ADVERTISEMENT

OU to SEC 2.0

Status
Not open for further replies.
They are equal. You are just wrong. It is a fact the SEC gets $1.30 for every subscriber within the conference footprint. Every subscriber in the state of Alabama pays $1.30, every subscriber in Missouri pays $1.30, every subscriber in Texas pays $1.30, every subscriber in Arkansas pays $1.30, etc. You can pitch a fit all you want, but that's how it works. So not, adding Texas doesn't increase the subscription fee. It's already set: $1.30 in the footprint, and 25 cents outside the footprint.
Completely missed the point. How do you think they arrived at $1.30? Do you not think that number would be higher if say, instead of, let's say Vandy and Kentucky, OU and Texas were part of the conference? Do you still not get it?
 
Completely missed the point. How do you think they arrived at $1.30? Do you not think that number would be higher if say, instead of, let's say Vandy and Kentucky, OU and Texas were part of the conference? Do you still not get it?

No, the number would not be higher. As I said, the SEC already has the highest ratings college football. They already have big names like Alabama, Florida , LSU, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn. If all those schools put together get $1.30, just adding an individual school isn't going to make the subscription fee go up. Even with that said, the subscription fee is already in the contract with the cable companies. It doesn't go up.

That's why you see conferences adding schools like Rutgers, Missouri, Colorado, Utah, etc. The subscription fees don't increase. The way you increase your profit is to add markets. If it worked the way you suggested, then these conferences would not have gotten a bunch of mid-level teams, and would have gotten big names instead.
 
No, the number would not be higher. As I said, the SEC already has the highest ratings college football. They already have big names like Alabama, Florida , LSU, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn. If all those schools put together get $1.30, just adding an individual school isn't going to make the subscription fee go up. Even with that said, the subscription fee is already in the contract with the cable companies. It doesn't go up.

That's why you see conferences adding schools like Rutgers, Missouri, Colorado, Utah, etc. The subscription fees don't increase. The way you increase your profit is to add markets. If it worked the way you suggested, then these conferences would not have gotten a bunch of mid-level teams, and would have gotten big names instead.
Hahaha. Ok. You are clearly just fcking with me now. You think SEC didn't want Texas more than Missouri or the Pac didn't want Texas more than Colorado? The subscription fees for these schools are all the same? I guess that's what happened with FSU to Big 12 too. We thought TCU was a better fit and they are worth the same in TV revenue, right?
 
Hahaha. Ok. You are clearly just fcking with me now. You think SEC didn't want Texas more than Missouri or the Pac didn't want Texas more than Colorado? The subscription fees for these schools are all the same? I guess that's what happened with FSU to Big 12 too. We thought TCU was a better fit and they are worth the same in TV revenue, right?

You just don't understand how the TV market works, especially for conference networks. Let me give you an example. Let's say TBS has a hit new comedy show. It pulls in big ratings. They don't get to renegotiate their subscription fee with the cable companies just because one show gets good ratings. It's a cumulative total, and the one show didn't increase the overall ratings that much. Same thing with the SEC. They draw higher ratings cumulatively than Texas or Oklahoma do individually, so the overall ratings for the SEC wouldn't go up very much.

However, let's test your theory out further. Let's just hypothetically say Texas joined the SEC. The SECN fee is $1.30. By comparison, the Big Ten gets $1.00. So let's split that difference, and say Texas get the SECN to $1.45. That's about a 12% increase over the original total. Now, let's say instead, the SEC adds North Carolina and Virginia. Those markets increase from 25 cents to $1.30. From 25 cents to $1.30 is a 420% increase. 12 % vs 420%. Not hard to see which is the better option.

