(09-26-2022 01:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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 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 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 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 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 based 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.

I've rarely seen suggestions that sports rights will eventually decrease in value. In fact, Jr. SEC is the first person I've ever seen that's made that claim. I think the more widespread suspicion is that sports rights will eventually stop increasing in value. Even if that's the case, there would be no risk in making shorter contracts- it's just not 100% certain that there would be a benefit.

I don't think that streaming will decrease the total money in sports. I think it'll just make things more unequal, where the most valuable programs whose games people actually want to watch will generate more money, while other teams will generate less money.

(09-26-2022 01:37 PM)Poster Wrote:  I've rarely seen suggestions that sports rights will eventually decrease in value. In fact, Jr. SEC is the first person I've ever seen that's made that claim. I think the more widespread suspicion is that sports rights will eventually stop increasing in value. Even if that's the case, there would be no risk in making shorter contracts- it's just not 100% certain that there would be a benefit.

It's more likely than not somebody with deep pockets will be there to throw out a mind-boggling amount of money to get ahold of something as valuable as the SEC

(09-26-2022 01:37 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-26-2022 01:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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 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 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 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 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 based 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.

I've rarely seen suggestions that sports rights will eventually decrease in value. In fact, Jr. SEC is the first person I've ever seen that's made that claim. I think the more widespread suspicion is that sports rights will eventually stop increasing in value. Even if that's the case, there would be no risk in making shorter contracts- it's just not 100% certain that there would be a benefit.

I don't think that streaming will decrease the total money in sports. I think it'll just make things more unequal, where the most valuable programs whose games people actually want to watch will generate more money, while other teams will generate less money.

To be clear, I'm someone that is personally bullish on the long-term growth of the value of sports rights fees. If I were a betting man, I would bet that they will continue to grow.

However, we also have to acknowledge that it's not a certainty. The cable bundle is, without question, the single best revenue maximizing model for sports leagues. There is nothing - absolutely nothing - that can replicate the revenue for sports networks in the way that ESPN has been able to charge every single cable household in a America $10 per month and for regional sports networks and the top conference networks (BTN/SECN/ACCN) have been able to charge super-premiums for every single cable household in their home footprints whether someone watches those channels or not.

The economics of straight up streaming subscriptions based on fandom simply do not work (or at least work anywhere near the revenue level of what sports teams and leagues have enjoyed with the cable bundle).

In order for sports rights to continue to rise in a streaming environment, I believe that at least one of these three things has to happen:

(1) The marketplace will get so sick of having to pay for multiple streaming services that they will gravitate to an all-inclusive package that offers all of the main streaming services for one single price - in essence, a streaming bundle that replaces the cable bundle that provides all streamers stable monthly revenue;

(2) The economics of an intra-company streaming bundle are favorable enough (e.g. one single Disney+ service for, say, $40-$50 per month that has Disney, ESPN, ABC and Hulu content) that they have enough stable monthly revenue to make it worth it to continue to pay for sports rights at the current level; and/or

(3) The streamers owned by the tech companies - namely Amazon - pay outsized sports rights fees for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with how many subscriptions they sell because, in the case of Amazon, they care more about the $1400 per year in additional Amazon orders from the average Prime subscriber than the revenue from the Prime subscription itself. (Apple could conceivably play in the space, too, but they seem to want a more conservative straight subscription model a la their MLS deal and interest in NFL Sunday Ticket.)

What *won't* make money is Alabama charging $10 per month for their own streaming service, Ohio State similarly charging $10 per month for their own streaming service, etc. Heck, even the SEC or Big Ten charging $10 or $20 or even $30 per month for their own streaming service would be a financial disaster. Even the biggest brands want to lower risk, which is why they "bundle" their sports rights with other conference members, who in turn sell to media companies who need to their own bundle (whether it's in the form of cable or streaming) in order to make the economics work.

