+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: Sankey on Texas and Oklahoma and When They May Possibly Join, ...But the.... (/thread-956190.html)
Sankey on Texas and Oklahoma and When They May Possibly Join, ...But the.... - JRsec - 09-26-2022 11:24 AM
article while not definitive hints at 2024, but is more revealing of other items of interest to this board like a reference to broader changes in 2024 and as I have said a 9 game conference schedule once OU and UT are in house.
https://www.si.com/college/texas/football/longhorns-sec-greg-sankey-expansion-sooners-conference-realignment
The link address is correct. I don't know why I get a 404 error on this one. But a simple search will turn up the article out of College Station where Cole Thompson wrote the article.
RE: Sankey on Texas and Oklahoma and When They May Possibly Join, ...But the.... - Poster - 09-26-2022 11:31 AM
I'd prefer 9 conference games, but my main concern is for divisions to be abolished so you won't literally get just one home game against most teams from the other division from the time your kids enter kindergarten until the time they enter college.
Why hasn't he made a 100% committal to abolishing divisions? It's getting annoying. Are there seriously some SEC members who want to keep divisions?
RE: Sankey on Texas and Oklahoma and When They May Possibly Join, ...But the.... - Scoochpooch1 - 09-26-2022 11:35 AM
(09-26-2022 11:31 AM)Poster Wrote: I'd prefer 9 conference games, but my main concern is for divisions to be abolished so you won't play most teams in the other division once every zillion years.
Why hasn't he made a 100% committal to abolishing divisions? It's getting annoying.
Removing divisons is a must and hopefully return to pre-1992 rivalries as well.
RE: Sankey on Texas and Oklahoma and When They May Possibly Join, ...But the.... - XLance - 09-26-2022 11:36 AM
link does not work for me
RE: Sankey on Texas and Oklahoma and When They May Possibly Join, ...But the.... - PeteTheChop - 09-26-2022 11:45 AM
(09-26-2022 11:24 AM)JRsec Wrote: article while not definitive hints at 2024, but is more revealing of other items of interest to this board like a reference to broader changes in 2024 and as I have said a 9 game conference schedule once OU and UT are in house.
Sankey will rightfully require Disney to pay up for that increase from 8 to 9 games.
A 10-year-deal that pays less than the B1G (TBD), offers (arguably) less exposure and ends four years later is the kind of thing that gets member schools to grumbling
RE: Sankey on Texas and Oklahoma and When They May Possibly Join, ...But the.... - Frank the Tank - 09-26-2022 11:54 AM
The fact that anyone in the SEC would push back against 9 conference games going forward continues to perplex me. I know it exists (e.g. the Kentucky AD comments the other day that they want 8 conference games), but it would be so short-sighted regardless of whether ESPN pays or doesn't pay more money for them. (My semi-educated guess is that ESPN isn't obligated to change anything about the SEC contract regardless of how many conference games are in place, which is why there's so much hemming and hawing.)
RE: Sankey on Texas and Oklahoma and When They May Possibly Join, ...But the.... - johnbragg - 09-26-2022 12:00 PM
(09-26-2022 11:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: The fact that anyone in the SEC would push back against 9 conference games going forward continues to perplex me. I know it exists (e.g. the Kentucky AD comments the other day that they want 8 conference games), but it would be so short-sighted regardless of whether ESPN pays or doesn't pay more money for them. (My semi-educated guess is that ESPN isn't obligated to change anything about the SEC contract regardless of how many conference games are in place, which is why there's so much hemming and hawing.)
somebody said that Slive used to say "don't give TV anything if they're not paying extra for it."
There is increased TV value in a 9th conference game, especially if it replaces a body-bag game. There is a cost, one less guaranteed win, which means missing a bowl once in a while, especially for the lower half of the SEC. And it can mean a road game instead of a home game every other year.
All that, combined with better or at least refreshed matchups from dumping divisions in favor of 3-6-6 so that Texas plays Florida and LSU plays Oklahoma and Alabama plays Georgia twice every four years (if not every year) is worth a lot to ESPN. That's an appropriate time to revisit whether the SEC is being paid a fair rate for their TV package.
RE: Sankey on Texas and Oklahoma and When They May Possibly Join, ...But the.... - vandiver49 - 09-26-2022 12:07 PM
(09-26-2022 11:35 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:(09-26-2022 11:31 AM)Poster Wrote: I'd prefer 9 conference games, but my main concern is for divisions to be abolished so you won't play most teams in the other division once every zillion years.
