Started By
Message
1
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:02 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
revenue from Texas A&M fans does not outweigh the rest, plain and simple.
He didn't say it did...just that the Texas is far and away the biggest chunk of the SEC Network subscriber base.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:05 pm to Clay Davis
quote:
He didn't say it did...just that the Texas is far and away the biggest chunk of the SEC Network subscriber base.
Well that is incorrect, so...
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:06 pm to Projectpat
quote:
Blah blah daddy A&M blah blah
Hopefully Trump can get rid of you college sports scabs too.
Your responses only support my argument even further
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:07 pm to Projectpat
quote:
No, we get it, you're simple. That didn't need to be explained.
you'd think a lesser-than would know how to say thank you by now. it appears some are just more ornery than others.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:10 pm to PhilipMarlowe
quote:
you'd think a lesser-than would know how to say thank you by now
You would think so, but that's always the problem. They think they "deserve" the handout for whatever reason.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:13 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
I still dont think you know how this works, revenue from Texas A&M fans does not out weigh the rest, plain and simple,
I never said that and quite frankly that is a red herring.
Because of Texas A&M being in the SEC every cable subscriber in our state (yes including SEC and Texas and Baylor and whoever fans) pay the full rate for the SEC Network. That alone brings in more money than all the rest of the money the SEC Network gets from every other non-SEC state, and is more than it gets from any other single SEC state.
quote:
actually think about it on a national scale
Why the frick does the "national scale" matter? The majority of the revenue for the SEC Network comes from the SEC footprint. The cost is $1.30 inside the SEC per month for EVERY cable subscriber, and 25 cents outside the SEC (but not for every cable subscriber because a lot of places just have it on the premium tier).
That means a cable subscriber in a SEC state is worth more than five TIMES as much as a subscriber outside of a SEC state. Because Texas has the most population of any SEC state, our part of the footprint ends up bringing in the most money for the SEC Network.
Simply put, without us you would be getting a fifth of what you get from Texans at best. Without us (and Mizzou) the 2009 SEC tv deal prevented the SEC from even making the fricking network. Without us the SEC would be behind every single Power 5 conference except maybe the PAC on revenue per school.
You are welcome.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:13 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
Well that is incorrect, so...
Ok then, what state in the SEC footprint has a larger population than Texas?
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:14 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
I still dont think you know how this works, revenue from Texas A&M fans does not out weigh the rest, plain and simple, but you should probably go a little more into you explanation and actually think about it on a national scale and in terms to A&M and get over yourself...
It's not about Texas A&M fans. It is about the state of Texas. SECN-subscribers (all of 'em, regardless of fandom) pay substantially more for SECN access than subscribers in states w/o SEC schools. Basically everybody in Texas (and Missouri) with basic cable is contributing a huge chunk to the SECN whether they ever watch an SEC game or not. While I find the whole "You're welcome" shtick a bit distasteful, they're correct. There would most likely not even be a SECN without A&M and Mizzou in the SEC, and if there was the payout would be substantially smaller.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:18 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
Currently even in a Television market as CFB-crazed as Birmingham, more than 50% of the area never watches college football, even for a game like the Iron Bowl or the National Title Game.
You do realize even 10% of the SEC population watching a single game is huge, correct? And out of that 10%, I am positive you'd find a 90% participation rate in higher fees for single network pay.
This post was edited on 2/2/17 at 4:19 pm
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:21 pm to finestfirst79
quote:
There would most likely not even be a SECN without A&M and Mizzou in the SEC, and if there was the payout would be substantially smaller.
There is no if. No if what-so-ever.
The 2009 deal the SEC signed with ESPN was for 15 years and specifically excluded the creation of a SEC Network. Without expansion triggering contract provisions the SEC would still be under that 2009 deal as it was in 2009. That would make the SEC the poorest or second poorest of the Power 5 conferences today.
Heck it wasn't just the 2009 ESPN that fricked the SEC Network, the CBS Tier 1 deal also fricked the SEC Network because CBS had exclusivity in the afternoon for broadcasting SEC football. As part of the 2011 expansion CBS dropped that exclusivity (because they prefered that to paying the SEC more money overall), which allowed the SEC Network to have games on tv in the afternoon.
TV contracts are what they are, and ESPN wasn't going to rip up the shitty 2009 deal just out of the goodness of their hearts. The SEC needed us to undo the damage of the 2009 deal, and we helped. In return the SEC has helped us get more tv money than any other program in Texas.
I don't think it is fair to say Texas A&M represents most of the value of the SEC brand (Bama could say it), but it is completely fair to say unless we take the SEC invite in 2011 the conference would be far far behind the Big 10 or even the Big 12 in per-team revenue.
