Quote:With the SEC/CBS and the ACC linear pieces added, we arrive at these estimates:

SEC: $61.5 million per school
Big Ten: $51 million per school
Big 12: $38 million per school
ACC: $34.5 million per school
Pac-12: 32.5 million per school

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/20/p...ower-five/

Not sure there is enough revenue gap between Texas and Oklahoma to require realignment options as neither would be significantly behind an SEC or B1G school given they both collect an additional $10-15M off third Tier rights.

Now ACC schools and the other Big 12 schools might jump at an opportunity for long term financial security if offered by the B1G or SEC.

What are your thoughts?

(02-20-2019 12:18 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

Quote:With the SEC/CBS and the ACC linear pieces added, we arrive at these estimates:

SEC: $61.5 million per school
Big Ten: $51 million per school
Big 12: $38 million per school
ACC: $34.5 million per school
Pac-12: 32.5 million per school

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/20/p...ower-five/

Not sure there is enough revenue gap between Texas and Oklahoma to require realignment options as neither would be significantly behind an SEC or B1G school given they both collect an additional $10-15M off third Tier rights.

Now ACC schools and the other Big 12 schools might jump at an opportunity for long term financial security if offered by the B1G or SEC.

What are your thoughts?

38+15 is still only 53. That means they could stand to gain 8 million by moving to the SEC. Plus any increase in payouts based on the realignment... So likely 10-12 million more.

No reason to go to Big 10 though.

Also tells me if they wanted they might could take some PAC schools .

Interesting stuff.

On the calculation for the SEC:

Quote:The current, grossly-undervalued contract ($55 million per year) runs through 2023. McManus expects a new deal “well before” that point. That sounds like the next year or two.

Steve Dittmore, a professor of sports management for Arkansas, recently made the case for AthleticDirectorU that the CBS deal could be worth $300 million annually to the SEC.

That might sound exorbitant for one game per week, but it’s the No. 1 regular-season property in college sports and crushes the competition in the ratings game.

On the calculation for the ACC:

Quote:Next, let’s consider the ACC’s linear network, which launches in the fall.

Revenue projections from the conference, as laid out by former Florida State athletic director Stan Wilcox, show each school receiving a whopping $8 million-to-$10 million initially, with that figure rising to $10 million-to-$15 million once the network is mature.

The Hotline is skeptical of those figures, based on conversations with media industry sources. We’ll calculate 50 cents actual for every dollar projected, then target that figure at the middle of the range laid out by Wilcox.

So half of $12.5 million — the middle of the range of payouts for a mature network — brings us to about $6.25 million per school.

I won't claim we can get close to $300 million for our 1st tier, but merciful heavens, if we could do it without even adding Texas or Oklahoma then that's a very interesting situation.

(02-20-2019 01:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Interesting stuff.

On the calculation for the SEC:

Quote:The current, grossly-undervalued contract ($55 million per year) runs through 2023. McManus expects a new deal “well before” that point. That sounds like the next year or two.

Steve Dittmore, a professor of sports management for Arkansas, recently made the case for AthleticDirectorU that the CBS deal could be worth $300 million annually to the SEC.

That might sound exorbitant for one game per week, but it’s the No. 1 regular-season property in college sports and crushes the competition in the ratings game.

On the calculation for the ACC:

Quote:Next, let’s consider the ACC’s linear network, which launches in the fall.

Revenue projections from the conference, as laid out by former Florida State athletic director Stan Wilcox, show each school receiving a whopping $8 million-to-$10 million initially, with that figure rising to $10 million-to-$15 million once the network is mature.

The Hotline is skeptical of those figures, based on conversations with media industry sources. We’ll calculate 50 cents actual for every dollar projected, then target that figure at the middle of the range laid out by Wilcox.

So half of $12.5 million — the middle of the range of payouts for a mature network — brings us to about $6.25 million per school.

I won't claim we can get close to $300 million for our 1st tier, but merciful heavens, if we could do it without even adding Texas or Oklahoma then that's a very interesting situation.

A nice gif from one of my favorite movies!