Why hasn't he made a 100% committal to abolishing divisions? It's getting annoying.
Removing divisons is a must and hopefully return to pre-1992 rivalries as well.
Getting rid of divisions is definitely happening. But the conference is too big to go back to pre-1992 rivals.
RE: Sankey on Texas and Oklahoma and When They May Possibly Join, ...But the.... - Poster - 09-26-2022 12:14 PM
(09-26-2022 12:00 PM)johnbragg Wrote:(09-26-2022 11:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: The fact that anyone in the SEC would push back against 9 conference games going forward continues to perplex me. I know it exists (e.g. the Kentucky AD comments the other day that they want 8 conference games), but it would be so short-sighted regardless of whether ESPN pays or doesn't pay more money for them. (My semi-educated guess is that ESPN isn't obligated to change anything about the SEC contract regardless of how many conference games are in place, which is why there's so much hemming and hawing.)
somebody said that Slive used to say "don't give TV anything if they're not paying extra for it."
There is increased TV value in a 9th conference game, especially if it replaces a body-bag game. There is a cost, one less guaranteed win, which means missing a bowl once in a while, especially for the lower half of the SEC. And it can mean a road game instead of a home game every other year.
All that, combined with better or at least refreshed matchups from dumping divisions in favor of 3-6-6 so that Texas plays Florida and LSU plays Oklahoma and Alabama plays Georgia twice every four years (if not every year) is worth a lot to ESPN. That's an appropriate time to revisit whether the SEC is being paid a fair rate for their TV package.
The bowls that 6-6 teams go to have always been money losers, and they're probably worse money losers than ever now during the playoff system. (Which will soon expand to 12 teams.) Plus circa 2006 a 6-6 team that was invited to a bowl at least would have been one of the few teams playing on December 20. Now that every 6-6 team goes to a bowl, they'll be competing against 5 other Toilet Bowl games for tv viewers.
If 9 games results in less bowl eligible teams, that's actually a good thing financially for the SEC.
RE: Sankey on Texas and Oklahoma and When They May Possibly Join, ...But the.... - Fighting Muskie - 09-26-2022 12:18 PM
(09-26-2022 11:45 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:(09-26-2022 11:24 AM)JRsec Wrote: article while not definitive hints at 2024, but is more revealing of other items of interest to this board like a reference to broader changes in 2024 and as I have said a 9 game conference schedule once OU and UT are in house.
Sankey will rightfully require Disney to pay up for that increase from 8 to 9 games.
A 10-year-deal that pays less than the B1G (TBD), offers (arguably) less exposure and ends four years later is the kind of thing that gets member schools to grumbling
I struggle with the “ESPN should pay more for a 9th conference game” argument.
They are trading 14 OOC games for 7 conference games. While the quality of those games is substantially better, they are only getting half the content.
If there is a pay bump involved, I don’t see why it ought to be that substantial.
RE: Sankey on Texas and Oklahoma and When They May Possibly Join, ...But the.... - Poster - 09-26-2022 12:22 PM
(09-26-2022 12:18 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:(09-26-2022 11:45 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:(09-26-2022 11:24 AM)JRsec Wrote: article while not definitive hints at 2024, but is more revealing of other items of interest to this board like a reference to broader changes in 2024 and as I have said a 9 game conference schedule once OU and UT are in house.
Sankey will rightfully require Disney to pay up for that increase from 8 to 9 games.
A 10-year-deal that pays less than the B1G (TBD), offers (arguably) less exposure and ends four years later is the kind of thing that gets member schools to grumbling
I struggle with the “ESPN should pay more for a 9th conference game” argument.
They are trading 14 OOC games for 7 conference games. While the quality of those games is substantially better, they are only getting half the content.
If there is a pay bump involved, I don’t see why it ought to be that substantial.
Half of the non-conference games against Power 5 conferences are actually televised on the opposing conference's network.
The SEC does have the tv rights to all the games against Little Sisters of the Poor. That is, if those games are televised at all.