As for your comments about the Pac 12 and Big 12, this again illustrated you don't understand TV markets. For one, conference networks are different from the regular TV deals, so you making an apples to oranges comparison. But there's more to it that than. The Pac 12 does want Texas more the Colorado because the Pac 12 doesn't have the Texas market. The Big 12 does want Florida St, because it doesn't already have the Florida market (that is, if the Big 12 had a normal contract). However, the SEC already has the state of Texas in its market. The SEC gets paid for the Texas market in its regular contract with ESPN, because Texas is already in the footprint. The SEC also gets the $1.30 rate in Texas because it's already in the footprint.

The problem is, you don't understand that the ratings don't play as big of a factor as you think they do. The reason is, it's not up to the local school to deliver the ratings. If you already have popular teams, you will still draw big ratings in a given market. The thing is, you need to have that market in your footprint to get to those viewers. So for example, it's not up to A&M to get ratings in Texas. Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Florida, etc. do that for them. They just need access to the Texas market, which they get via A&M.

As to your comment about TCU, the Big 12 is a special case because they don't get extra money for more teams, due to the contract, which I mentioned earlier.
 
You are continually ignoring ratings bc it's convenient for your argument. Of course subscriber fees are dependent on ratings of the individual programs. Yea the proceeds are considered cumulatively, but rhe overall product being offered by the network, and thus the subscriber fees they can demand, is absolutely effected by the ratings each school brings individually.
 
What rights are tied up in the SEC network? All three? Only tier 1 and 2 rights are structured into the Big 12 TV deal.

It's not worth arguing over, because it would change the entire deal on conference TV revenue... Including the SEC network. Very few schools give a conference extra leverage to restructure, I know who one of them is.

Each conference has tiers of media deals. CBS gets the SEC's best game each week, meaning it has part of the SEC's first-party rights, while the SEC Network has SEC third-party rights. LHN has Texas third-party rights, and Texas also gets Big 12 money from ESPN and FOX.
 
What rights are tied up in the SEC network? All three? Only tier 1 and 2 rights are structured into the Big 12 TV deal.

It's not worth arguing over, because it would change the entire deal on conference TV revenue... Including the SEC network. Very few schools give a conference extra leverage to restructure, I know who one of them is.

Each conference has tiers of media deals. CBS gets the SEC's best game each week, meaning it has part of the SEC's first-party rights, while the SEC Network has SEC third-party rights. LHN has Texas third-party rights, and Texas also gets Big 12 money from ESPN and FOX.

It's similar to LHN. They have third tier rights but SEC network is owned by ESPN thus ESPN can kick down a higher tier game to boost ratings if they want to. They did it last year with South Carolina/A&M. That would have been aired on ESPN normally.
 
You are continually ignoring ratings bc it's convenient for your argument. Of course subscriber fees are dependent on ratings of the individual programs. Yea the proceeds are considered cumulatively, but rhe overall product being offered by the network, and thus the subscriber fees they can demand, is absolutely effected by the ratings each school brings individually.


The SEC network doesn't release ratings. Even if we added .15 to the 1.30 it wouldn't be enough after a 15 team split.
 
However, let's test your theory out further. Let's just hypothetically say Texas joined the SEC. The SECN fee is $1.30. By comparison, the Big Ten gets $1.00. So let's split that difference, and say Texas get the SECN to $1.45. That's about a 12% increase over the original total. Now, let's say instead, the SEC adds North Carolina and Virginia. Those markets increase from 25 cents to $1.30. From 25 cents to $1.30 is a 420% increase. 12 % vs 420%. Not hard to see which is the better option.

NC 1.95M+ VA 1.96M = total 4M cable tv's * $1.05 = 4.2M increase in revenue
30m in footprint subscribers * $0.15 = 4.5M increase in revenue

with your hypothetical it is better to add Texas. Furthermore, your analysis doesnt account for any increase in out of footprint subscription fees or subscribers with the better product.

