(05-06-2013 08:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-05-2013 06:26 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  "As i noted, CBS has been in absolutely no hurry to give the SEC anything more than they paid them in 2008, despite this alleged worry about 10 freaking years from now."

You are wrong. CBS has just extended ten more years, gave up its exclusivity window, and has agreed to pay more, the exact amount has yet to be released.

I am wrong? Of course CBS will pay the SEC more for those 10 extra years. The issue is what CBS is paying for 2008-2023.

Quote:You do not know what an employee is. I am an attorney, I do. You are using "employee" and "salary" to slander the SEC in an attempt to bolster your argument. The SEC choose not to be a co-owner, in part, so they would not have to invest in startup costs, which held the BTN back a few years is still burdening the PTN. Moreover, the SEC will make more money in this arrangement because of the strength of ESPN in carriage rights negotiations.

Good Grief. Pal, obviously, I have been using the term "employee" as a figure of speech, since the SEC is not a literal "employee", as that term can technically apply only to a single individual, not an organization. I use the term to dramatize the difference between being in an equity position, like the PAC and B1G, which allows you to capture unlimited profits should they be earned, and being paid a salary, or fixed amount, as the SEC is by ESPN and CBS. And given the increasing value of college sports rights, this is a very important point.

As for "investing in startup costs", well, that's what entrepreneurs do, or don't, and those that do end up making a LOT more money, if the business is successful. As the BTN is obviously successful, their gamble in paying for startup costs has paid off, and they will make a lot more money than will the SEC.

Quote:"Your error is in vastly under-stating how much the 2008 deal will cost the SEC. SEC teams currently get about $15 million per year from that deal. If the SEC were to negotiate that deal today, as a free agent, and for just the same tier of rights they sold in 2008, it could easily command $25 million per year per school for starters in year one, with escalation clauses boosting that to say $35 million by the end of the 15 years."

You understand that most projections for the SEC with the SECN exceed your above numbers already? Do you really believe UF, UGA, AL and the rest gave up their tier 3 rights for the peanuts you describe? If that were true you would here these school complain in short order. You won't.

You're kidding, right? The standard projection being bandied about is that the deal will "eventually", which typically means near the end of the deal, in 2034, be worth $28.6 million per school. That is a top-out figure, and that is far less than what i mentioned ($35 million per school, and by 2023!). And in my scenario, the SEC would still own its tier 3 rights to boot.

Here are some quotes for you to consider:

"Bevilacqua said he believes the SEC missed a big opportunity several years ago by negotiating longterm deals with ESPN and CBS that everybody now knows were fairly under-market deals.

"At the time, they looked like they were fully-valued deals," he said. "But it's fair to say the market accelerated forward and has changed quite dramatically. As a result of those deals, the SEC has to deal with ESPN in a non-free agency matter. It's very difficult because ESPN has the leverage of 15 years worth of future rights to have the preferred structural outcome."

Your premise is that in these SECN negotiations, ESPN essentially gave the SEC a do-over and allowed them to recapture the value they lost in that awful 2008 deal. But, this media consultant correctly points out that negotiations are about leverage, and thanks to the signed 15-year deal, which today still has 10 more long years to run, ESPN had the great bulk of the leverage, and thus it is safe to assume they retained the great bulk of that value they captured in 2008.

Sorry, at this point I must call a troll a troll, LOL.

You were completely, absolutely, and totally wrong.

"ESPN owns 100% of the network, but the SEC owns 100% of the content. Today the Sports Business Journal reported that all profits will be split 50/50."

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/sec-ne...letics.php

(05-06-2013 05:05 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 08:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-05-2013 06:26 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  "As i noted, CBS has been in absolutely no hurry to give the SEC anything more than they paid them in 2008, despite this alleged worry about 10 freaking years from now."

You are wrong. CBS has just extended ten more years, gave up its exclusivity window, and has agreed to pay more, the exact amount has yet to be released.

I am wrong? Of course CBS will pay the SEC more for those 10 extra years. The issue is what CBS is paying for 2008-2023.

Quote:You do not know what an employee is. I am an attorney, I do. You are using "employee" and "salary" to slander the SEC in an attempt to bolster your argument. The SEC choose not to be a co-owner, in part, so they would not have to invest in startup costs, which held the BTN back a few years is still burdening the PTN. Moreover, the SEC will make more money in this arrangement because of the strength of ESPN in carriage rights negotiations.

Good Grief. Pal, obviously, I have been using the term "employee" as a figure of speech, since the SEC is not a literal "employee", as that term can technically apply only to a single individual, not an organization. I use the term to dramatize the difference between being in an equity position, like the PAC and B1G, which allows you to capture unlimited profits should they be earned, and being paid a salary, or fixed amount, as the SEC is by ESPN and CBS. And given the increasing value of college sports rights, this is a very important point.

As for "investing in startup costs", well, that's what entrepreneurs do, or don't, and those that do end up making a LOT more money, if the business is successful. As the BTN is obviously successful, their gamble in paying for startup costs has paid off, and they will make a lot more money than will the SEC.

