(04-16-2013 11:53 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Is the GoR binding? seems the big 10 doesn't think so if Kansas is really a target.

One quibble whenever I see this argument: the Big Ten has had a grant of rights for over 20 years before the Pac-12 and and Big 12 signed one! The Big Ten is the first power conference to have even thought of using that mechanism. As a result, they are the *last* conference that would ever want to challenge whether a grant of rights is binding as an overarching matter. Now, whether the specific terms of the Big 12 grant of rights (particularly the fact that it's really only partial since schools retain their third tier rights compared to the full GOR that the Big Ten and Pac-12 have) changes things might be up for debate. The Big Ten and/or Kansas might also be willing to pay fair market value for any TV rights covered under the GOR to buy it out. I don't find that to be very likely, but it's a consideration.

Nothing is certain in conference realignment, but I think it's a fair and reasonable assumption that the Big Ten won't be raiding the SEC and the SEC won't be raiding the Big Ten. The members of both conferences love the smell of greenbacks, but want little to do with each other. To the extent that Kentucky, Tennessee and Florida want nothing to do with the Big Ten (which I certainly believe to be the case), the feeling is more than mutual toward the SEC at Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State.

(04-16-2013 11:47 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 11:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 11:36 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  If you think any SEC schools have any interest in playing up north, pick up the phone and call them.

There is no exit fee to leave the SEC.

I am well aware of that. But if you think Kentucky admins, or admins at other SEC schools, won't think twice if the B1G comes calling with $15m - $20m more per year than what the SEC can offer, well ....

I think what 10th is saying here is....
BRING IT B1G. It will embarrasing for you. Apparently they can't even persuade another ACC team. Don't try to break into Fort Knox.

Kentucky would listen, but they would not initiate such a call. But I also don't think the B1G would call.

(04-16-2013 11:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 11:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  7. Slive is a consummate contract lawyer. I think I'll trust his judgement on this matter. He didn't receive an Ivy League education with a JD from Virginia to become the premier conference commissioner of the premier sports conference just to get his lunch handed to him by anybody, let alone the opinions of a chat room posters.

The ACC and SEC were the two conferences that signed long-term deals between 2008-2009 that were hailed at the time but now were obviously big mistakes. The cost to the ACC has been the loss of Maryland and severe vulnerability to future poaching by the B1G, SEC, and maybe Big 12 too. In short, signing that deal might have been a fatal mistake for the ACC, because it has locked in that conference to a media revenue stream that is clearly inadequate for a P5 conference.

Likewise, Slive's decision to sign the 2008 deal might prove to be fatal to the SEC. Slive has been a fantastic commissioner in may ways, but it is clear as day that the 2008 deal means that the SEC is currently being paid nowhere near its "open market value" and will not be so paid for the next 10 years, while the B1G's much smarter decision to partner with FOX on the BTN means it is getting paid probably more than what it is really worth, thanks to free-rider capture of cable subscriptions.

I am not sure what Slive can do about it at this point. This new SEC Network is probably the best that can be done, but IMO the numbers do not add up to anywhere near what the B1G can offer, and the B1G is hungry to expand.

Yeah, we've seen the underwhelming results of that hunger.

How would ESPN make more money from the SEC taking a team or two from the ACC?

(04-16-2013 01:55 PM)Dasville Wrote:  How would ESPN make more money from the SEC taking a team or two from the ACC?

1- able to reduce how much they pay the ACC.
2- able to charge more for advertising with better ratings.

(04-16-2013 01:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 01:55 PM)Dasville Wrote:  How would ESPN make more money from the SEC taking a team or two from the ACC?

1- able to reduce how much they pay the ACC.
2- able to charge more for advertising with better ratings.

And why would the SEC take them if they get no more money?

(04-16-2013 01:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 01:55 PM)Dasville Wrote:  How would ESPN make more money from the SEC taking a team or two from the ACC?

1- able to reduce how much they pay the ACC.
2- able to charge more for advertising with better ratings.

So basically you are saying ROI? Really?