Oklahoma and Texas? Texas will be about 8 million per year under the SEC media payout at those numbers. Oklahoma would be about 16 million per year under the SEC media payout. I don't see Oklahoma leaving 160 million on the table over the subsequent 10 years and it would be improbably that Texas would leave 80 million on the table. And 10 years at a time is how most Athletic Departments think.

(02-20-2019 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 01:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Interesting stuff.

On the calculation for the SEC:

Quote:The current, grossly-undervalued contract ($55 million per year) runs through 2023. McManus expects a new deal “well before” that point. That sounds like the next year or two.

Steve Dittmore, a professor of sports management for Arkansas, recently made the case for AthleticDirectorU that the CBS deal could be worth $300 million annually to the SEC.

That might sound exorbitant for one game per week, but it’s the No. 1 regular-season property in college sports and crushes the competition in the ratings game.

On the calculation for the ACC:

Quote:Next, let’s consider the ACC’s linear network, which launches in the fall.

Revenue projections from the conference, as laid out by former Florida State athletic director Stan Wilcox, show each school receiving a whopping $8 million-to-$10 million initially, with that figure rising to $10 million-to-$15 million once the network is mature.

The Hotline is skeptical of those figures, based on conversations with media industry sources. We’ll calculate 50 cents actual for every dollar projected, then target that figure at the middle of the range laid out by Wilcox.

So half of $12.5 million — the middle of the range of payouts for a mature network — brings us to about $6.25 million per school.

I won't claim we can get close to $300 million for our 1st tier, but merciful heavens, if we could do it without even adding Texas or Oklahoma then that's a very interesting situation.

A nice gif from one of my favorite movies!

Oklahoma and Texas? Texas will be about 8 million per year under the SEC media payout at those numbers. Oklahoma would be about 16 million per year under the SEC media payout. I don't see Oklahoma leaving 160 million on the table over the subsequent 10 years and it would be improbably that Texas would leave 80 million on the table. And 10 years at a time is how most Athletic Departments think.

It would be interesting to see the projected inventory and Teir one bids from both CBS and a competitor for the SEC package with Texas & Oklahoma and without them.

Those numbers might be enough to get them to seriously consider realignment options.

In the article it said that CBS wanted to extend the contract well before the current one expires. Could this suggest other bidders might be lurking out there?

(02-20-2019 12:37 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 12:18 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

Quote:With the SEC/CBS and the ACC linear pieces added, we arrive at these estimates:

SEC: $61.5 million per school
Big Ten: $51 million per school
Big 12: $38 million per school
ACC: $34.5 million per school
Pac-12: 32.5 million per school

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/20/p...ower-five/

Not sure there is enough revenue gap between Texas and Oklahoma to require realignment options as neither would be significantly behind an SEC or B1G school given they both collect an additional $10-15M off third Tier rights.

Now ACC schools and the other Big 12 schools might jump at an opportunity for long term financial security if offered by the B1G or SEC.

What are your thoughts?

38+15 is still only 53. That means they could stand to gain 8 million by moving to the SEC. Plus any increase in payouts based on the realignment... So likely 10-12 million more.

No reason to go to Big 10 though.

Also tells me if they wanted they might could take some PAC schools .

OU would be in the Big Ten money range but would still have to pay to production and broadcasting costs like they currently do. Texas just get a flat check from ESPN.

(02-20-2019 02:29 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 12:37 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 12:18 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

Quote:With the SEC/CBS and the ACC linear pieces added, we arrive at these estimates:

SEC: $61.5 million per school
Big Ten: $51 million per school
Big 12: $38 million per school
ACC: $34.5 million per school
Pac-12: 32.5 million per school

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/20/p...ower-five/

Not sure there is enough revenue gap between Texas and Oklahoma to require realignment options as neither would be significantly behind an SEC or B1G school given they both collect an additional $10-15M off third Tier rights.

Now ACC schools and the other Big 12 schools might jump at an opportunity for long term financial security if offered by the B1G or SEC.

What are your thoughts?

