re: SEC Network, the thread

Good discussion gents, I miss that stuff.

quote:

---

Good discussion gents, I miss that stuff.

---

Indeed. Hard to find good dialogue at times.

Btw, reading the Big 12 boards about realignment - it's all fan fiction and I get that but the fundamental misunderstanding of the direction of conference networks is amusing. They are discussing which 3rd tier model is best while the other conferences are working on a future state (which has no tiers).

Long-term the SEC content will be entirely a joint-venture with Disney. We'll have games on ABC, ESPN, SECN or even a web channel. They already do P&Ls on every contract so they'd just flow through an agreed upon profit share regardless of where they showed a game. Fox will do the same with BTN. There's simply no first, second, or third tier. It's all one big lump sum that the tv partner can control to maximize profit.

That's the future and talking about a world with T3 contracts is like discussing which is the best fax machine. The sporting tv world has evolved and their inability to work together is leaving them in the dust.

I like the idea but the execution is horrible.

It should have shown her interacting with way more students for one.

Or hell, just go super cheese with it and have it open with her as a puppy watching A&M on TV before she was selected to be the new Rev.

yeah, it just does nothing for me. I'm not even sure who they are trying to appeal to with this. And I agree, at least make it a spot I'd care to see again. I honestly DGAF if I ever see it as it's neither cute nor funny nor informative. It's just sort of there.

It seems like they're trying to strengthen Rev as a school mark. Raise her profile as a mascot. Not obviously a terrible idea, but I agree the over-emphasis on the corps will reinforce the all-male military misconception.

quote:

---

It seems like they're trying to strengthen Rev as a school mark. Raise her profile as a mascot. Not obviously a terrible idea,

---

That idea is not bad, but there is a time and place to emphasis things like that and this just isn't it. This commercial should build the A&M/SECN brand, not raise the profile of our mascot. The ad should make me, as an Ag, whether directly or indirectly*, want the SECN. I don't think it does that at all.

* RC's idea was amusing and cute and indirectly gets the message across because you want to watch the commercial. This is sort of like the AT&T kids commercials or the Etrade baby, etc. It's okay to be indirect. It's not okay to be indirect and boring.

quote:

---

The SEC will still have a Tier 1 (CBS), and I don't see that going away. It is VERY obvious from the low amounts of compensation for that deal (and the low amount of inventory) that the SEC feels staying on CBS is good for the brand. If the B1G is smart they will take less money to stay on ESPN and not have their major games get buried on a Fox channel.

---

The reason CBS balked at paying more is because it's all but certain that contract will not be renewed. They can't offer what ABC/ESPN can no matter the money. They can play nice but why? They are losing the business and they know it so they are going to milk this contract for all it's worth.

Joint ventures are eat what you kill. That's what is going on here and the train has left the station. It's in both the networks and conferences best interest to have all the content under one umbrella. If you parse meal it, the 2nd contract is always unsure of it's value (uncertainty means risk, which degrades value). The flexibility of having it all has enormous value, from the option to move games around (remember the LSU-Bama fiasco when CBS wanted a 2nd doubleheader?) to cross-advertising to an ability to drive value to whichever channel you desire. The sum is worth more than the individual parts.

But more important reason why you want one media partner is the what you hit on - cord cutting. ESPN is already way ahead of you. You may not have seen the announcement, but one aspect of the new Dish deal is an a la carte option to buy just Disney channels. Ie, a cord-cutter will be able to go to Dish and buy just ESPN. The deal they are working with DTV right now will do the same. In both cases, everyone that buys that, will also be paying for the SECN (it's an all-or-nothing package that supposedly will be about $20/month) Disney channels today only get about $8-10 in total.

This is why a partnership with a major player is the only way to go. Because if you tried to sell SECN a la carte, it would never get that kind of value. But if Disney is a partner, they have a vested interest in it's success. Disney and Fox can use their leverage in the marketplace to build channels in a future state, with or without a cable operator. And partnering with the SEC (and ACC) means they will always have a piece of CFB as part of that package.

quote:

---

I think in the long run, like WAY long run, the current age of expansion will be seen as a mistake. Teams like Rutgers and Utah that were captured for their markets will be shown to be useless when you want people to pay out-of-pocket for Rutgers football instead of pay extra because they live in Rutger's state.

---

I think it's too early to say but my guess is you are going to be wrong on this. I don't know the future but that move was driven by Fox who I think does, at least far better than you or I or any casual fan. They are looking at this 10-20-30 years out.

And I think Partnerships of brands have proven to be more successful than individuals. Look at the NFL vs MLB. The NFL's whole pie has grown exponentially so despite teams like the Cowboys having far more value than say, Arizona, the Cowboys are still better off in the long-run. The NFL has no benefit to dumping the Cards because they lose that market, just as dumping Rutgers would lose NJ.

The SEC's and B1G's pies are going to grow. And at a certain point, the pie is going to be so large than the Miss State's of the world will be money whipping Oklahoma if both conferences stay as they are currently constituted and run. At least that's my prediction (I don't think OU will let it get to that however)

quote:

---

The reason CBS balked at paying more is because it's all but certain that contract will not be renewed. They can't offer what ABC/ESPN can no matter the money. They can play nice but why? They are losing the business and they know it so they are going to milk this contract for all it's worth.

---

I don't know about that. Why did they agree to give up their exclusive rights to the afternoon window if they intended to milk the contract?

LINK

If CBS was going to milk the contract you would think they wouldn't mind paying a little extra to not give up important airtime to the network that would eventually displace them.

The average rating for a televised SEC game was 2.34:

LINK

But on CBS the average SEC games gets a 4.2 rating:

LINK

That kind of exposure is hard to buy!