Quote:"Your error is in vastly under-stating how much the 2008 deal will cost the SEC. SEC teams currently get about $15 million per year from that deal. If the SEC were to negotiate that deal today, as a free agent, and for just the same tier of rights they sold in 2008, it could easily command $25 million per year per school for starters in year one, with escalation clauses boosting that to say $35 million by the end of the 15 years."

You understand that most projections for the SEC with the SECN exceed your above numbers already? Do you really believe UF, UGA, AL and the rest gave up their tier 3 rights for the peanuts you describe? If that were true you would here these school complain in short order. You won't.

You're kidding, right? The standard projection being bandied about is that the deal will "eventually", which typically means near the end of the deal, in 2034, be worth $28.6 million per school. That is a top-out figure, and that is far less than what i mentioned ($35 million per school, and by 2023!). And in my scenario, the SEC would still own its tier 3 rights to boot.

Here are some quotes for you to consider:

"Bevilacqua said he believes the SEC missed a big opportunity several years ago by negotiating longterm deals with ESPN and CBS that everybody now knows were fairly under-market deals.

"At the time, they looked like they were fully-valued deals," he said. "But it's fair to say the market accelerated forward and has changed quite dramatically. As a result of those deals, the SEC has to deal with ESPN in a non-free agency matter. It's very difficult because ESPN has the leverage of 15 years worth of future rights to have the preferred structural outcome."

Your premise is that in these SECN negotiations, ESPN essentially gave the SEC a do-over and allowed them to recapture the value they lost in that awful 2008 deal. But, this media consultant correctly points out that negotiations are about leverage, and thanks to the signed 15-year deal, which today still has 10 more long years to run, ESPN had the great bulk of the leverage, and thus it is safe to assume they retained the great bulk of that value they captured in 2008.

Sorry, at this point I must call a troll a troll, LOL.

You were completely, absolutely, and totally wrong.

"ESPN owns 100% of the network, but the SEC owns 100% of the content. Today the Sports Business Journal reported that all profits will be split 50/50."

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/sec-ne...letics.php

You must have missed the part about the SECN being a separate deal:

"The SEC has a new national media rights deal with ESPN, but terms of that contract — which runs through 2034 — were not available. That’s a separate contract that runs concurrently with the SEC Network contract. ESPN will own the SEC channel and will share profits 50-50 with the conference, industry sources said."

Wake me up when SBJ revises the industry estimate of a $28.6 million annual per-school payout. An eventual, back-end payout. That's far below what the SEC would get sans the 2008 catastrophe.

(05-06-2013 08:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 05:05 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 08:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-05-2013 06:26 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  "As i noted, CBS has been in absolutely no hurry to give the SEC anything more than they paid them in 2008, despite this alleged worry about 10 freaking years from now."

You are wrong. CBS has just extended ten more years, gave up its exclusivity window, and has agreed to pay more, the exact amount has yet to be released.

I am wrong? Of course CBS will pay the SEC more for those 10 extra years. The issue is what CBS is paying for 2008-2023.

Quote:You do not know what an employee is. I am an attorney, I do. You are using "employee" and "salary" to slander the SEC in an attempt to bolster your argument. The SEC choose not to be a co-owner, in part, so they would not have to invest in startup costs, which held the BTN back a few years is still burdening the PTN. Moreover, the SEC will make more money in this arrangement because of the strength of ESPN in carriage rights negotiations.

Good Grief. Pal, obviously, I have been using the term "employee" as a figure of speech, since the SEC is not a literal "employee", as that term can technically apply only to a single individual, not an organization. I use the term to dramatize the difference between being in an equity position, like the PAC and B1G, which allows you to capture unlimited profits should they be earned, and being paid a salary, or fixed amount, as the SEC is by ESPN and CBS. And given the increasing value of college sports rights, this is a very important point.

As for "investing in startup costs", well, that's what entrepreneurs do, or don't, and those that do end up making a LOT more money, if the business is successful. As the BTN is obviously successful, their gamble in paying for startup costs has paid off, and they will make a lot more money than will the SEC.

Quote:"Your error is in vastly under-stating how much the 2008 deal will cost the SEC. SEC teams currently get about $15 million per year from that deal. If the SEC were to negotiate that deal today, as a free agent, and for just the same tier of rights they sold in 2008, it could easily command $25 million per year per school for starters in year one, with escalation clauses boosting that to say $35 million by the end of the 15 years."

You understand that most projections for the SEC with the SECN exceed your above numbers already? Do you really believe UF, UGA, AL and the rest gave up their tier 3 rights for the peanuts you describe? If that were true you would here these school complain in short order. You won't.

You're kidding, right? The standard projection being bandied about is that the deal will "eventually", which typically means near the end of the deal, in 2034, be worth $28.6 million per school. That is a top-out figure, and that is far less than what i mentioned ($35 million per school, and by 2023!). And in my scenario, the SEC would still own its tier 3 rights to boot.

