Let’s see here, if OTA Fox had a a weekly line up of:

#1/#2 Big Ten game in alternating weeks at Noon
#1 SEC game at 3:30
A PAC 12 game in prime time (not sure the nature of the picks they own in that deal)

That’s a pretty dominant line up. Sure, they may lose the ratings game in prime time to #2 SEC/Big Ten or #1 ACC/Big 12 game in the prime time slot but that gives them a ratings draw the Midwest/North, South, and West. That’s some exceptional market coverage.

ESPN on the other hand would have a ton of content to spread across their family of networks but will struggle to rival the Fox Line up for per game viewers.

(11-27-2019 01:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s see here, if OTA Fox had a a weekly line up of:

#1/#2 Big Ten game in alternating weeks at Noon
#1 SEC game at 3:30
A PAC 12 game in prime time (not sure the nature of the picks they own in that deal)

That’s a pretty dominant line up. Sure, they may lose the ratings game in prime time to #2 SEC/Big Ten or #1 ACC/Big 12 game in the prime time slot but that gives them a ratings draw the Midwest/North, South, and West. That’s some exceptional market coverage.

ESPN on the other hand would have a ton of content to spread across their family of networks but will struggle to rival the Fox Line up for per game viewers.

I think you make a broader point too.

While I do understand the notion that the Big Ten might not want the SEC stealing any of their thunder, there's great potential here for a mutually beneficial relationship.

While it's true that the SEC would probably demand a consistent 230 CT time slot, the Big Ten isn't hurt by that. Yes, if there's a Big Ten game at Noon then they will spend time promoting the SEC game and that helps the SEC ratings. The other side of that coin is that the SEC game will be in the middle...there's a primetime game coming. That means the Big Ten or the PAC primetime game would be promoted during the SEC broadcast. It's really a win for everyone.

Some Big Ten games will be at Noon, but some of them will inevitably be primetime as well. Even the PAC is batting around the idea of beginning at 9AM local time for select games. That fits into this model quite well. If you're going to go to the trouble of playing that early then it might as well be a big game that everyone wants to watch.

So let's say there was some sort of alternating agreement where half the weeks have the Big Ten game at Noon ET while the other half of the weeks have the Big Ten game in primetime. Same deal for the PAC...

I mean think about it...a deeper relationship between conferences is not a bad thing. It's the networks that drive wedges between our leagues in the first place.

(11-27-2019 01:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s see here, if OTA Fox had a a weekly line up of:

#1/#2 Big Ten game in alternating weeks at Noon
#1 SEC game at 3:30
A PAC 12 game in prime time (not sure the nature of the picks they own in that deal)

That’s a pretty dominant line up. Sure, they may lose the ratings game in prime time to #2 SEC/Big Ten or #1 ACC/Big 12 game in the prime time slot but that gives them a ratings draw the Midwest/North, South, and West. That’s some exceptional market coverage.

ESPN on the other hand would have a ton of content to spread across their family of networks but will struggle to rival the Fox Line up for per game viewers.

The PAC would get buried.
ESPN just puts a good SEC, or ACC/SEC match-up and nobody will ever see the PAC schools play.
Without a unique time slot Disney could broadcast another SEC match-up on ABC or ESPN at 3:30 and split the market and make FOX wish they had never seen the SEC.

(11-27-2019 03:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 01:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s see here, if OTA Fox had a a weekly line up of:

#1/#2 Big Ten game in alternating weeks at Noon
#1 SEC game at 3:30
A PAC 12 game in prime time (not sure the nature of the picks they own in that deal)

That’s a pretty dominant line up. Sure, they may lose the ratings game in prime time to #2 SEC/Big Ten or #1 ACC/Big 12 game in the prime time slot but that gives them a ratings draw the Midwest/North, South, and West. That’s some exceptional market coverage.

ESPN on the other hand would have a ton of content to spread across their family of networks but will struggle to rival the Fox Line up for per game viewers.

The PAC would get buried.
ESPN just puts a good SEC, or ACC/SEC match-up and nobody will ever see the PAC schools play.
Without a unique time slot Disney could broadcast another SEC match-up on ABC or ESPN at 3:30 and split the market and make FOX wish they had never seen the SEC.

You are aware that ESPN doesn't own the Tier 1 rights for the SEC, right?

As in, the Tier 1 rights are already on another network. If ESPN was that dedicated to disrupting the SEC then they'd already have another game on ABC or ESPN in that time slot. They don't...actually they can't.