Hook 'em
 
It's similar to LHN. They have third tier rights but SEC network is owned by ESPN thus ESPN can kick down a higher tier game to boost ratings if they want to. They did it last year with South Carolina/A&M. That would have been aired on ESPN normally.
Yes, I understand. Texas/ESPN or LHN was the blue print. Our Tiger friend thinks this SEC network is the only factor. It's a small piece of the pie... Texas adds to their overall TV revenue and ability bank on the other tier's. So, they all got around 6.5 million off the SEC network and yes, I'm sure it will grow. There is more to expansion then the network... Their overall TV deal is where the negotiations come into play. It's not like this is something that would happen anytime soon..,if ever.
 
Last edited:
With the SEC network in play, it's all about TV sets. Which is basically a percentage of population(about 60%) with a little influence of the teams involved. The history of Chokelahoma just doesn't add the extra value.

Oklahoma has 3.878 million people.
Virginia had 8.326 million people.
North Carolina has 9.944 million people.

Even looking at these numbers shows you that picking up a team or two from each state doesn't make sense when you only get $1.40 for SEC state subscribers. Even Missouri was a better deal at 6.064 million. Aggy was a steal at 26.96 million.

It's simple math. Ask yourself one question. Would you be willing to give up millions per year to add Chokelahoma?

How much more would you lose with the package deal?

You make zero sense! OU foot print is 10 times those school.across the country and that is what the $ec wants
 
You are continually ignoring ratings bc it's convenient for your argument. Of course subscriber fees are dependent on ratings of the individual programs. Yea the proceeds are considered cumulatively, but rhe overall product being offered by the network, and thus the subscriber fees they can demand, is absolutely effected by the ratings each school brings individually.

No, I'm not ignoring ratings. I'm telling you that the ratings don't come into play, because they don't really change. If Texas was added to the SEC, the overall ratings are not going to see a significant shift. That's because the SEC already has the highest ratings in college football. For Texas to affect the ratings average, Texas would have to pull in higher ratings. If the ratings Texas gets are the same or lower, then that doesn't raise the average.

And again, you are simply wrong. The subscriber fees do not go up when new teams are added. You are simply wrong when you say that. The Big Ten's subscribers fees did not go up when they expanded. The Big Ten originally started out with a $1.00 subscription fee. When Nebraska was added, it still stayed $1.00. When Rutgers and Maryland were added, it still stayed $1.00. If Texas was added to the SEC, the subscription fee would still only be $1.30. You can argue with me all you want, but the facts don't support your assertions.
 
NC 1.95M+ VA 1.96M = total 4M cable tv's * $1.05 = 4.2M increase in revenue
30m in footprint subscribers * $0.15 = 4.5M increase in revenue

with your hypothetical it is better to add Texas. Furthermore, your analysis doesnt account for any increase in out of footprint subscription fees or subscribers with the better product.

Hook 'em

True, but there are a couple of things wrong with your analysis. First, $0.15 is a pure guess, and it's rather generous. Aside from that, as I told the other poster, the subscription fees do not increase. It's a proven fact.
So in the real world, you don't get any boost unless a new market is added.

Regarding out of footprint subscriptions, the SEC already has the highest ratings in college football. Adding Texas is not going to have that much of an effect on outside subscriptions. Plus, you need 5 subscribers outside the footprint to equal what you get from one inside the footprint.
 
What rights are tied up in the SEC network? All three? Only tier 1 and 2 rights are structured into the Big 12 TV deal.

ESPN has Tier 2 & 3 rights. Because ESPN owns SECN, all those games are available. CBS has Tier 1 for the SEC. That's a little bit misleading, because CBS only gets the one game each week. So basically, all but one SEC game is owned by ESPN, and thus available to SECN.

It's not worth arguing over, because it would change the entire deal on conference TV revenue... Including the SEC network. Very few schools give a conference extra leverage to restructure, I know who one of them is.

Not true. Everybody that expanded got to renegotiate their TV deals. Even the ACC, just by adding Pittsburgh and Syracuse, got to renegotiate their contract, and the payout went up from $13 million to $17 million per team. That's from teams like Pitt and Syracuse.

