Football ...
Basketball ...
Baseball ...
Other Sports ...
Futbol ...
🤫995🤫 ...
Gambling ...
Movies & TV ...
Music ...
Hobbies ...
Lulz ...
Food & Travel
...
Daily Texan ...
Business & Markets ...
Cloak Room ...
Help ...
For Sale ...
Board Discussion ...
Advertise...
Tailgate Donations
-
Posts
2294 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Everything posted by Hurtlocker
-
No, not the entire state. They're in Texas already, and the DFW DMA would bump, but the entire state of Texas is a bit harder to read. There is literally nothing else in New York. Once you have NYC, everything else is like croutons on a salad. Gaining San Antonio, Austin and Houston would be a serious negotiation with providers in that area. Similarly, USC doesn't get them max local rates in all of Cali either. This is the same math with the ACC teams. FSU doesn't get you the entire state of Florida at local rates any more than Syracuse gets you all of New York. If it did the ACC network would be swimming in cash. It gets you Tallahassee and any metro close. For instance, WVU is in the Pittsburgh DMA. Penn State gets Pittsburgh and Philly. They're big enough brands with big fan bases in those metros that are relatively close - e.g. the group that may actually drive to a game, so they have big local rates that stretch further than you'd imagine. Georgia Tech would technically get you Atlanta and Miami - er, Miami, but FSU doesn't get you BTN's highest rates in all of Florida like Ohio State does for Ohio or Penn State for Pennsylvania. The more people want it, the more you can charge. This is part of the negotiation process. The BTN may want the highest rate in every local market, but they do kind of need to do some work for that too. Rutgers doesn't just get big rates in NYC because they're Rutgers, they get it because there is a metric fuck ton of Big Ten grads in the NYC/Philly/DC metroplex. Are there a ton of Big Ten alumni in Tampa....Orlando...Houston? If the answer is no the bump is much harder to come by. Think of it this way. When you're in the market you plant a flag that provides a bigger bonus. The more eyeballs you can pull out of that market, the more you can charge.
-
1) sorry to hear about your mom man, even if it wasn't recent 2) Tech support seems heavily catered to winning and that kind of ended when Beamer retired. I don't see the swell any more and I know a lot of alumni. The kids that are going there, that I anecdotally know through families, are generally going due to some sort of military connection. UVA and Tech are not growing as fast as other fast growing states. If you look at bama, they've nearly doubled in size in the past decade or so. UVA keeps its enrollment tethered to like freshman housing or something. They're still only like 23k, with 16k undergrad, Tech is nearly twice that big, but both could easily be in the 50s. Instead of going there, those kids are now at JMU (up to 22k) and Mason (nearing 40k). To your point though Tech is much better represented in the south - like Roanoke or the Cheasapeake metro. 3) Since Maryland is located in the DMV, they get the Washington AND Baltimore DMAs. Though they get a teeny tiny crumb of the local attention which is dominated by the pro teams. Hell, even Georgetown is likely talked about more in the area then any of the P5 programs who get mention, but kind of a passing mention. The media messaging feels like "College sports, isn't it cute?" 4) Likely agree with Duke, but I know UNC/UVA are connected at the hip, so you're spot on there. They hate Duke in basketball, but the connection is the elder state schools. Whatever happens they'll stay together. Notice that UNC and UVA are not the entities concerned about ACC payments. Side note, I was in Elliot's offices this morning and literally everyone I talked to at some point said, "We're not going to win any national championships around here any time soon, but we're going to do things the right way." Like it was on a press release. The wording was nearly always identical. Totally different mindset than most SEC schools.
