materially higher than the likelihood of 4+ 8-1 teams. I think it's impossible to get 3+ 8-0 teams with a 1/7/7 schedule but I do think it's possible to get 3+ 8-0 teams with a schedule based on locking 3 annual opponents and rotating the rest.

Just something to chew on. What happens if Texas is 8-0, Alabama is 8-0, and Georgia is 8-0?

Hooey. 1.1 billion, richest deal ever, all of it was all over the news just days after they signed it. Go back and google it. I'll go back later and look for an actual Big 10 source, if there's not one, it is no different from the SEC's situation. But somebody told the press something somewhere or they wouldn't have run with it.

The SBJ's speculation is all that was said about the SEC's numbers.

But none of this changes the fact that the Big 10 has 2 schools on an L.A. Island, nobody else to the West to help those two schools with travel, and what was anticipated didn't happen, the rights to which product at what time were confused for NBC, Notre Dame didn't join, and now the most compelling targets "seem" to be to the East. And in that mix the Big 10 placed a put to sell another 10% of the Big 10 Network to FOX. That had to detract from BTN earnings payouts since FOX now holds 61% of the rights. And then there were significant COVID losses in revenue to boot.

Somewhere in that morass of information resides an explanation as to why we are where we are in this process. And none of it has a thing to do with the SEC or how many games it plays. The whole post which started this was what we once all knew universally as a red herring. And you know that too. My aim is to refocus the issue back on the action, which is tied up in what is going on with the NBC/Big 10 contract and its resolution. I'm sure the other detail will work itself out like a splinter in the next few days.

I was right about Texas's move, right about a Big 10 raid on the PAC 12, right about amateurism and likely pay for play, and right about general structure issues 10 years ago. Maybe somebody should figure out eventually that I may actually know what I'm talking about and then wonder why that's so?

I'm also right about outside paradigm shifts and their impact, though 10 years ago nobody believed that either.

It's going to work itself out whether we like it or not, and motives other than football (athletics) and AAU (academics) are in play. Brand and market has been the SEC's strategy. It has worked very well for us. We will stay the course.

The thread title is about the SEC and ESPN though.

I;ve lost track of what post might have derailed onto what though.

Post #2. Next to last sentence. A tag on to an otherwise obvious statement.

Here's the post, next to last sentence highlighted.

(05-26-2023 09:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Without ESPN, there is no additional money for the SEC. The SEC can’t go to the open market. As we see in the other thread, it’s an open question whether ESPN will even fund a 9th SEC conference game with freaking Texas and Oklahoma (who are more valuable brands than FSU and Clemson). If ESPN won’t kick in money so that UT-A&M is reinstated or preserving games like Alabama-Tennessee or UGA-Auburn, then they’re showing me that the extra value of adding games like FSU-UGA or Clemson-Alabama actually is NOT as important as keeping costs down. ESPN can instantly get a bunch of more marquee college football games with the SEC *now* but they’re wavering on spending anything on it.

That seems entirely on-topic for the thread on who has the power, SEC or ESPN. ESPN has (has had) the power because they control the purse strings and can (could) lay enough money on the table to persuade most anybody in sports of most anything. But they can't any more.

ESPN still "has the power" relative to the SEC, but it's working in a different direction now. ESPN's decision still stands, but ESPN is now constrained by Wall STreet.

Quote:And to answer the OP, right now the SEC's objectives and ESPN's objectives share a common trajectory, and have since 2011.

Fair enough. that's a theme you have explained in detail.

Yeah I can see where Pete tied it in at the last of the OP. The 8 or 9 games is a non story which is 2 years old. The introduction of that was a red herring. But it is the theme of Frank's latest blog.

People conveniently forget the SEC contract was completed before Texas and Oklahoma announced. The pro rata contingency was there for just such additions. According to an Ad exec whose company handles Disney and Coca-Cola there are many contingencies in the contract which exist for future possibilities. I doubt any of us will know what we are looking at in terms of real numbers until the Spring Meeting of the SEC 2025.

Right now the only thing of significance which is going on is with the Big 10 in what I will refer to as sideshow #1. Contract details and clear information with reporting the amounts are the issue and it seems to have picked up some more steam. It is significant because PAC 12 members will not act until they know the final disposition of that matter and whether or not Washington and /or Oregon are potentials for a move.

