Realignment talk not going away

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

8 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Crazy talk. Any team that averages 80k fans a game is going to be worth it to add.

Oh, I am talking if you're choosing 2 of 3 out of Miami, Clemson, and FSU.  I'd say Miami for sure even with their anemic attendance.  If you can grab all 3, sure, do it. 

edit: and I phrased it that way because I'm assuming most would think it's crazy to take Miami over either of the other two but I'm buying the hype. 

Edited August 18, 2022 by ChiTownDoc

[BurntOrange&White 39931]

11 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Oh, I am talking if you're choosing 2 of 3 out of Miami, Clemson, and FSU.  I'd say Miami for sure even with their anemic attendance.  If you can grab all 3, sure, do it. 

edit: and I phrased it that way because I'm assuming most would think it's crazy to take Miami over either of the other two but I'm buying the hype. 

I think Miami Clemson is more attractive than FSU. 

[oSuJeff97 3435]

The Miami thing is fascinating to me.

How is it that a small private school that doesn't draw dick and basically has all of its historical success on the field confined to a 20-year window that ended 20 years ago so valuable to broadcast networks?

The power of the "U" brand, I suppose.

But damn, it's like the thing with Nebraska... exactly how long do you have to suck before some of that value starts to erode away?

[bullet 1596]

37 minutes ago, Left Coast said:

Disney bought the Fox studios assets, but Fox Sports/News/Channel is still a separate company.

Its more like Fox owns the Mouse.  Fox's main owner, Murdoch, is probably Disney's biggest shareholder now.

They are not going to go scorched earth on each other.

[bullet 1596]

1 minute ago, oSuJeff97 said:

The Miami thing is fascinating to me.

How is it that a small private school that doesn't draw dick and basically has all of its historical success on the field confined to a 20-year window that ended 20 years ago so valuable to broadcast networks?

The power of the "U" brand, I suppose.

But damn, it's like the thing with Nebraska... exactly how long do you have to suck before some of that value starts to erode away?

Colorado was a power 20 years ago.  Now they don't draw much attention.  Their TV numbers are near the bottom of the Pac 12.  But they have been really bad.  Minnesota won 4 MNCs from 1936-1960.  But starting late 60s they became really bad.  They haven't won a Big 10 title since 1967.  Who now knows that Minnesota was once a power?

Nebraska and Miami still haven't been really bad.  But Nebraska's shine is starting to fade. 20 years since they were really good and a dozen years since they were good.  Miami still has the "U" brand.  Along with Miami Beach.  Whenever they look good, people still pay attention.

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

4 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

The Miami thing is fascinating to me.

How is it that a small private school that doesn't draw dick and basically has all of its historical success on the field confined to a 20-year window that ended 20 years ago so valuable to broadcast networks?

The power of the "U" brand, I suppose.

But damn, it's like the thing with Nebraska... exactly how long do you have to suck before some of that value starts to erode away?

Miami is not Nebraska in a billion ways - but you're right about the on field part of it.  There's a lot of very powerful alumni that push hard for the Canes and can make a difference in getting them back to their glory days.  Nebraska is dead.  Warren Buffet ain't walking through that door.  I know John Ruiz from Miami and he's pushing very hard for their NIL.  He may be an asshole attorney but he definitely tends to get what he wants.  Will be interesting to see how all this turns out down there. 

[bullet 1596]

$7-$8 billion.  They were saying $1.25 billion per year or more, so its lower than the leaks.  That is $1 billion to $1.14 billion.  Still really B$G.  

[FartingDreamer 138]

College Football can really use a commissioner and centralized leadership over CFB as a whole.  

['stache 21802]

1 hour ago, utee94 said:

No he's right about this.  It wasn't ratings on broadcast television, it was subscriber base to force carriage of the BTN on the local cable providers.  The B1G got a major financial bump on BTN revenues when they added Rutgers and Maryland, because they leveraged it into forcing the carriers to put BTN on their lower, more base packages.

Since then, carriers in the Northeast (and Nebraska) have dumped BTN carriage, but it was a major coup at the time.

And Wall Street wonders why people turned on cable companies and started cutting the cord. 

"Hey NYC customers, your sports package is increasing by $5 a month, and you'll now get all the Rutgers coverage you've been begging for all these years! (between all the tOSU and UM content that is)."