Yes, I understand. Texas/ESPN or LHN was the blue print. Our Tiger friend thinks this SEC network is the only factor. It's a small piece of the pie... Texas adds to their overall TV revenue and ability bank on the other tier's. So, they all got around 6.5 million off the SEC network and yes, I'm sure it will grow. There is more to expansion then the network... Their overall TV deal is where the negotiations come into play. It's not like this is something that would happen anytime soon..,if ever.

No, they don't. Texas doesn't bring a new market to the SEC. That's where the money is at right now, in adding new markets. Even for the regular TV contract, you need to add new markets to get more money.

I'll simply use Finebaum since he's an SEC hack!

They would take Texas in a heartbeat.

I'm glad you made this post. It demonstrates that you don't have any understanding of the TV business of college football.

The article you cite is in reference to the SEC's expansion back in the 90's. Well, what you don't understand is that back then, the SEC did not have its own television contract. Back then, everyone (except the Big 10 and Pac 10, who signed with ABC) had one collective TV contract under the College Football Association. Back then, your footprint didn't matter. That's because since the schools all signed one collective contract, then basically the entire nation was in the "footprint." Everybody got basically the same amount of money from the CFA's TV contract. So yeah, back then it would make sense to take Texas, under those circumstances.

It doesn't now, because since each conference signs its own contract, each conference has to deliver its own market, which is why expansion has gone the way it has. And which is why it's more important to take a team with a new market, rather than an overlap.
 
Last edited:
Even Shock Jock Clay Travis knows Texas would make the SEC more money. Lol


Don't worry, it's all hypothetical. It's not going to happen and if it does, I bet it's way down the road.
 
That's not really how it works. The key thing here is the conference network. Those are subscription based, and as such aren't really as dependent on ratings. The reason for that is, the conference networks are bundled into other packages by the cable companies. So what happens is that half the people who have SECN, for example, probably never watch it. However, the conference still makes money, because those people are still paying for it, since it's in their cable package.

The other key thing about the conference networks is that the price goes up dramatically for subscribers who are in the conference footprint. The SEC gets $1.30 for subscribers inside the footprint, but only 25 cents outside the footprint. Adding Texas doesn't change that payout, because the SEC already gets $1.30 from that market, since it's already in the footprint. The SEC would make more money by adding a school with a new market.


Correct.. It doesn't matter if half of the cable subscribers are soccer fans, they pay the freight of the conference in their cable package. That is why the ACC network will be so important to its membership. How many cable and satellite subscribers in the ACC footprint?

TV ratings drive the Tier one and Tier two payouts. V ery few of those games go on Tier 3. Primarily the value of that type of network is other sports. Just need to add a couple of games that public wants to view and the fee is added to the subscriber package. That is why the SEC network was so successful its first year.

JMO but I don't believe the big 12 is in any consideration of breaking up. The only thing that needs to happen is getting two more teams in the conference and renewing the CC game.

The only reason 2 teams haven't been added is current payout greed by the 8 original members.

The big12 needs its own network. I would suggest the additions of USF and UCF. Now that would be a lucrative market!
 
Tiger, you continue to miss what is being said.

Finebaum sucks from the SEC tit, the article was to show they had come after Texas previously where folks think that's not true.

Keep kidding yourself that they wouldn't try to take Texas if the Big 12 crumbled.
 
Last edited:
I think these SEC folks are recruiting each other to come make the point that Texas would not bring more TV revenue. How many people does it take to argue that one plus one equals three? You can try all you want to say that having a team, any team, in a given market brings you a flat fee per subscriber, but it's bullshit. The teams are not interchangeable. It does matter what team is in that market. Adding SMU isn't the same as adding Texas. The subscriber fees, even if a part of a cumulative conference revenue, are dependent on what portion on the market that program actually captures. The total conference subscriber fee is a sum of what each team brought to the table.
 