The only reason CBS doesn't have a 100% exclusive time slot at 230 CT is because they gave it up so that the SEC Network would be more viable. There's a 230 broadcast on SECN for content purposes and no, ESPN is not going to put one of their best games on SECN at 230 just to try to siphon off a little bit from FOX. The SECN doesn't have the penetration or the overall value that ESPN or ABC has. Therefore, it would be a total waste of time and money to try to compete with FOX or any other broadcast network by trying to undercut the SEC audience at 230 CT.

If the PAC got a primetime game on FOX every Saturday with an SEC game as the lead-in then that's a pretty good situation. Many SEC fans would turn to ESPN for the league's primetime game, but a ton of casual viewers will stick with FOX.

Does the idea of the SEC landing a big contract really bother you that much? I wouldn't say anything, but you have been particularly nonsensical on this topic.

(11-27-2019 03:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 01:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s see here, if OTA Fox had a a weekly line up of:

#1/#2 Big Ten game in alternating weeks at Noon
#1 SEC game at 3:30
A PAC 12 game in prime time (not sure the nature of the picks they own in that deal)

That’s a pretty dominant line up. Sure, they may lose the ratings game in prime time to #2 SEC/Big Ten or #1 ACC/Big 12 game in the prime time slot but that gives them a ratings draw the Midwest/North, South, and West. That’s some exceptional market coverage.

ESPN on the other hand would have a ton of content to spread across their family of networks but will struggle to rival the Fox Line up for per game viewers.

The PAC would get buried.
ESPN just puts a good SEC, or ACC/SEC match-up and nobody will ever see the PAC schools play.
Without a unique time slot Disney could broadcast another SEC match-up on ABC or ESPN at 3:30 and split the market and make FOX wish they had never seen the SEC.

Losing in the national ratings for the prime time slot is perfectly acceptable for Fox in this scenario. They want to be able to sell advertisers on coverage and market share all over the US and while the PAC 12 prime time game won’t be the most watched on a national basis it will be the most watched in that slot in western markets which is what Fox wants—a winner in the north, south, and west

(11-27-2019 02:28 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 01:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s see here, if OTA Fox had a a weekly line up of:

#1/#2 Big Ten game in alternating weeks at Noon
#1 SEC game at 3:30
A PAC 12 game in prime time (not sure the nature of the picks they own in that deal)

That’s a pretty dominant line up. Sure, they may lose the ratings game in prime time to #2 SEC/Big Ten or #1 ACC/Big 12 game in the prime time slot but that gives them a ratings draw the Midwest/North, South, and West. That’s some exceptional market coverage.

ESPN on the other hand would have a ton of content to spread across their family of networks but will struggle to rival the Fox Line up for per game viewers.

I think you make a broader point too.

While I do understand the notion that the Big Ten might not want the SEC stealing any of their thunder, there's great potential here for a mutually beneficial relationship.

While it's true that the SEC would probably demand a consistent 230 CT time slot, the Big Ten isn't hurt by that. Yes, if there's a Big Ten game at Noon then they will spend time promoting the SEC game and that helps the SEC ratings. The other side of that coin is that the SEC game will be in the middle...there's a primetime game coming. That means the Big Ten or the PAC primetime game would be promoted during the SEC broadcast. It's really a win for everyone.

Some Big Ten games will be at Noon, but some of them will inevitably be primetime as well. Even the PAC is batting around the idea of beginning at 9AM local time for select games. That fits into this model quite well. If you're going to go to the trouble of playing that early then it might as well be a big game that everyone wants to watch.

So let's say there was some sort of alternating agreement where half the weeks have the Big Ten game at Noon ET while the other half of the weeks have the Big Ten game in primetime. Same deal for the PAC...

I mean think about it...a deeper relationship between conferences is not a bad thing. It's the networks that drive wedges between our leagues in the first place.

I might add that by not having to go up against the SEC but having it to get viewers to the last half of the Big 10 game they also boost the ratings of the Big 10 by early check in for the SEC game of the week, and the SEC would benefit from some Big 10 viewers hanging around to watch the first part of the SEC game. It would be a win win.

(11-27-2019 01:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s see here, if OTA Fox had a a weekly line up of:

#1/#2 Big Ten game in alternating weeks at Noon
#1 SEC game at 3:30
A PAC 12 game in prime time (not sure the nature of the picks they own in that deal)

The bolded part is the snag, under the current contract. Fox and ESPN get an equal number of weeks for first picks among Pac-12 games. It's not like the Big Ten where Fox cherry picks the best games and ESPN mostly just gets first choice in weeks where Fox has other priorities such as the MLB playoffs.

If the next Pac-12 contract was similar to the current SEC arrangement between CBS and ESPN, ie if Fox had first choice every Saturday while everything else went to ESPN, then that suggestion would work.