38+15 is still only 53. That means they could stand to gain 8 million by moving to the SEC. Plus any increase in payouts based on the realignment... So likely 10-12 million more.

No reason to go to Big 10 though.

Also tells me if they wanted they might could take some PAC schools .

OU would be in the Big Ten money range but would still have to pay to production and broadcasting costs like they currently do. Texas just get a flat check from ESPN.

Texas's fat check from ESPN is 15 million. Add that to 38 and you get 53 million which is still 8 million short of the SEC projection. And the LHN Contract expires in 2031. If the SEC does get that fat of a contract from CBS neither Oklahoma or Texas will sit on the sidelines and watch A&M get that kind of money.

The funny thing is if we get to 61 million as is, adding Texas and Oklahoma won't really add anything substantial to our pot. The question is whether an assumed expansion is baked into those numbers? If it is then the per team payout for 16 team would be closer to 56 million which is about where I expected the CBS boost would put us after the next two years of escalators are applied.

I posted a link yesterday in the Big 12 thread from an Oregon Blogger who thinks the PAC needs to break up with 6 teams heading to the Big 12. He said if they didn't that Texas and Oklahoma would be joining the SEC "when" they were asked, not "if" they were asked. Hmm? Alston has a lot of people thinking that if that ruling comes down in favor of plaintiff that realignment his happening sooner, not later.

I think the question on Texas and Oklahoma is this...

If we can land in the range of $300 million for our 1st tier without them then we have to consider that in terms of the brand value we currently possess. Texas and Oklahoma would still be above average products for the league so I'd have to think they would still add value.

Perhaps it's a matter that so much of the Big 12 value is wrapped up in UT and OU and yet it is divided 10 ways. Perhaps UT and OU are woefully underpaid?

(02-20-2019 03:00 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think the question on Texas and Oklahoma is this...

If we can land in the range of $300 million for our 1st tier without them then we have to consider that in terms of the brand value we currently possess. Texas and Oklahoma would still be above average products for the league so I'd have to think they would still add value.

Perhaps it's a matter that so much of the Big 12 value is wrapped up in UT and OU and yet it is divided 10 ways. Perhaps UT and OU are woefully underpaid?

They know they are. I was listening to Finebaum this afternoon as they were discussing the Auburn/Georgia game being moved to October, and the UGA spokesperson he had on the phone was talking about the difficulty in scheduling when Paul commented that these things were set in stone years out and the UGA guy said we'll see who knows we may have a couple of more additions in a couple of years and have to redo them anyway. Hmm?

Very interesting!!

I couldn't read the article so I may be missing something. But my understanding from the posts is these numbers are arrived at by adding in a increased CBS tier 1 deal. Doesn't the B1G rework their deal the next year? Isn't that cherry picking what year you analyze the tv revenue? I would expect the B1G to cash in again next time also to keep them right up with the SEC. It wouldn't surprise me if Delaney picked that year to try and get a baseline for his negotiations the following year.

Also, someone mentioned the CBS game as the highest rated game each week. While that is a game with a lot of value the B1G's top game beat it a majority of weeks during the regular season 7-6. The SEC CCG had much higher ratings and this year(clearly expected with Northwestern representing the west) and will always have the advantage in the CCG's with the current B1G east/west split, if the B1G is able to go to a single set of standings then that game may be a tossup also. Also, you need to factor in advantages of the SEC's ratings on CBS being the only game played at that time, I don't think thats necessarily a more valued game for the networks than the B1G's top rated game. The networks realize the SEC game has no competition from other SEC games in that time slot. Over time its probably pretty close to a "push" between both leagues. I think in analyzing things that should be factored in.

One other aspect I would discuss is the ACC expected distributions. Are we seeing the value of basketball rising or just overly optimistic numbers? Because ACC tier 3 football games are not going to provide that kind of value for a network.

(02-21-2019 02:36 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  One other aspect I would discuss is the ACC expected distributions. Are we seeing the value of basketball rising or just overly optimistic numbers? Because ACC tier 3 football games are not going to provide that kind of value for a network.

