Possible side effect of OU/Texas SEC jump...

[We suck again]

You guys wanting a 10-game SEC schedule are suicidal. Get ready for a lot of 4-8 and 5-7 seasons if that happens.

So like 90% of MSU football seasons?

 

[Dawgzilla]

New teams joining the league (or even leaving the league….looking at you Big 12) or major schedule changes always trigger addendum clauses that either change the terms of the deal or nullify it entirely and require both sides to come back to the table.

That right there is just a bad assumption on your part. The SEC contract with CBS did NOT contain such an addendum, and CBS refused to renegotiate their deal when the conference expanded. That is part of the reason CBS was left out of the recent bidding war.

While we would like to think the SEC included language of that sort this time around, $300 million per year buys a lot of negotiating leverage for Disney. Plus, you don't want Disney to have the reciprocal right to REDUCE the annual payments if something happens to make the broadcasts less profitable. So there is a real chance the current contract pays $3 Billion + over 10 years, regardless of changes in the landscape.

If Disney was willing to pay more for a 9 game schedule, then the SEC probably would have announced a 9 game schedule starting in 2024.

I agree with you that extra SEC games would likely be more valuable for Disney, I just don't think that money trickles down to the Conference.

And your statement about only making money on 2 games per weekend with the rest being window dressing is just false. All of the SEC games make money. None of the others do except the home matchups against the Power 5 teams. Again, 3/5 of the Power 5 didn’t adopt a 9 game conference schedule AND maintain an OOC Power 5 requirement for ***** and giggles. It was a deliberate move to increase revenue, and it has worked out well for them.

That's not what I said. I said the revenue comes from the ABC afternoon game and the ESPN primetime matchups. I think that is up to 5 games per weekend, since ESPN shows primetime games across multiple networks. I did not mean to suggest they lose money on the other games, just that the serious money comes from the major matchups. Do you have actual stats to backup your claim that ESPN loses money on the crappy OOC matchups, but makes money on every single SEC matchup? If that is true, don't you think they would have already tried to remedy that in the latest deal?

You are also creating incentive for individual schools’ fans to actually start buying season tickets again, which has become a huge problem across college football in the wake of the pandemic. That is going to be an important focus for AD’s across the league.

I agree with you that a 9 game schedule makes sense. I just don't agree that its a foregone conclusion. You have made a few assumptions that I don't think hold water, while ignoring the arguments against expanding the schedule.

 

[patdog]

We've had 3 losing seasons in the last 11 years, 6-7, 6-7 and 4-7. And with a 10-game season, there'd be a few 3-9's mixed in as well. A 10-game season would be a disaster for Mississippi State.

 

[Go Budaw]

I’ll take 5-7 against a 10 game SEC schedule over 6-6 against an 8 game schedule + 3 patsies and a middling to bad P5 team just about any day of the week, but I don’t define our season success based solely off the final record like many people do.

Case and point, the 2012 team we had finished 8-5, but absolutely got the brakes beat off of them by every single team with a pulse that they played (including an OM team that came into the Egg Bowl with 5 wins). The 2009 team finished 5-7, but played an extremely difficult schedule and beat the hell out of an 8 win OM team in the Egg Bowl that came into the game ranked.

That 2009 team would beat the 2012 team by double digits, and I don’t know a soul who looks back on 2012 with anything other than disdain for being a paper tiger with no toughness in the big games. The 2009 team is remembered much more fondly.

 

[Dawgzilla]

New teams joining the league (or even leaving the league….looking at you Big 12) or major schedule changes always trigger addendum clauses that either change the terms of the deal or nullify it entirely and require both sides to come back to the table.

That right there is just a bad assumption on your part. The SEC contract with CBS did NOT contain such an addendum, and CBS refused to renegotiate their deal when the conference expanded. That is part of the reason CBS was left out of the recent bidding war.

While we would like to think the SEC included language of that sort this time around, $300 million per year buys a lot of negotiating leverage for Disney. Plus, you don't want Disney to have the reciprocal right to REDUCE the annual payments if something happens to make the broadcasts less profitable. So there is a real chance the current contract pays $3 Billion + over 10 years, regardless of changes in the landscape.

If Disney was willing to pay more for a 9 game schedule, then the SEC probably would have announced a 9 game schedule starting in 2024.

I agree with you that extra SEC games would likely be more valuable for Disney, I just don't think that money trickles down to the Conference.