Edited August 18, 2022 by 'stache

['stache 21802]

34 minutes ago, bullet said:

Colorado was a power 20 years ago.  Now they don't draw much attention.  Their TV numbers are near the bottom of the Pac 12.  But they have been really bad.  Minnesota won 4 MNCs from 1936-1960.  But starting late 60s they became really bad.  They haven't won a Big 10 title since 1967.  Who now knows that Minnesota was once a power?

Nebraska and Miami still haven't been really bad.  But Nebraska's shine is starting to fade. 20 years since they were really good and a dozen years since they were good.  Miami still has the "U" brand.  Along with Miami Beach.  Whenever they look good, people still pay attention.

Colorado to me is like Kansas State, their era of super high level play was really short and not sustained. Nebraska was a power for decades so it'll take more extended suckitude for their luster to wear off. I never quit got a good view on Miami. Their success wasn't extended but wasn't a blip either. I think it was more that they weren't only really really good, they became a cultural phenomenon that embeds itself for generations. A comparison that comes to mind is Michigan basketball and the Fab Four.

Edited August 18, 2022 by 'stache

[oSuJeff97 3435]

41 minutes ago, bullet said:

 Miami still has the "U" brand.  Along with Miami Beach.  Whenever they look good, people still pay attention.

I'd say when they are "elite" people still pay attention... does a large swath of the country really pay that much attention if Miami is basically just firing out 7-5 seasons every year?  Because other than the rare 10-win season with Mark Richt in 2017, that's basically what they've been doing for the past two decades.

Since they fired Larry Coker after the 2006 season, they've only finished the year ranked 4 times and are a staggering 1-10 in bowl games. 

But yeah, I get that they still have "the brand", but that brand value was based on them being elite in college football from basically 1980-2001.  I just wonder, how long do you have to be just barely above average for that "brand" to lose some of its value?

 

[utee94 15811]

10 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

I'd say when they are "elite" people still pay attention... does a large swath of the country really pay that much attention if Miami is basically just firing out 7-5 seasons every year?  Because other than the rare 10-win season with Mark Richt in 2017, that's basically what they've been doing for the past two decades.

Since they fired Larry Coker after the 2006 season, they've only finished the year ranked 4 times and are a staggering 1-10 in bowl games. 

But yeah, I get that they still have "the brand", but that brand value was based on them being elite in college football from basically 1980-2001.  I just wonder, how long do you have to be just barely above average for that "brand" to lose some of its value?

 

For matters like these, I always give it the, "Would you be excited to see them on your home schedule?" test.

And no, I would not be excited to see Miami on the home schedule.

[notre dame joe 187]

2 hours ago, Azbadlands said:

Yeah, I think location of the college gets overplayed a little.  If it mattered that much, schools like Arizona State or Colorado would kick ass in recruiting.  

Putting players in the draft; especially, high in the draft is a big deal.  That has been used negatively against Texas big time lately.  

I think both OU and Texas will see big dividends in recruiting in the SEC.  The games/ matchups in the SEC will drive excitement for both schools..

ASU is a sleeping giant.  They just never had passionate alumni (BMDs) to exploit the huge growth in population.  Maricopa County AZ was #1 in growth during the covid crazy period.  If the Scottsdale money cared about something besides sex they could easily lure top talent to Tempe. 

 

Schools like Miami and Southern Cal are top talent hubs and what they did in their glory years is now partly legal.  They are always a risk to burst out again. 

[DFW Horn 6123]

2 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I bet ESPN buys up the CBS remaining contract with the SEC next year.

Right, so they'll probably want UT + OU in the fold by 2024

[Stunns38 3460]

Chicago draws eye balls to college football.  I'd love to see NYC and LA numbers.  Sure, they're massive TV markets but do they actually draw more eye balls to college football games, vs, say, Atlanta?  I really have no idea.  I would guess the Dallas/FTW metroplex draws more viewers to college football vs NYC but could be way off.  

College football is actually pretty big in NYC. Almost every single bar that serves food in Manhattan host local alumni chapters. Even Texas Tech had a bar on the upper east side. Tons of transplants from football-heavy regions there. A good percentage of the local suburban kids attend college in the Midwest and South too.

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

8 minutes ago, Stunns38 said:

College football is actually pretty big in NYC. Almost every single bar that serves food in Manhattan host local alumni chapters. Even Texas Tech had a bar on the upper east side. Tons of transplants from football-heavy regions there. A good percentage of the local suburban kids attend college in the Midwest and South too.