Wilner upon the advice of TV contract analysts he knew halved the ACC estimate. 6-7 million is all he gave them credit for and that is possible IMO by their third year of operations.

As to your first post the dominance in the SEC's ratings for the national broadcast by CBS is known throughout the industry. When you see ratings numbers they vary by time slot and some are regionally compounded numbers and some are national. The Big 10 is clearly #2 in ratings behind the SEC. They have a greater total number of potential viewers but also fail to get as high of a % of actual viewers out of potential viewers that the SEC receives. The SEC does have more viewers overall but not by much. The average rating of the SEC's CBS games was a 3.1 share. The average rating of the Big 10's FOX games was a 2.8. The 2:30 CBS time slot is considered by advertisers to be the most lucrative advertising slot for college football, outside of the CFP. It's at the best time of the broadcast day, it's on an old familiar established national network, and it doesn't really have that much head to head competition. There's your money difference.

The Big 10 will renew their present contract about the same time the SEC is renewing their CBS contract which the chairman of CBS sports said he would like to get done very early for the SEC. It was his remarks that Wilner was using. It was implied that the SEC's T1 rights contract would be renewed within a year or two and that both parties were very close. The 18 year old contract paid the SEC 55 million for their T1 rights plus escalators. This contract is expected to be for at least 300 million.

When the Big 10 renews they will be getting a boost but the valuation of their contract is only 6 years old. If they get an increase of 5% it would be in line with current valuations. But no Wilner did not credit that. Put the Big 10 at 54-55 plus escalators and it would probably be about right.

His point in the article was to show what the PAC might earn for 5 years if the equity sale took place.

(02-21-2019 03:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 02:36 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  One other aspect I would discuss is the ACC expected distributions. Are we seeing the value of basketball rising or just overly optimistic numbers? Because ACC tier 3 football games are not going to provide that kind of value for a network.

Wilner upon the advice of TV contract analysts he knew halved the ACC estimate. 6-7 million is all he gave them credit for and that is possible IMO by their third year of operations.

As to your first post the dominance in the SEC's ratings for the national broadcast by CBS is known throughout the industry. When you see ratings numbers they vary by time slot and some are regionally compounded numbers and some are national. The Big 10 is clearly #2 in ratings behind the SEC. They have a greater total number of potential viewers but also fail to get as high of a % of actual viewers out of potential viewers that the SEC receives. The SEC does have more viewers overall but not by much. The average rating of the SEC's CBS games was a 3.1 share. The average rating of the Big 10's FOX games was a 2.8. The 2:30 CBS time slot is considered by advertisers to be the most lucrative advertising slot for college football, outside of the CFP. It's at the best time of the broadcast day, it's on an old familiar established national network, and it doesn't really have that much head to head competition. There's your money difference.

The Big 10 will renew their present contract about the same time the SEC is renewing their CBS contract which the chairman of CBS sports said he would like to get done very early for the SEC. It was his remarks that Wilner was using. It was implied that the SEC's T1 rights contract would be renewed within a year or two and that both parties were very close. The 18 year old contract paid the SEC 55 million for their T1 rights plus escalators. This contract is expected to be for at least 300 million.

When the Big 10 renews they will be getting a boost but the valuation of their contract is only 6 years old. If they get an increase of 5% it would be in line with current valuations. But no Wilner did not credit that. Put the Big 10 at 54-55 plus escalators and it would probably be about right.

His point in the article was to show what the PAC might earn for 5 years if the equity sale took place.

Just curious on your thoughts. We all know the CBS SEC network game is the exclusive game during that time frame. Using your numbers the SEC game is drawing about 10% higher share 3.1 to 2.8. The B1G doesn't do any exclusive time slots. If the B1G had a game of the week that had an exclusive time slot, do you think there would be any real difference in the numbers? I don't think there would be much difference over time between each of those two leagues is what I was saying.


I do think the B1G is going to get more than a 5% jump, I'm not sure how they come up with that number unless tv revenue for sports is going to begin to decline overall.
ha

(02-21-2019 11:37 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 03:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 02:36 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  One other aspect I would discuss is the ACC expected distributions. Are we seeing the value of basketball rising or just overly optimistic numbers? Because ACC tier 3 football games are not going to provide that kind of value for a network.