Here are some quotes for you to consider:

"Bevilacqua said he believes the SEC missed a big opportunity several years ago by negotiating longterm deals with ESPN and CBS that everybody now knows were fairly under-market deals.

"At the time, they looked like they were fully-valued deals," he said. "But it's fair to say the market accelerated forward and has changed quite dramatically. As a result of those deals, the SEC has to deal with ESPN in a non-free agency matter. It's very difficult because ESPN has the leverage of 15 years worth of future rights to have the preferred structural outcome."

Your premise is that in these SECN negotiations, ESPN essentially gave the SEC a do-over and allowed them to recapture the value they lost in that awful 2008 deal. But, this media consultant correctly points out that negotiations are about leverage, and thanks to the signed 15-year deal, which today still has 10 more long years to run, ESPN had the great bulk of the leverage, and thus it is safe to assume they retained the great bulk of that value they captured in 2008.

Sorry, at this point I must call a troll a troll, LOL.

You were completely, absolutely, and totally wrong.

"ESPN owns 100% of the network, but the SEC owns 100% of the content. Today the Sports Business Journal reported that all profits will be split 50/50."

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/sec-ne...letics.php

You must have missed the part about the SECN being a separate deal:

"The SEC has a new national media rights deal with ESPN, but terms of that contract — which runs through 2034 — were not available. That’s a separate contract that runs concurrently with the SEC Network contract. ESPN will own the SEC channel and will share profits 50-50 with the conference, industry sources said."

Wake me up when SBJ revises the industry estimate of a $28.6 million annual per-school payout. An eventual, back-end payout. That's far below what the SEC would get sans the 2008 catastrophe.

Of course the SECN has a separate contract, it's a new (different) network. As far as the old contract is concerned, did you read what you wrote? "The SEC has a new national media rights deal with ESPN". That does not sound like ESPN is being inflexible to me.

Just admit you were wrong and give it a rest.

(05-06-2013 08:36 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 08:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 05:05 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 08:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-05-2013 06:26 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  "As i noted, CBS has been in absolutely no hurry to give the SEC anything more than they paid them in 2008, despite this alleged worry about 10 freaking years from now."

You are wrong. CBS has just extended ten more years, gave up its exclusivity window, and has agreed to pay more, the exact amount has yet to be released.

I am wrong? Of course CBS will pay the SEC more for those 10 extra years. The issue is what CBS is paying for 2008-2023.

Quote:You do not know what an employee is. I am an attorney, I do. You are using "employee" and "salary" to slander the SEC in an attempt to bolster your argument. The SEC choose not to be a co-owner, in part, so they would not have to invest in startup costs, which held the BTN back a few years is still burdening the PTN. Moreover, the SEC will make more money in this arrangement because of the strength of ESPN in carriage rights negotiations.

Good Grief. Pal, obviously, I have been using the term "employee" as a figure of speech, since the SEC is not a literal "employee", as that term can technically apply only to a single individual, not an organization. I use the term to dramatize the difference between being in an equity position, like the PAC and B1G, which allows you to capture unlimited profits should they be earned, and being paid a salary, or fixed amount, as the SEC is by ESPN and CBS. And given the increasing value of college sports rights, this is a very important point.

As for "investing in startup costs", well, that's what entrepreneurs do, or don't, and those that do end up making a LOT more money, if the business is successful. As the BTN is obviously successful, their gamble in paying for startup costs has paid off, and they will make a lot more money than will the SEC.

Quote:"Your error is in vastly under-stating how much the 2008 deal will cost the SEC. SEC teams currently get about $15 million per year from that deal. If the SEC were to negotiate that deal today, as a free agent, and for just the same tier of rights they sold in 2008, it could easily command $25 million per year per school for starters in year one, with escalation clauses boosting that to say $35 million by the end of the 15 years."

You understand that most projections for the SEC with the SECN exceed your above numbers already? Do you really believe UF, UGA, AL and the rest gave up their tier 3 rights for the peanuts you describe? If that were true you would here these school complain in short order. You won't.

You're kidding, right? The standard projection being bandied about is that the deal will "eventually", which typically means near the end of the deal, in 2034, be worth $28.6 million per school. That is a top-out figure, and that is far less than what i mentioned ($35 million per school, and by 2023!). And in my scenario, the SEC would still own its tier 3 rights to boot.

Here are some quotes for you to consider:

"Bevilacqua said he believes the SEC missed a big opportunity several years ago by negotiating longterm deals with ESPN and CBS that everybody now knows were fairly under-market deals.

"At the time, they looked like they were fully-valued deals," he said. "But it's fair to say the market accelerated forward and has changed quite dramatically. As a result of those deals, the SEC has to deal with ESPN in a non-free agency matter. It's very difficult because ESPN has the leverage of 15 years worth of future rights to have the preferred structural outcome."