The alumni I totally agree.  But the vast majority of nyc people have too much shit going on to watch cfb.  There’s not a lot of hardcore t shirt fans like Texas and the southeast.  That’s just my educated guess.  But I agree on just overall a lot of alumni there from all over… 

Damn, I need to get back to NYC…

[bullet 1596]

Brett McMurphy said "Realignment talk not going away."

Although the actual quote was "...the Big Ten is not done expanding, sources told Action Network..."

[Aqua Buddha 14590]

1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

ASU is a sleeping giant.  They just never had passionate alumni (BMDs) to exploit the huge growth in population.  Maricopa County AZ was #1 in growth during the covid crazy period.  If the Scottsdale money cared about something besides sex they could easily lure top talent to Tempe. 

 

Schools like Miami and Southern Cal are top talent hubs and what they did in their glory years is now partly legal.  They are always a risk to burst out again. 

Most of the Scottsdale money moved there from somewhere else and could give a shit about the Zona schools until their underwhelming kids/grandkids can't get into top tier schools so the end up next to Nana and Papa.

[Aqua Buddha 14590]

3 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I bet ESPN buys up the CBS remaining contract with the SEC next year.

Yes, they want to force everyone into the ESPN+ bundle ASAP.  They'll carry the top games on ABC/ESPN but they know they can sell lower tier football games and all of the other sports on ESPN+ and people will pay.  That money dwarfs whatever the Big 12 buyout is.

[Trojan Man 429]

1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

ASU is a sleeping giant.  They just never had passionate alumni (BMDs) to exploit the huge growth in population.  Maricopa County AZ was #1 in growth during the covid crazy period.  If the Scottsdale money cared about something besides sex they could easily lure top talent to Tempe. 

 

Schools like Miami and Southern Cal are top talent hubs and what they did in their glory years is now partly legal.  They are always a risk to burst out again. 

I said it not that long ago, but ASU has been referred to as a sleeping giant for so long maybe we should call them comatose by now.  I can count on one hand the number of times in my life (my age begins with 3) they've had a relevant team, and that is a very generous definition of relevant because barring one special season they make the Sun Bowl or the Holiday Bowl in their best years.

I just looked it up and dating back to 1990 they have won 10 games 3 times (2007, 2013, 2014) and they won 11 games once, when they blew their shot at a national championship in 1996.  That was also their only conference title in this timespan.  They typically win 6-9 games with a high amount of 4-5 win clunkers.  Maybe the Pac 12 wouldn't be on life support if its middle class programs like Arizona State ever accomplished anything.

[utee94 15811]

The ags have always considered themselves a sleeping giant, so this hits about 110 miles from home.

 

[bullet 1596]

https://www.si.com/college/2022/08/18/big-ten-announces-new-media-tv-rights-deal-kevin-warren

 

"...The agreement with Fox, CBS and NBC comes with this caveat from a Big Ten source: “We are not done expanding.” What that means—in terms of timetable, potential expansion targets and the overall stability of college athletics—was left unsaid. It could be posturing to keep the rival Southeastern Conference and others off-balance, or it could be an indication, as Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren said in July, that further national realignment could come within the next few years, well before this new deal ends with the 2029–30 athletic calendar...."

[Azbadlands 109]

1 hour ago, notre dame joe said:

ASU is a sleeping giant.  They just never had passionate alumni (BMDs) to exploit the huge growth in population.  Maricopa County AZ was #1 in growth during the covid crazy period.  If the Scottsdale money cared about something besides sex they could easily lure top talent to Tempe. 

 

Schools like Miami and Southern Cal are top talent hubs and what they did in their glory years is now partly legal.  They are always a risk to burst out again. 

They would have to get the talent from another state.  Arizona doesn't produce much.  Maybe 2 or 3 highly ranked recruits a year, and possibly a few others that don't get any love from recruiting services... The football players always go to out of state schools like USC, Texas, A&M, OU, and Georgia recently..

You would think with the population boom here there would be more in state talent eventually...

[tbone_ 14115]

Shouldn’t be hard to recruit dudes to come hang in AZ for the winter. But it is apparently.

[Aqua Buddha 14590]

25 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Shouldn’t be hard to recruit dudes to come hang in AZ for the winter. But it is apparently.