-
I wouldn't say they over paid. The Big 12 was set to receive a massive raise in 2025, because it was the first time they would have been able to take all of their content out to bid at the same time. Previously it was a mishmash of 2 or 3 deals of too long of length stretching back decades, including their T1 which was worse than the old CBS payment for the SEC. If the 10 stayed together it likely would have paid $50-57m/each, or about a $500-600m deal. What they were able to do by restructuring is just continue the deal they had, but without Texas/OU, by adding more content. Where they got a slight boost is, since the start of the last contract, the teams not named Texas/Oklahoma had increased their viewership against each other by 30+%. Additionally, the basketball product has been so good for the past 5 years that they were able to gain a premium on it by selling some to Fox. Those two pieces probably gave them a 15-20% increase over the initial contract's baseline. One way or another though, this was a continuation the current deal's structure (e.g. the same budgeted yearly increase) so no one lost money. However, they lost out on the big bump.
-
Well the Pac did get the B12's offer, but thought it was lowball, like they expected B1G numbers or something. Then the B12 took it. That Utah article pointed it out very well. If you look at the top 20 games the Pac 12 has had in the past three years, 17 involved Oregon. All networks want is one game/week - whoever plays Oregon.
-
Actually, I think i figured out their plan. ABC doesn't need to give up all of its slots, it can go the NFL route and provide mirroring. If one massive SEC game gets 5-6m eyeballs per week, they can start mirroring the SEC footprint. You could put three games on ABC at the same time. Let's say one is in Texas, one is in Alabama, and one is in Georgia/Florida. Whichever they think is the biggest will get the national game, let's say the Bama one, and the other two will be mirrored: Texas/Arkansas/Oklahoma and Florida/Georgia/SC. East mirror focuses around Atlanta, Central mirror revolves around Nashville, and the West is Houston. If you got 5-6m out of the national, but 3m+ for the mirrors, you now doubled the audience for the same window with brands who can dominate regional viewership. May not get all the way there, but that change alone, which doesn't effect the other windows, could change that contract from $300m/year to $500-600/year.
-
I'd be surprised if it was above the B1G. They have massive viewership numbers so its not like the SEC outpaces them like it does the ACC/B12. And their deal pitched three networks against each other to provide 3 T1 games per day and on top of that they have a 40% ownership stake in BTN. The SEC only has ABC - so no competition, is locked in until 2034, the SECN is a rights agreement, and the mouse is firing people and they want to go after the NBA. After the SEC signed $3b/10 year deal with ESPN for T1 rights the 14 SEC teams were slated to make $40m/year on their tv deals with the mouse - or pay out about $560m annually just for broadcast (they'll make more with bowls, playoffs, etc). To just break even with the move they'd have to pay the SEC $640m/year. To get to $60m each yearly, they'd have to increase to $1b/year, or a 78% increase. To reach the heights of the Big Ten, they'll need to make $560m/year more by adding UT/OU and moving to 9. That's 114% increase, a sizable jump for 8 great games a year and an increase in value to any games TX/OU play in (e.g. Bama/Texas vs Bama/Kentucky). That would mean TX/OU were worth more than the entire SEC, combined. The only way I can see them doing that is the same way the B1G did it. The current T1 deal the Mouse bought from CBS is for the top 16 games on ABC at any window the Mouse wants (not just the 3:30 eastern slot). They'd have to add 32 more T1 games, basically playing the SEC on ABC in the noon/3:30/Prime spots and valuing every game the same as they valued it for the first deal. That adds $600m/year.
-
Yeah I think it will be about 70 if they go to nine, 60 if they don't.
-
Tech for sure. The SEC could have marketed the living hell out of the Battle at Bristol yearly.
-
NoVA now, but was down at the beach last week! And I'd agree with you on the B1G, but, as you know, VA is weird. Its biggest single town is Richmond, which is around the size of Fresno and home to VCU and Richmond, and VA's two biggest metro areas are either a conglomeration of towns (Norfolk, etc) or the outside of a major metro (NoVa). The B1G already has the DMV with Maryland, which means the 6m other people in the state are around several solid conclaves under the size of like Des Moines or Toledo. Add to that that all the old, little state schools are exploding in enrollment because UVA keeps its enrollment small, and the population, while large, is fractured. Tech is wedged into the far corner of the state away from about anything. Around me, there are just as many JMU fans, which cannot build fast enough to keep up, as there are UVA and Tech and Mason is now the largest state school - which doesn't even have a football team. Most follow the NFL. But, there isn't a single school in VA that has a passion around it that rivals the SEC, Big Ten or even the Big 12.