(04-16-2013 02:02 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 01:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 01:55 PM)Dasville Wrote:  How would ESPN make more money from the SEC taking a team or two from the ACC?

1- able to reduce how much they pay the ACC.
2- able to charge more for advertising with better ratings.

And why would the SEC take them if they get no more money?

First and foremost, they would add locations. Assuming they got NC State and Va Tech, that's 2 more states that become native for the SEC, meaning they get more money per subscriber in those 2 states.

Another question I have, is an ACC team worth more in the SEC?

(04-16-2013 02:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 02:02 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 01:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 01:55 PM)Dasville Wrote:  How would ESPN make more money from the SEC taking a team or two from the ACC?

1- able to reduce how much they pay the ACC.
2- able to charge more for advertising with better ratings.

And why would the SEC take them if they get no more money?

First and foremost, they would add locations. Assuming they got NC State and Va Tech, that's 2 more states that become native for the SEC, meaning they get more money per subscriber in those 2 states.

You are talking about the SEC, not ESPN.

(04-16-2013 01:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 01:55 PM)Dasville Wrote:  How would ESPN make more money from the SEC taking a team or two from the ACC?

1- able to reduce how much they pay the ACC.
2- able to charge more for advertising with better ratings.

Actually Stever ESPN could double down. Use two ACC teams to the SEC to do exactly what you say and then use Texas under an N.D. type of arrangement with two more Big 12 teams to bolster the football cache of the ACC, enhance the markets of the ACC, and boost the total value of that conference while sheltering valued property in the Big 12 from FOX. A move to 18 by both the SEC and ACC could reach the target number range for dissolving the Big 12 altogether. ESPN retains the property, has one less conference to pay and it's teams get a larger share of playoff revenues. Rivalries are then preserved with an ACC/SEC partnership creating huge content. Missouri/Kansas, Texas/Texas A&M, possibly Oklahoma/Oklahoma State, possibly West Virginia/Pitt, Louisville/Kentucky, etc. Even a move to 20 each is not out of the question. After all this is not realignment. It is a product war between ESPN and FOX. Holding 40 of the top 70 teams in virtual exclusivity and having that product come from the most viewed region of the country would have to be a move to secure dominance in the industry.

(04-16-2013 02:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Actually Stever ESPN could double down. Use two ACC teams to the SEC to do exactly what you say and then use Texas under an N.D. type of arrangement with two more Big 12 teams to bolster the football cache of the ACC, enhance the markets of the ACC, and boost the total value of that conference while sheltering valued property in the Big 12 from FOX. A move to 18 by both the SEC and ACC could reach the target number range for dissolving the Big 12 altogether. ESPN retains the property, has one less conference to pay and it's teams get a larger share of playoff revenues. Rivalries are then preserved with an ACC/SEC partnership creating huge content. Missouri/Kansas, Texas/Texas A&M, possibly Oklahoma/Oklahoma State, possibly West Virginia/Pitt, Louisville/Kentucky, etc. Even a move to 20 each is not out of the question. After all this is not realignment. It is a product war between ESPN and FOX. Holding 40 of the top 70 teams in virtual exclusivity and having that product come from the most viewed region of the country would have to be a move to secure dominance in the industry.

Biggest reason the B1G is/was targeting UNC, UVA, GT -- the south (and east coast) has all the viewers (re: potential students for academic recruiting purposes).

(04-16-2013 11:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 11:14 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The 40 million that folks talk about with the Big Ten is total conference revenue, not just TV money. Right now, Big Ten pulls in about 16.5 million in tv money. with the other 7-8 million in other stuff like hoops units, bowl money, conference tourney money, etc. Big Ten and SEC are going to be 1 and 1a in money for sure. Your 28.5 vs 45 is truly apples vs oranges.

Also got to remember the SEC deal with CBS is now 5 years old- so only 10 years to go. Really only a 7-8 year period where the Big Ten would "dominiate" before the SEC swings back with their tier 1 games.

