the pot o' gold may not be so big for the SEC

[observer]

Sources think the conference will reach an agreement with CBS first. Those sources familiar with the discussions predict that CBS will wind up paying a prorated increase or slightly more to the SEC.
The network has balked at paying any type of significant increase, sources say, arguing that the addition of Missouri and Texas A&M does not change its deal.

Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-05-21/sec-espn-cbs-media-rights-deal-cable-channel#ixzz1vp220eLw​

 

[Fishy]

Thankfully for you, the ESPN deal is bigger for the SEC than the CBS deal is.

And do you really want the SEC to think that it has to add members to raise its value? Three guesses where they'll start to look...

 

[Jericho]

It's true the ESPN deal is much bigger than the CBS deal. The idea is CBS does not really get any added value given what they actually air. I do not know the particulars of the SEC deal, but they may run into the same problem the ACC had. Which is they are not re-opening the entire contract. They are supposed to be negotiation on the added value of the new schools. When the ACC jumped from $13 to $17, it's not because ESPN felt the ACC would get $17 million on an open market. It's because the added value of Pitt and Syracuse bumped up the total value (and the two parties tacked on some years on the end to help raise the total value)

Some people expect the new SEC deal to be an $8 million raise. I don't see how. A&M and Missouri are not worth an additional $8 million. Now maybe ESPN throws the SEC a bone (they are the best football right now) or may be they tack on some years a la the ACC, but it may not be as lucrative as people believe.

 

[observer]

Thankfully for you, the ESPN deal is bigger for the SEC than the CBS deal is.

And do you really want the SEC to think that it has to add members to raise its value? Three guesses where they'll start to look...

Well as far as adding members being a panacea it does not appear to be so at least in this case so the Big 12 and other conferences will need to pause to see if adding teams really adds value.

Yes, the ESPN portion of the deal is bigger than the CBS portion but if CBS has concluded that the additional teams are worth only a small amount then it is safe to assume that ESPN's analysis will be the same.

And for the 'adds inventory' argument every conference regardless of network affiliation has only so much time that they need to fill. Just because the SEC now has two more teams worth of games does not mean that those games will be added to what would have otherwise be telecast.

Bottom line is that way too many people seem to think that if a conference just smiles demurely at a TV network it will automatically get buckets more of cash. Has not seemed to be the case so far with CBS and the SEC but the ACC did well with adding Pitt and Syr so depends on the total circumstances and the teams; just not an automatic big buck increase in all cases.

 

[Fishy]

So the official line is that adding teams is a panacea for the ACC, the Big 12, the PAC 12 and the Big 1G...but we alls needs to slams on the brakes and see if this will all work out for the SEC? Let's call a spade a spade...the ACC added the Big East's worst football program of the past decade and another piece of driftwood and still made some more money.

Reality is that the SEC is gonna get paid in a big, bad way. And if it ain't big enough, (and probably even if it is), they're going to pluck whatever they want whenever they want it from the ACC.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Several thoughts on this:

1) Signed contracts that give one party an exclusive negotiating right are a heck of a thing. The other side seems to end up with a worse deal than they would in a competitive situation, even if the other side is the SEC.

2) I am sure CBS' reaction was: "you want us to pay more money for Missouri and Texas A&M? Really? Those were the two best choices you can find? Aren't you the SEC?"

3) It is hard to get a good sense of how a private negotiation is going, particularly when one side is a major media organization.

 

[zls44]

I don't see how those 2 additions do a ton for CBS. They're still going to be broadcasting Bama/UT/UGA/LSU/Auburn/Florida. Those two would need to be top-20 teams, and there's no indication that either is ready to raise it to that level. Mizzou's recruiting is going great, but to see them at that level will be when I start believing. And Sumlin's got a hell of a hill to climb at A&M.

CBS is still broadcasting 1 or 2 games on the main channel. Mizzou and A&M aren't getting picked a lot. There's nothing they add that will bring in a bigger rating than the teams I mentioned before.

It's a huge deal on the cable side, because it adds more inventory, but not on the network. I'd even argue that CBS benefits more from basketball TV options than football TV options with those two added.

 

[lv99]

The SEC recently told Chuck Neinas "Don't expand beyond 12 because 14 becomes unruly." Based on this statement and the article, possibly the SEC is finding out that adding teams just to get a market isn't the great idea everyone thought it would be. It does seem strange to me that you'd add teams just to get a market. Most people have cable and can see the most valuable games already. Would there really be that much more value having conference network that is showing the worst football games and swimming, etc.?

You get more inventory with more teams, but you have to split it with those teams, so there's no net gain. So the only value is the conference network, which is probably not going to be that valuable. I thought it was funny that the PAC-12 media was speculating that the conference network would get them $10 million more each. With how bad football and basketball has been for them lately, they have enough to do worrying about producing quality tier 1 and 2 content.