I still think the Big Ten would not want to re-sign with Fox if their only exposure on Fox OTA is at noon ET. Put it this way: Would the SEC sign with a network that put every SEC game of the week on the air at noon ET? Nope. They have the leverage to say no to that. So does the Big Ten.

(11-27-2019 05:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 01:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s see here, if OTA Fox had a a weekly line up of:

#1/#2 Big Ten game in alternating weeks at Noon
#1 SEC game at 3:30
A PAC 12 game in prime time (not sure the nature of the picks they own in that deal)

The bolded part is the snag, under the current contract. Fox and ESPN get an equal number of weeks for first picks among Pac-12 games. It's not like the Big Ten where Fox cherry picks the best games and ESPN mostly just gets first choice in weeks where Fox has other priorities such as the MLB playoffs.

If the next Pac-12 contract was similar to the current SEC arrangement between CBS and ESPN, ie if Fox had first choice every Saturday while everything else went to ESPN, then that suggestion would work.

I still think the Big Ten would not want to re-sign with Fox if their only exposure on Fox OTA is at noon ET. Put it this way: Would the SEC sign with a network that put every SEC game of the week on the air at noon ET? Nope. They have the leverage to say no to that. So does the Big Ten.

Um, that's not how the Big Ten's TV deal works with Fox/ESPN. Fox and ESPN have a week draft... Fox gets 1st pick, ESPN 2nd, etc...

This year had 8 games over 5 million. Fox with 4 ABC/ESPN with 4. ABC with 3 of the top 5 games so far this season from the Big Ten. And that's a down year frankly from ABC.

ABC gets in general the top OOC game of every single season with how they do selections. And get several very good selections in the season. They got Michigan @ Penn St this year along with Notre Dame @ Michigan...

looking next 3 years- ABC will get-
2020- 10/3- Notre Dame vs Wisconsin
2021- probably 9/18 Auburn @ Penn St, along with either Washington @ Michigan or Oregon @ Ohio St(both 9/11)
2022- 9/3 Notre Dame @ Ohio State

The 2021 and 2022 ones are huge since they are in September and the 2nd choices those weeks are OOC dogs.

So Fox doesn't cherry pick the best games by any stretch of the imagination. Haven't first 3 years, and won't for the next 3 years. Yes they get Ohio St/Michigan every year. But that's their only real advantage in the selection process.

(11-27-2019 05:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 01:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s see here, if OTA Fox had a a weekly line up of:

#1/#2 Big Ten game in alternating weeks at Noon
#1 SEC game at 3:30
A PAC 12 game in prime time (not sure the nature of the picks they own in that deal)

The bolded part is the snag, under the current contract. Fox and ESPN get an equal number of weeks for first picks among Pac-12 games. It's not like the Big Ten where Fox cherry picks the best games and ESPN mostly just gets first choice in weeks where Fox has other priorities such as the MLB playoffs.

If the next Pac-12 contract was similar to the current SEC arrangement between CBS and ESPN, ie if Fox had first choice every Saturday while everything else went to ESPN, then that suggestion would work.

I still think the Big Ten would not want to re-sign with Fox if their only exposure on Fox OTA is at noon ET. Put it this way: Would the SEC sign with a network that put every SEC game of the week on the air at noon ET? Nope. They have the leverage to say no to that. So does the Big Ten.

Big Ten gets the noon slot, SEC gets the 3:30 slot, they split the prime-time slot when Fox doesn't have baseball. So something like:

SEC: 15 games plus CCG. 10 afternoon games, 5 prime-time games.
B1G: 20 games OTA. 12 noon games, 4 afternoon, 4 prime time.

(11-27-2019 02:28 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 01:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s see here, if OTA Fox had a a weekly line up of:

#1/#2 Big Ten game in alternating weeks at Noon
#1 SEC game at 3:30
A PAC 12 game in prime time (not sure the nature of the picks they own in that deal)

That’s a pretty dominant line up. Sure, they may lose the ratings game in prime time to #2 SEC/Big Ten or #1 ACC/Big 12 game in the prime time slot but that gives them a ratings draw the Midwest/North, South, and West. That’s some exceptional market coverage.

ESPN on the other hand would have a ton of content to spread across their family of networks but will struggle to rival the Fox Line up for per game viewers.

I think you make a broader point too.

While I do understand the notion that the Big Ten might not want the SEC stealing any of their thunder, there's great potential here for a mutually beneficial relationship.