Your premise is that in these SECN negotiations, ESPN essentially gave the SEC a do-over and allowed them to recapture the value they lost in that awful 2008 deal. But, this media consultant correctly points out that negotiations are about leverage, and thanks to the signed 15-year deal, which today still has 10 more long years to run, ESPN had the great bulk of the leverage, and thus it is safe to assume they retained the great bulk of that value they captured in 2008.

Sorry, at this point I must call a troll a troll, LOL.

You were completely, absolutely, and totally wrong.

"ESPN owns 100% of the network, but the SEC owns 100% of the content. Today the Sports Business Journal reported that all profits will be split 50/50."

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/sec-ne...letics.php

You must have missed the part about the SECN being a separate deal:

"The SEC has a new national media rights deal with ESPN, but terms of that contract — which runs through 2034 — were not available. That’s a separate contract that runs concurrently with the SEC Network contract. ESPN will own the SEC channel and will share profits 50-50 with the conference, industry sources said."

Wake me up when SBJ revises the industry estimate of a $28.6 million annual per-school payout. An eventual, back-end payout. That's far below what the SEC would get sans the 2008 catastrophe.

Of course the SECN has a separate contract, it's a new (different) network. As far as the old contract is concerned, did you read what you wrote? "The SEC has a new national media rights deal with ESPN". That does not sound like ESPN is being inflexible to me.

Just admit you were wrong and give it a rest.

WTF? Of course the national media rights deal is new, it has been extended for 10 more years!

There's absolutely no reason for ESPN to be "flexible" in the sense of giving back the enormous value it captured in that 2008 deal. Wake me up when SBJ reports that the money the SEC makes is going to be a LOT more than $28.6 million per school in the year 2034.

(05-05-2013 02:09 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-05-2013 02:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-05-2013 09:46 AM)krux Wrote:  

(05-05-2013 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-05-2013 08:02 AM)krux Wrote:  I like how is argument is "But if you look past the litany of awesome stuff UofL has done and focus only on the negative, UConn is almost as good as them."

UofL has not done a lot of awesome stuff. Yes, they have two BCS bowl wins. Kudos, though we must remember that one came against a very weak ACC opponent and the other against the SEC runner-up, or maybe not even runner-up, a Florida team clearly not excited to be in the Sugar Bowl. Plus, the win over Florida, the far better BCS win, came after the ACC added UofL, so obviously didn't factor in to their thinking.

Surrounding those two shining moments are a whole lot of 6-6 type seasons against weak C-USA and Big East competition. Better than UConn? Sure. But that's not a whole lot to hang your hat on as a football program.

The whole "Florida didn't want to be there" argument is so weak. They didn't want to be there so bad that they nearly took Teddy's head off to start the game. They got the life beat out of them. Don't get it twisted. Wake won the ACC that year...how is it our fault that we were matched up against them?

At the end of the day, you're a USF football fan though. I guess if there would ever be an expert on mediocre teams, it'd be you.

Florida obviously didn't want to play in the Sugar Bowl. I mean, that's just the way it was. Does that mean UofL doesn't merit full credit for busting their chops? Nope. But remember, this was a UofL team that finished in a four-way tie for the Big East title, not exactly a juggernaut, not a team you would expect to pound a Florida the way they did.

Also, i never said it was your fault you drew Wake in the 2006 Orange Bowl, I'm just saying that was a very weak opponent to face, which it was.

As for USF, guilty as charged. You guys have certainly accomplished a lot more on the gridiron than we have. We are poster boys for lackluster play and underachievement.

If it's so obvious why did they come out like gangbusters trying to maim and injure any Louisville player they could? If they didn't care then they'd have started sluggishly, not aggressively.

Anyone who followed Florida football between the end of the regular season and the Sugar Bowl knows that Florida was fuming that Alabama got the national title game bid despite what they perceived as superior regular season accomplishments. The Sugar Bowl was an unwanted consolation prize for the team and its fans, who stayed away in droves.

You can talk about aggressive, head-hunting tactics all you want, but that was the dominant mood of the team.

(05-06-2013 11:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-05-2013 02:09 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-05-2013 02:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-05-2013 09:46 AM)krux Wrote:  

(05-05-2013 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  UofL has not done a lot of awesome stuff. Yes, they have two BCS bowl wins. Kudos, though we must remember that one came against a very weak ACC opponent and the other against the SEC runner-up, or maybe not even runner-up, a Florida team clearly not excited to be in the Sugar Bowl. Plus, the win over Florida, the far better BCS win, came after the ACC added UofL, so obviously didn't factor in to their thinking.

Surrounding those two shining moments are a whole lot of 6-6 type seasons against weak C-USA and Big East competition. Better than UConn? Sure. But that's not a whole lot to hang your hat on as a football program.

The whole "Florida didn't want to be there" argument is so weak. They didn't want to be there so bad that they nearly took Teddy's head off to start the game. They got the life beat out of them. Don't get it twisted. Wake won the ACC that year...how is it our fault that we were matched up against them?

At the end of the day, you're a USF football fan though. I guess if there would ever be an expert on mediocre teams, it'd be you.