Tuscon is an outpost but yes, Zona State should do better.  While not a traditional football program, they have tons of hot ass, easy academic and within a car drive from Vegas and Southern California.  They've never had BMD's that care and the metro area are largely transplants and they don't care, either.  There are prolly more Big 10 fans in Phoenix than anything else.  (Retirees.)

[DFW Horn 6123]

2 hours ago, utee94 said:

For matters like these, I always give it the, "Would you be excited to see them on your home schedule?" test.

And no, I would not be excited to see Miami on the home schedule.

Yeah, I mean aggy's got 'em on their home schedule for crissakes!

[Azbadlands 109]

2 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Tuscon is an outpost but yes, Zona State should do better.  While not a traditional football program, they have tons of hot ass, easy academic and within a car drive from Vegas and Southern California.  They've never had BMD's that care and the metro area are largely transplants and they don't care, either.  There are prolly more Big 10 fans in Phoenix than anything else.  (Retirees.)

Yep, even the AZ Cardinals have some of the same issues, there are so many transplants in Phoenix from other states that they are usually going to Cardinals games to watch the other team they are playing against...

[tbone_ 14115]

Tuscon is an outpost but yes, Zona State should do better.  While not a traditional football program, they have tons of hot ass, easy academic and within a car drive from Vegas and Southern California.  They've never had BMD's that care and the metro area are largely transplants and they don't care, either.  There are prolly more Big 10 fans in Phoenix than anything else.  (Retirees.)

Not just retirees but yes.

However ASU cranks out a lot of graduates here. And more and more are staying here. And if the team was ever any good people would support.

But correct on the admin/BMDs not leading the charge. I don’t think Crow gaf about winning anything in athletics.

[tbone_ 14115]

Yep, even the AZ Cardinals have some of the same issues, there are so many transplants in Phoenix from other states that they are usually going to Cardinals games to watch the other team they are playing against...

Yes and no. Same as my point with ASU, if they were ever actually any good or had any kind of history of not sucking ass for 80 years people would care and be into it.

See: Phx Suns. They have a real following here.

[VABuckeye 2472]

Exactly.  To be a sleeping giant implies a school once was a giant of the sport and ASU has never approached that level. 
 

Neither has Aggy.  

[Hurtlocker 2212]

5 hours ago, bullet said:

$7-$8 billion.  They were saying $1.25 billion per year or more, so its lower than the leaks.  That is $1 billion to $1.14 billion.  Still really B$G.  

Likely doesn't include BTN revenue either, so its $1b a year just for the Fox/NBC/CBS deal.  

[Hurtlocker 2212]

7 hours ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

And Chicago with Northwestern. And DC with Maryland. We should go ahead and give DFW to the Big 12 because of TCU and Houston. 

Chicago is a Big Ten and ND town.  Only so many kids can go to Illinois, so Chicago feeds all the major universities in the area, including Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Wisconsin, and Iowa.  On Saturdays, its what's on all the TVs in bars.

[utee94 15811]

21 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Likely doesn't include BTN revenue either, so its $1b a year just for the Fox/NBC/CBS deal.  

Yeah I've been trying to put this all in perspective, and this is an area I know you follow, so maybe you can help illuminate?

The $7B total-$1B/year deal, is reported as just the Fox/CBS/NBC portion.  So that's effectively what we used to call "Tier1/Tier2."  The BTN still owns the rights to what we used to call "Tier3" and I'd expect those revenues to increase with at least some kind of forced coverage on subscriber models in LA, same as they did in NY and DC when they added Rutgers and Maryland.  As of 2019 I saw an article saying the B1G annual distributions per school were around $60M but I don't know what portion was Tier1/2, what portion was BTN, and what portion was "other" which typically consists of bowl payouts and other random rights paid, outside of T1/T2/T3.  Anyway, at $7B total over 7 years and divided by 16 schools, that's $62.5M/school, so presumably it's the BTN revenue and other rights-distributions that get it up to the speculated ~$100M/year?  

