Jump to content

Hurtlocker

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2294
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hurtlocker

  1. The issue here is how CBS views it is a bit more long term. When they picked up the SEC on CBS, it wasn't the behemoth it is today. CBS and winning championships when you get there is basically the key to the growth of the SEC, then it snowballed. Everyone knows the SEC game of the week is on 3:30 eastern on CBS because that is literally all CBS Sports talks about ad nauseum. So, while, yes, they would rather have Alabama/Georgia, they're not willing to pay for Alabama/Georgia any more and, per @camel at sea's post above, the SEC doesn't need CBS's exposure nor give a discount for it. For CBS, if they can get high value games, not epic games, pay 75% value and provide 25% in marketing exposure, they still get a deal because the money they invest will net ratings similar to their investment. Like the SEC, what they'd be looking to do is invest in a property and help build it, not pay top dollar for the big dogs.
  2. Agree, giving up cash for exposure is where the Big 12 needs to be to build up new brands and remain viable in playoff conversations. No one markets a game better than CBS and they've been sucking the SEC's dick for two decades. Hasn't hurt them.
  3. If that happens the new Big 12 will get a massive win. I still see that going to the Big Ten.
  4. Yeah, and the Big 12 fucked it sideways in 2007 when they didn't linear when it was laid in front of them. This is basically how all cable channels work. Its why ESPN can spend this money on realignment and the SEC. ESPN, as a whole, doesn't generate that many eyeballs. Games and a prime SC, but the vast majority is bullshit filler that gets watched by 20 people. But because they have live sports they're demanding around $8/household. 60% of their total revenues come from affiliate fees, even with the massive drop in the past decade. Same with BTN, same with SECN.
  5. This, so much this. Recruiting rankings are clickbait. Rant number two, why are the ratings calculated off total score and not recruit average?! That drives me nuts. Someone with 20 outranking someone with 10, just because of 20. Dumb.
  6. Actually, it was likely one of the largest revenue grabs in all of realignment. It doesn't even matter so much if Rutgers ever fields a team worth a shit. It doesn't matter if they never have a game played on TV. What mattered was the Big Ten Network got $0.25/household prior to Rutgers and $1.50/household after. Rutger's DMA has 7.5 million households in it. That's a $112.5m addition in yearly affiliate fees for BTN alone, not including advertising, not including a premium for Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State to play in NYC for Fox/Mouse. Maryland added $55m and UCLA/USC added around $90m. Now, you can argue that not everyone in the market watches and, yes, clearly, that is the case. But it also doesn't matter. The BTN now brings these households to the negotiating table. The Top 5 are NYC/LA/Chicago/Philly/Dallas, and BTN basically has the top four locked up.
  7. The difference here is the Big 12 learned from the Nebraska/Colorado/TAMU/Mizzu move and bound up their bylaws a lot tighter. Back then it was just like a year of revenue or something. Now it is a GoR, plus 2 years of revenue, plus any future damage that can be determined. Can they and will they still negotiate it down? Definitely. Will it happen quickly for $15m, a hug, and a pack of smokes? No.
  8. Yeah, the Big 12 doesn't want less money the next few years and ESPN is a bit overloaded at the moment. 2024 is when they're likely giving up on the Big Ten and will have openings. I have a feeling this will work itself out with: 1) B12 getting an ESPN linear and digital network with ESPN promoted with SECN. They've doubled their households with the additions, it has some untapped value, and it benefits ESPN. 2) Valuations increasing for the Big 12 for T2 with ESPN which should lure more content in markets that expand the linear channel (Phoenix, Denver, NoCal, etc) (Looking at the Big 12 sliding into the Big Ten's ESPN opening, highly doubt they'll go after the Big 12's T1) 3) Agreement made for Texas and Oklahoma to be free of the GoR a year early to join the SEC in 2024 with only the buyout remaining. As for the ACC numbers, they are not that outrageous. Grant of Rights are pretty standard in the entertainment industry. These things can be valued in multiple billions easily. And they're not 15 year old rock stars with no representation. All of these schools have lawyers and signed the agreement willingly. They're fucked by their own design.
  9. They really are lagging behind here.
  10. That audience analysis he did was terrible. There are better ones on here with numbers people just made up to get internet laid.
  11. It really comes down to what you're increasing and usually that goes by tiers: Tier 1 are major channel big games (CBS/ABC/FOX), T2 are national cable channels (ESPN, ESPN2, FS1, etc), and T3 is whatever falls to the conference networks at this point. T1 (10-15% of games): Highest payout per game, however it also has the most limited supply of inventory. There are roughly 6-10 of these any weekend split between the channels at Noon/3:30/Primetime eastern. Not every channel does each every week so lean towards the lower end. For the SEC, they have ABC in those three spots, assuming ABC gives its entire inventory to sports. You added Texas and Oklahoma for this reason, fill these games with match ups between Texas/Oklahoma/A&M/LSU/Bama/Georgia/Florida. Every team you add at this point removes one T1 game that one of these teams would play. So who is worth more? Bama or Miami? Texas or Clemson? You already have the higher grossing property, so Clemson/FSU/Miami aren't going to get a lot of T1 games. Harder to be worth $100m off a game or two. T2 (35% of games): The stuff that isn't blockbuster, but is still good, lands here. Think Texas/Arkansas. Good match up, but not Red River. These games pay about 1/3rd of a T1 game, roughly. So if FSU/Miami/Clemson fall here, they need a lot more games to make up the difference of a lower value game. T3 (50+% of games): This is where the fodder lands. In the example posted a few pages back, Missouri had all but one game land on T3 because they weren't compelling enough games to broadcast otherwise. The SEC Network does not get paid on generating eyeballs like T1. They get paid by affiliate fees. It currently already has favored nation pricing in all of the states that FSU/Miami/Clemson reside, so they likely can't boost it that much. And even if they didn't have top rates in all of Florida, for example, Miami would have the highest increase due to having 1.7m households in their DMA. If the SECN made $0.25 out of market and $1.50 in, then Miami would bring $25M to the SEC in affiliate fee increases, and that's at the top end. The best chance for FSU/Miami/Clemson to make more is with the Big12, where they would bring new markets and bigger brands. They still wouldn't make SEC/B1G money, but they'd close the gap.