RE: Sankey on Texas and Oklahoma and When They May Possibly Join, ...But the.... - bullet - 09-26-2022 12:26 PM
(09-26-2022 12:18 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:(09-26-2022 11:45 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:(09-26-2022 11:24 AM)JRsec Wrote: article while not definitive hints at 2024, but is more revealing of other items of interest to this board like a reference to broader changes in 2024 and as I have said a 9 game conference schedule once OU and UT are in house.
Sankey will rightfully require Disney to pay up for that increase from 8 to 9 games.
A 10-year-deal that pays less than the B1G (TBD), offers (arguably) less exposure and ends four years later is the kind of thing that gets member schools to grumbling
I struggle with the “ESPN should pay more for a 9th conference game” argument.
They are trading 14 OOC games for 7 conference games. While the quality of those games is substantially better, they are only getting half the content.
If there is a pay bump involved, I don’t see why it ought to be that substantial.
There is a geometric value to games. Its not straight line. Higher ratings generate significantly higher dollars than generic rent a wins.
RE: Sankey on Texas and Oklahoma and When They May Possibly Join, ...But the.... - JRsec - 09-26-2022 12:26 PM
(09-26-2022 11:45 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:(09-26-2022 11:24 AM)JRsec Wrote: article while not definitive hints at 2024, but is more revealing of other items of interest to this board like a reference to broader changes in 2024 and as I have said a 9 game conference schedule once OU and UT are in house.
Sankey will rightfully require Disney to pay up for that increase from 8 to 9 games.
A 10-year-deal that pays less than the B1G (TBD), offers (arguably) less exposure and ends four years later is the kind of thing that gets member schools to grumbling
Yes on the 8 to 9 games. No on the exposure. ABC is OTA and will have two time slots which is essentially what CBS and NBC do. ESPN > FS1 ESPNU & ESPN2 > FS2. SECN = BTN in exposure. The Big Ten is hyping the composition. It's what you do. Neither will be absent OTA exposure.
And a sidenote. The details of the SEC contract have yet to be released.
RE: Sankey on Texas and Oklahoma and When They May Possibly Join, ...But the.... - Poster - 09-26-2022 12:29 PM
Does anybody else think that the Big Ten only gets more TV money than the SEC because they don't sign these ridiculously long term deals? The Big Ten currently realizes that even in a period of just three years, the money in college football goes up substantially.
RE: Sankey on Texas and Oklahoma and When They May Possibly Join, ...But the.... - JRsec - 09-26-2022 12:34 PM
(09-26-2022 12:00 PM)johnbragg Wrote:(09-26-2022 11:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: The fact that anyone in the SEC would push back against 9 conference games going forward continues to perplex me. I know it exists (e.g. the Kentucky AD comments the other day that they want 8 conference games), but it would be so short-sighted regardless of whether ESPN pays or doesn't pay more money for them. (My semi-educated guess is that ESPN isn't obligated to change anything about the SEC contract regardless of how many conference games are in place, which is why there's so much hemming and hawing.)
somebody said that Slive used to say "don't give TV anything if they're not paying extra for it."
There is increased TV value in a 9th conference game, especially if it replaces a body-bag game. There is a cost, one less guaranteed win, which means missing a bowl once in a while, especially for the lower half of the SEC. And it can mean a road game instead of a home game every other year.
All that, combined with better or at least refreshed matchups from dumping divisions in favor of 3-6-6 so that Texas plays Florida and LSU plays Oklahoma and Alabama plays Georgia twice every four years (if not every year) is worth a lot to ESPN. That's an appropriate time to revisit whether the SEC is being paid a fair rate for their TV package.
The bolded is not a concern. There will still be an OOC P game the rotation of which will be opposite the odd conference game. With 2 buy games you still have 7 home tickets in the book, which by the way is why Sankey said the conference would not be involved in determining neutral site games. If a school wants to play neutral site at the expense of a 7th home game, it will be their call. I can see UT and OU remaining in Dallas. I can see Arkansas and A&M playing at home. And I can see Florida and Georgia leaving Jacksonville for a home and home.
RE: Sankey on Texas and Oklahoma and When They May Possibly Join, ...But the.... - quo vadis - 09-26-2022 12:36 PM
(09-26-2022 12:29 PM)Poster Wrote: Does anybody else think that the Big Ten only gets more TV money than the SEC because they don't sign these ridiculously long term deals? The Big Ten currently realizes that even in a period of just three years, the money in college football goes up substantially.
FWIW, I've been saying that for years.
