(03-24-2014 09:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-24-2014 09:10 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 02:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-23-2014 01:27 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  So right now the SECN isn't going to be paying out all that much to SEC members. Maybe years down the road it will, but going from around $300,000 to the millions the BTN is paying isn't going to happen anytime soon.

SEC is still tormented by the fundamentally bad deal it signed with ESPN in 2008. Slive did not foresee the huge leap in value that college sports properties were about to make and he signed the SEC on for what quickly turned out to be too little money and, most crucially, too many years. Slive is called a genius but his 2008 deal is, in terms of dollars foregone, probably the worst single decision any commissioner has ever made.

ESPN knows it took Slive to the cleaners on that deal and of course will not let that windfall slip away. SEC and ESPN can repackage that deal six ways to Sunday and call it the "SEC Network" so the SEC can act like it is in charge of it, and ESPN can let the SEC publicly crow about how many untold Billions that the SEC will make so Slive and the schools can put a happy face on it, but at the end of the day it is still ESPN holding the rights to all that SEC property for decades, and at a price that is WAY below what the SEC could be making had Slive not signed the 2008 deal.

The real bottom line is this: Thanks to Delany smartly creating the BTN in 2006 and Slive stupidly signing on with ESPN for 15+ years in 2008, the B1G will make LOTS more money from media deals between now and 2035 than will the SEC. SEC will be badly underpaid for its media for the next quarter-century.

This is absolutely true. Everyone knows the ACC is under a bad deal from 2010, because the PAC deal came immediately after it, and because the ACC deal was less than the SEC deal.

But the SEC deal is even worse, relative to the value of the SEC. Yes, the SEC was was for a little more than the ACC's, but the SEC's value is sky high.

Waiting to see how it plays out, but that's the thing that has always tempered SEC Network projections in my mind. The SEC had very little leverage. ESPN owned all the content they wanted (minus the CBS games) and the 2008 contract specifically precluded an SEC Network.

The SEC Network will certainly be successful and profitable to the SEC, but at all times you have to keep in mind that it was on ESPN's terms, which to me limits the upside compared to the BTN or even potentially the PAC Networks.

It also would be the same with any potential ACC network obviously.

Good that you mentioned the ACC: As you note, Swofford's much-ballyhooed (at the time) $155 million a year deal in 2010 is probably the second-worst deal a commissioner has signed, and the ACC is stuck with that for a long time, too. They have gone through the same contortions as the SEC of "revisiting" it and adding new schools to up the value, and ESPN has been willing to throw a few more peanuts their way as a result, but the same fundamental dynamic is in place: thanks to the 2010 deal ESPN has the ACC, like the SEC, by the balls and won't give away much of the huge value it captured in that deal.

But as you note, relative to what a conference could have gotten on the open market these days, the SEC deal is even worse, because it is the more valuable conference.

That said, the SEC (and ACC) do have this leverage...if they wait out their contract, they can go the PAC route, or whatever makes the most sense at that time. Who knows, in 15 years, the barrier to entry in whatever is the equivalent of today's conference network may be a hell of a lot less.

Now, it kind of makes sense for the SEC to forgo that future option, because their value has been and will unlikely ever be higher. Sure, it's not what they could make if they were free to launch an owned network, but it's still pretty good. They make a ton of money for ESPN, and so they'll still see good cash out of it. One way or another they need to capitalize this amazing run with more than the Champions' bowl deal.

The ACC is different. It's value is still pretty much near it's lowest ever point (18 months ago maybe)? Whatever they could pry out of ESPN for a network is unlikely to be very good, let alone anywhere near what the SEC can.

I lean toward the ACC biting the bullet and not signing with ESPN for a network unless the money is at least somewhat substantial from the jump...a net of at LEAST $5M additional a year per team after any costs.

If ESPN offers another $2-3M for an ACC network, that's just not worth it to me...better off biting the bullet to become a free agent at the end of the contract. No reason to sign away future opportunities when you are at the lowest value, unless you are getting REALLY overpaid to do so.