And your statement about only making money on 2 games per weekend with the rest being window dressing is just false. All of the SEC games make money. None of the others do except the home matchups against the Power 5 teams. Again, 3/5 of the Power 5 didn’t adopt a 9 game conference schedule AND maintain an OOC Power 5 requirement for ***** and giggles. It was a deliberate move to increase revenue, and it has worked out well for them.

That's not what I said. I said the revenue comes from the ABC afternoon game and the ESPN primetime matchups. I think that is up to 5 games per weekend, since ESPN shows primetime games across multiple networks. I did not mean to suggest they lose money on the other games, just that the serious money comes from the major matchups. Do you have actual stats to backup your claim that ESPN loses money on the crappy OOC matchups, but makes money on every single SEC matchup? If that is true, don't you think they would have already tried to remedy that in the latest deal?

You are also creating incentive for individual schools’ fans to actually start buying season tickets again, which has become a huge problem across college football in the wake of the pandemic. That is going to be an important focus for AD’s across the league.

I agree with you that a 9 game schedule makes sense. I just don't agree that its a foregone conclusion. You have made a few assumptions that I don't think hold water, while ignoring the arguments against expanding the schedule.

 

[PirateDawg]

If we go to the pod system then it will pretty much require 9 games. You play the 3 teams in your pod every year. You play two teams in the other 3 pods every year. There's your 9 game schedule. Every two years you play every team in the SEC which is the fair way to do it.

 

[Go Budaw]

So you think the league learned absolutely nothing from the inflexibility of the prior CBS deal? I’d say that makes you the one making the bad assumptions. If the SEC didn’t get exactly what they wanted on the terms, Fox was right there to accommodate them. By the way, that CBS deal was signed in the early 2000’s before any of the major conference realignment was even a blip on the radar. There had been no major conference departures or additions since the old Big 12 was firmed up in the mid-90’s. And the numbers on that deal were astronomical at the time, the biggest problem was the long duration of it was way more favorable for CBS than it was for the SEC. It’s obviously a different climate now, and that language is going to be in all those contracts going forward.

Regarding the reciprocal right to reduce the payments, of course that is there too. But the only thing that could trigger that would be teams leaving the SEC, or the SEC reducing it’s number of conference games and/or overall games played. None of that is happening…for obvious reasons. Do you think that ESPN and Fox are still going to pay the Big 12 the same amount of money after OU and UT leave? Of course they aren’t.

In your second reply, you clarified your statement to say that the SEC makes money in 5 primetime matchups. That is saying the same thing as I am. When you account for nonconference games and bye weeks, there are only 5 SEC vs. SEC matchups on most weekends period. But on the rare weekends that there are more, even those 11 AM games have a **** ton of viewers if they are SEC vs. SEC.

 

[Dawgzilla]

So you think the league learned absolutely nothing from the inflexibility of the prior CBS deal? I’d say that makes you the one making the bad assumptions. If the SEC didn’t get exactly what they wanted on the terms, Fox was right there to accommodate them. By the way, that CBS deal was signed in the early 2000’s before any of the major conference realignment was even a blip on the radar. There had been no major conference departures or additions since the old Big 12 was firmed up in the mid-90’s. And the numbers on that deal were astronomical at the time, the biggest problem was the long duration of it was way more favorable for CBS than it was for the SEC. It’s obviously a different climate now, and that language is going to be in all those contracts going forward.

Regarding the reciprocal right to reduce the payments, of course that is there too. But the only thing that could trigger that would be teams leaving the SEC, or the SEC reducing it’s number of conference games and/or overall games played. None of that is happening…for obvious reasons. Do you think that ESPN and Fox are still going to pay the Big 12 the same amount of money after OU and UT leave? Of course they aren’t.

In your second reply, you clarified your statement to say that the SEC makes money in 5 primetime matchups. That is saying the same thing as I am. When you account for nonconference games and bye weeks, there are only 5 SEC vs. SEC matchups on most weekends period. But on the rare weekends that there are more, even those 11 AM games have a **** ton of viewers if they are SEC vs. SEC.

I'm not making any assumptions. I don't know if that type of language is in there or not. You originally said those contracts "always" include such language, which clearly isn't true. Did that language get in there this time? Who knows, but its not like Disney was over a barrel or anything.