For the SEC, the totals I've seen on the Disney/ABC/ESPN contract are $3B for 10 years, which translates to $300M/year, which in the article texts from 2020, they keep on saying "replaces and far surpasses the $55M/year from CBS" for that Tier1 content.    But what isn't clear, is whether or not that $3B is all-in, or if it's just for Tier1?  And if it's just Tier1 as I believe it must be, then what's the  additional contract totals from Disney for the the remainder of the Tier2 rights?  And then, how does SECN fit in?  Because if it's just $300M/year, divided by 14 (pre Texas/OU announcement), then that's only ~$21M/school.  So it seems that would have to be Tier1 rights alone? And if so, how much is Disney paying for the Tier2 rights, and how much does SECN distribute per school, annually?

Not trying to prove any points here, I'm just idly curious how the deals between the SEC and the B1G stack up.

 

Edited August 19, 2022 by utee94

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

12 hours ago, mdmost said:

Seriously, watch this promo and tell me how many of these teams you'd actually tune in to watch if it's not against Ohio State, Michigan, or USC. I mean good for the Big 10 but I simply do not get how they are this valuable when it's so top heavy. 

 

Audience size. All those big ass schools with huge alumni populations command massive and loyal audiences. Especially in the Northeast where all these TV networks are headquartered.  Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, Michigan St., Wisconsin, and now USC and UCLA. Our view of the Big 10 has been warped over the last 15 years by the brand management job ESPN has done for the SEC. For most of my lifetime Big 10 schools have had an overwhelming presence in college football. It's only in the last 15 years where the Big 10's coverage took a 2ndary role to the SEC. I remember how I felt about the Big 10 back in 2004 when we faced Michigan in the Rose bowl and how I had a nagging sense that they were overrated. What I was really emoting was a feeling of envy over the coverage they received at the time. 

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

12 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Correct. Ohio State will be on every week. Just like Bama when the SEC is down. 

I believe the Big 10's weekly game selection works a lot different that the SEC and other conferences. The games are chosen prior to the season starting. So Fox will choose Michigan/Ohio St with the first pick, and then CBS will choose a game, then NBC and then back to Fox with the 4th pick. Maybe Fox gets a few more extra picks due to their buy, but it works like a draft where the picks are made for the entire season. 

[Trojan Man 429]

3 hours ago, Azbadlands said:

They would have to get the talent from another state.  Arizona doesn't produce much.  Maybe 2 or 3 highly ranked recruits a year, and possibly a few others that don't get any love from recruiting services... The football players always go to out of state schools like USC, Texas, A&M, OU, and Georgia recently..

You would think with the population boom here there would be more in state talent eventually...

Arizona produces a fair amount of talent.  In the class of 2023 per 247 they have a 5* (the #1 TE), 7 4*s (3 are in the top 247) and 14 top 1000 players.  But only one of them, the #12 recruit in the state, is committed to or crystal balled to an instate school.  If Arizona starts winning more games I expect they'll do better with instate recruiting.  They have a staff that recruits relentlessly and some NIL backing.  Their 2022 class ranked 25th in the country and 3rd in the Pac 12, amazing given their standards and recent record.  They are establishing pipelines with some quality high schools in California and they beat USC for a local (CA) WR we really wanted.

3 hours ago, tbone_ said:

Shouldn’t be hard to recruit dudes to come hang in AZ for the winter. But it is apparently.

The flipside is doing your summer training and fall camp two a days and early season practice in Satan's asshole, which probably explains some of their difficulty when it comes to keeping local talent home.  I can see kids who put up with that for 4 years in high school saying "Fuck this shit, I'm going to college somewhere you can't fry eggs on your car's dashboard half the year" during their recruiting process.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Trojan Man
Correction

[tbone_ 14115]

It’s better here in the summer than in Texas or southeast humidity.

[bullet 1596]

30 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

Arizona produces a fair amount of talent.  In the class of 2023 per 247 they have a 5* (the #1 TE), 7 4*s (3 are in the top 247) and 14 top 1000 players.  But only one of them, the #12 recruit in the state, is committed to or crystal balled to an instate school.  If Arizona starts winning more games I expect they'll do better with instate recruiting.  They have a staff that recruits relentlessly and some NIL backing.  Their 2022 class ranked 25th in the country and 3rd in the Pac 12, amazing given their standards and recent record.  They are establishing pipelines with some quality high schools in California and they beat USC for a local (CA) WR we really wanted.

The flipside is doing your summer training and fall camp two a days and early season practice in Satan's asshole, which probably explains some of their difficulty when it comes to keeping local talent home.  I can see kids who put up with that for 4 years in high school saying "Fuck this shit, I'm going to college somewhere you can't fry eggs on your car's dashboard half the year" during their recruiting process.