Wilner upon the advice of TV contract analysts he knew halved the ACC estimate. 6-7 million is all he gave them credit for and that is possible IMO by their third year of operations.

As to your first post the dominance in the SEC's ratings for the national broadcast by CBS is known throughout the industry. When you see ratings numbers they vary by time slot and some are regionally compounded numbers and some are national. The Big 10 is clearly #2 in ratings behind the SEC. They have a greater total number of potential viewers but also fail to get as high of a % of actual viewers out of potential viewers that the SEC receives. The SEC does have more viewers overall but not by much. The average rating of the SEC's CBS games was a 3.1 share. The average rating of the Big 10's FOX games was a 2.8. The 2:30 CBS time slot is considered by advertisers to be the most lucrative advertising slot for college football, outside of the CFP. It's at the best time of the broadcast day, it's on an old familiar established national network, and it doesn't really have that much head to head competition. There's your money difference.

The Big 10 will renew their present contract about the same time the SEC is renewing their CBS contract which the chairman of CBS sports said he would like to get done very early for the SEC. It was his remarks that Wilner was using. It was implied that the SEC's T1 rights contract would be renewed within a year or two and that both parties were very close. The 18 year old contract paid the SEC 55 million for their T1 rights plus escalators. This contract is expected to be for at least 300 million.

When the Big 10 renews they will be getting a boost but the valuation of their contract is only 6 years old. If they get an increase of 5% it would be in line with current valuations. But no Wilner did not credit that. Put the Big 10 at 54-55 plus escalators and it would probably be about right.

His point in the article was to show what the PAC might earn for 5 years if the equity sale took place.

Just curious on your thoughts. We all know the CBS SEC network game is the exclusive game during that time frame. Using your numbers the SEC game is drawing about 10% higher share 3.1 to 2.8. The B1G doesn't do any exclusive time slots. If the B1G had a game of the week that had an exclusive time slot, do you think there would be any real difference in the numbers? I don't think there would be much difference over time between each of those two leagues is what I was saying.


I do think the B1G is going to get more than a 5% jump, I'm not sure how they come up with that number unless tv revenue for sports is going to begin to decline overall.
ha

All of the demographic information points to the inevitable decline. Baseball bottomed a decade or so ago and has been slowly showing growth since. Basketball is in decline. And now football is as well, just not in the Southeast and Southwest where the viewing numbers are up even as there is some decline in attendance (but not as much as elsewhere). Attendance issues are probably more tied to technology and disposable income rather than disinterest, but the viewing numbers aren't.

The B1G's last contract was for 6 years. I don't expect this SEC contract to exceed 10. Why? Let's say CBS inks the deal by 2021. Boomers began to be born in 1946. In 2016 they turned 70. By 2021 they will be 75 and within 10 years of that they are 85 essentially meaning that in that 10 years each year will see a precipitous decline of longtime football fans. No network is going to want more than a 10 year contract for a sport so beloved of a single generation. The average life expectancy of a man in the US as of 2016 was 67 years. That of women is 72 years. The baby boom began in '46 and ended in '62. The average boomer male started dying out in 2013 and will be statistically gone by 2029. The average boomer female will start dying out in 2018 and will be gone statistically by 2034. There will of course be Boomers that live much longer than that but as a statistical group they will be insignificant past those years.

The networks know this. So you can expect that football has probably peaked in popularity and with it a % of the valuation will decline. But as a live culturally significant sporting event it will linger in popularity past the lives of Boomers. The question with fewer high school participants, CTE's, and cultural shifts due to immigration to which football is as alien to them as they are to us, is how long will it linger?

(02-21-2019 12:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 11:37 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 03:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 02:36 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  One other aspect I would discuss is the ACC expected distributions. Are we seeing the value of basketball rising or just overly optimistic numbers? Because ACC tier 3 football games are not going to provide that kind of value for a network.