In essence, sports rights fees go up as long as people who *aren't* watching sports are subsidizing the cost (whether it's in a cable bundle or larger streaming service/bundle) OR Amazon is willing to pay outsized amounts due to the overall spending of each additional Prime subscriber on the Amazon platform (as opposed to caring about the Prime subscription revenue in and of itself, which is much different than every other media company). If sports rights are only getting paid for by people that actually watch sports purely based on fandom, then sports rights fees can (and may very well) collapse.

(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 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?

1. 3/6/6 will make the most attractive games that don't happen often right now due to divisions to become regular occurrences. Why announce that now without getting ESPN to commit to paying more for those games, as it's an improved TV package than the 8 game divisional setup?

2. As a Bama grad & season ticket holder, I like 3/6/6 schedule that BePcr07 posted earlier in the thread, but I'm sure there's a lot of internal fighting right now as far as who those three permanent rivals will be for 16 teams. No point making it official until all the details have been hammered out.

(09-26-2022 02:49 PM)Just Joe 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 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?

1. 3/6/6 will make the most attractive games that don't happen often right now due to divisions to become regular occurrences. Why announce that now without getting ESPN to commit to paying more for those games, as it's an improved TV package than the 8 game divisional setup?

2. As a Bama grad & season ticket holder, I like 3/6/6 schedule that BePcr07 posted earlier in the thread, but I'm sure there's a lot of internal fighting right now as far as who those three permanent rivals will be for 16 teams. No point making it official until all the details have been hammered out.

Sankey was planting an idea, not announcing a decision. Also, no details of the contract were released for a few reasons. One is the wanted to know for sure what the B1G did. Second, nobody knew for sure when OU and UT would kick in, or if ESPN would buy out any or all of CBS's rights. So, my understanding is contingencies were made for all scenarios and the amounts vary accordingly, perhaps even for 9 conference games vs eight which was being contemplated in January of 2020.

And given the destabilization everyone knew would come with OU and UT moving to the SEC I would be surprised if there is not a renegotiation clause for further expansion.

We'll just have to wait and see. But since ESPN has an interest in this as well, especially post alliance, I have some confidence in their willingness to adjust as needed in this regard so long as it is mutually beneficial.

(09-26-2022 01:37 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-26-2022 01:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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 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 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 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 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 based 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.

I've rarely seen suggestions that sports rights will eventually decrease in value. In fact, Jr. SEC is the first person I've ever seen that's made that claim. I think the more widespread suspicion is that sports rights will eventually stop increasing in value. Even if that's the case, there would be no risk in making shorter contracts- it's just not 100% certain that there would be a benefit.

I don't think that streaming will decrease the total money in sports. I think it'll just make things more unequal, where the most valuable programs whose games people actually want to watch will generate more money, while other teams will generate less money.

Nothing lasts forever, nothing grows to the sky.

Right now, the Sinclair RSNs (Diamond Sports Group) are heading towards / wheeling-and-dealing-to-avoid bankruptcy. Some of that is semi-self-inflicted (disputes with non-cable providers--Youtube TV, Sling, etc dumped the RSNs a few years ago, once they weren't tied to Fox (Fox News, FOX OTA) or ESPN (ESPN, ABC OTA, Disney channels), some of it was pandemic effects (RSNs guarantee the cable companies tons of games, they carried a lot fewer games in 2020, 2021.)

But it's a very live possibility that the bubble does pop to some extent--Warner Bros Discovery owes a ton of debt, Fox is just about as vulnerable as ESPN to cord-cutting (FS1, Fox News, Fox OTA collects big subscriber fees to be on cable).

It's not clear what's going to happen to the OTA networks over the next few years as it becomes clear that streaming is not going to save the day--there is a ceiling to Netflix subscriber numbers, ESPN+ revenue is NOT going to equal lost ESPN subscriber fees, HBO Max subscriptions are NOT going to replace the revenues from blockbuster movies.

Sports leagues have been a major beneficiary of the bundle. Right now, sports rights fees are still going up because it's the only thing worth spending money on for your OTA network and your streaming service.

If the OTA networks aren't worth Wall Street throwing money at, the well drys up.