I don't think you can fry eggs on a dashboard in Phoenix in the summer.  They would flat out evaporate.

[bullet 1596]

I played football in JH in Ohio.  When I moved to Texas and the JH team was practicing full pads the week before school started in early August in the Houston heat and humidity, I decided that was for the birds.

Now it paid off.  They won city.  And when they got to HS they won nearly as many games when they were sophomores as the school had in its previous 6 year history.  And started a tradition.  I think they only had one losing season in the next 40 years or so.

It would be hard to get recruits from the midwest to Arizona.  And probably hard to get them from Florida.

[bullet 1596]

29 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

It’s better here in the summer than in Texas or southeast humidity.

In Arizona????  Flagstaff is fine, but you can't stay outside in Phoenix for any length of time.

[bullet 1596]

There's an article in the SBJ saying the SEC will average $710 million on their 10 years deals starting in 2024.  That is about $51 million a school.  I don't think that includes the $10 million or so they make on the SECN and it doesn't include UT and OU.  There hasn't been anything authoritative on their latest contract revisions so I don't know how they come up with that $710 million.  Various reports have the SEC is getting between $307 and $375 million a year on their Tier I deal with ESPN in 2024 (CBS was paying them $55 million a year-and gave up the bidding on the new deal at $307 million, so we know ESPN is paying at least that).  Their Tier II deal was $300 million a year average (it was a 20 year deal to 2034), but that has been re-worked some.

The Big 10's current deal is $440 million a year for 14 schools.  The new one will be $1 billion to $1.15 billion for 16 schools, so $63 to $70 million per school plus the BTN which is $7-$10 million a school.

[tbone_ 14115]

In Arizona????  Flagstaff is fine, but you can't stay outside in Phoenix for any length of time.

I have 30 Texas summers and 24 Arizona summers that say different.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

31 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Yeah I've been trying to put this all in perspective, and this is an area I know you follow, so maybe you can help illuminate?

The $7B total-$1B/year deal, is reported as just the Fox/CBS/NBC portion.  So that's effectively what we used to call "Tier1/Tier2."  The BTN still owns the rights to what we used to call "Tier3" and I'd expect those revenues to increase with at least some kind of forced coverage on subscriber models in LA, same as they did in NY and DC when they added Rutgers and Maryland.  As of 2019 I saw an article saying the B1G annual distributions per school were around $60M but I don't know what portion was Tier1/2, what portion was BTN, and what portion was "other" which typically consists of bowl payouts and other random rights paid, outside of T1/T2/T3.  Anyway, at $7B total over 7 years and divided by 16 schools, that's $62.5M/school, so presumably it's the BTN revenue and other rights-distributions that get it up to the speculated ~$100M/year?  

For the SEC, the totals I've seen on the Disney/ABC/ESPN contract are $3B for 10 years, which translates to $300M/year, which in the article texts from 2020, they keep on saying "replaces and far surpasses the $55M/year from CBS" for that Tier1 content.    But what isn't clear, is whether or not that $3B is all-in, or if it's just for Tier1?  And if it's just Tier1 as I believe it must be, then what's the  additional contract totals from Disney for the the remainder of the Tier2 rights?  And then, how does SECN fit in?  Because if it's just $300M/year, divided by 14 (pre Texas/OU announcement), then that's only ~$21M/school.  So it seems that would have to be Tier1 rights alone? And if so, how much is Disney paying for the Tier2 rights, and how much does SECN distribute per school, annually?

Not trying to prove any points here, I'm just idly curious how the deals between the SEC and the B1G stack up.

 

They only release like a quarter of the details, so it's always hard to tell for sure off a press release.   We won't really know until around the summer of 2025, when we can see AD revenues for the 2023-24 season.  Until then though, let's speculate!

Big Ten   

The $60m they were being paid prior was for all revenues paid out by the Big Ten, so around $840m a year.   This included T1, T2, T3, any BTN ownership revenue, NCAA payouts, post season, equity sale for 10% of BTN to Fox, etc.