Wilner upon the advice of TV contract analysts he knew halved the ACC estimate. 6-7 million is all he gave them credit for and that is possible IMO by their third year of operations.

As to your first post the dominance in the SEC's ratings for the national broadcast by CBS is known throughout the industry. When you see ratings numbers they vary by time slot and some are regionally compounded numbers and some are national. The Big 10 is clearly #2 in ratings behind the SEC. They have a greater total number of potential viewers but also fail to get as high of a % of actual viewers out of potential viewers that the SEC receives. The SEC does have more viewers overall but not by much. The average rating of the SEC's CBS games was a 3.1 share. The average rating of the Big 10's FOX games was a 2.8. The 2:30 CBS time slot is considered by advertisers to be the most lucrative advertising slot for college football, outside of the CFP. It's at the best time of the broadcast day, it's on an old familiar established national network, and it doesn't really have that much head to head competition. There's your money difference.

The Big 10 will renew their present contract about the same time the SEC is renewing their CBS contract which the chairman of CBS sports said he would like to get done very early for the SEC. It was his remarks that Wilner was using. It was implied that the SEC's T1 rights contract would be renewed within a year or two and that both parties were very close. The 18 year old contract paid the SEC 55 million for their T1 rights plus escalators. This contract is expected to be for at least 300 million.

When the Big 10 renews they will be getting a boost but the valuation of their contract is only 6 years old. If they get an increase of 5% it would be in line with current valuations. But no Wilner did not credit that. Put the Big 10 at 54-55 plus escalators and it would probably be about right.

His point in the article was to show what the PAC might earn for 5 years if the equity sale took place.

Just curious on your thoughts. We all know the CBS SEC network game is the exclusive game during that time frame. Using your numbers the SEC game is drawing about 10% higher share 3.1 to 2.8. The B1G doesn't do any exclusive time slots. If the B1G had a game of the week that had an exclusive time slot, do you think there would be any real difference in the numbers? I don't think there would be much difference over time between each of those two leagues is what I was saying.


I do think the B1G is going to get more than a 5% jump, I'm not sure how they come up with that number unless tv revenue for sports is going to begin to decline overall.
ha

All of the demographic information points to the inevitable decline. Baseball bottomed a decade or so ago and has been slowly showing growth since. Basketball is in decline. And now football is as well, just not in the Southeast and Southwest where the viewing numbers are up even as there is some decline in attendance (but not as much as elsewhere). Attendance issues are probably more tied to technology and disposable income rather than disinterest, but the viewing numbers aren't.

The B1G's last contract was for 6 years. I don't expect this SEC contract to exceed 10. Why? Let's say CBS inks the deal by 2021. Boomers began to be born in 1946. In 2016 they turned 70. By 2021 they will be 75 and within 10 years of that they are 85 essentially meaning that in that 10 years each year will see a precipitous decline of longtime football fans. No network is going to want more than a 10 year contract for a sport so beloved of a single generation. The average life expectancy of a man in the US as of 2016 was 67 years. That of women is 72 years. The baby boom began in '46 and ended in '62. The average boomer male started dying out in 2013 and will be statistically gone by 2029. The average boomer female will start dying out in 2018 and will be gone statistically by 2034. There will of course be Boomers that live much longer than that but as a statistical group they will be insignificant past those years.

The networks know this. So you can expect that football has probably peaked in popularity and with it a % of the valuation will decline. But as a live culturally significant sporting event it will linger in popularity past the lives of Boomers. The question with fewer high school participants, CTE's, and cultural shifts due to immigration to which football is as alien to them as they are to us, is how long will it linger?

reasonable analysis, although I'm not sure I think football is in completely dire straits it will be interesting to see if something changes that course. I think that is sometimes a hard analysis to make because there are so many more television, streaming options it is hard to ever have the ratings we use to have when choices were limited. I don't think attendance drops are necessarily a decline in the interest of the sport, instead technology simply has improved the product of in home viewing as a different method of viewing the sport. I know that is the case with me personally.