With the growth of the B1G network and the way these deals are structured, i don't see how the B1G doesn't end up making at least $10m - $15 million more per year than the SEC over the next decade. It already makes almost $5 million more (as of last year), B1G network revenue is growing about 20% per year, and with a new deal in 2016 that advantage will jump.

That kind of gap could lead to a B1G raid of the SEC.

Haha. Never going to happen. Who would realistically leave? Missouri, Kentucky, or Vandy maybe? No one else would even entertain the notion.

If that happens we just backfill with Florida St. or West Virginia or VT and come out even stronger.

(04-16-2013 02:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 01:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 01:55 PM)Dasville Wrote:  How would ESPN make more money from the SEC taking a team or two from the ACC?

1- able to reduce how much they pay the ACC.
2- able to charge more for advertising with better ratings.

Actually Stever ESPN could double down. Use two ACC teams to the SEC to do exactly what you say and then use Texas under an N.D. type of arrangement with two more Big 12 teams to bolster the football cache of the ACC, enhance the markets of the ACC, and boost the total value of that conference while sheltering valued property in the Big 12 from FOX. A move to 18 by both the SEC and ACC could reach the target number range for dissolving the Big 12 altogether. ESPN retains the property, has one less conference to pay and it's teams get a larger share of playoff revenues. Rivalries are then preserved with an ACC/SEC partnership creating huge content. Missouri/Kansas, Texas/Texas A&M, possibly Oklahoma/Oklahoma State, possibly West Virginia/Pitt, Louisville/Kentucky, etc. Even a move to 20 each is not out of the question. After all this is not realignment. It is a product war between ESPN and FOX. Holding 40 of the top 70 teams in virtual exclusivity and having that product come from the most viewed region of the country would have to be a move to secure dominance in the industry.

love how you think Fox would just stand still and allow that to happen. I think for one, Fox would use the Big Ten to poach more from the ACC... That changes things quite a bit.

(04-16-2013 12:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The Big Ten is the first power conference to have even thought of using that mechanism. As a result, they are the *last* conference that would ever want to challenge whether a grant of rights is binding as an overarching matter.

I don't agree with that point. The Big Ten shouldn't care about whether their own grant-of-rights is ironclad. The SEC doesn't need a grant-of-rights or a ginormous exit fee because the schools they want to keep don't want to leave. Isn't the Big Ten in the same situation?

(04-16-2013 02:58 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 02:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Actually Stever ESPN could double down. Use two ACC teams to the SEC to do exactly what you say and then use Texas under an N.D. type of arrangement with two more Big 12 teams to bolster the football cache of the ACC, enhance the markets of the ACC, and boost the total value of that conference while sheltering valued property in the Big 12 from FOX. A move to 18 by both the SEC and ACC could reach the target number range for dissolving the Big 12 altogether. ESPN retains the property, has one less conference to pay and it's teams get a larger share of playoff revenues. Rivalries are then preserved with an ACC/SEC partnership creating huge content. Missouri/Kansas, Texas/Texas A&M, possibly Oklahoma/Oklahoma State, possibly West Virginia/Pitt, Louisville/Kentucky, etc. Even a move to 20 each is not out of the question. After all this is not realignment. It is a product war between ESPN and FOX. Holding 40 of the top 70 teams in virtual exclusivity and having that product come from the most viewed region of the country would have to be a move to secure dominance in the industry.

Biggest reason the B1G is/was targeting UNC, UVA, GT -- the south (and east coast) has all the viewers (re: potential students for academic recruiting purposes).

There is a bigger reason. They need to keep congressmen on their side when they lobby for AAU funds. As congressional seats drift southward Delany and the Big 10 presidents realize that they have to keep more than a simple majority of states committed to supporting their schools in the CIC. Rutgers and Maryland were more about congressional support for the CIC lobby than just about markets. Between the ACC, SEC, Big 12, and Southern private schools with AAU membership: Tulane and Rice, the South holds 14 votes. Should they form a cooperative alliance given the number of house seats shared between those states they could siphon off 100's millions of dollars from Big 10 grants. That is why Delany's pants are on fire to acquire two more AAU schools from the South. it ends the potential threat to his precious CIC.

