🏈 SEC Network in 2014?

TerryP

Successfully wasting your time since...
Staff
Want to know why a conference that is already the most powerful college football conference in the country adds two new schools it doesn't necessarily need? It does so because now the SEC can renegotiate its television contracts with both CBS and ESPN, the two networks that own the rights to SEC football games in the fall.

As you'd expect, given the television deals that have gone to the Pac-12 and the Big 12 in the last year, the SEC will be looking for more money from both ESPN and CBS for the right to broadcast games, though that's not the end goal here.

According to Sports Business Daily(subscription), the SEC is once again looking into the idea of starting its own SEC Network, much like the Big Ten currently has.
The 14-team conference has been negotiating with both networks this year after the SEC expanded with Texas A&M and Missouri. That triggered a clause in the SEC's deal that allows the league to go back to the negotiating table with its partners, just as the ACC recently renegotiated its media contract with ESPN after its own expansion with Pittsburgh and Syracuse.

The bigger negotiation is with ESPN, and talks appear to revolve around an SEC-branded cable channel that could launch as early as 2014. ESPN's current arrangement with the SEC — negotiated in 2008 — pays an average of $150 million a year over 15 years.
Now while the SEC seems determined to have its own network, what we don't know is what kind of role the conference will play in the television station. With the Big Ten Network, the Big Ten itself owns 49% of the network and shares the revenue with Fox.

It's unknown whether this is the model the SEC would like to pursue with ESPN, or if the SEC would sell all it's rights to ESPN, much like Texas did with the Longhorn Network. Then there's the way the Pac-12 went with its television deal, where the conference owns all of its regional networks.

Whatever path the SEC chooses, the network can't begin before 2014 because that's when ESPN will get back the syndication rights of SEC games it sold to regional sports networks.
 
http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2012/5/21/3034252/sec-tv-network-mike-slive-texas-am-missouri


here's a different read on it - which also gives a free peak at the article Terry mentions above.


Thinking back, I don't know that I've seen a population estimate by conference - I'd imagine with all the conference talk last year I probably did see it, just don't recall.


Here's some more perspective. The Pac-12's population base is 62.8 million people, and its networks are projected to pay out $9 million per school per year. The Big Ten's population base is 69.5 million people, and its single network has delivered more than $7 million per school the past couple years. The new SEC's population base will be 91.3 million when Texas A&M and Missouri officially join in July. If Mike Slive can cut a deal to put his network into every cable and satellite subscriber's house within the league's footprint, it will probably out-earn both those other leagues' networks.


So part of me wanted to validate the above quote, so I did a population check on the states and then looked at the number of schools per state the main conferences have.

Below is what I came up with - followed by some thoughts for each conference - what do you all think?




--------------


PAC-12 (~62.6m)
2 - Arizona (~6.5m)
4 - California (~37.7m)
1 - Colorado (~5m)
2 - Oregon (~3.8m)
1 - Utah (~2.8m)
2 - Washington (~6.8m)


It seems the PAC-12 is in a bad spot to compete in pure population numbers - lets take the states next to them, Nevada (~2.7m), Idaho (~1.6m), Montana (~1m), Wyoming (~600k), New Mexico (~2m)- they could add those 5 states and only grow by ~7.9m potential viewers. They get no value in picking up other teams in the states they already pull and quite frankly there really aren't any programs in the states they already have footprints in that matter. The PAC-12 has to go big and dip into existing big conferences - which is what they apparently realized last year when they tried to bust up the Big-XII. Whats their long term play?...we know they have a TV network in the works and if they choose to expand, its going to be big ones that probably are on the other side of the country or a bit of a logistics nightmare in terms of travel.


--------------


B1G (~69.3m)
1 - Nebraska (~1.8m)
1 - Iowa (~3m)
1 - Minnesota (~5.3m)
1 - Wisconsin (~5.7m)
2 - Illinois (~12.9m)
2 - Indiana (~6.5m)
1 - Ohio (~11.5m)
2 - Michigan (~9.9m)
1 - Pennsylvania (~12.7m)


--------------


Big-XII (~37.1m)
1 - Iowa (~3m)
1 - West Virginia (~1.8m)
2 - Kansas (~2.9m)
2 - Oklahoma (~3.8m)
5 - Texas (~25.6m)


The thing that sticks out to me, the Big-XII has been lumped into 5 states. If they can land FSU and Clemson, they add another ~23.7m in potential viewers. Where does the Big-XII grow to - the SEC has locked down a good portion of the neighboring states - the fact that Texas has the LHN would seem to imply other schools wouldn't want to leave an equal revue sharing system in favor of a "Texas gets more" system. Where does the Big-XII grow to, they have to go north to the Dakotas, to New Mexico, Wyoming, into Utah after BYU, or go after ACC schools/Big East schools, independents (Notre Dame).




--------------


Now, if the SEC lands say a North Carolina (~9.7m) and Virginia team (~8m) we add almost another ~20m potential viewers.


SEC (~91.3m population)
2 - Alabama (~4.8m)
2 - Tennessee (~6.4m)
2 - Mississippi (~3m)
1 - Florida (~19m)
1 - Georgia (~9.8m)
1 - Louisiana (~4.6m)
1 - Arkansas (~3m)
1 - Missouri (~6m)
1 - Texas (~25.6m)
1 - South Carolina (~4.7m)
1 - Kentucky (~4.4m)
 
Back
Top Bottom