Sports aren't going away in 2030, but at some point, the next cycle of rights fees sees a decrease instead of an increase. I thought we saw this in the last cycle of MLB contracts--instead of paying more money, ESPN accepted less content to stay in the mix and keep what they really wanted, yielding other MLB properties to higher bidders.

(09-26-2022 01:28 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  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

I like your design. That's a tough one, though, for Mississippi State having Oklahoma added to the other two. I am not suggesting a more plausible switch.

(09-26-2022 03:27 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-26-2022 01:37 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-26-2022 01:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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 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 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 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 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 based 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.

I've rarely seen suggestions that sports rights will eventually decrease in value. In fact, Jr. SEC is the first person I've ever seen that's made that claim. I think the more widespread suspicion is that sports rights will eventually stop increasing in value. Even if that's the case, there would be no risk in making shorter contracts- it's just not 100% certain that there would be a benefit.

I don't think that streaming will decrease the total money in sports. I think it'll just make things more unequal, where the most valuable programs whose games people actually want to watch will generate more money, while other teams will generate less money.

Nothing lasts forever, nothing grows to the sky.

Right now, the Sinclair RSNs (Diamond Sports Group) are heading towards / wheeling-and-dealing-to-avoid bankruptcy. Some of that is semi-self-inflicted (disputes with non-cable providers--Youtube TV, Sling, etc dumped the RSNs a few years ago, once they weren't tied to Fox (Fox News, FOX OTA) or ESPN (ESPN, ABC OTA, Disney channels), some of it was pandemic effects (RSNs guarantee the cable companies tons of games, they carried a lot fewer games in 2020, 2021.)

But it's a very live possibility that the bubble does pop to some extent--Warner Bros Discovery owes a ton of debt, Fox is just about as vulnerable as ESPN to cord-cutting (FS1, Fox News, Fox OTA collects big subscriber fees to be on cable).

It's not clear what's going to happen to the OTA networks over the next few years as it becomes clear that streaming is not going to save the day--there is a ceiling to Netflix subscriber numbers, ESPN+ revenue is NOT going to equal lost ESPN subscriber fees, HBO Max subscriptions are NOT going to replace the revenues from blockbuster movies.

Sports leagues have been a major beneficiary of the bundle. Right now, sports rights fees are still going up because it's the only thing worth spending money on for your OTA network and your streaming service.

If the OTA networks aren't worth Wall Street throwing money at, the well drys up.

Sports aren't going away in 2030, but at some point, the next cycle of rights fees sees a decrease instead of an increase. I thought we saw this in the last cycle of MLB contracts--instead of paying more money, ESPN accepted less content to stay in the mix and keep what they really wanted, yielding other MLB properties to higher bidders.

Correct. What's more is all of this is consumer driven. The highest % of college sports consumers are Boomers. Xers are #2. One is beginning its die-off and the other will be into theirs by 2040. If you take the Baby Boom years as lasting from 1946 until 1962 it doesn't take a genius to realize that all Boomers alive in 2036 will be 74-90 and all past the average life expectancy and precious few in attendance at events. And beyond that the Boomer's have the most disposable income, and by a decent margin over Xers who are second. Not only do the subsequent generations earn less and carry more debt, but they are much less interested in watching team sports.

Now you can create some new delivery model which may be profitable, but if you have a diminished customer base with diminished disposable income you've lost revenue on carriage, and revenue from advertising not only for a diminished market, but from advertisers seeking to sell luxury items. No doubt beer and cheap insurance ads will still create revenue, just not as much!

(09-26-2022 03:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-26-2022 03:27 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-26-2022 01:37 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-26-2022 01:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2022 12:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  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 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 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 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 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 based 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.

I've rarely seen suggestions that sports rights will eventually decrease in value. In fact, Jr. SEC is the first person I've ever seen that's made that claim. I think the more widespread suspicion is that sports rights will eventually stop increasing in value. Even if that's the case, there would be no risk in making shorter contracts- it's just not 100% certain that there would be a benefit.

I don't think that streaming will decrease the total money in sports. I think it'll just make things more unequal, where the most valuable programs whose games people actually want to watch will generate more money, while other teams will generate less money.