  12. The problem there is only ND is going to get that money. There are no properties in the ACC that rival ND. They'll get paid twice as much with a fraction of the exit issue. I would be very surprised if there are enough teams in the ACC to remove the GoR and if they don't, they lose their broadcast rights through 2036 - on top of a 3-year revenue buyout. That isn't to say some couldn't make more outside the ACC, but they likely can't make the numbers work for the B1G/SEC for them to be added and the added money the Big 12 could give them won't cover what they'll have to pay to leave. The only reason USC/UCLA worked is they made BTN >$100m in increased affiliate fees alone. The four so far happened because they announced they were leaving on the end of the current GoR, and they still owe buyouts (just less, as the Big 12 is two years of revenue), the ACC is in a much different spot. ND could leave and it won't impact the handcuffs.
  13. ND's football isn't included in the GoR, they have some agreement that they can't join another conference if its not the ACC, but they can likely buy that out. Worst case they don't get Olympic payments, which I think is like $7m a year. Their market value is astronomical compared to any move to date and no one left in the ACC comes close. In short, if ND wants to move, there really isn't anything keeping them from moving that matters, unlike everyone else. As for the rest, the SEC doesn't need FSU/Miami/Clemson. They don't add more value when you have Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina already, and you get to the point where you have too much content. The only upside for the SEC is Texas/OU aren't a part of the SEC Network, so they could slot in two more teams there, but they don't get much more in affiliate fees for that move. Now, if you could get rid of Vandy or Mississippi State and Bring in Clemson or FSU to replace...maybe. Otherwise there's no equal value left.
  14. The Big Ten is still an option, but the SEC and ACC are out. If they wiff on the Big Ten then more likely to have the B12 over the Pac.
  15. From Clemson's side of the ball: ACC-Pac 12 alliance should equate to a Clemson exit It’s time for the Tigers to leave a league that can only get them left behind if they stay
  16. Valid, I kind of think its more each is trying to fuck over the other one to make sure they can't have all the nice things.
  17. It definitely is and it's also why you likely will never see the relegation and removal of teams or the lock out of other conferences to the playoffs. The threat of anti-trust, which they've lost before, will keep them pushing the boundaries, but never quite blowing it up. I think the Mouse wants to settle as much of it as possible now and lock it up, because once Amazon and Apple decide they want it, they can buy Disney with pocket change.
  18. They'd have to dissolve before they left. They don't get votes once they announce they're leaving.
  19. One thing I found interesting is someone posted the ACC agreement earlier and the GOR was listed for 2027, not 2036 as reported. Not sure if it was the right agreement or the most recent, but the dates were off.
  20. This. Foundation of sand.
  21. No way in hell the Big grabs Miami. They still only grab giant research universities. Miami is not UCLA. They would grab GTech though and get into Atlanta. And I'm not saying football doesn't drive it. It does, but you're likely not getting UNC without UVA. They are the tidewater. But they're not a complete loss, they bring in Virginia's 9m people, they compete extremely well in nearly every sport played, and they likely could have a football team if they were told to start pushing it harder than they do. This doesn't have to do anything to march madness unless they break away completely.
  22. So, anytime news comes from a place called "SwimSwam Sports" I'm skeptical, but let's play this out: The SEC totally bitch slaps the Big Ten by taking UVA/UNC/FSU/Clemson. At that point, the ACC is dead. SEC at 20. Big Ten reacts by taking ND, Stanford, BC, and GTech, grabbing 10m new households and the biggest brand in the sport. Big Ten at 20 Big 12 can't believe their dumb luck, gladly let Texas/OU out of the GoR and grab VTech, Miami, Pitt, NCState 16. Wait on what Pac does. Pac 12 can't figure out what to do. They sit at 9 and can grab SDSt and call it a day, or Oregon/Washington lead a charge east. Big 12 can stay at 16, move to 20 with growth locations in the midwest (see Louisville), or wait for western schools to knock. Duke, Wake, and Cuse join the Big East, dumping football.
  23. 1) You'd have two big schools in Florida already 2) UVA/UNC are tied at the hip. One likely won't move without the other and they're the bedrock of the ACC 3) They've won like 10 natties on various sports over the past decade, but, their football is suspect. They are amazeballs in the growing sports that SECN is wanting. 4) UVA/UNC combined is the roughly same population as Florida, more carriage for SECN. 5) Big Ten wants UVA badly for academics/research, e.g. prestige
  24. Actually I think its a way for ESPN to boost viewership of the ACC Network. Unlike BTN/SECN, it doesn't have the same buzz and all of the viewership is on the east coast. By rebranding it and putting the Pac inventory on it, it could double the viewership. Of course it has to split the revenues 25 ways instead of 15, but, you know.
×
×
  • Create New...