(01-17-2019 10:33 PM)stever20 Wrote: (01-17-2019 06:21 PM)JRsec Wrote: (01-17-2019 05:52 PM)stever20 Wrote: (01-17-2019 05:43 PM)JRsec Wrote: (01-17-2019 05:32 PM)stever20 Wrote: The thing is, ESPN could very easily have the right to do something first prior to it coming out on the open market. ESPN might not want to do anything to alienate the SEC, but they sure as hell aren't going to allow the SEC to walk all over them, hurting ESPN in the process. What you are talking about would absolutely 100% do that to ESPN.
Do tell. Please explain how? The issue here is that this possibility just doesn't set well with you. If it was amenable to Texas & Oklahoma and to the SEC and profited ESPN why would they reject it?
Right now ESPN gets games 16 on from the SEC.... Which obviously includes some mighty great games. If they add 4 teams, and make it where ESPN's package is only starting at 36 even- that's a HUGE loss for ESPN..... Probably at least 10 games have aired on ESPN with the current deal would move to tier 1. You say well they'll be replaced and then some with new content. That's all well and good, but those games are no where good as those 10 games.
Well that depends on whether ABC bids on part or all of those T1 rights. Under the old plan ESPN got 56 games - 16 for CBS = 40 games for T2 and T3 selections. If those 4 are added they get 81 games - 32 = 49 games for T2 and T3. So if they want to profit they need to bid on and win those T1 rights for ABC and use them for two dedicated slots on Saturday 2:30 & 7:00 PM, or split them with another network.
In the East you would have Fla/Ala, Ga/Ala, Aub/Ala, Tenn/Ala, Fla/Ga, Fla/Aub, Fla/Tenn, Aub/Tenn, & SoCar/Clemson, Fla/FSU every other year. Plus you would have 9 SEC vs other P conference games which would probably be the games that the T1 would take a hard look at getting.
But they couldn't get them all so ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU would have plenty left to choose from many of which would include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, or Tennessee against Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt and one of the Mississippi schools, probably State.
In the West you have the games between L.S.U., Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, and Ole Miss for your T1 plus their 9 P OOC games. Then those brands against TTU, OSU, Missouri, and Arkansas give you the rest.
From a ratings perspective there aren't any regional dogs to speak of with the exception of Vandy in the East which would be an SECN game anyway. There's enough solid games for ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU and the G5 games are all conference network games anyway.
There's plenty of content there. They would be getting 9 of the top 15 Athletic department in the nation having games with the other 4 brands or regional brands in their divisions. That's a better lineup than you can find anywhere else in college sports, and its true for baseball, softball, and hoops as well.
And I didn't even include the 9 cross divisional games that would be played.
but if the current contract says ESPN gets everything except for the 15 games or whatever that goes to CBS, why would they allow themselves to get screwed out of those games 16-30 which they already enjoy.
I really think you are doing it based on what you hope happens, and not what is contractually realistic. It's a business for both sides. You say there would still be plenty of content for ESPN. Yes that might be the case, but it's definitely not on the same level as what they currently have with this current deal. Why would ESPN in their right mind agree to something where they instead of getting realistically games 16-50 would get with admittedly 4 more teams 36-80? Depending on how the current ESPN deal reads, we don't know who has the leverage here.
What I could see happen is you get a tier 1 package which would be the top 15 games plus SEC tile game, but then the a package would be a 2nd tier 2 level package.... I don't for a second think that the SEC contractually would be allowed with what ESPN has right now- to bid out the top 35 or whatever games....
Let's say for sake of argument that ESPN holds everything outside of the 15 Tier 1 games.
That's relevant to a point, but all the SEC has to do is create additional content not covered in the current contract. Remember, we play 8 conference games. The primary reason we play 8 is because we haven't been paid to play 9.
14 schools x 8 games = 112
You are correct that we should divide that by 2 and we get
56 actual contests. If you add 4 schools and an additional game for everyone then that alters the numbers.
18 schools x 9 games = 162
Divide that by 2 and we've got
81 actual contests. That's 25 additional games over and above what the current contract is for. We can conclude at least 9 of those games were not accounted for in any respect under the current contract because the SEC has just added a 9th game to the slate. It would have been incredibly foolish for the SEC to sell games that didn't previously exist so I think we can safely assume that.
Let's say for sake of argument that there are contractual provisions that address the creation of addition games through expansion. I would assume there are stipulations, but that both sides have motivation to work together under that scenario. The purpose of such stipulations would be to keep one side from taking advantage of the other. As in the previous contract, I'm sure these stipulations cover "windows" for renegotiation in the event of expansion.
The 9 games that the SEC just created are free and clear of obligations to any network. We can call them 1st Tier or 2nd Tier or whatever, but they didn't exist 5 minutes ago so the contract should have little to say about them if anything.
If this sort of expansion were to take place before the CBS deal is up then the SEC still has 9 games on the open market. This creates an opportunity to go with another network or provides leverage to renegotiate an existing deal. I'll take a gamble and say the most effective use would be as leverage to renegotiate an existing deal.
Being that the window is opened anyway with an expansion, the creation of a 9th game allows whoever is bidding a variety of options.
I think it's quite likely that ESPN would want to move Texas into the SEC because that would complete the package they already own about half of with regards to 1st and 2nd tier. They also own 3rd tier outright and the business partnership with Texas on the LHN provides motivation as well. ESPN would probably like to inflate their bottom line a little bit by adjusting the LHN contract or perhaps eliminating it. But that comes back to what Texas wants as well since they own about half the entity and probably knew what they were signing up for when ESPN came calling.
Consider also that Texas' schedule will be much more favorable to their fans interests in the SEC especially if Oklahoma is on board. No administrator wants to deal with fans not buying tickets anymore or making fewer donations because no one is on the schedule that the fans want to see.
From ESPN's perspective, if 2 of the top brands in the country are fully in the fold of the SEC and there are new games they could grab then that should be sufficient motivation to offer a strong deal so that the SEC doesn't feel the need to go elsewhere. Remember also that ESPN owns the SEC Network and that's a significant investment. Key point being that the SEC still retains rights to the content as soon as the contract is up which would make the investment worthless from ESPN's perspective should the relationship go south.
Of course, ESPN doesn't want to be run over and fortunately for them, the SEC hasn't taken the initiative to run anyone over in contract negotiations. That's part of the benefit of working with the SEC.
Let's also consider that ESPN probably owes us a favor since they signed a contract with the Big Ten that seemed to favor their model despite the fact that the ratings aren't as good top to bottom.
So I conclude we could have as many as 25 new games to add to the slate that would be up for open bid. It's at least 9, but depending on when this happens then 40 games(25 new + CBS' 15) up for bid at a single time is not far fetched.