Florida obviously didn't want to play in the Sugar Bowl. I mean, that's just the way it was. Does that mean UofL doesn't merit full credit for busting their chops? Nope. But remember, this was a UofL team that finished in a four-way tie for the Big East title, not exactly a juggernaut, not a team you would expect to pound a Florida the way they did.

Also, i never said it was your fault you drew Wake in the 2006 Orange Bowl, I'm just saying that was a very weak opponent to face, which it was.

As for USF, guilty as charged. You guys have certainly accomplished a lot more on the gridiron than we have. We are poster boys for lackluster play and underachievement.

If it's so obvious why did they come out like gangbusters trying to maim and injure any Louisville player they could? If they didn't care then they'd have started sluggishly, not aggressively.

Anyone who followed Florida football between the end of the regular season and the Sugar Bowl knows that Florida was fuming that Alabama got the national title game bid despite what they perceived as superior regular season accomplishments. The Sugar Bowl was an unwanted consolation prize for the team and its fans, who stayed away in droves.

You can talk about aggressive, head-hunting tactics all you want, but that was the dominant mood of the team.

What does that even mean?

(05-06-2013 07:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-05-2013 03:16 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  [quote='quo vadis' pid='9297944' dateline='1367783453']
[quote='dawgitall' pid='9297899' dateline='1367782713']
[quote='quo vadis' pid='9297842' dateline='1367780929']


Okay then there is the problem. The discussion was about ECU and the SEC. You made several statements that in my view were incorrect and I attempted to point them out. You called Duke a "co-flagship" in North Carolina. You stated the ECU was at best 5th in the pecking order. You promoted Duke as being a school that would given the SEC the NC market. All of these are incorrect. There is only one flagship in each state and one of them isn't Duke. As far as football is concerned ECU is clearly behind UNC and NCSU and ahead of Duke, WF and ASU. In basketball Duke is third, not first or second. Those are the points I had tried to make. I don't think anyone that is being realistic thinks ECU is going to get serious consideration from the SEC. However I don't think anyone realistically thinks Duke or UNC-CH or NCSU are going to the SEC.

Actually, all of the following are correct:

1) Duke is, from a branding and media value POV, a "co-flagship" with UNC, in the sense that they are the two most valuable NC schools and far above the others. Each would be accepted by the SEC in a heartbeat, either together or separately. That is not true of any other NC school.

2) ECU is indeed, in overall brand/media value terms, #5 in the state of North Carolina, behind Duke, UNC, NCST, and Wake Forest. That is why the others are in AQ conferences and ECU is not and never has been, and couldn't even get an invite to the collapsing old Big East until AQ was gone and lots of other non-AQ schools were added before them.

3) I never said adding Duke alone would make the NC market more SEC territory than ACC territory. It would not, as the combined appeal of UNC, Wake, and NCST would be greater than Duke.

4) I never said that Duke is likely to go to the SEC. In fact, with the GoR they obviously are not, and even without a GoR, they would not have accepted an SEC invite unless the entire ACC had collapsed around them. They are 100% loyal to the ACC, like all the Carolina schools are. I said all of this start to finish.

5) To say Duke basketball is 3rd in NC is beyond ridiculous. Duke is a pure blue-blood program that earns the highest or next to highest national TV ratings. As a media property, Duke basketball is as good as any in the nation, right there with Kentucky and UNC.

1. NCSU does much better that Duke. They are clearly the second most popular school in the state of North Carolina. Duke isn't nearly as popular within the state of North Carolina as UNC-CH or NCSU (overall) or ECU (in football). One of the most often read phrases on this board it, "football drives the bus" and believe me Duke missed the bus.

2. National brand just doesn't translate from one sport to the other and within the confines of the state. If you hold a team day at a school in the state you will find about the same number of Carolina and State t-shirts, followed by ECU, Duke and Appalachian with a sprinkling of UNC-W, A&T, NCCU, Campbell, Elon, and Charlotte depending on where you are in the state.

3. That you think ECU is 5th in the state tells me that you know nothing about the state of North Carolina. Have you ever even been in the state? I live here and have lived here all my life. Wake Forest is a great school, but their fan base is small. Duke's fan base is small in football and large in basketball.

4. The reason The Big Four are in an AQ conference is because the conference was formed 60 years ago. Wake Forest is there because they are a founding member. The reason ECU isn't is because it was a small teacher college when the big conferences were created. Now it is the second largest university in the state.

5. NC State alone would out draw Duke in NC. There is no need to add any other schools to the equation. National basketball ratings (not the NC Market) are the only thing that makes Duke attractive, but again basketball doesn't drive the bus.

6. Try these numbers from the 2012 football season.


11/3/12 Duke vs Clemson 505k (0.3) ESPN2 it was the only game on that Saturday night primetime and a 10:30 west coast game got double the number of viewers.