What we're seeing released today is just their new T1/T2 package.   The 7-8b escalators are standard practice, basically the 4% year-over-year increase to keep from losing value to inflation.   It's not really that you're paid more, it's just that what you can buy for $100m in year one is the same as what you can buy for $104m in year two.   With this, and it being a 7 year deal, year four is the baseline, at $1b a year.   Y1 will be worth $885m and Y7 will be worth $1.1b.  This nets out to be about $55-70m per school over the run.

This potential $2B increase, from $8b to $10b is an interesting wrinkle.  I guarantee you this is the ND rider.   NBC wants ND to go against bigger brands all year to maximize their audience, which has been shrinking since the ACC deal.  At about a quarter billion a year, the only thing it could be is ND and a friend, likely Stanford for NoCal and academic fapping, which breaks down to $71m/school in Y2 (2025 when ND would join) and $88m/school in Y7.

BTN is a bit muddier to figure out.   In the past the Big Ten owned half and they split up profits at the end of the year.   If the channel made $280m, each school got $10m, after Fox took half.  We can fudge their revenue in a moment, but the LA market paid off big for Fox in BTN.  I would guess they're going to increase their carriage in SoCal alone by nearly $120m per year.  That's a big nut.

So, cable channels make money with carriage or affiliate fees or whatever you want to call charging the distributor $X per subscriber per month to carry the channel.  There are sort of three rates, the in market rate, which is specifically what DMA you reside and then out of market rate.  Sometimes you can get a wider area rate, (like $1/m/sub in DMA and $0.4/m/sub in state and $0.2/m/sub OOM, as an example), but let's not overly complicate it.  For BTN, OOM is 14-20% of Market.  I don't feel like running all the numbers right now, so let's say they're in 80m homes and 30m of that is in market.   They'll make $65m a month in fees alone.  Advertising generally makes up about half of total revenues, that means BTN is making $130m per month.   After expenses, and Fox taking 61%, the Big Ten likely makes around $15-25m per year per team (at 16) off the BTN.   Let's say $20m, so now we're at $75m - $90m per team per from Y1 to Y7 for T1/2/3 properties, which will also go up with post season and NCAA.   

SEC

The SEC is a bit different.   ESPN bought all of their inventory.  Literally bought it.   The SEC does not have an equity stake in the SEC Network.   It is an ESPN construct to dump inventory and increase their carriage across all ESPN owned channels.   The one you mentioned is for their T1 games and was a 10-year deal at $300m a year in year 5.   So in Y1 that's $250m (or around $18m/school) to Y7 at $365m ($26m/school)

They also own the rights to their T2/3 on a 20 year deal that started in 2014.   I can't find the price quoted, but the SEC paid out $40m per school two years ago for just the media deal, and part of that was the $55m that CBS paid.  Due to that I'd guess they made $36m/school on the deal....or about $500m/year.

Fast forward that to 2024 and you have a pay out of about $850m/year on T1/2/3, or $60m per school per year.

What hasn't been announced is how much Texas and OU will increase the totals.   We do know that they won't be a part of the SEC network.   OU signed a separate T3 agreement with ESPN for SoonerVision and, obviously, there is LHN.  For the SEC then, I'd guess you'd see a $150ishm bump, making the total revenue around $1b in 2024.  The per team payout is a bit wonky, because Texas/OU only have T1/T2, but it ends up pretty close to $65-70m/school/year.

 

At the end of the day, its just trading paint though.   Money keeps you in the game, you can't win without it, but there comes a point where you just can't spend all you have.   The money Texas makes from moving to the SEC won't really do jack for its finances.   I mean more is good, but are they going to build a second football stadium?  No.   Who it helps most is Indiana, Vandy, Kentucky, etc.   All of those teams will start to separate from the ACC/B12/P10 in facilities even more.

What matters most, and why realignment really happened, is exposure.   Exposure is brand marketing, and it is work waaaaaay more than revenues.   It is like playing with house money if you get it.   Exposure is recruiting.   Kids want to go where they'll be seen.

So what is really at stake here isn't is the Big Ten getting a few million more per team, it is which media deal will gain the most exposure; the Big Ten's NFL approach, or the SEC being all in on the Worldwide Leader's spin machine?

I'd not bet against ESPN, unless the Big Ten lands ND.