I think these SEC folks are recruiting each other to come make the point that Texas would not bring more TV revenue. How many people does it take to argue that one plus one equals three? You can try all you want to say that having a team, any team, in a given market brings you a flat fee per subscriber, but it's bullshit. The teams are not interchangeable. It does matter what team is in that market. Adding SMU isn't the same as adding Texas. The subscriber fees, even if a part of a cumulative conference revenue, are dependent on what portion on the market that program actually captures. The total conference subscriber fee is a sum of what each team brought to the table.
And yes, every subscriber pays regardless whether they watch, but what the provider is willing to pay in the first place is dependent on who is going to watch.
 
Tiger, you continue to miss what is being said.

Finebaum sucks from the SEC tit, the article was to show they had come after Texas previously where folks think that's not true.

Keep kidding yourself that they wouldn't try to take Texas if the Big 12 crumbled.


Yes the SEC came after Texas and they weren't interested the same as Oklahoma but that was before the SEC network and its first year success. Adding Texas or any other team would only subtract from the SEC network team payout split among 14 teams. Perhaps by not allowing a payout from the SEC network would work since Texas already has the LHN.
 
As for the SEC:

The SEC has a network TV contract with CBS, a national cable deal with ESPN Networks and a new conference branded network called the SEC Network, which is completely owned by ESPN.

CBS has the rights to 12-15 regular season games and the conference championship. Up to two of those games can be non-conference games. CBS will always have the top choice of SEC games on a weekly basis. When CBS does a doubleheader that includes a primetime game, CBS can choose the top two games on a given weekend. When they do a doubleheader that includes a 12pm game, it must allow ESPN to reserve two games before selecting their next game. In 2014, CBS will no longer retain exclusivity in their telecast windows. The SEC Network will be allowed to air a game concurrently with CBS.

ESPN Networks has the rights to remaining SEC home games, primarily prime time telecasts.
http://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/SEC/2014#.VZW7GYY8LCR
 
Last edited:
Yes the SEC came after Texas and they weren't interested the same as Oklahoma but that was before the SEC network and its first year success. Adding Texas or any other team would only subtract from the SEC network team payout split among 14 teams. Perhaps by not allowing a payout from the SEC network would work since Texas already has the LHN.
The network is expected to grow annually, Texas and OU would bolster that. But, whatever you say.

Clay Travis had to back peddle a bit and move his figures to four years from now, but you get the point. The number is expected to grow!
 
Last edited:
I think these SEC folks are recruiting each other to come make the point that Texas would not bring more TV revenue. How many people does it take to argue that one plus one equals three? You can try all you want to say that having a team, any team, in a given market brings you a flat fee per subscriber, but it's bullshit. The teams are not interchangeable. It does matter what team is in that market. Adding SMU isn't the same as adding Texas. The subscriber fees, even if a part of a cumulative conference revenue, are dependent on what portion on the market that program actually captures. The total conference subscriber fee is a sum of what each team brought to the table.

No, you simply wrong. The subscription fee is the same either way. It's provable fact.

Explain this. Why does every state get the same subscription fee now? For example, Alabama and Auburn are a lot more popular in their state than Missouri is it its state. So why wouldn't subscribers in Alabama pay, $1.30 and subscribers in Missouri only pay, say 80 cents? Ohio St is a lot more popular in Ohio than Maryland is in its state. So why wouldn't Ohio subscribers pay $1.00, and Maryland subscribers pay only pay 60 cents? If it was based on the popularity of each team in each market, then why do they all get flat fees now?

The subscriber fees, even if a part of a cumulative conference revenue, are dependent on what portion on the market that program actually captures.

And this is what you don't get. It's not that simple with conference networks. Half the people who pay for SECN don't even watch it, and probably don't even know they have it. If it was just based off of only people who watch, then you probably wouldn't have half, at least a quarter of the subscribers. Those people don't even contribute to the ratings.

