New Big 12 tv contract

[MikeWaters]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...html?eref=sihp

I think this is further evidence that BYU will not be invited to join the Big 12 anytime soon.

[ute4ever]

Wow. Texas has its own deal with ESPN that pays $15 mil per year, while the separate deal for the entire conference pays only $90 mil per year. That results in $24 mil for Texas, and $9 mil for each of the others.

Why only $90 mil? The SEC hauled in $205 mil, the Big 10 $220 mil, and the Pac 12 rumored to get $220 mil any day now. Maybe the new deal doesn't include any Texas games, maybe the ESPN deal is exclusive. So maybe it's only nine teams, no longer with the Austin, Denver and Lincoln TV markets.

[MikeWaters]

This is a deal for the 2nd tier games. Their primary deal is with ESPN, which is larger than the Fox deal, and will again be much larger when it is renewed.

[ute4ever]

Larry Scott pitched FOX with a $300 million Pac-12 TV deal, but was turned down.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/college...s-to-everyone/

That's $300 million every year.
$25 million per team.
Supposing that 75% of all revenue comes from football alone, that's placing a value of $1.5 million per team, per game.

[Zulu451]

The amount of $$ these schools are making of the backs and at the expense of the bodies of kids who aren't even old enough to buy a beer is lunacy.

At the very least they should be providing disability and health insurance for the athletes. This makes me ill.

Almost as ill as watching ESPN pump up TU and then watching their games all over TV. Have you ever noticed that their "longhorn" logo looks like the female reproductive system? Big uterus, fallopian tubes and ovaries.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Larry Scott pitched FOX with a $300 million Pac-12 TV deal, but was turned down.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/college...s-to-everyone/

That's $300 million every year.
$25 million per team.
Supposing that 75% of all revenue comes from football alone, that's placing a value of $1.5 million per team, per game.

And Scott was told he was crazy and told to pound sand.

There is no way that the Pac-12 is worth more than the SEC. But if people are crazy enough to pay huge money for west coast sports programming, then so be it. I've NEVER been interested in the Pac-10. Al their evening games are way too late for people on the east coast.

If Scott can get 20 million per year for each team he will have done well in my book.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

There is no way that the Pac-12 is worth more than the SEC.

It's all about TV markets. The PAC includes valuable advertising dollars in (2) Los Angeles, (6) Bay Area, (12) Phoenix, (14) Seattle, (18) Denver, (22) Portland, and (33) SLC.

Meanwhile the SEC's largest draws are (7) Atlanta, (29) Nashville, (40) Birmingham, (50) Louisville, (53) New Orleans, and (56) Little Rock.

Plus there's regional interest, like San Diego and Las Vegas vs. Tampa and Charlotte.

The SEC may have had more success in the polls in recent years, but the PAC's audience is larger, and that's the measuring stick right now. They'll be able to compare ratings and paid subscribers once all of these conference packages are ultimately available on all cable and dish providers nationwide, but until then Larry Scott can also hypothesize with the popularity of the Rose Bowl vs. the Sugar Bowl.

[MikeWaters]

First off, it's not about the size of the biggest cities.

It's about the number of eyeballs, i.e. the intensity of the interest.



http://www.cbssports.com/cbssports/s...all-tv-package

Arizona State versus UCLA - yawn. Is there even a good team in the Pac 10? Stanford? How many teams in the SEC are more popular than Stanford? (Hint: many).

You sound very much like the girl from the trailer park engaged to a man from high society. Not even nouveau riche yet.

------

Yeah, a lot of Aggies are butt-hurt about TU's network. There seems to be this unwillingness to grasp the concept that Texans (and the rest of the nation) value Texas far and away above A&M or any other university in Texas. That's just reality.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

First off, it's not about the size of the biggest cities.

It's about the number of eyeballs, i.e. the intensity of the interest.

I'll agree with you once these networks are available nationwide, but presently they're not. For example, last year the SEC Network was available in 73 markets, mostly in the south. Californians interested in the SEC had no option to purchase it.

In the meantime, the PAC-12 Network's immediate visibility will be much larger than the SEC's.

Suppose that in two or three years time these networks will be available for $10 or $15 per month, each. Then, there will be a definitive measuring stick when it's time to renew. But until then, it's like guessing oil futures and gauging us at the pumps while they can.

[MikeWaters]

you don't get it do you.

Just look at the salaries of the head coaches in the SEC. Then compare them to the salaries in the PAC-12.

Hint: they are not close to comparable.