Again, if the conference can make so much more money from Disney by going to 9 games, why didn't they just go ahead and do it? Why force yourself to renegotiate a deal that hasn't even started yet?

My point was simply that you are assuming money is being left on the table, and I'm not so sure that is accurate.

You also way too narrowly focused on the potential causes for devaluing the contract. Anything could happen.. if you cannot see how unstable college football is right now, you just aren't paying attention. By 2034, 300 million a year may seem absurdly high....or low.

 

[philduckworth]

You guys wanting a 10-game SEC schedule are suicidal. Get ready for a lot of 4-8 and 5-7 seasons if that happens.

I"m fine with that possibilty. I get zero entertainment or enjoyment watching us beat Tenn. State.

 

[Go Budaw]

I'm not making any assumptions. I don't know if that type of language is in there or not. You originally said those contracts "always" include such language, which clearly isn't true. Did that language get in there this time? Who knows, but its not like Disney was over a barrel or anything.

Again, if the conference can make so much more money from Disney by going to 9 games, why didn't they just go ahead and do it? Why force yourself to renegotiate a deal that hasn't even started yet?

My point was simply that you are assuming money is being left on the table, and I'm not so sure that is accurate.

You also way too narrowly focused on the potential causes for devaluing the contract. Anything could happen.. if you cannot see how unstable college football is right now, you just aren't paying attention. By 2034, 300 million a year may seem absurdly high....or low.

So making perfectly reasonable assumptions is just frowned upon around here now? I’m not allowed to comment on the common sense aspects of a revenue model derived from very basic context clues and 3rd party expert commentary, just because I haven’t read the actual document? That’s the old genespage “well you aren’t being paid $2 million a year to coach, so you might as well shut up” argument.

Tell me, specifically, why the PAC 12, B1G, and Big 12 have intentionally gone out of their way to play 9 conference games, plus a nonconference Power 5, and make their postseason path theoretically harder on themselves if there was no revenue incentive? They are all just idiots?

And there are at least two reasons why they didn’t go ahead and do it for the 2024 contract. During the negotiations, the CFP expansion plans were not on the table, and also OU and Texas were still in the Big 12.

 

[patdog]

Making fairly reasonable assumptions and posting them as 100% fact and done deal just makes you look like an idiot. The reason the Big 12, PAC-12 and Big 10 went to a 9-game conference schedule was because they had to to get their strength of schedule up to try to get into the playoffs. Even then, their 9-game schedules are weaker than the SEC's 8-game schedules are. We very well could end up with a 9-game schedule if/when the playoffs expand. But it's far from a known done deal.

 

[Dawgzilla]

So making perfectly reasonable assumptions is just frowned upon around here now? I’m not allowed to comment on the common sense aspects of a revenue model derived from very basic context clues and 3rd party expert commentary, just because I haven’t read the actual document? That’s the old genespage “well you aren’t being paid $2 million a year to coach, so you might as well shut up” argument.

Tell me, specifically, why the PAC 12, B1G, and Big 12 have intentionally gone out of their way to play 9 conference games, plus a nonconference Power 5, and make their postseason path theoretically harder on themselves if there was no revenue incentive? They are all just idiots?

And there are at least two reasons why they didn’t go ahead and do it for the 2024 contract. During the negotiations, the CFP expansion plans were not on the table, and also OU and Texas were still in the Big 12.

As patdawg said, you are free to speculate on the future, but saying you have 100% certainty is foolish. Particularly when you have no direct knowledge of the terms of the TV revenue. I agree that a 9 game schedule is likely.

And your last paragraph makes no sense. You said not expanding to 9 games was leaving money on the table. Now you want to discuss conference and playoff expansion. So they were willing to leave money on the table until these changes came along?

Regarding conference expansion, I will be disappointed if the TV deal does not allow for renegotiation when the conference increases its TV footprint and provides additional marquee matchups. But that has nothing to do with adding games to the conference schedule.

 

[Ranchdawg]

Glad they are joining.

 

[patdog]

A lot will depend on how a Big 10 - ACC - PAC 12 alliance works out. If they’re committed to 8 conference games + some games vs Notre Dame, there won’t be many OOC P5 games to be had. We may wind up with 9 conference games & no OOC P5 games. Or maybe an alliance with what’s left of the Big 12/AAC. Don’t know that the ACC would go for 2 games vs Big 10 & PAC-12 though with their rivalry games vs SEC teams. There’s just a lot of unknowns right now.