Nothing lasts forever, nothing grows to the sky.

Right now, the Sinclair RSNs (Diamond Sports Group) are heading towards / wheeling-and-dealing-to-avoid bankruptcy. Some of that is semi-self-inflicted (disputes with non-cable providers--Youtube TV, Sling, etc dumped the RSNs a few years ago, once they weren't tied to Fox (Fox News, FOX OTA) or ESPN (ESPN, ABC OTA, Disney channels), some of it was pandemic effects (RSNs guarantee the cable companies tons of games, they carried a lot fewer games in 2020, 2021.)

But it's a very live possibility that the bubble does pop to some extent--Warner Bros Discovery owes a ton of debt, Fox is just about as vulnerable as ESPN to cord-cutting (FS1, Fox News, Fox OTA collects big subscriber fees to be on cable).

It's not clear what's going to happen to the OTA networks over the next few years as it becomes clear that streaming is not going to save the day--there is a ceiling to Netflix subscriber numbers, ESPN+ revenue is NOT going to equal lost ESPN subscriber fees, HBO Max subscriptions are NOT going to replace the revenues from blockbuster movies.

Sports leagues have been a major beneficiary of the bundle. Right now, sports rights fees are still going up because it's the only thing worth spending money on for your OTA network and your streaming service.

If the OTA networks aren't worth Wall Street throwing money at, the well drys up.

Sports aren't going away in 2030, but at some point, the next cycle of rights fees sees a decrease instead of an increase. I thought we saw this in the last cycle of MLB contracts--instead of paying more money, ESPN accepted less content to stay in the mix and keep what they really wanted, yielding other MLB properties to higher bidders.

Correct. What's more is all of this is consumer driven. The highest % of college sports consumers are Boomers. Xers are #2. One is beginning its die-off and the other will be into theirs by 2040. If you take the Baby Boom years as lasting from 1946 until 1962 it doesn't take a genius to realize that all Boomers alive in 2036 will be 74-90 and all past the average life expectancy and precious few in attendance at events. And beyond that the Boomer's have the most disposable income, and by a decent margin over Xers who are second. Not only do the subsequent generations earn less and carry more debt, but they are much less interested in watching team sports.

Now you can create some new delivery model which may be profitable, but if you have a diminished customer base with diminished disposable income you've lost revenue on carriage, and revenue from advertising not only for a diminished market, but from advertisers seeking to sell luxury items. No doubt beer and cheap insurance ads will still create revenue, just not as much!

Their only hope in continuing to grow revenues with demographic changes is to expand the interest of the sport internationally. Add new markets in other words.

Of course, it's questionable whether that's plausible, but it's theoretically a path forward.

(09-26-2022 03:27 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-26-2022 01:37 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-26-2022 01:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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 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 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 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 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 based 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.

I've rarely seen suggestions that sports rights will eventually decrease in value. In fact, Jr. SEC is the first person I've ever seen that's made that claim. I think the more widespread suspicion is that sports rights will eventually stop increasing in value. Even if that's the case, there would be no risk in making shorter contracts- it's just not 100% certain that there would be a benefit.

I don't think that streaming will decrease the total money in sports. I think it'll just make things more unequal, where the most valuable programs whose games people actually want to watch will generate more money, while other teams will generate less money.

Nothing lasts forever, nothing grows to the sky.

Right now, the Sinclair RSNs (Diamond Sports Group) are heading towards / wheeling-and-dealing-to-avoid bankruptcy. Some of that is semi-self-inflicted (disputes with non-cable providers--Youtube TV, Sling, etc dumped the RSNs a few years ago, once they weren't tied to Fox (Fox News, FOX OTA) or ESPN (ESPN, ABC OTA, Disney channels), some of it was pandemic effects (RSNs guarantee the cable companies tons of games, they carried a lot fewer games in 2020, 2021.)

But it's a very live possibility that the bubble does pop to some extent--Warner Bros Discovery owes a ton of debt, Fox is just about as vulnerable as ESPN to cord-cutting (FS1, Fox News, Fox OTA collects big subscriber fees to be on cable).

