(07-10-2018 11:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 11:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 04:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So What the Heck Does This Mean? It Means the Following Pairs Earn the SEC More:
The pair are averaged for 1 value that must exceed $594,451,000
1. Texas & Oklahoma: $1,190,195,500
2. Texas & Kansas: $847,127,500
3. Texas & Kansas State: $826,813,500
4. Texas & Iowa State: $789,998,500
5. Texas & Texas Tech: $785,257,500
6. Oklahoma & Kansas: $717,099,000
7. Oklahoma & Oklahoma State: $706,830,000
8. Oklahoma & Kansas State: $696,785,000


So if you want to talk about workable pairs there they are.

And just maybe if Kansas and Oklahoma are headed to the Big 10 then Texas and any of the top 5 pairings can earn the SEC even more!

There is a wildcard, however, and that's what any network decides we're worth in a given negotiation.

Technically, our 1st Tier is undervalued right now or this would be less of a factor, but the Big Ten is taking down more TV revenue at the moment. Last time, they added a couple of schools that did not meet their averages and were actually rewarded for it by the networks. Based on how the ratings broke down, there's honestly no good reason for that unless we consider the conference is leaving money on the table.

ESPN and FOX combined on a strong bid for the Big Ten because they decided the content was worth that much to them. It sounds arbitrary, but the market decided the value.

Whether the 'market model' as we understood it has died or not, we should consider that ESPN is using us because they can. They suggested Missouri because they wanted that market in the fold, not because adding Mizzou in a vacuum would add to our bottom line. They don't really care about our bottom line. From ESPN's perspective, they would rather our product be cheaper while maintaining quality because they'll pretty much make the same amount of money either way.

Texas and Oklahoma are clearly the only programs that pad the bottom line without fancy negotiation tactics or threatening to take our product elsewhere. That's why I suggest pulling out all the stops to get them and if that means adding a few more then I have no problem with that.

Ideally, we would take those 2 and go to 16. Ideally, we would present that 16 to ESPN and they would pay us what we're worth. But the biggest problem is that ESPN doesn't care what we're worth. They only care about what they can get out of us. They're a private enterprise and that's why they exist.

That and we've shot for plenty of ideals in the past and haven't achieved them. So I think we should stop listening to what ESPN tells us is valuable in the marketplace and start crafting our own path. As the number of bidders grow, the ability to garner a favorable deal from ESPN or someone else grows if we consolidate to a greater degree. But we have to do it on our terms and not at the behest of a corporation.

And I know TV revenue is not the only or most significant stream of cash, but it's the only stream that's going to grow with additions. Other sources like donations and tickets can't grow much more without pricing fans out and then we haven't really entered a state of growth at that point. That and we don't share ticket or merchandize revenue anyway so there's no pot to be grown in that regard.

The only pots we can grow come from TV revenue and postseason disbursements which is another avenue we need control over once again.

So if taking a few extra schools are necessary to make OU and UT comfortable then I think we should do it, but the last thing we need to be doing is obeying the dictates of media companies because they don't have our best interests at heart.

I think if it's left up to ESPN then they would send Texas somewhere else so we don't become more powerful. And that's the big tell...they don't want us to have content that causes our leverage to grow in a negotiation.

I agree with most of what you are saying. The part I disagree with is that we can't pay Texas and Oklahoma if ESPN doesn't pay us.

IMO, if ESPN wanted their half of the Big 10 that badly and they don't reward us we should kick them to the curb and move on. But we are tied down there until 2031. There's no way in hell we should sell them our T1.

I have my doubts about the Big 10 contract coming up. If FOX is out they could wind up really screwing themselves by prematurely getting into streaming. The quality isn't that great and the aggravation of logging in isn't going to be a beloved feature. We will get there, but probably not for another 5 plus years. I have no problem with offering 2 more to get OU and Texas, as they pay the way for it.

IMO opinion I'm not going to worry about it. If ESPN screws us over then in 2031 they lose the SEC for good and then anyone who wishes will pick apart their 100% possession, the ACC which they have starved.

BTW: Remember the valuations are from the WSJ, not ESPN.

True, but ESPN's metrics in determining what they're willing to pay may be very different. At least, they may be different in that ESPN's model is based purely on how they would ensure their own profit.

The WSJ valuations are based on what these programs would be worth if sold individually on the open market like a pro franchise, but that sort of transaction would never happen. I'm not saying the valuations aren't relevant, just that a media company wouldn't necessarily value a property according to all the same metrics.

The hard and fast rule we can count on is that networks will pay for quality content and large fan bases. If a school has both then that's of huge value to a network. ESPN and FOX have been willing to pay the Big 12 a disproportionate amount simply because 2 of their programs are among the elite in that regard. This is true despite some leaders within the Big 12 saying their conference is basically the Mountain West without OU and UT. Even then, it was true despite 4 quality schools leaving and the Big 12 not having any real leverage in a negotiation at the time.

So if OU and UT wanted us to go to 20 with specific programs then I think it's worth it. Making them comfortable would increase the likelihood that they move our direction and stay there. It might not take 20, of course, but I think we should be open to that. If we grab all the best free agents then we take the ball out of ESPN's court to a significant degree.

I do agree that we'll be fine in the long term even if ESPN screws us, but I would just rather not give them the chance to screw us.