While it's true that the SEC would probably demand a consistent 230 CT time slot, the Big Ten isn't hurt by that. Yes, if there's a Big Ten game at Noon then they will spend time promoting the SEC game and that helps the SEC ratings. The other side of that coin is that the SEC game will be in the middle...there's a primetime game coming. That means the Big Ten or the PAC primetime game would be promoted during the SEC broadcast. It's really a win for everyone.

Some Big Ten games will be at Noon, but some of them will inevitably be primetime as well. Even the PAC is batting around the idea of beginning at 9AM local time for select games. That fits into this model quite well. If you're going to go to the trouble of playing that early then it might as well be a big game that everyone wants to watch.

So let's say there was some sort of alternating agreement where half the weeks have the Big Ten game at Noon ET while the other half of the weeks have the Big Ten game in primetime. Same deal for the PAC...

I mean think about it...a deeper relationship between conferences is not a bad thing. It's the networks that drive wedges between our leagues in the first place.

Yep, exactly!!!!

I think what happens is the SEC offers a 9 game conference schedule to renegotiate their ESPN deal and ESPN outbids CBS for the Tier I. And they get good raises on both deals.

(12-01-2019 10:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  I think what happens is the SEC offers a 9 game conference schedule to renegotiate their ESPN deal and ESPN outbids CBS for the Tier I. And they get good raises on both deals.

That might do it. Would make SECN in the fall a lot more attractive if they replace games like ULM-Georgia and Kent State-Alabama with SEC conference games.

(12-01-2019 04:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-01-2019 10:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  I think what happens is the SEC offers a 9 game conference schedule to renegotiate their ESPN deal and ESPN outbids CBS for the Tier I. And they get good raises on both deals.

That might do it. Would make SECN in the fall a lot more attractive if they replace games like ULM-Georgia and Kent State-Alabama with SEC conference games.

I think the plan is to eventually replace them with OOC P games. But the reason we have been slow to move toward that objective is money.

Right now every SEC school has 7 home dates. But more importantly, our modus operandi where contracts with the media outlets are concerned is to hold these matters back as future bargaining chips for raises in pay. The philosophy of the conference office is to give away nothing, to sell each concession dearly, and to string out the concessions of these details so that each one brings more revenue, rather than to sell them all at once.

Therefore the SEC will likely move to agreeing to 1 more P game before they agree to 9 conference games. The reason is that with 2 OOC P games on the schedule each school will have 5 solid home games and 2 buy games to keep the 7 home games on the schedule that everyone likes.

Then the following contract period we might agree to more P or conference games provided that the Spring Game is moved to mid August as a pre-season game against an in state FCS or G5 school so that the home ticket book still has 7 games to sell. Once that is accomplished a move to all P games will be possible, but probably by selling 1 more game per contract period.

The only way I can see this being avoided is if the jump in revenue is sufficient to make all of these changes at once.

Personally I would rather the latter take place because it will help us to settle into a long term stability with regard to traditions and scheduling which I believe would help the game, and attendance.

Protracting the change is only leading to instability and lack of tradition being the norm and it's hurting the game.

I do believe we will eventually have 12 P games on the schedule (including 9 or 10 conference games) and will have 1 preseason game in lieu of the spring game. I just wish it would be sooner rather than later, but the administrations at all of our schools don't like sudden change and love having a plan to milk more cash next negotiation so I doubt I get my wish in my lifetime.

(12-01-2019 05:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2019 04:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-01-2019 10:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  I think what happens is the SEC offers a 9 game conference schedule to renegotiate their ESPN deal and ESPN outbids CBS for the Tier I. And they get good raises on both deals.

That might do it. Would make SECN in the fall a lot more attractive if they replace games like ULM-Georgia and Kent State-Alabama with SEC conference games.

I think the plan is to eventually replace them with OOC P games. But the reason we have been slow to move toward that objective is money.

Right now every SEC school has 7 home dates. But more importantly, our modus operandi where contracts with the media outlets are concerned is to hold these matters back as future bargaining chips for raises in pay. The philosophy of the conference office is to give away nothing, to sell each concession dearly, and to string out the concessions of these details so that each one brings more revenue, rather than to sell them all at once.

Therefore the SEC will likely move to agreeing to 1 more P game before they agree to 9 conference games. The reason is that with 2 OOC P games on the schedule each school will have 5 solid home games and 2 buy games to keep the 7 home games on the schedule that everyone likes.

Then the following contract period we might agree to more P or conference games provided that the Spring Game is moved to mid August as a pre-season game against an in state FCS or G5 school so that the home ticket book still has 7 games to sell. Once that is accomplished a move to all P games will be possible, but probably by selling 1 more game per contract period.

The only way I can see this being avoided is if the jump in revenue is sufficient to make all of these changes at once.