8/31/12 Tenn. vs NCSU 1.5m (0.8) ESPNU that's three times the national audience

11/17/12 Duke vs GT 192k (0.1) ESPNU that's not much more than my county population

10/6/12 FSU vs NCSU 1.3m (0.8) ESPN2

10/25/12 Clemson vs Wake Forest 1.2m (1.4) ESPN

Keep in mind this was middling year for Duke, down year for WF and the best season Duke has had in years. Yet Duke couldn't generate interest from an national audience. I think you have fallen victim to the Duke hype.

In response to que's love affair with the University of New Jersey @ Durham

1. NCSU does much better than Duke. They are clearly the second most popular school in the state of North Carolina. Duke isn't nearly as popular within the state of North Carolina as UNC-CH or NCSU (overall) or ECU (in football). One of the most often read phrases on this board it, "football drives the bus" and believe me Duke missed the bus.

2. National brand just doesn't translate from one sport to the other and within the confines of the state. If you hold a team day at a school in the state you will find about the same number of Carolina and State t-shirts, followed by ECU, Duke and Appalachian with a sprinkling of UNC-W, A&T, NCCU, Campbell, Elon, and Charlotte depending on where you are in the state.

3. That you think ECU is 5th in the state tells me that you know nothing about the state of North Carolina. Have you ever even been in the state? I live here and have lived here all my life. Wake Forest is a great school, but their fan base is small. Duke's fan base is small in football and large in basketball.

4. The reason The Big Four are in an AQ conference is because the conference was formed 60 years ago. Wake Forest is there because they are a founding member. The reason ECU isn't is because it was a small teacher college when the big conferences were created. Now it is the second largest university in the state.

5. NC State alone would out draw Duke in NC. There is no need to add any other schools to the equation. National basketball ratings (not the NC Market) are the only thing that makes Duke attractive, but again basketball doesn't drive the bus.

6. Try these numbers from the 2012 football season.


11/3/12 Duke vs Clemson 505k (0.3) ESPN2 it was the only game on that Saturday night primetime and a 10:30 west coast game got double the number of viewers.

8/31/12 Tenn. vs NCSU 1.5m (0.8) ESPNU that's three times the national audience

11/17/12 Duke vs GT 192k (0.1) ESPNU that's not much more than my county population

10/6/12 FSU vs NCSU 1.3m (0.8) ESPN2

10/25/12 Clemson vs Wake Forest 1.2m (1.4) ESPN

Keep in mind this was middling year for State, a down year for WF and the best season Duke has had in years. Yet Duke couldn't generate interest from a national audience. I think you have fallen victim to the Duke hype.

(05-06-2013 11:44 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  1. NCSU does much better than Duke. They are clearly the second most popular school in the state of North Carolina. Duke isn't nearly as popular within the state of North Carolina as UNC-CH or NCSU (overall) or ECU (in football). One of the most often read phrases on this board it, "football drives the bus" and believe me Duke missed the bus.

Duke is a nationally recognized name brand, much bigger than NC State, and a million years ahead of ECU. The ACC could survive the loss of NC State to another conference much better than it could survive the loss of Duke. That would strike at its very core, which consists of UNC and ... Duke.

If a GoR didn't exist and Duke asked to join the SEC today, what would the SEC say? YES
If NC State did, what would the SEC say? NO
If ECU did, what would the SEC say? They wouldn't bother to reply

Remember, the "football drives the bus" mantra makes sense if you are a minor league struggling to survive, like say the new AAC. But it is irrelevant to the SEC, since the SEC already oozes football appeal and prestige. SEC schools would probably welcome a name-brand, but patsy football school on the schedule, like Duke.

What the SEC can use is (a) a major basketball power, and (b) one with high academic standing, and © located in North Carolina, the heart of ACC country. Duke is A+ on all counts.

(05-07-2013 12:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 11:44 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  1. NCSU does much better than Duke. They are clearly the second most popular school in the state of North Carolina. Duke isn't nearly as popular within the state of North Carolina as UNC-CH or NCSU (overall) or ECU (in football). One of the most often read phrases on this board it, "football drives the bus" and believe me Duke missed the bus.

Duke is a nationally recognized name brand, much bigger than NC State, and a million years ahead of ECU. The ACC could survive the loss of NC State to another conference much better than it could survive the loss of Duke. That would strike at its very core, which consists of UNC and ... Duke.

If a GoR didn't exist and Duke asked to join the SEC today, what would the SEC say? YES
If NC State did, what would the SEC say? NO
If ECU did, what would the SEC say? They wouldn't bother to reply

Remember, the "football drives the bus" mantra makes sense if you are a minor league struggling to survive, like say the new AAC. But it is irrelevant to the SEC, since the SEC already oozes football appeal and prestige. SEC schools would probably welcome a name-brand, but patsy football school on the schedule, like Duke.

What the SEC can use is (a) a major basketball power, and (b) one with high academic standing, and © located in North Carolina, the heart of ACC country. Duke is A+ on all counts.

Quo, if the SEC asked Duke to join they would say no. They don't need the money like Maryland did. Football isn't a motivator. More importantly, the SEC's academics aren't up to the standards that Duke prefers to be associated with.