It's not clear what's going to happen to the OTA networks over the next few years as it becomes clear that streaming is not going to save the day--there is a ceiling to Netflix subscriber numbers, ESPN+ revenue is NOT going to equal lost ESPN subscriber fees, HBO Max subscriptions are NOT going to replace the revenues from blockbuster movies.

Sports leagues have been a major beneficiary of the bundle. Right now, sports rights fees are still going up because it's the only thing worth spending money on for your OTA network and your streaming service.

If the OTA networks aren't worth Wall Street throwing money at, the well drys up.

Sports aren't going away in 2030, but at some point, the next cycle of rights fees sees a decrease instead of an increase. I thought we saw this in the last cycle of MLB contracts--instead of paying more money, ESPN accepted less content to stay in the mix and keep what they really wanted, yielding other MLB properties to higher bidders.

Just a quick note to mention the rise of "cheap" or "bar room" sports on TV.
Ax throwing, cornhole, etc. provide cheap TV in sports that people are actually engaging in.
Elitist sports (golf and tennis, etc.) are starting to wane because the average working person no longer participates.

(09-27-2022 05:16 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-26-2022 03:27 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-26-2022 01:37 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-26-2022 01:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2022 12:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  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 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 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 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 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 based 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.

I've rarely seen suggestions that sports rights will eventually decrease in value. In fact, Jr. SEC is the first person I've ever seen that's made that claim. I think the more widespread suspicion is that sports rights will eventually stop increasing in value. Even if that's the case, there would be no risk in making shorter contracts- it's just not 100% certain that there would be a benefit.

I don't think that streaming will decrease the total money in sports. I think it'll just make things more unequal, where the most valuable programs whose games people actually want to watch will generate more money, while other teams will generate less money.

Nothing lasts forever, nothing grows to the sky.

Right now, the Sinclair RSNs (Diamond Sports Group) are heading towards / wheeling-and-dealing-to-avoid bankruptcy. Some of that is semi-self-inflicted (disputes with non-cable providers--Youtube TV, Sling, etc dumped the RSNs a few years ago, once they weren't tied to Fox (Fox News, FOX OTA) or ESPN (ESPN, ABC OTA, Disney channels), some of it was pandemic effects (RSNs guarantee the cable companies tons of games, they carried a lot fewer games in 2020, 2021.)

But it's a very live possibility that the bubble does pop to some extent--Warner Bros Discovery owes a ton of debt, Fox is just about as vulnerable as ESPN to cord-cutting (FS1, Fox News, Fox OTA collects big subscriber fees to be on cable).

It's not clear what's going to happen to the OTA networks over the next few years as it becomes clear that streaming is not going to save the day--there is a ceiling to Netflix subscriber numbers, ESPN+ revenue is NOT going to equal lost ESPN subscriber fees, HBO Max subscriptions are NOT going to replace the revenues from blockbuster movies.

Sports leagues have been a major beneficiary of the bundle. Right now, sports rights fees are still going up because it's the only thing worth spending money on for your OTA network and your streaming service.

If the OTA networks aren't worth Wall Street throwing money at, the well drys up.

Sports aren't going away in 2030, but at some point, the next cycle of rights fees sees a decrease instead of an increase. I thought we saw this in the last cycle of MLB contracts--instead of paying more money, ESPN accepted less content to stay in the mix and keep what they really wanted, yielding other MLB properties to higher bidders.

Just a quick note to mention the rise of "cheap" or "bar room" sports on TV.
Ax throwing, cornhole, etc. provide cheap TV in sports that people are actually engaging in.
Elitist sports (golf and tennis, etc.) are starting to wane because the average working person no longer participates.

Its not about elitists. Its fads. Interest in certain individual sports waxes and wanes.
Racquet sports are on a down cycle. Things like running, chess, backgammon, poker, racquetball, bowling, aerobics classes. All that stuff goes up and down.

(09-26-2022 01:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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.

About the first part of your post - I agree that the B1G didn't get lucky, since the late 2000s its leaders have correctly read where the market was going and made the wisest decisions to capitalize on it.