-
If you're a media deal nerd or looking to become an internet board expert in short order, this is one of the best looks at the B12/P10 I've seen yet. Why the PAC10 is Struggling to Make a Media Deal It's from the Utah ESPN radio affiliate and dives into the numbers. So many numbers, its long, very long. I'm not even going to quote it, that is how long it is. Very much worth a read though. TLDR: The new Big 12 has grown eyeballs by more than 30% while the Pac is losing them. This also syncs with something said when the Big 12 signed their new deal, which was the teams not named Texas and OU had increased their viewership over the past several years by nearly 40%. That now syncs with this article and why one got signed without losing money and the other is struggling.
-
In the ranking that blew up the BCS. Thank you Oklahoma State.
-
I don't think anyone is concerned about playing Oregon, Washington nor any ACC teams. I think their concern is having less opportunities to be on the receiving end of the three massive exposure slots the Big Ten has going forward. Michigan, Ohio State, USC and Penn State will dominate those slots, but they need opponents. The more opponents in the conference, the less chances there are for Indiana and Purdue and Iowa to be on those games.
-
Yes it is for all sports as you get points to scan your ID into the games. Most non-revenue games are 1 point each in. However, the football games provide at least 5, some games, like conference games, give 5 for scanning in and 5 for scanning out. So you get a massive bonus for basketball tickets by going to football games. And, sorry I don't mean they don't like to win, they were number one a few decades ago. But, in this conversation of being a big dog, they don't value winning like Ohio State, or Penn State, or Tennessee, or Florida, let alone schools like Oklahoma State or Arkansas, or Ole Miss or Oregon etc etc. It isn't viewed as the same priority to invest in the sport as the schools generating massive TV audiences.
-
Yeah man, the sweet spot is 16. The math hasn't changed much, you need like 30-40% of your total to be big brands to max the regular season contract. So at 16 that means you need 5; Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, USC, and maybe Wisconsin. Or, Bama, Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Florida and maybe Tennessee. That means they don't have to play each other, but they all can at least get two together and you fill your T1 with love. At 18, you almost need seven brands to do that math. There is only one of those left on the board and they're located on the corner of Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. Outside that, the only expansion that makes any sense or increase current payouts any longer is the B12's 13-16. It won't hit B1G/SEC levels, but they could likely get to $40m with Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Arizona (maybe $35-37m if its ASU/someone else if OU/UW aren't in). Its kind of the only place left with growth opportunities.
-
Living in the tidewater, I can guarantee you that while people are mildly interested when these teams win, the vast majority of the population could give a shit. Its similar to Cali. Both schools are like Cal, huge potential, but football is like this fun thing for the kids, as they churn out doctorates. At both schools students have to go to football games to get priority tiering to the basketball games. The stadiums are nice, but smaller than the likes of WVU, ISU, South Carolina, or the four corners. They're in the right spot, but they're more like Kentucky than Tennessee
-
Ok, I'll play: 2-7 trying to keep traditional first, then regional: 3-6, adding any games missed, then regional, then any "made for TV" Added Bama/Texas to piss off Aggy. Pretty sure I got them all
-
I like, may be able to get more regional flair in though by having Mizzou be Oklahoma/Arkansas, switch LSU's Arky slot to Florida, and Tennessee's to SC. Blows the Third Saturday in September, but I doubt Tennessee is going to cry about not having to play both Florida and Bama yearly. And it keeps the swamp bowl going. Sucks to be Auburn
-
Ha read this after my novelette, agree completely.