IMO, the SEC is "naturally" a bit more valuable than the B1G. Meaning, had the SEC had its entire package up for bid this year, same as the B1G, the SEC would have gotten a little bit more.
I think the B1G gets a bit more because of decisions made 15 or so years ago, when the SEC signed a 15-year deal with ESPN while IIRC the B1G signed for 10 years with its partners, then smartly signed for only six years in 2016. This pattern of signing for fewer years has IMO enabled the B1G to capture rising rights fees more frequently than the SEC, which I believe accounts for their apparent advantage.
Of course, if sports rights fees level off, or decline, in the next few years, then having a longer deal will be the better strategy. But over the past 15 years, it hasn't been.
RE: Sankey on Texas and Oklahoma and When They May Possibly Join, ...But the.... - JRsec - 09-26-2022 12:51 PM
(09-26-2022 12:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:(09-26-2022 12:29 PM)Poster Wrote: Does anybody else think that the Big Ten only gets more TV money than the SEC because they don't sign these ridiculously long term deals? The Big Ten currently realizes that even in a period of just three years, the money in college football goes up substantially.
FWIW, I've been saying that for years.
IMO, the SEC is "naturally" a bit more valuable than the B1G. Meaning, had the SEC had its entire package up for bid this year, same as the B1G, the SEC would have gotten a little bit more.
I think the B1G gets a bit more because of decisions made 15 or so years ago, when the SEC signed a 15-year deal with ESPN while IIRC the B1G signed for 10 years with its partners, then smartly signed for only six years in 2016. This pattern of signing for fewer years has IMO enabled the B1G to capture rising rights fees more frequently than the SEC, which I believe accounts for their apparent advantage.
Of course, if sports rights fees level off, or decline, in the next few years, then having a longer deal will be the better strategy. But over the past 15 years, it hasn't been.
For deals ending ~ 2030 or after (which is most of them) the downward trend will begin. With Boomers no longer statistically viable, with declining middle class income (middle class lost 12% of its collective wealth since 2000) and more debt due to rising stress on consumable commodities, nobody is going to have more to spend on events whether pro or college but the wealthy. You can argue about TV advertising values, but demographics do not lie and remain the best predictor of future value. People don't spend oodles in advertising for a consumer base which is cash strapped.
RE: Sankey on Texas and Oklahoma and When They May Possibly Join, ...But the.... - PeteTheChop - 09-26-2022 01:00 PM
(09-26-2022 12:00 PM)johnbragg Wrote: somebody said that Slive used to say "don't give TV anything if they're not paying extra for it."
Bingo
RE: Sankey on Texas and Oklahoma and When They May Possibly Join, ...But the.... - BePcr07 - 09-26-2022 01:28 PM
I like the 9-game schedule. 3 annual rivals.
Alabama: Auburn, Mississippi St, Tennessee
Arkansas: Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi
Florida: Georgia, LSU, South Carolina
Georgia: Auburn, Florida, South Carolina
Kentucky: Missouri, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
LSU: Florida, Mississippi, Texas A&M
Mississippi: Auburn, LSU, Mississippi St
Mississippi St: Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma
Missouri: Arkansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma
Oklahoma: Mississippi St, Missouri, Texas
South Carolina: Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt
Tennessee: Alabama, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Texas: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Texas A&M: Arkansas, LSU, Texas
Vanderbilt: Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee
RE: Sankey on Texas and Oklahoma and When They May Possibly Join, ...But the.... - Frank the Tank - 09-26-2022 01:29 PM
(09-26-2022 12:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:(09-26-2022 12:29 PM)Poster Wrote: Does anybody else think that the Big Ten only gets more TV money than the SEC because they don't sign these ridiculously long term deals? The Big Ten currently realizes that even in a period of just three years, the money in college football goes up substantially.
FWIW, I've been saying that for years.
IMO, the SEC is "naturally" a bit more valuable than the B1G. Meaning, had the SEC had its entire package up for bid this year, same as the B1G, the SEC would have gotten a little bit more.
I think the B1G gets a bit more because of decisions made 15 or so years ago, when the SEC signed a 15-year deal with ESPN while IIRC the B1G signed for 10 years with its partners, then smartly signed for only six years in 2016. This pattern of signing for fewer years has IMO enabled the B1G to capture rising rights fees more frequently than the SEC, which I believe accounts for their apparent advantage.