I think the CBS deal is similar to the NBC Notre Dame deal. It is below market value money-wise because it is better than fighting for the few slots on ABC/ESPN exposure-wise. The SEC can accept less than market value for Tier 1 for now and make it up in Tiers 2 and 3 via the SEC Network. At some point when the SECN brings in four times as much as the CBS money that might change the game, but for now CBS is the path to reach your average SEC viewer as their demographics line-up with those who still get TV over the air.

quote:

---

This is why a partnership with a major player is the only way to go. Because if you tried to sell SECN a la carte, it would never get that kind of value. But if Disney is a partner, they have a vested interest in it's success. Disney and Fox can use their leverage in the marketplace to build channels in a future state, with or without a cable operator. And partnering with the SEC (and ACC) means they will always have a piece of CFB as part of that package.

---

Good point. My idea of the death of king cable is so far out (with so many things in the way) that honestly it doesn't matter as much to this forum. I hope you are right and the entire SEC makes incredible bank off the SEC Network deal. When they didn't release the financials I got nervous but now that seems to be due to conservatism in presentation which I appreciate. I hope the pie grows and grows, and ESPN is a much better partner for success than Fox IMHO.

I guess all I was trying to say is that I am so glad that A&M is in a position to maximize a long-term value from recent decisions and not just the payout schedule of a certain 20 year contract.

quote:

---

I don't think OU will let it get to that however

---

I would love to hear your prediction of what they will do.

I will be honest, they scare me more than any other player on the board. A SEC-powered OU would have the ability to steal A&M's birthright of a FSU-level of success like the OU of the past once did with its paid players. Yet a unilateral OU march to the PAC (where they want to go obviously) would marginalize their program in Texas forever. On one hand I want them to rot in the Big 12 exposure jail for the GOR decade so Thanksgiving can become the biggest game in the state, while on the other hand I like that they taste a little success such as beating Bama and a commit here and there so they don't do something drastic like screw OSU and go SEC.

If they can even do that! I have argued this point before but I do believe with how big of a soap box T Boone has they can't dump OSU in his lifetime without it being a mess. Not after that stand together crap last go round. So if OU can't do anything because of that and Texas being "happy", then rot away I say. Become the next Minnesota, A&M can only benefit.

quote:

---

I would love to hear your prediction of what they will do.

---

that's so hard to figure as there are so many moving pieces and nothing is likely to happen til like 2022 or so when the GOR ends.

One thing to remember is that these are state entities. We think athletics but the Presidents and Regents vote and they have a fiduciary duty to the state. If OU were to leave on their own and OSU was relegated to CUSA type status, is the state of Oklahoma better off? And you may not think athletics matters but look what athletics has done for our academic giving. It's been huge.

So if OU has an option to go somewhere and bring OSU along, I think it's going to be extremely hard to go anywhere without them. The only way they separate is if both schools find a power conference or OU has no options to leave without OSU and the Big 12 is imploding.

So I just don't see them being able to make a proactive move in the current environment. But 10 years from now, who knows what the environment will be? Maybe college athletics hits a depression. Maybe the Big 12 changes course, adds two schools and begins prospering to the point it could exist without OU. Maybe OSU grows its fanbase to the point it's desirable by itself.

But right now I'd guess OU would go in tandem with OSU to the Pac as that's the only real option for both. And it would likely include Texas (and Tech who is now solely the sips problem for similar reasons bc of their strategic mistake). It's a long way out, but I think the Big 12 will break the Texoma 4 to the PAC, Kansas to the B1G (probably with UConn) and the rest wither and die as they lack sufficient brand or market to the big conferences.

quote:

---

The average rating for a televised SEC game was 2.34:

But on CBS the average SEC games gets a 4.2 rating:

---

Some of this is deceptive. CBS gets first pick each week so it will naturally always have better ratings. Last year when ESPN got first pick for one weekend (for the Bama-LSU trade in 2011), the LSU-USC game got a 3.7 rating on cable and the CBS game (which was 2nd choice) that week (Bama-Mizzou) only got a 2.2. The big exposure benefit CBS once gave the SEC (exclusive partner, over-the-air, national game) has all but run it's course. There will never be a regional SEC game again and ESPN is so prevalent the difference vs OTA is pretty small.

And the SEC had a look-in for expansion in the CBS contract. When CBS was pushing back on dollars, the SEC decided to just take the exclusivity clause and live with that. There were also some other minor details (like immediate replay rights for the web channel, CBS advertising SECN games, etc). I don't think it was contentious but certainly the public comments during those conversations were cold. The dichotomy vs the ESPN negotiations couldn't have been more obvious.

It's not as if the SECN is going to put a top game in the 230 spot anyway. That's when the top choice game is played and when other conferences generally put their best game too. It's a tough window. But it's a window the SECN needs or it is only showing 2 games per Saturday. I'm pretty sure the worst game of the week will get the 230 SECN slot (so crap like our game vs Lamar).

quote:

---

I think the CBS deal is similar to the NBC Notre Dame deal. It is below market value money-wise because it is better than fighting for the few slots on ABC/ESPN exposure-wise.

---

While true today, I was meaning in a future state in 2024 when the new contract is in place. By that point, it's fairly likely both the B1G and SEC will have 1 media partner. In that world, Disney can put a prime time SEC game at 7pm on ABC every week. They can put a 230 game on ESPN vs their regional games. Schedule to avoid the World Series. Whatever because they'd own it all.

We wouldn't be fighting because ABC/ESPN is going to lose content (to PACN and BTN plus Fox and maybe CBS will likely try to grab another conference). And SEC games get better national ratings anyway so it's in ESPN's benefit to jettison some of the crap they have or push it to other channels for our top games.