(05-07-2013 05:26 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 12:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 11:44 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  1. NCSU does much better than Duke. They are clearly the second most popular school in the state of North Carolina. Duke isn't nearly as popular within the state of North Carolina as UNC-CH or NCSU (overall) or ECU (in football). One of the most often read phrases on this board it, "football drives the bus" and believe me Duke missed the bus.

Duke is a nationally recognized name brand, much bigger than NC State, and a million years ahead of ECU. The ACC could survive the loss of NC State to another conference much better than it could survive the loss of Duke. That would strike at its very core, which consists of UNC and ... Duke.

If a GoR didn't exist and Duke asked to join the SEC today, what would the SEC say? YES
If NC State did, what would the SEC say? NO
If ECU did, what would the SEC say? They wouldn't bother to reply

Remember, the "football drives the bus" mantra makes sense if you are a minor league struggling to survive, like say the new AAC. But it is irrelevant to the SEC, since the SEC already oozes football appeal and prestige. SEC schools would probably welcome a name-brand, but patsy football school on the schedule, like Duke.

What the SEC can use is (a) a major basketball power, and (b) one with high academic standing, and © located in North Carolina, the heart of ACC country. Duke is A+ on all counts.

Quo, if the SEC asked Duke to join they would say no. They don't need the money like Maryland did. Football isn't a motivator. More importantly, the SEC's academics aren't up to the standards that Duke prefers to be associated with.

I know that. But the issue being addressed is the relative appeal to the SEC of Duke, NCST, and ECU, not vice versa.

No quo the issue is the appeal of Duke in NC, and it isn't nearly what you think it is.

(05-07-2013 08:17 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  No quo the issue is the appeal of Duke in NC, and it isn't nearly what you think it is.

Add it all up, and Duke is far more appealing to the SEC than are NC State and ECU. Far more. It's the difference between a national, elite, high-prestige brand and a second-fiddle brand (NCST) and a nearly non-existent brand (ECU).

My only question is why every post from quo vadis is another attempt to diminish the value of the SEC. I think he may actually be Bob Bowlsby.

http://outkickthecoverage.com/sec-networ...letics.php

(05-07-2013 09:38 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  My only question is why every post from quo vadis is another attempt to diminish the value of the SEC. I think he may actually be Bob Bowlsby.

That's hilarious, since for years I've been accused by posters like SF Husky and Big East Homer of being a shameless shill for the SEC, a closet LSU fan (I live about 7 miles from Tiger Stadium), etc.

FWIW, i greatly admire the SEC. Its run of 7 straight national titles is just completely unprecedented. And I think the SEC is extremely valuable, the most valuable of all the conferences, even the B1G.

My argument here is that the SEC has shot itself badly in the foot by signing deals with ESPN and CBS that do not pay it nearly as much as they should, in other words, that the SEC is actually a lot MORE valuable than the contracts it has signed indicate.

(05-07-2013 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:38 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  My only question is why every post from quo vadis is another attempt to diminish the value of the SEC. I think he may actually be Bob Bowlsby.

That's hilarious, since for years I've been accused by posters like SF Husky and Big East Homer of being a shameless shill for the SEC, a closet LSU fan (I live about 7 miles from Tiger Stadium), etc.

FWIW, i greatly admire the SEC. Its run of 7 straight national titles is just completely unprecedented. And I think the SEC is extremely valuable, the most valuable of all the conferences, even the B1G.

My argument here is that the SEC has shot itself badly in the foot by signing deals with ESPN and CBS that do not pay it nearly as much as they should, in other words, that the SEC is actually a lot MORE valuable than the contracts it has signed indicate.

Hey quo...now that I have ruled out Bowlsby, I think you may be that guy Jeremy Hill got into a bar fight with in Tigertown?

Just kidding...it's a pleasure to chat. My first house after college was on a street called St. Landry. Not far from LSU at all (intersection of Jefferson and Government).

I agree the media deals initially were handcuffs for the SEC in hindsight, but only because of the following frenzy in signing other conferences. Not sure anyone saw the value of college football escalating to the degree it has in the past 5-10 years. The CBS deal remains incredibly undervalued (as pointed out by Clay Travis), even after a renegotiation. However, I think the strategy there may simply be the fact that CBS provides a "marquee" game with mass distribution akin to the NBC marriage with Notre Dame.

Ultimately I think each power conference has a slightly different strategy with media, but I think Slive's "partnership" with ESPN, while also keeping CBS involved, is brilliant. My take is that the SEC is approaching this from a position of maximizing dollar value tomorrow, which is an interesting contrast to the Big-12 that appears to be maximizing dollar value today, with no apparent long term strategy in tow.

(05-07-2013 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 08:17 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  No quo the issue is the appeal of Duke in NC, and it isn't nearly what you think it is.