Don't blame us Rant, blame the SEC leaders that signed that shitty 2009 deal.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:25 pm to finestfirst79
quote:
It's not about Texas A&M fans. It is about the state of Texas. SECN-subscribers (all of 'em, regardless of fandom) pay substantially more for SECN access than subscribers in states w/o SEC schools. Basically everybody in Texas (and Missouri) with basic cable is contributing a huge chunk to the SECN whether they ever watch an SEC game or not. While I find the whole "You're welcome" shtick a bit distasteful, they're correct. There would most likely not even be a SECN without A&M and Mizzou in the SEC, and if there was the payout would be substantially smaller.
I did some googling and what I read indicates to me that the SEC Network would have been a non starter without Texas being in the footprint.
But in the relatively near future we are going to have a la carte pricing.
Then what happens? ESPN is still hemorrhaging viewers as far as I know. They are projected to go in the red as early as next year (assuming the numbers continue as they have).
ESPN has been the driving force behind all the money thrown at sports the last 25 years or so.
Dunno maybe the SEC Network survives with with their gonzo fanbases, but a whole lot of professional teams and schools are going to be hurting in the near future fiscally.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:27 pm to Sunbeam
quote:
But in the relatively near future we are going to have a la carte pricing.
Then what happens?
The math will change. Instead of looking for state footprints, conferences will be looking for teams that bring in fans willing to pay $10-40 a month for a streaming SEC Network. Suddenly teams like Clemson or FSU that wouldn't be viable with 2011 expansion math might become the best options for the SEC.
It will take a long time to get there though, and the SEC is locked in for a least a decade with the current financial model. ESPN will get rid of the NFL Monday Night deal before it gets rid of a SEC Network that they own half of.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:28 pm to cardboardboxer
I have no idea how any of this works, and I don't give a shite. I'm happy we all getting rich and can give the finger 
to the Longwhorn Network.
to the Longwhorn Network.Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:28 pm to RT1941
quote:
I'm happy we all getting rich and can give the finger to the Longwhorn Network.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:30 pm to Sunbeam
quote:
Then what happens?
Then we pay $100/year to see SEC games, I reckon. Maybe more, I haven't studied it. But it's going to be ugly.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:33 pm to RT1941
quote:
I have no idea how any of this works, and I don't give a shite. I'm happy we all getting rich and can give the finger to the Longwhorn Network.
I'm pretty sure we can all rally around this idea.
cardboardboxer beat me to the punch with the perfect gif.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 4:44 pm to cardboardboxer
The math will change. Instead of looking for state footprints, conferences will be looking for teams that bring in fans willing to pay $10-40 a month for a streaming SEC Network. Suddenly teams like Clemson or FSU that wouldn't be viable with 2011 expansion math might become the best options for the SEC.
Sounds reasonable, but:
1) I'm not sure how many schools nationwide actually fit that criteria. LSU? Alabama? Yes.
Minnesota? Uh, not so sure that one works.
2) Additionally I think that if such a system were adopted, we'd find that LSU/Alabama/A&M/Florida/Georgia provide the bulk of the subscription fees.
Again, then what? Not going to have issues with revenue sharing, given that schools like Vandy just aren't going to bring in the dough (though their grads are infinitely more capable of affording subscriptions on a whim than Bama grads - though I'm sure there will be 10 Bama subscribers for every Vandy one).
Geez take the state of Mississippi. Like 3.5 million people there or something? And two SEC schools. Not much money in that pot.
Or South Carolina. Add Clemson. Little larger population but same deal. Probably get some action in the Charlotte area, but I don't really think either school has fanbases as large as the other schools I mentioned.
Sounds reasonable, but:
1) I'm not sure how many schools nationwide actually fit that criteria. LSU? Alabama? Yes.
Minnesota? Uh, not so sure that one works.
2) Additionally I think that if such a system were adopted, we'd find that LSU/Alabama/A&M/Florida/Georgia provide the bulk of the subscription fees.
Again, then what? Not going to have issues with revenue sharing, given that schools like Vandy just aren't going to bring in the dough (though their grads are infinitely more capable of affording subscriptions on a whim than Bama grads - though I'm sure there will be 10 Bama subscribers for every Vandy one).
Geez take the state of Mississippi. Like 3.5 million people there or something? And two SEC schools. Not much money in that pot.
Or South Carolina. Add Clemson. Little larger population but same deal. Probably get some action in the Charlotte area, but I don't really think either school has fanbases as large as the other schools I mentioned.
Posted on 2/2/17 at 5:21 pm to GoldenFlakes
You are welcome for our markets. At least we can contribute something of value last year
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News