[Hagbard Celine 10853]

On 8/17/2022 at 2:54 PM, DFW Horn said:

That's not a 4-team pod? Excuse me, 3 perma-rivals...whatever.

the 3 perma-rivals are all switched around

your perma rival doesn't share 1 or 2 of your other perma-rivals

step 1: light cigars

step 2: smoke filled room horse trading

step 3: .......

step 4: bama continues to duck georgia 8 years in a row, forever, AND

step 5: 2nd fcs bodybag intact

[Trojan Man 429]

1 hour ago, tbone_ said:

It’s better here in the summer than in Texas or southeast humidity.

The choice isn't "Arizona or Texas," although Baylor has a commitment from a top 10 Arizona recruit.  It's "melt or don't melt."  Oregon has commitments or CBs from 4 of Arizona's top 10 recruits and I'm sure they talk about how nice it is to spend time outdoors in the spring and summer and early fall when they get visits from AZ and TX recruits.  It's not something every recruit will care about, but it's not something that will miss the mark 100% of the time either.

[Thiefery 4995]

32 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

We do know that they won't be a part of the SEC network.   OU signed a separate T3 agreement with ESPN for SoonerVision and, obviously, there is LHN. 

Wait.. so are saying that UT will still be collecting it's 17 mil and increasing every year money from LHN despite it being taken away in the near future?

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

3 hours ago, VABuckeye said:

Exactly.  To be a sleeping giant implies a school once was a giant of the sport and ASU has never approached that level. 
 

Neither has Aggy.  

Lol.  ASU has amazing pussy.  aggy has sheep, jars, socks…. 
 

please STFU

[TKthunder2 4988]

17 minutes ago, Thiefery said:

Wait.. so are saying that UT will still be collecting it's 17 mil and increasing every year money from LHN despite it being taken away in the near future?

Oklahoma-branded page goes live on ESPN+, with SoonerVision content

Quote

Oklahoma’s branded page on ESPN+ debuted this week with a one-stop shop for all kinds of SoonerVision programming and archived games. Live events will start there later this month. The arrangement calls for one OU football game to be broadcast on the platform as well. This season, that game will be OU vs. Kent State on Sept. 10. In addition to the SoonerVision content, a subscription to ESPN+ also includes access to Big 12 Now for hundreds of events from across the conference. This is expected to be the home for SoonerVision content until OU officially joins the SEC, and then those rights roll over to ESPN-owned SEC Network.

Yeah the LHN will die or morph after we officially join.  ESPN owns the third tier rights for the SEC they are not going to pay us more for them than the conference gets.  They may pay more for those rights if the contract has an escalator clause, but the funds will be divided equally.

[notre dame joe 187]

9 hours ago, Azbadlands said:

They would have to get the talent from another state.  Arizona doesn't produce much.  Maybe 2 or 3 highly ranked recruits a year, and possibly a few others that don't get any love from recruiting services... The football players always go to out of state schools like USC, Texas, A&M, OU, and Georgia recently..

You would think with the population boom here there would be more in state talent eventually...

 

5 hours ago, bullet said:

In Arizona????  Flagstaff is fine, but you can't stay outside in Phoenix for any length of time.

But they are out practicing in pads right now. At ASU as well.

 

THe new arrivals may not be in the speed demographic.  They are also not yet parents of teens.  I think it take some time before they start producing teenagers commensurate with the total population. 

[Not a Sock 2313]

6 hours ago, sportsbay said:

Long term, the B1G needs to pull HS players from the south to get their league to a level where it can compete with the SEC teams and even B12 teams on the field top to bottom.  The B1G is going to go about this in 1 of 2 ways.  It is going to commence revenue sharing with players to a point where the south cannot match.  Well most of the south, they aren't outbidding Texas, Texas ANM, and many teams in the SEC but overtime the goal will be to pull enough away to start moving the needle.  

 

Secondly, they will push for an outright draft of high school players like the NFL drafts college players.  It wouldn't work now, but if they are able to shave down the number of teams, then they can start to push for a draft.  Will student athletes and parents go for it?  IDK.  Will fans go for it?  Defenitley not in the South.  I think this is the less likely option ,but don't fool yourself, it is something they want badly.

This is one of the stupidest fucking comments I have ever read. While the Big 10 leverages media deals larger than the SEC the SEC still beats the Big 10 in actual athletic department so funding a roster would still favor the SEC. A Highschool draft is literally the fucking stupidest thing I have ever heard not only would absolutely nobody ever agree to it, even if they did agree to it, it would be outright illegal as it’s an antitrust violation.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Not a Sock