What the ACC does or doesn't do will not involve the SEC as anything but possibly a beneficiary of some or all of it, but the SEC will not pursue, encourage, or offer until whatever entanglements the ACC and ESPN have are overcome. And then ESPN will likely have a good deal to say if anything happens. There are far more ways to skin that cat than Frank and others like to let on. Again, GOR cases are about monetary damages. If ESPN works out a way to cover it so that there are no damages exit fees would be the only thing in order. That's side show #2 but doesn't involve the SEC, and certainly doesn't involve the Big 10. It does involve ESPN and the ACC. When they work it out, they'll let the SEC know if ESPN requires their assistance in any of it. Until the SEC gets that call there's nothing it will be involved with to the East.
05-26-2023 07:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Upper hand in future expansion: ESPN or the SEC?
(05-26-2023 09:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ESPN is the one paying the bills.

ESPN has the super-favorable ACC contract where there is absolutely no rational interest for them to end it outside of Magnificent 7/SEC (or even Big Ten) fans trying to paint a biased picture of how the ACC breaking apart is somehow financially favorable to the Walt Disney Company that is in austerity mode right now.

Without ESPN, there is no additional money for the SEC. The SEC can’t go to the open market. As we see in the other thread, it’s an open question whether ESPN will even fund a 9th SEC conference game with freaking Texas and Oklahoma (who are more valuable brands than FSU and Clemson). If ESPN won’t kick in money so that UT-A&M is reinstated or preserving games like Alabama-Tennessee or UGA-Auburn, then they’re showing me that the extra value of adding games like FSU-UGA or Clemson-Alabama actually is NOT as important as keeping costs down. ESPN can instantly get a bunch of more marquee college football games with the SEC *now* but they’re wavering on spending anything on it.

Frank,

Do you honestly believe the powers that be in the SEC want to avoid playing games like Texas/Texas A&M, Alabama/Tennessee, Auburn/Georgia, and any other great match-up? Of course they don't want that. They've gone to great lengths in the past to play significant rivalry games and obviously part of the purpose in adding Texas and Oklahoma is to create more must-see games.

So what's the play here?

You know as well as I do they could easily create a format that preserves those games. There's no quantum physics involved in that equation. It's called a negotiating tactic.

True enough that ESPN doesn't want to pay for a 9th SEC game. It doesn't mean they won't, but they're not in the habit of forking over extra cash unless it's in the process of creating a new contract. The SEC knows that, but they have no motivation to add a 9th quality set of games if they're not going to get paid to do it.

So what is the SEC to do?

They threaten ESPN by restricting games that the Mouse wholeheartedly wants, games they intentionally paid for when they bought the rights. ESPN doesn't want to pay the going rate for a 9th game? That's fine, says the SEC. We'll just reduce the games you really want, ESPN, until you change your mind.

It's a simple chess move. Could easily be a bluff, but not much to lose in trying.

It's partially true that ESPN is in austerity mode. They're not going to spend with as much freedom for the foreseeable future, but they're always willing to spend strategically. For a company that's been sliding for a couple of years(not just one quarter), they've certainly been more careful.

But the distribution models are changing...the technology is changing...the overall economic outlook is changing...and even the nature of college athletics is changing. The reality is that linear networks will begin to go offline more frequently in the coming years. That means the number of meaningful and potentially profitable broadcast windows will shrink quite a bit. At what point does a media conglomerate begin competing against itself for viewers when cable subscriptions are dropping and demographic changes are altering the target audience?

ESPN's desire to go over the top will be another significant disruption, and it probably won't be smooth sailing. Either way, it will have to be done and this will alter the cost/benefit ratio of any contract on the books or any in the works.

Point being, adding key ACC properties to the SEC will likely cost more money, but it will also be a more efficient and appropriate utilization of broadcast windows. It will create greater synergy in the marketplace which is needed if you want to effectively sell a product to a broad audience. There was a time when pitting all the conferences against each other was the most profitable because ESPN had ample space to broadcast into various regions at one time. The viewer could be more picky and so ESPN wasn't really competing with itself...the conferences were competing with each other.

As time passes, the major conferences aren't playing the same game and all the external changes to athletics themselves are basically requiring as much consolidation as they can make happen. Remember that the NCAA is effectively neutered. There isn't a true governing body anymore and in the absence of Federal/Congressional guidelines, the major conferences have to take it upon themselves to create a system that can legally govern the various sports.

And there you have it. It's a confluence of priorities and realities. I never said this was ESPN's grand design or that of anyone else. Nonetheless, it is a reality that requires the revisiting of what's already on the books.