Of course, if sports rights fees level off, or decline, in the next few years, then having a longer deal will be the better strategy. But over the past 15 years, it hasn't been.
To be sure, it wasn't luck for the Big Ten. It was all a calculated and intentional strategy. The irony of the image of the Big Ten being an old school "3 years and a cloud of dust" league that's wedded to the Rose Bowl on-the-field is that it is has consistently been a substantial risk taker off-the-field for the past two decades with all of its media rights. That was seen with Jim Delany's leadership and it looks like Kevin Warren is taking the same path.
People seem to forget that the creation of the BTN was a massive risk at the time (particularly when the league's schools themselves were taking equity in the network). In fact, Mike Slive's reaction to the BTN was essentially, "We wouldn't ever think of doing that" and promptly signed 15-year deals with ESPN and CBS afterwards. Of course, when the BTN became successful, the SEC formed its own network with the SECN within a few years, but they don't get the same financial upside because the SEC has no equity stake. (The SECN is really one large rights fees deal with a smaller element of profit participation, but not anywhere near the level of what the Big Ten schools get with their direct ownership stake in the BTN.) The Big Ten got a first mover advantage with conference networks that continues to this day.
Similarly, the Big Ten chose a short term deal in 2016 even though all of the other P5 leagues signed 10 or even 20-year deals. Once again, people seem to forget that this was a major risk since cord cutting was already well-known as an issue at that time. It wasn't a foregone conclusion that sports rights fees would continue to climb at all.
All of those risks have paid off for the Big Ten up to this point. Now, once again, it's a risk for the Big Ten to have just signed another relatively short-term deal now. It's also a risk that they've moved away from ESPN entirely. It's not a guarantee that sports rights fees will continue on their current trajectory in 2030 when the Big Ten will go to market again with its TV rights. On the flip side, if sports rights fees *do* continue on their current trajectory, the Big Ten will get yet another bite at the apple to increase their rights fees even further before both the SEC and ACC even get a chance.
Now, I do think there's a bit of discounting of which league is more "naturally" valuable between the SEC and Big Ten. As I've stated elsewhere, I believe that the SEC has a tick higher interest in its own footprint home markets compared to the Big Ten, but the Big Ten has viewers that cover a wider range of markets nationally. (This is evidenced by the data that Big Ten alums simply move to a lot more national markets outside of its own footprint at a higher rate than any of the other leagues.) Essentially, the SEC's ratings are goosed by running up the score with NFL-level viewer numbers in home markets like Atlanta, Birmingham and Nashville (similar to how NASCAR viewership is distributed), while the Big Ten might have a lesser share in many of its home markets (outside of Columbus) but gets relatively more penetration nationally.
Plus, the Big Ten has had 3 of the top 4 TV markets (NYC, Chicago and Philly) and will now be adding the #2 TV market with LA, so it's the main power conference in all of the top 4 TV markets. That will continue to be a massive selling point for the league because there aren't just more viewers in larger markets in terms of quantity, but there are more viewers with the "quality" demographics based on income and education levels.
We can quibble over how much Rutgers actually brings in the NYC market, but always remember that these media executives virtually ALL live in NYC and LA. They buy what they know and they simply know their home markets and the larger Northern and Coastal markets better than the Southern markets. Now, that doesn't mean that they're not aware of the popularity of the SEC, but it's more that they're buying it like they know conceptually that it's popular outside of the NYC/LA coastal bubble and want to reach that audience (akin to doing deals with the WWE and NASCAR or broadcasting country music awards shows) yet don't quite *live* it beyond the data that they see in front of them. It's like the comfort level to offer a lot for a house that you have personally seen in a neighborhood that you personally have walked versus bidding for a house in a place that you haven't visited and solely basing it on online pictures and favorable on-paper data. That latter house might very well be worth more on paper, but the buyer is naturally going to have a higher comfort level in making an offer on the former house. Even prior to adding Maryland and Rutgers, there was still a lot more familiarity with the Big Ten in the NYC/LA media circles - Michigan and Northwestern are particularly dominant feeder schools to the media and entertainment industries along with the financial industry and investor community on Wall Street, the league has the Rose Bowl connection in LA, etc.
There's no single thing that says, "This is why the Big Ten gets paid more than the SEC," but rather a combination of all of the factors above.