Add it all up, and Duke is far more appealing to the SEC than are NC State and ECU. Far more. It's the difference between a national, elite, high-prestige brand and a second-fiddle brand (NCST) and a nearly non-existent brand (ECU).

Did you notice the tv ratings for Duke football? Did you compare them with the NC State ratings? Heck even WF had higher ratings than Duke. Duke couldn't even get 700k viewers in two games late in the season when they were doing well. State had over 1 million viewers in both of their nationally televised games.

(05-06-2013 11:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 08:36 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 08:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 05:05 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(05-06-2013 08:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I am wrong? Of course CBS will pay the SEC more for those 10 extra years. The issue is what CBS is paying for 2008-2023.


Good Grief. Pal, obviously, I have been using the term "employee" as a figure of speech, since the SEC is not a literal "employee", as that term can technically apply only to a single individual, not an organization. I use the term to dramatize the difference between being in an equity position, like the PAC and B1G, which allows you to capture unlimited profits should they be earned, and being paid a salary, or fixed amount, as the SEC is by ESPN and CBS. And given the increasing value of college sports rights, this is a very important point.

As for "investing in startup costs", well, that's what entrepreneurs do, or don't, and those that do end up making a LOT more money, if the business is successful. As the BTN is obviously successful, their gamble in paying for startup costs has paid off, and they will make a lot more money than will the SEC.


You're kidding, right? The standard projection being bandied about is that the deal will "eventually", which typically means near the end of the deal, in 2034, be worth $28.6 million per school. That is a top-out figure, and that is far less than what i mentioned ($35 million per school, and by 2023!). And in my scenario, the SEC would still own its tier 3 rights to boot.

Here are some quotes for you to consider:

"Bevilacqua said he believes the SEC missed a big opportunity several years ago by negotiating longterm deals with ESPN and CBS that everybody now knows were fairly under-market deals.

"At the time, they looked like they were fully-valued deals," he said. "But it's fair to say the market accelerated forward and has changed quite dramatically. As a result of those deals, the SEC has to deal with ESPN in a non-free agency matter. It's very difficult because ESPN has the leverage of 15 years worth of future rights to have the preferred structural outcome."

Your premise is that in these SECN negotiations, ESPN essentially gave the SEC a do-over and allowed them to recapture the value they lost in that awful 2008 deal. But, this media consultant correctly points out that negotiations are about leverage, and thanks to the signed 15-year deal, which today still has 10 more long years to run, ESPN had the great bulk of the leverage, and thus it is safe to assume they retained the great bulk of that value they captured in 2008.

Sorry, at this point I must call a troll a troll, LOL.

You were completely, absolutely, and totally wrong.

"ESPN owns 100% of the network, but the SEC owns 100% of the content. Today the Sports Business Journal reported that all profits will be split 50/50."

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/sec-ne...letics.php

You must have missed the part about the SECN being a separate deal:

"The SEC has a new national media rights deal with ESPN, but terms of that contract — which runs through 2034 — were not available. That’s a separate contract that runs concurrently with the SEC Network contract. ESPN will own the SEC channel and will share profits 50-50 with the conference, industry sources said."

Wake me up when SBJ revises the industry estimate of a $28.6 million annual per-school payout. An eventual, back-end payout. That's far below what the SEC would get sans the 2008 catastrophe.

Of course the SECN has a separate contract, it's a new (different) network. As far as the old contract is concerned, did you read what you wrote? "The SEC has a new national media rights deal with ESPN". That does not sound like ESPN is being inflexible to me.

Just admit you were wrong and give it a rest.

WTF? Of course the national media rights deal is new, it has been extended for 10 more years!

There's absolutely no reason for ESPN to be "flexible" in the sense of giving back the enormous value it captured in that 2008 deal. Wake me up when SBJ reports that the money the SEC makes is going to be a LOT more than $28.6 million per school in the year 2034.

Why now for ESPN? If ESPN didn't do a network, it risked losing the SEC once the current 15-year contract expired in 2024.

"We agreed then (in 2008) that the world was going to change, and that what looked like a very rich deal at the time has now been caught up by other conferences and other networks," ESPN President John Skipper said. "We committed that we would always keep the SEC in a primary position of leadership and we did."

Said Slive: "We set the bar and now this takes us to another level, assuming it's successful. That's why we have the look-in. That's why I'm comfortable with the extensions because I'm always going to be in a place to watch what happens and stay ahead of the curve."

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/...would.html

You were wrong. Will you admit it now, finally?

(05-04-2013 09:11 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  SEC wouldn't take two teams from the same state unless it was a really big state (Texas). They won't even take FSU. Also let's assume the ACC is off limits due to the GOR. If ECU is #15, I'd say #16 would be Cincy. Cincy gets the SEC into Ohio.

Mean like these "really big states":

Tennessee (2 SEC Teams)
Mississippi (2 SEC Teams)
Alabama (2 SEC Teams)

You are comparing the mindset at the conferences founding (regional travel) to its modern mindset (maximize cable TV profits)

Now, one member per state is preferred over doubling up and creating redundancy