Now, you can call all that irrational if you like, but I haven't seen you make an effort to debunk it. You and others just keep repeating that the ACC contract is "favorable" and "you don't pay more for what you already own." There's really nothing wrong with those propositions on their face, but they assume too many constants. That's always the problem with ironclad statements...no room for variables.
05-27-2023 01:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,175
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 679
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #46
RE: Upper hand in future expansion: ESPN or the SEC?
(05-26-2023 06:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Post #2. Next to last sentence. A tag on to an otherwise obvious statement.
And to answer the OP, right now the SEC's objectives and ESPN's objectives share a common trajectory, and have since 2011.

As you like to say the world has indeed changed. And one of those changes is ESPN's relationship with the SEC. They may have been in lock step in the past, but it looks increasingly like the SEC has priced itself (justifiably) so high that ESPN has topped out its CFB budget. So that alignment from 2011 until now, is coming to an end. The trajectories are no longer aligned.

ESPN is pushing back on the ACC in efforts to get more money, scaled back interest in the Pac-12 to an interest in only a sliver and won't pay much (presumably a generic P5 4th window game at what the Pac-12 views as a submarket price), and more to the point has given the SEC no promise of any additional money to give up maybe 6-8 home games a year, plus possibly have one or two less bowl eligible schools to pay for a 9th conference game, despite it adding several more monster matchups.

This lack of support for a 9th game, is a clear signal that the trajectories are no longer aligned. The free flow of Disney/ESPN money into the SEC is over. The SEC is too expensive, has too much quality inventory, such that ESPN's CFB budget is completely consumed with the current setup and they alone cannot pay for expansion.

Your premise is dead, because the world has indeed changed.
05-27-2023 03:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Upper hand in future expansion: ESPN or the SEC?
(05-27-2023 03:28 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(05-26-2023 06:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Post #2. Next to last sentence. A tag on to an otherwise obvious statement.
And to answer the OP, right now the SEC's objectives and ESPN's objectives share a common trajectory, and have since 2011.

As you like to say the world has indeed changed. And one of those changes is ESPN's relationship with the SEC. They may have been in lock step in the past, but it looks increasingly like the SEC has priced itself (justifiably) so high that ESPN has topped out its CFB budget. So that alignment from 2011 until now, is coming to an end. The trajectories are no longer aligned.

ESPN is pushing back on the ACC in efforts to get more money, scaled back interest in the Pac-12 to an interest in only a sliver and won't pay much (presumably a generic P5 4th window game at what the Pac-12 views as a submarket price), and more to the point has given the SEC no promise of any additional money to give up maybe 6-8 home games a year, plus possibly have one or two less bowl eligible schools to pay for a 9th conference game, despite it adding several more monster matchups.

This lack of support for a 9th game, is a clear signal that the trajectories are no longer aligned. The free flow of Disney/ESPN money into the SEC is over. The SEC is too expensive, has too much quality inventory, such that ESPN's CFB budget is completely consumed with the current setup and they alone cannot pay for expansion.

Your premise is dead, because the world has indeed changed.

You are entitled to your opinion Stu and that is what this is as there is nothing substantive to back the claim. You will be wrong and time will bear that out. If I see a change I will be glad to speak about it. FOX is on shakier ground than ESPN and the SEC loaned every conference member 23 million for COVID help. They didn't have to sell anything, like another 10% interest in the BTN to do it.

Sankey has addressed the emphasis of any future additions. Restore and preserve rivalries. The two will remain in lockstep should there be any moves. And when the Spring meeting is over this 2 year old made up issue over number of conference games will die again.

ESPN simply had no need to pay the PAC 12 for poor ratings, and they will be able to pick up what they need for less to fill that late night slot. They haven't cut back on the ACC. Their payouts are as scheduled and incrementally increase. The SEC is well positioned too no matter what else happens. We have the premier recruiting grounds and I believe 15 of our earners are in the top 50 with most in the top 20. Attendance is strong and donations are good.

As for ESPN they still have deep pockets. And streamlining overhead is a justification for consolidation. You can save money by eliminating duplicated expenses and until unequal revenue is addressed, if it is addressed, we may see a pause on expansion, but the time to make more money is now because the closer you get to 2036 the less there will be of it from the disposable income of the middle class. That's why my premise is still alive for now. The time to glean the fields is now.
(This post was last modified: 05-27-2023 05:52 AM by JRsec.)
05-27-2023 05:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.