If your analysis holds true maybe its worthwhile for ESPN to keep the ACC intact and basketball revenues grows over time.

(02-20-2019 09:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 03:00 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think the question on Texas and Oklahoma is this...

If we can land in the range of $300 million for our 1st tier without them then we have to consider that in terms of the brand value we currently possess. Texas and Oklahoma would still be above average products for the league so I'd have to think they would still add value.

Perhaps it's a matter that so much of the Big 12 value is wrapped up in UT and OU and yet it is divided 10 ways. Perhaps UT and OU are woefully underpaid?

They know they are. I was listening to Finebaum this afternoon as they were discussing the Auburn/Georgia game being moved to October, and the UGA spokesperson he had on the phone was talking about the difficulty in scheduling when Paul commented that these things were set in stone years out and the UGA guy said we'll see who knows we may have a couple of more additions in a couple of years and have to redo them anyway. Hmm?

Well, that's interesting.

I wonder what role CBS might play in all that? If they are willing to drop big money on a couple of key additions in order to keep the 1st tier contract then that's significant. That's basically the most wiggle room we have.

ESPN's deal probably can't be altered that much with new additions although some of the 3rd tier revenue should increase if we access some new markets with a higher sub rate.

ESPN and CBS could make an interesting partnership if they teamed up to raid the Big 12 and basically used CBS' money to do it.

(02-21-2019 03:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 09:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 03:00 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think the question on Texas and Oklahoma is this...

If we can land in the range of $300 million for our 1st tier without them then we have to consider that in terms of the brand value we currently possess. Texas and Oklahoma would still be above average products for the league so I'd have to think they would still add value.

Perhaps it's a matter that so much of the Big 12 value is wrapped up in UT and OU and yet it is divided 10 ways. Perhaps UT and OU are woefully underpaid?

They know they are. I was listening to Finebaum this afternoon as they were discussing the Auburn/Georgia game being moved to October, and the UGA spokesperson he had on the phone was talking about the difficulty in scheduling when Paul commented that these things were set in stone years out and the UGA guy said we'll see who knows we may have a couple of more additions in a couple of years and have to redo them anyway. Hmm?

Well, that's interesting.

I wonder what role CBS might play in all that? If they are willing to drop big money on a couple of key additions in order to keep the 1st tier contract then that's significant. That's basically the most wiggle room we have.

ESPN's deal probably can't be altered that much with new additions although some of the 3rd tier revenue should increase if we access some new markets with a higher sub rate.

ESPN and CBS could make an interesting partnership if they teamed up to raid the Big 12 and basically used CBS' money to do it.

ESPN would have to renew ATU. To include Texas and/or Oklahoma would require a new GOR and new valuations on the increased inventory of T2 & T3 rights. I'd say that ESPN would work with CBS in this regard and that the total burden wouldn't be on CBS alone.

Why would CBS do this? 32 million more viewers for the SEC's T1 for 4 schools as opposed to 1 or 2. Who gets the RRR? CBS Who gets UT/A&M? CBS Who gets UT/Ark? CBS Who gets A&M/LSU? CBS and who gets OU/LSU, OU/A&M, and OU/Ark? CBS.

Those two added basically gives CBS the full value of the present Big 12 and enhances their value in the SEC overall. To a network are those games worth 50 million more from the baseline estimate of value of 250 million? Absolutely!

(02-21-2019 04:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 03:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 09:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 03:00 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think the question on Texas and Oklahoma is this...

If we can land in the range of $300 million for our 1st tier without them then we have to consider that in terms of the brand value we currently possess. Texas and Oklahoma would still be above average products for the league so I'd have to think they would still add value.

Perhaps it's a matter that so much of the Big 12 value is wrapped up in UT and OU and yet it is divided 10 ways. Perhaps UT and OU are woefully underpaid?

They know they are. I was listening to Finebaum this afternoon as they were discussing the Auburn/Georgia game being moved to October, and the UGA spokesperson he had on the phone was talking about the difficulty in scheduling when Paul commented that these things were set in stone years out and the UGA guy said we'll see who knows we may have a couple of more additions in a couple of years and have to redo them anyway. Hmm?