Adding SMU isn't the same as adding Texas

This is what you don't get. It's not up to SMU to deliver the market. You get interest from the teams they play: Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee...The only point of having SMU is that by SMU being in the SEC, that puts Alabama, Florida, etc. into the Texas market every week. The SEC is already in the Texas market. They already get a presence in that market from the existing teams. They make more money by adding a brand new market, and exporting their existing teams into it.
 
Last edited:
I think the real "problem" for the big 12 is that Texas, with LHN, doesn't have to sweat other conferences' TV deals where as a team like OU, who is a historical power house but doesn't print its own money, has to worry about what a team like Arkansas, for instance, is making in comparison.
The other problem of course is that OU is down and the coach is squarely on the hot seat and Boren is using conference realignment as slight of hand.
I think a merger of sorts between the Big 12 and the ACC is the most logical thing, with the more football oriented schools going to this hybred conference and the rest going to SEC and B1G.

You would have North Carolina and Virginia going to the SEC.

Texas, Oklahoma, OSU, Kansas, KSU, Baylor, Tech and TCU joining forces with FSU, Miami, G Tech, Clemson, V Tech, WVU, Louisville, and Pitt.

The B1G would snag Duke, and Syracuse.

The biggest losers are ISU Wake, and NCSU

Oh well just a bunch of hooey for now.

I agree with most of your ideal scenario and that it's not something that we'll see any time in the near future. The Big 12 should have been more aggressive in the midst of all the realignment but since most of the leadership in the conference went with the conservative approach (or the Notre Dame or no one approach like Dodds did) I think the best thing to do is for the 10 schools to focus on being the best programs they can be... and, yeah, to have the plans all ready to go when things do eventually start to change again.

I'd make a few tweaks to which teams you have go where though. The first (and most glaring) omission is Notre Dame. If the ACC as we know it is gone, Notre Dame is out of a non-football home. They've never shown any interest in the SEC, so it seems logical to conclude that they would be knocking on either the Big 10 or the Big12/ACC/whateveryou'dcallit's door. And given the lack of other satisfactory landing spots, those two conferences could actually play hardball on what their football membership status would be. The Big 10 would have to strongly consider them if the option was there, but the Big12/ACC would take them in a heartbeat over... well, let's face it... most of the teams you listed. If I had to guess, Pitt, Louisville, or Virginia Tech would be left out...?

I also kind of wonder about Virginia to the SEC. I mean, I get it. But, not to inflate their egos more than they already are, but at this point the SEC doesn't really NEED to feel like expanding into two more states is the main goal. They don't NEED a terribly strong football program. What they COULD stand to do is put some icing on their broadcasting-rights cake and improve on their basketball product. And while adding UVA is no slouch... they could potentially have the option to add what I feel like is the unquestionably biggest college basketball rivalry there is, and have those two teams play their own top tier program in Kentucky. Plus... I mean, I have family up in New York and New Jersey and Duke basketball is a big deal even up there. I think that adding UNC WITH Duke would give them way more than adding a decently large market and a program that's good-but-not-great in all sports.

Then you just flip UVA to the Big 10 instead along with Syracuse, Notre Dame (if they get them instead of us) or whoever Notre Dame knocks out of your previous list for us.

Beyond that, I know a lot of people like the idea of the Big 10 better than the Pac 12, but I'm a fan of keeping at least some of the regional rivalries alive. Who knows if Patterson (or whoever would be our AD by the time any of this occurs) would do... but the Big 10 would probably have to go to 18, not just 16, for that to work unless it's just simply Texas and OU. The Pac 12 has 4 spots still available to reach 16 and while some people groan about the Pacific timezone situation, the vast majority of our games would either be on Central time or on Mountain/Arizona time. I think the one or two times a year that Texas travels to the west coast would usually be big enough deals to be prime time games and the same with OU.

Regardless, unless something happens outside the Big 12 (or unless Patterson is more of a wildcard than we think) this stuff won't likely happen for at least 10 years. If the Big 12 misses getting into the playoff a few more times it might speed up the timetable.
 