-
Yes, the Big Ten Network is a money printing machine, the only conference network that is metered and is basically nationwide, just below FS1 in households for a Fox property. And, while there are better markets than the Lincoln DMA's whopping 287k, Nebraska's brand, while greatly diminished in the past two decades, greatly eclipses either the Ducks or Huskies. When Fox added USC/UCLA to the B1G, the Big Ten Network did play a role, as increased carriage/advertising in the market will likely increase about $70-80m/year. Not enough for both teams though to be paid $75m a year on the new contract. Most of this increase is USC's football brand and the opportunity to match it up with a lot more brands in a lot more area's than the Pac could provide. Of that $150m, I'd wager two thirds was USC, with UCLA being worth half as much, but bringing in a basketball blue blood to increase inventory in LA and allow a travel pair was an easy financial decision. Washington and Oregon have neither of these advantages. Oregon doesn't reside in the Portland metro, but like all teams, will pull from outside its footprint. Generally, though, increased carriage bumps in the home dma, then they have to work more for the surrounding. The Eugene DMA is 50k smaller than Lincoln and Oregon, while feasting on Nike's marketing dollars, isn't Nebraska. Even if you counted Portland, BTN would likely net about $22m/year from adding Oregon, if Oregon plays on BTN. That leaves over $50m left to make up to match the current B1G. If UCLA was $50m, Oregon is not, but they're not far off. I'm pretty confident on a valuation I had on them earlier which is between $40-45m. Washington has more people nearby, giving BTN a boost of around $28m/year in increased carriage and advertising. But their brand isn't USC, nor UCLA, nor Oregon. I'm not even sure they'd match Indiana or Purdue nationally. Being stuck in the corner doesn't help them, but Seattle does, also worth about $40-45m in total. So to add them both, the B1G would need to give up $5m/year per team in revenues AND receive less highly coveted T1 spots as they'd have to have OU/UW on their T1 windows to pay for them. Consider instead another west coast possibility. Currently the B1G basically owns all of Notre Dame's inventory and NBC is now a Big Ten Partner. There actually could be possibilities where Notre Dame plays on NBC in home AND aways. If that's the case, the only big name (excluding the academies) left is Stanford. That's a match up that would rival USC/UCLA. The Bay area is bigger than both Seattle and Portland and Notre Dame out brands them all. They would come in even money to the current deal and, perhaps, increase everyone's yearly by $2-5m. The Irish's deal runs out in 2025 and they'd need bought out of the ACC deal/GoR, which won't be cheap. Or they need to only add football until 2036. Going to 18 with Notre Dame is a win, it will be unanimous. If they believe they have a chance, and why wouldn't they now that they are in bed with NBC, why would they grab Oregon/Washington, who aren't equal value, when could wait a year and try and swing at ND? OU/Washington are kind of fucked. No one needs them immediately, except the Pac.
-
They don't really do much for anyone, most states are just a few metros and a lot of nothing. The Rutger's DMA is roughly the size of Dallas, Houston and Atlanta, combined.
-
To keep pace with the B1G, they'll need to. Non-con inventory is worthless outside made for TV match-ups.
-
I didn't say they'd join the MWC, I said the remaining for would invite the rest to make Pac 2.0. There's no world where the the Pac brand isn't larger than the MWC.
-
If they had that pull I'd agree. But, I don't think they do.
-
1) No on the subscribers, but they're not paying a billion a year either. If its just Oregon and Washington, they could probably buy that package for $50-75m/year and use it as a cheap place to test new technologies before implementing them on the NFL. 2) The moment this occurs Colorado, Arizona, and Arizona State are in the Big 12, with a knife fight occurring for 16. 3) The remaining four teams add eight from the MWC; likely SDST, UNLV, Boise, Wyoming, Air Force, Nevada, Utah State, and either New Mexico or Colorado State, to form the Conference of Champions 2.0.
-
Yeah and there are like 5 less viable parts in that merger than what Oregon or Washington think. I can't find a single positive benefit to it. If the ACC wasn't under contract for another 13 years, if there were a lot of viable windows available, or if there was a chance of creating a very popular conference channel. Perhaps. But none of these are the case.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!