Well, that's interesting.

I wonder what role CBS might play in all that? If they are willing to drop big money on a couple of key additions in order to keep the 1st tier contract then that's significant. That's basically the most wiggle room we have.

ESPN's deal probably can't be altered that much with new additions although some of the 3rd tier revenue should increase if we access some new markets with a higher sub rate.

ESPN and CBS could make an interesting partnership if they teamed up to raid the Big 12 and basically used CBS' money to do it.

ESPN would have to renew ATU. To include Texas and/or Oklahoma would require a new GOR and new valuations on the increased inventory of T2 & T3 rights. I'd say that ESPN would work with CBS in this regard and that the total burden wouldn't be on CBS alone.

Why would CBS do this? 32 million more viewers for the SEC's T1 for 4 schools as opposed to 1 or 2. Who gets the RRR? CBS Who gets UT/A&M? CBS Who gets UT/Ark? CBS Who gets A&M/LSU? CBS and who gets OU/LSU, OU/A&M, and OU/Ark? CBS.

Those two added basically gives CBS the full value of the present Big 12 and enhances their value in the SEC overall. To a network are those games worth 50 million more from the baseline estimate of value of 250 million? Absolutely!

With ESPN upping the numbers a little bit and a big raise coming from CBS, I think $60 million could be within reach.

I wonder though if that sort of figure includes a 9th game?

(02-22-2019 02:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 04:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 03:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 09:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 03:00 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think the question on Texas and Oklahoma is this...

If we can land in the range of $300 million for our 1st tier without them then we have to consider that in terms of the brand value we currently possess. Texas and Oklahoma would still be above average products for the league so I'd have to think they would still add value.

Perhaps it's a matter that so much of the Big 12 value is wrapped up in UT and OU and yet it is divided 10 ways. Perhaps UT and OU are woefully underpaid?

They know they are. I was listening to Finebaum this afternoon as they were discussing the Auburn/Georgia game being moved to October, and the UGA spokesperson he had on the phone was talking about the difficulty in scheduling when Paul commented that these things were set in stone years out and the UGA guy said we'll see who knows we may have a couple of more additions in a couple of years and have to redo them anyway. Hmm?

Well, that's interesting.

I wonder what role CBS might play in all that? If they are willing to drop big money on a couple of key additions in order to keep the 1st tier contract then that's significant. That's basically the most wiggle room we have.

ESPN's deal probably can't be altered that much with new additions although some of the 3rd tier revenue should increase if we access some new markets with a higher sub rate.

ESPN and CBS could make an interesting partnership if they teamed up to raid the Big 12 and basically used CBS' money to do it.

ESPN would have to renew ATU. To include Texas and/or Oklahoma would require a new GOR and new valuations on the increased inventory of T2 & T3 rights. I'd say that ESPN would work with CBS in this regard and that the total burden wouldn't be on CBS alone.

Why would CBS do this? 32 million more viewers for the SEC's T1 for 4 schools as opposed to 1 or 2. Who gets the RRR? CBS Who gets UT/A&M? CBS Who gets UT/Ark? CBS Who gets A&M/LSU? CBS and who gets OU/LSU, OU/A&M, and OU/Ark? CBS.

Those two added basically gives CBS the full value of the present Big 12 and enhances their value in the SEC overall. To a network are those games worth 50 million more from the baseline estimate of value of 250 million? Absolutely!

With ESPN upping the numbers a little bit and a big raise coming from CBS, I think $60 million could be within reach.

I wonder though if that sort of figure includes a 9th game?

If expansion is baked in then I would say no. If it is not baked in then possibly. But remember this. CBS isn't benefiting from increased inventory. ESPN is. But the quality of CBS inventory would jump way up from the present level of best in the industry should we acquire the two we've been speculating about. They would still broadcast 17 games or might even add one or two, and then they do have the SEC CCG as part of that package as well. I think the number of conference games is the negotiating point for ESPN when renew the contract with them for T2 and T3, or when we revalue the package with additions.