Personally I would rather the latter take place because it will help us to settle into a long term stability with regard to traditions and scheduling which I believe would help the game, and attendance.

Protracting the change is only leading to instability and lack of tradition being the norm and it's hurting the game.

I do believe we will eventually have 12 P games on the schedule (including 9 or 10 conference games) and will have 1 preseason game in lieu of the spring game. I just wish it would be sooner rather than later, but the administrations at all of our schools don't like sudden change and love having a plan to milk more cash next negotiation so I doubt I get my wish in my lifetime.

If you've got 14 teams who are scheduling an additional Power non-conference game and they're playing those match-ups home and away then you've got 7 new home games to sell every season at a higher rate.

If you take 14 teams and force them to play one another an additional game then you've got a max of 7 new games to sell as well.

The issue is you're removing a cupcake from the schedule either way so technically you're dropping 14 home games down to 7 in either instance. The positive is that either of the "new 7" are more valuable than the "old 14" due to the quality of competition. The question then becomes what the difference is in the value between the 2.

If you're looking at the purely tangential effects of altering the schedule then I think keeping 8 league games and adding an additional Power game in non-conference is the best. One of the key reasons that supports that value equation is that your league has a chance to go 14-0 against the competition. The only thing you're going to get in the scenario where you play an extra conference game is 7-7...never more or less.

(12-01-2019 06:21 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If you're looking at the purely tangential effects of altering the schedule then I think keeping 8 league games and adding an additional Power game in non-conference is the best.

I think the snag is that inevitably there will be conference members who beg to get out of the requirement to play P5 non-con opponents, and keep begging until the conference office lets them out. The Big Ten had a requirement like that, and teams almost immediately started asking the conference office to let them count games against UConn or Tulane or whomever toward the rule, instead of playing actual P5 opponents.

(12-01-2019 06:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-01-2019 06:21 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If you're looking at the purely tangential effects of altering the schedule then I think keeping 8 league games and adding an additional Power game in non-conference is the best.

I think the snag is that inevitably there will be conference members who beg to get out of the requirement to play P5 non-con opponents, and keep begging until the conference office lets them out. The Big Ten had a requirement like that, and teams almost immediately started asking the conference office to let them count games against UConn or Tulane or whomever toward the rule, instead of playing actual P5 opponents.

Actually, I'd be ok with that as long as the stipulation was that your program had to take a hit on the annual payments.

It's not reasonable for each program to reap the same reward if they're not willing to make the same commitment.

(12-01-2019 06:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-01-2019 06:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-01-2019 06:21 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If you're looking at the purely tangential effects of altering the schedule then I think keeping 8 league games and adding an additional Power game in non-conference is the best.

I think the snag is that inevitably there will be conference members who beg to get out of the requirement to play P5 non-con opponents, and keep begging until the conference office lets them out. The Big Ten had a requirement like that, and teams almost immediately started asking the conference office to let them count games against UConn or Tulane or whomever toward the rule, instead of playing actual P5 opponents.

Actually, I'd be ok with that as long as the stipulation was that your program had to take a hit on the annual payments.

It's not reasonable for each program to reap the same reward if they're not willing to make the same commitment.

The stipulations for avoiding a P5 OOC opponent in the SEC is fairly well restricted to last minute cancellations which leave little time to reschedule without picking up a G5 or FCS opponent.

If we move to all P scheduling playing 8 or 9 conference games and playing 3 or 4 OOC P games will make the most sense and will provide a better comparison for selecting at large bids if we ever go to 8 in the CFP and use auto qualifiers for the conference champs and a committee to select the at large.

Suck enough by whatever measure you want to choose, be it league record over X years or computer rankings, you get dispensation for playing softer games.

I listened to an interesting interview this afternoon on the Paul Finebaum show. The interviewee was Vince Thompson an Atlanta based CEO who handles accounts for promotion such as 19 final fours, ESPN's college gameday, Coca-Cola etc. Near the end of the interview Thompson said he thought the SEC's new media rights deal would exceed 500 million or enough that every school in the conference would see a 40 million dollar increase in their current media revenue. That means the SEC won't be making 63 or 66 million by 2024 but rather 83 to 86 million per school. If that's true that will change things dramatically!

I'm suspecting that if this is true then they are likely redoing the whole contract and not just selling T1, and it might even mean some expansion is already baked in that pie. We'll see.

What was the SEC getting from ESPN before? Because if they were getting say 2.25 billion over 15 years that's 150m a year.

So it going over 500 million, while it would be an increase- wouldn't be the massive increase that you're suggesting....

right now- 150 m from ESPN, 55m from CBS (ESPN part might be higher)
new over 500m per year from ESPN