And sure, there's no guarantee about what will happen in the future with the current deal - being off ESPN might hurt, rights fees might decline by 2030 and then it may wish it was locked in to the same high-paying deal until 2034 like the SEC is locked in. But so far, the B1G leaders have an outstanding track record in this area.

(09-26-2022 12:26 PM)JRsec 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

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.

1. Did you forget that Fox is also OTA? So it's CBS+Fox+NBC for Big Ten vs ABC only for SEC. The difference isn't quality, but degree.

2. While the SEC will certainly get a lot of ABC double-headers, they won't get all of them - some weekends (think non-conference G5/FCS) there will be one ABC game and multiple ESPN games.

(09-27-2022 12:06 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-26-2022 12:26 PM)JRsec 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

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.

1. Did you forget that Fox is also OTA? So it's CBS+Fox+NBC for Big Ten vs ABC only for SEC. The difference isn't quality, but degree.

2. While the SEC will certainly get a lot of ABC double-headers, they won't get all of them - some weekends (think non-conference G5/FCS) there will be one ABC game and multiple ESPN games.

I didn't forget anything. 3:30 is still our time slot and we still have a compelling product. Nothing substantively changed for the SEC. The Big 10 still has 3 major brands, and 3 mid-tier brands (OSU, PSU, Mich / Iowa, Wisconsin. and usually, Michigan State which will be replaced by Minnesota this year). That's not many top matchups and they will be split among 3 OTA's. Sometimes more means less. USC will add. UCLA not so much.

(09-26-2022 12:26 PM)JRsec 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

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.

What’s the holdup on this? Waiting for an answer on 2024 for OU/Texas?

(09-26-2022 12:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(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.

A&M-Arkansas should go back to home and home. It’s a guaranteed sellout for both schools in an incredible atmosphere if it’s home and home, but at Jerry world it feels more like the Gasparilla Weed Eater Harry Potter Bowl Brought to You By Depends. Only sold 63000 tickets at 80000 capacity stadium, would average 90k every year if home and home.

I’ve been to the game in Dallas and in Fayetteville, and even though it was a true road game I much preferred the atmosphere in Fayetteville. Goes without saying that I prefer the atmosphere at Kyle Field.

(09-26-2022 01:28 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  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

Thanks for putting that together. I had thought a little bit about what it would look like but I hadn't actually put pen to paper.

I think Tennessee needs to be a little harder (find a way to add Florida) and Texas needs to be a little easier (maybe replace Arkansas with Missouri?), but it's good to see that we can keep up just about every rivalry that currently exists.

(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.

https://www.si.com/college/texas/footbal...ealignment

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.

The "correct" address has a word misspelled:
https://www.si.com/college/texas/footbal...ealingment

(09-27-2022 02:04 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(09-26-2022 01:28 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  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

Thanks for putting that together. I had thought a little bit about what it would look like but I hadn't actually put pen to paper.

I think Tennessee needs to be a little harder (find a way to add Florida) and Texas needs to be a little easier (maybe replace Arkansas with Missouri?), but it's good to see that we can keep up just about every rivalry that currently exists.

I don't want "easy" for my school, I just want to play our most hated rivals every year. Pretty sure texas feels the same way, and they hate Arky a lot more than anyone else in the SEC other than the Aggies.

This schedule won't be around very long anyway, I'd be shocked if it lasted past 2036.

Alabama: Auburn, Mississippi St, Tennessee
Arkansas: Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Florida
Florida: Georgia, South Carolina, Auburn
Georgia: Auburn, Florida, South Carolina
Kentucky: Missouri, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
LSU: Mississippi, Texas A&M, Oklahoma
Mississippi: LSU, Mississippi St, Vanderbilt
Mississippi St: Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina
Missouri: Arkansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma
Oklahoma: Missouri, Texas, LSU
South Carolina: Florida, Georgia, Miss State
Tennessee: Alabama, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Texas: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Texas A&M: Arkansas, LSU, Texas
Vanderbilt: Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi


I think Florida-Auburn needs to come back.