(04-16-2013 03:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 02:58 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 02:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Actually Stever ESPN could double down. Use two ACC teams to the SEC to do exactly what you say and then use Texas under an N.D. type of arrangement with two more Big 12 teams to bolster the football cache of the ACC, enhance the markets of the ACC, and boost the total value of that conference while sheltering valued property in the Big 12 from FOX. A move to 18 by both the SEC and ACC could reach the target number range for dissolving the Big 12 altogether. ESPN retains the property, has one less conference to pay and it's teams get a larger share of playoff revenues. Rivalries are then preserved with an ACC/SEC partnership creating huge content. Missouri/Kansas, Texas/Texas A&M, possibly Oklahoma/Oklahoma State, possibly West Virginia/Pitt, Louisville/Kentucky, etc. Even a move to 20 each is not out of the question. After all this is not realignment. It is a product war between ESPN and FOX. Holding 40 of the top 70 teams in virtual exclusivity and having that product come from the most viewed region of the country would have to be a move to secure dominance in the industry.

Biggest reason the B1G is/was targeting UNC, UVA, GT -- the south (and east coast) has all the viewers (re: potential students for academic recruiting purposes).

There is a bigger reason. They need to keep congressmen on their side when they lobby for AAU funds. As congressional seats drift southward Delany and the Big 10 presidents realize that they have to keep more than a simple majority of states committed to supporting their schools in the CIC. Rutgers and Maryland were more about congressional support for the CIC lobby than just about markets. Between the ACC, SEC, Big 12, and Southern private schools with AAU membership: Tulane and Rice, the South holds 14 votes. Should they form a cooperative alliance given the number of house seats shared between those states they could siphon off 100's millions of dollars from Big 10 grants. That is why Delany's pants are on fire to acquire two more AAU schools from the South. it ends the potential threat to his precious CIC.

Yeah, I just read your other post on this topic -- makes alot of sense, sir.

Have a couple more rep points on me.

(04-16-2013 03:19 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 02:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 01:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-16-2013 01:55 PM)Dasville Wrote:  How would ESPN make more money from the SEC taking a team or two from the ACC?

1- able to reduce how much they pay the ACC.
2- able to charge more for advertising with better ratings.

Actually Stever ESPN could double down. Use two ACC teams to the SEC to do exactly what you say and then use Texas under an N.D. type of arrangement with two more Big 12 teams to bolster the football cache of the ACC, enhance the markets of the ACC, and boost the total value of that conference while sheltering valued property in the Big 12 from FOX. A move to 18 by both the SEC and ACC could reach the target number range for dissolving the Big 12 altogether. ESPN retains the property, has one less conference to pay and it's teams get a larger share of playoff revenues. Rivalries are then preserved with an ACC/SEC partnership creating huge content. Missouri/Kansas, Texas/Texas A&M, possibly Oklahoma/Oklahoma State, possibly West Virginia/Pitt, Louisville/Kentucky, etc. Even a move to 20 each is not out of the question. After all this is not realignment. It is a product war between ESPN and FOX. Holding 40 of the top 70 teams in virtual exclusivity and having that product come from the most viewed region of the country would have to be a move to secure dominance in the industry.

love how you think Fox would just stand still and allow that to happen. I think for one, Fox would use the Big Ten to poach more from the ACC... That changes things quite a bit.

It depends on who has the bigger war chest. But it is yet another reason that this is about product control by the networks more than it is about conferences. The Big 10 has other objectives that could coincide with FOX's interests. It will be interesting to watch it play out for sure.

(04-16-2013 11:43 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Like I said, call up Kentucky and tell them how much they'll enjoy playing Iowa, Michigan State and Rutgers.

I'm sure they'll at least save the call recording for the Christmas Party

The idea of the B1G calling up Kentucky is hilarious in itself. Not.Ever.Happening.

The SEC and B1G will eventually be making about the same amount of money. More than the other conferences, blah blah blah.