No, you simply wrong. The subscription fee is the same either way. It's provable fact.

Explain this. Why does every state get the same subscription fee now? For example, Alabama and Auburn are a lot more popular in their state than Missouri is it its state. So why wouldn't subscribers in Alabama pay, $1.30 and subscribers in Missouri only pay, say 80 cents? Ohio St is a lot more popular in Ohio than Maryland is in its state. So why wouldn't Ohio subscribers pay $1.00, and Maryland subscribers pay only pay 60 cents? If it was based on the popularity of each team in each market, then why do they all get flat fees now?



And this is what you don't get. It's not that simple with conference networks. Half the people who pay for SECN don't even watch it, and probably don't even know they have it. If it was just based off of only people who watch, then you probably wouldn't have half, at least a quarter of the subscribers. Those people don't even contribute to the ratings.



This is what you don't get. It's not up to SMU to deliver the market. You get interest from the teams they play: Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee...The only point of having SMU is that by SMU being in the SEC, that puts Alabama, Florida, etc. into the Texas market every week. The SEC is already in the Texas market. They already get a presence in that market from the existing teams. They make more money by adding a brand new market, and exporting their existing teams into it.


This is all fine and good but it's using a dying tv model as a basis. You can get HBO a la carte now because more people want to watch the product, and less people want to pay for an entire cable package that's full of things they don't watch. People watch sports via online services, even on their TV. People borrow each other's subscriptions to things. And as time goes on, more networks are going to have to adapt to keep up. Ultimately, it will matter more and more how many people actually want to watch a certain program.
 
Why do people pay the same in every state? The provider, say ATT, is approached by a network, say ESPN/SEC network. ESPN says we have these 14 teams and we want 1.50 per subscriber anywhere in our foot print you provide service. ATT says no, two of these teams (UK and Vandy) bring no audience. We'll pay you 1.30 per. Now, if you lose UK and Vandy, and add two teams with an actual following in the the footprint, we will give you 1.80 per.

This is really very simple you just keep acting like a team actually pulling viwers has no value and we all know that's garbage.
 
Why do people pay the same in every state? The provider, say ATT, is approached by a network, say ESPN/SEC network. ESPN says we have these 14 teams and we want 1.50 per subscriber anywhere in our foot print you provide service. ATT says no, two of these teams (UK and Vandy) bring no audience. We'll pay you 1.30 per. Now, if you lose UK and Vandy, and add two teams with an actual following in the the footprint, we will give you 1.80 per.

This is really very simple you just keep acting like a team actually pulling viwers has no value and we all know that's garbage.


Except that dialog never took place. UT would be a valuable addition but does the SEC need such additions?
They have enough good teams already. jmo
 
Why do people pay the same in every state? The provider, say ATT, is approached by a network, say ESPN/SEC network. ESPN says we have these 14 teams and we want 1.50 per subscriber anywhere in our foot print you provide service. ATT says no, two of these teams (UK and Vandy) bring no audience. We'll pay you 1.30 per. Now, if you lose UK and Vandy, and add two teams with an actual following in the the footprint, we will give you 1.80 per.

This is really very simple you just keep acting like a team actually pulling viwers has no value and we all know that's garbage.

No, sorry. It doesn't work that way. That's something you completely made up. I showed you factually that it doesn't work that way. By your logic, the Big Ten should have gotten a bigger subscription fee when Nebraska was added. They didn't. The fee stayed the same. So your scenario didn't happen in the real world.

Another problem. They aren't going to lose any teams. The SEC is not going to kick out Kentucky and Vanderbilt. Even if they added Texas, they aren't kicking out Vanderbilt and Kentucky. So by your own logic, they wouldn't get the increase with Texas.

Face it, you just don't have a clue how the TV market works. You just make thing up off the top of your head, and you can't prove it with any real world examples.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT