Albama Arkansas Auburn Florida Georgia Kentucky LSU Mississippi State Missouri Ole-Miss USC Tennessee Texas A&M Vanderbilt
Latest News

A Potential SEC Network Starts Getting More Pub… Just As We Wrote 18 Months Ago

Here at MrSEC.com, we like to lay out scenarios for you.  With 20 years of television experience and contacts, we feel we’ve got a pretty good grasp on how television execs will view expansion and that should — along with our sources from across the SEC — also give us a good grasp on how/why expansion works as it does.

That’s why we told you in July of 2010 to “mark it down” that Texas A&M was destined to join the SEC.  That’s why we wrote last May that Missouri would be an attractive expansion target for business reasons… long before anyone else discussed Mizzou.  It’s why when headlines were made this week regarding the possible removal of the two-team cap from the BCS bowls we shrugged our shoulders and pointed — again — to what we wrote last May.

Are we always right?  No.  But our logic — according to the television, rights agency, school and conference sources we have — is usually pretty accurate.  (Probably because we’re, ya know, talking to people at the network, rights agency, school and conference levels.)

Take the talk of an SEC Network.  That topic fell off the radar when the SEC inked its deals with ESPN and CBS, but we’ve continued to say that depending on the league’s contracts, the formation of a network remained a possbility.

Today, the website OutkickTheCoverage.com is beating that drum rather loudly and we’ve received a few emails asking us for our take on the matter.  Well, we happen to agree with them… since we wrote of that very possibility on May 19th, 2010:

“… a full-scale renegotiation of the deals with CBS and ESPN might not be necessary at all…

Let’s say the SEC keeps its current deals with CBS and ESPN in place.  The league could then take all of its new inventory (as well as the tape delay rights to all of its other games) and create its own SEC Network.  Two years ago, the Big Ten Network looked more like a headache than a gold mine.  The SEC chose not to launch its own channel.  But things have changed and the Big Ten Network now brings in more than was initially projected.  It also figures to keep growing.  Now, if an SEC Network aired two live football games per week, coaches shows, and game replays in the fall… and then did the same during basketball season, do you think SEC fans would call their local cable operators demanding access?  I do.

The bottom line is this: Expansion does NOT rest on the SEC having to renegotiate more money from CBS and/or ESPN.”

Again, that was from May of last year.  We’ve hit on that point numerous times in the last few weeks as well.

So today, OutkickTheCoveage is tackling that topic.

To create a network, the SEC would have to ask each SEC school to turn over its Tier 3 rights to the league.  Schools like Florida and Alabama have bigger Tier 3 rights deals than schools like Ole Miss and Mississippi State, but it’s likely all the schools would agree to such a request if they saw that everyone’s dollars would go up in a league-packaged deal.

If the SEC stops expanding at 14 schools — and we’ve been saying for several weeks that that is what our sources have told us is the league’s goal — that would equal 14 former Tier 3 games that could be put on a new SEC Network.  That much is obvious.  But depending on the wording of the league’s contract with ESPN, there could be even more inventory available.

(Read closely, we’re about to dig into some math.)

Currently there are 48 in-conference SEC games a year (12 teams x 8 league games = 96 games / 2 two teams per game = 48).  In addition, each school then plays 4 more non-conference games which equals another 48 games.

So CBS and ESPN have the rights to 96 total football games per year.  ESPN gets the bulk of those games, some of which they sell off to other networks (CSS, FSN).

Now, was the SEC’s contract with ESPN all-inclusive (meaning it simply said “all league games”) or was it specific (meaning it stated “96 games”)?  If it was all-inclusive then the league would have at most — with a 14-team league — 14 games to package together and use on a SEC Network.

If the contract specifically said “96 games,” however, then the league would get all of the additional games created by expansion (2 new teams x 4 non-conference games = 8 total games + 12 existing schools’ Tier 3 games = 20 games + 8 additional in-conference games involving new schools = 28 new games of inventory… if our math’s correct).  That would be enough for a double-header per week on a new SEC Network.

Everything depends on the wording of that contract.  And that’s not even counting the additional basketball inventory that could be created.

Speaking of wording, we believe the SEC gave up the right to its own network when it inked its deal with ESPN in Summer 2008.  According to a statement from ESPN, “The SEC agreement can not be reopened and there are no outs.”

If that’s the case, it’s time to deduct some points from Mike Slive’s score.  No outs?  Rule #1 in business: Never a sign a contract with no outs.

Having said that, we’d bet that’s simply ESPN’s opening stance.  Slive has suggested that there are look-ins built into the existing SEC-ESPN deal.  What we’re probably looking at is a negotiation.

Slive:  We want more money for our expanded league.

ESPN:  Tough.  You’ve got no out clause.

Slive:  Why don’t we all remain friends and look for other options?

Bing, bang, boom the door is opened for an SEC Network run in partnership with ESPN.  The SEC gets more money.  ESPN gets more inventory to sell… and thus more money as well.

Moving on, yesterday OutkickTheCoverage also suggested that no one forget that Comcast/NBC is now a potential bidder for SEC rights as well.  Well, here’s what we wrote back on September 20th:

“And don’t forget, NBC is now looking to become a bigger player in the college sports scene, just as Fox has done.  Fox has its own network of regional channels.  NBC has the same through its merger with Comcast which was approved earlier this year.  If current SEC partner ESPN balks at forking over more dough to the SEC and fails to make a good-faith offer, Slive could conceivably — depending on his contract with CBS — take the SEC inventory to NBC to see what that network might offer for it.”

Regarding a potential SEC Network, we wrote:


“If the SEC did launch a network, it would find that cable distribution revenue is much more stable than ad-sales-based revenue via the networks.  The more households the SEC could reach, the more money it would make.  To heck with on-field performance or game-by-game ratings.  Subscribers would pay a monthly fee to their cable operators — again, think of a potential partnership with NBC/Comcast — and a piece of that would go straight into the SEC’s coffers.

Were talking about ifs here, but if the SEC has a mind to join other leagues in the conference-owned channel game, the more eyeballs the better.  That’s why Texas &M is so valuable.  There are approximately eight million cable households in the Lone Star State.  Awesome.  Unfortunately, that’s why a school like West Virginia — located in a state with a total population of less than two million people — probably wouldn’t be as attractive to the SEC.”

At this point, it’s all in the legalese.  Slive and the SEC’s presidents wouldn’t be expanding now if a) everyone else weren’t expanding and b) there weren’t more money to be grabbed.  He knows the cash is out there and you can bet he’s got an idea of how to get at it.

Slive will likely go to CBS and ESPN — and ESPN’s got the bigger deal ($150 million per year compared to CBS’ $55 million per year) — and ask for an increase in pay.

The networks will balk and say a deal is a deal.  According to a senior sports VP at one of the big three networks who we spoke to, ESPN would likely have to make some sort of good-faith offer if there is any room for negotiation at all.  (ESPN says there isn’t, but Slive has said those “look-ins” do exist.)

It’s certainly possible that the SEC and ESPN could reach an agreement to ball up the league’s new inventory and launch it with a new network.  (Seeing how much trouble ESPN has had getting the Longhorn Network into homes, it would probably be better for the SEC if they could partner with NBC/Comcast instead.)

But here’s one more possibility that you’ll read here first…

Depending on the language of the SEC’s deal with ESPN, the league might be able to simply slice off the new inventory created by adding one or two schools and sell it as yet another tier of broadcast rights.

CBS would get its Tier 1 rights as planned.  ESPN would get the Tier 2 rights it signed up for initially, too.  And — let’s say for kicks — NBC/Comcast would get the 14 to 28 new games created by expansion.  If Texas A&M or Missouri (or West Virginia, etc) were involved, that game’s rights would go to the new partner.

Likely?  No.  But possible.

First, we’d have to get our hands on the ESPN-SEC contract to see just how possible.  Second, ESPN would probably play ball with the SEC on a new network long before it let someone else grab a portion of the SEC’s pie.

But two things appear evident as we close this post:

1.  If the SEC is looking for new cash, starting its own network would look to be a good way to do it (as we’ve been writing for a year-and-a-half now).

2.  When it comes to SEC and expansion… you’ll read it here first.

 


38 comments
MikeTheTiger
MikeTheTiger

That should read, the SEC fears what could happen if the ACC goes to 16.

FourThinInches
FourThinInches

What if we change from 8 conference games to 9 conference games? Pac 12, big 12, and the Big Ten(doing that in next couple years). This would make it easier for the SEC network to air maybe 1 conference game a week + tier 3 games, depending on how negotiations go with networks. With a possibility of 14 teams in the SEC, i don't think that us going to 9 conference games is that far off.

MikeTheTiger
MikeTheTiger

Going to a 9-game conference schedule would actually reduce inventory, though it might increase the number of quality games the SEC has to offer. With an 8-game conference schedule and 14 teams, there'd be 56 conference games and an average of 42 non-conference home games. With a 9-game conference schedule, there'd be 63 conference games and an average of 28 non-conference home games. That's a 7 game reduction in inventory unless SEC teams stop scheduling any home-and-homes at all in their non-con schedule.

Jackson
Jackson

Thank you for pointing out that you guys have said all of this first. I'm tired of Outkick the Coverage (or well, Clay Travis, since they're the same thing) using lines like "as OKTC was the first to tell you" or "you heard it here first." MrSEC is way ahead of the game and that's why true fans know this is the place to go rather than Clay Travis' blog.

johnmrsec
johnmrsec

Jackson...

Clay does a good job. Just runs a different type of site with different goals and different methods. The guy's a national name, so he's doing something right!

But when we start getting emails asking us for our take on something he wrote... that we've been saying for months, well... it leads to what you got above.

Thanks for reading the site,
John

Mike Slive
Mike Slive

Oh, and great work on the site! By far and away the best place to come for anything SEC-related.

AllTideUp
AllTideUp

And even Mike Slive said so!

Tyler B
Tyler B

Hypo: Let's say Mizzou, FSU, and Va. Tech knock on Slive's door pleading for SEC admission... Does Slive say no thanks? It seems from the outside looking in this wave of expansion - far bigger than he ever thought - caught him with his pants down. It's clear he doesn't want to be the stick of DY-NO-MITE that blow up college football, but moving forward would he have any problem call each SEC President/AD and saying, "We need to move to 16." I just can't see Slive letting the SEC get hoodwinked like that again...

Jamie Thornton
Jamie Thornton

Makes perfect sense. If you get Mizzou, you bring in two huge markets with St.Louis and Kansas City. If you can't get Mizzou, you go back to West Virginia and get the PIttsburgh market. Add the Dallas, Houston, and San Anonio market with A&M. It makes perfect sense. Now I see why there is no way the SEC will add a FSU or Clemson.

Jamie Thornton
Jamie Thornton

Hi John, on top of that..........will the SEC network be like the Big Ten network? Where you will see one conference football on it each week?

MIZ_SEC
MIZ_SEC

Wow, great article guys.

It seems like common sense that Slive and the SEC Presidents know that they will be able to increase the TV revenues either through renegotiation of Tier 1 and 2 or by forming a network of Tier 3 content. They wouldn't just add A&M and Mizzou because they want more mouths to feed.

I would love to see an SEC Network though. Can't wait to watch it all play out!

HoustonVol
HoustonVol

The TV sets are also the reason why I have said the ECU is actually a more attractive last ditch back up plan to WVU. West Virginia AND Pittsburgh are not growing media markets. WV has the same population that it did in 1940, and Pittsburgh has been losing population for the last 20 years.

@Kelticgator
@Kelticgator

John,

How long before you can break into the ESPN offices and take a look at those contracts for us?

johnmrsec
johnmrsec

@Kelticgator...

I've got G. Gordon Liddy on it.

John

MikeTheTiger
MikeTheTiger

The SEC only has the TV rights to their non-conference HOME games (and possibly shared rights to neutral site games). That number is going to fluctuate year-to-year, but it's never 48. So, inventory is definitely not written into the contract as 96 games and is unlikely to be written in as any specific number given the fact that the number changes every year. It's probable that the contract is for CBS to get a specified number of games and for ESPN have the rights to all remaining games minus one per team. That said, ESPN doesn't necessarily avail itself of every game that it could, so additional inventory could still fall to an SEC network any way. It's just that the extra inventory isn't 8 games in a 14-team league. It's however many home games those two teams happen to play non-conference.

johnmrsec
johnmrsec

MikeTheTiger...

Always glad to find you picking our nits. Our article was complicated enough without getting into the fact that about 3/4s of all non-conference games -- because most teams play 3 at home each year -- are owned by the SEC.

We're trying to provide people with as easy an explanation as possible.

In case you hadn't noticed, in addition to longer pieces, we also try to provide about 10-20 different stories and about 50 different links per day. So we don't have time -- nor the desire -- break make a 30-paragraph story into a 60-paragraph story.

John

MikeTheTiger
MikeTheTiger

That's fine. Just don't expect me to take your word for it on other issues, if you can't get the details right.

MikeTheTiger
MikeTheTiger

As to the specifics, you have made yourself more clear this time. I took your original post to be an indication that you felt that the SEC would not take an ACC team at this point in time even if they came directly to the SEC asking to be admitted. It just didn't make sense to me that the SEC would turn down an FSU or a VT under such circumstances given the fact that they did accept A&M in the same manner. Now that you are saying that you do think the SEC would take one of those teams if they came asking, I'm not even sure how this disagreement started in the first place. I agree with you that the SEC has not been an aggressor in all of this and won't approach those schools first. I respect that you have contacts that indicate the SEC fears what could happen if the SEC goes to 16. I just never understood why that would keep them from accepting FSU if they came calling. Apparently you don't think that they would either, so we're good.

MikeTheTiger
MikeTheTiger

John, first, again, I apologize for the ugly turn this discussion took. I didn't take your immediate jump to discount my point of view very well. Perhaps you have had so many naysayers attack your position you've come to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is trying to stir the pot or criticize what you do. That wasn't my original intent, though I have to admit that further posts were biting. Sometimes I use tactics in an attempt to get people to see my point of view that are counter-productive. In any case, our problem probably lies in the fact that I came to this blog interpreting it as a forum for an exchange of information whereas you seem to look at it more as a forum for you to give information. I expressed a differing point of view that I thought would be a valuable exchange of ideas and information for the users of your site. It was not intended to attack. Sorry if it came across as such.

Evan Davis
Evan Davis

Well-spoken John. Thank you for the effort you put in to explain yourself. Apologize for the "tool" comment. You're right - I don't know you or the amount of effort you put into this site. My impression of you (as a person) is based almost entirely on the exchanges with Jass and MikeTheTiger (and a few others that I've read). I can appreciate your frustration. My advice (kindly offered) would be to let the critical comments go and thank the readers for offering a different or nuanced perspective. You called it - the back and forth is a no-win for you. Keep up the good work dawg.

johnmrsec
johnmrsec

Evan Davis...

You must have missed the back-and-forth comments from MikeTheTiger and myself on Wednesday. His comments today followed similar comments yesterday. That's what the picking nits line was about.

Next, you don't know me. So it might be a bit much to call me a tool. Or maybe not.

I should have learned by now that in this medium, I have to take comments like those from Jass above or from guys like MikeTheTiger day after day. If I respond, I will be viewed as the bad guy.

If I try to answer questions -- and don't give the answer people like -- I will eventually be ripped. Again, I can't respond in kind because that's somehow not kosher.

I make no apologies for referring to the complexity of the issue above. Everyday I try to make things as short and as to-the-point as I can. This post took forever to begin with. The longer posts are the less people read them. That's just a fact. Everyone wants their news in Twitter form these days.

What I know is that for every story I write, there are a dozen people out there who'll say a dozen other things should have been included. And unlike any other business on earth, we give them a live tool with which to critique, claim anti-school bias, or just generally complain in front of everyone else.

My issue with negative comments is this -- I've never left one in my life. I read all day and all night to put this site together. I agree and disagree with authors thoughts regularly. I see where they could add a paragraph or spin into another direction, but I realize they're trying to keep things short and sweet. Never have I felt the urge to comment on someone else's work. I don't see that as my business.

So I've never understood the comment thing. I don't understand the folks who post critiques day after day. I don't understand the idea of coming to a site day after day and posting "you're a Bammer" or "you're a Barner," day after day. And I don't understand why on any site you go to, 90% of the comments are critical or insulting or dismissive.

Then, when you add all of the negative responses from a day up, it gets awfully frustrating. I'm doing the very best that I can here. People don't believe that, but I am. I don't pull for any SEC team. I could care less who wins or loses. I've put together a good group of people to get good information from. I hurry to post thoughts on and at least one link to every major story out there every day. To the reader, that's a breeze, and any high school kid could do it. To me, it's stress. From about 9am to 2am every day. (I wrote something like this before and the next commenter said, "Work more, whine less," as though he were my boss.)

So if I'm a tool for not smiling and saying, "thank you sir, please may I have another," when someone decides they're going to be this site's everyday critic -- on small points that don't change the message of the piece -- then I guess I am a tool.

Will you understand my situation at all? Unlikely. My guess is, this comment will only lead to more rips from more folks. It's a no-win situation from my side of the screen.

John

Evan Davis
Evan Davis

MikeTheTiger made a well-reasoned comment on the article you posted. There was no maliciousness, sarcasm, or insults evident in it. However, you perceived it as an attack on your credibility and lobbed the first insult by calling him a "nitpicker". Your reply reeked of sarcasm with taste of viciousness. And you wonder why the exchange disintegrated after that. And it's not the first time you've done that in response to other "critical" comments from fans of your website. What's really funny is you insulted the intelligence of your audience by implying the issue was to complex for them to understand or boring to read about. You're definitely a tool but you do have a great website that provides a ton of useful information. I thoroughly enjoy it and read it everyday.,

johnmrsec
johnmrsec

MikeTheTiger...

I've tried to explain this. Let me try again.

My multiple sources have told me that the SEC did not want to expand this summer. But A&M is too good a school to pass on... especially since they have flirted with the Aggies for years. So when A&M said "we're leaving, do you want us," Mike Slive said "yes, sir."

That means the SEC will have to get to 14 at some point. Currently, they're taking a "you come to us" stance rather than using the raider mentality of the ACC (this summer), Big Ten (last summer) and Pac-12 (last summer).

From what I've been told, the league was happy at 12... so if there's going to be change, it doesn't want it to be monumental change. Fourteen beats 16. Sixteen is a bigger change and therefore it's a bigger risk.

There is a fear -- from what I have been told -- that if the SEC goes rushing into a league to break a school out, so to speak, that it could set off a series of dominoes that might lead to everyone going to 16.

You disagree with that. You don't think that would happen and that's fine. Again, I've been told by multiple people that several presidents in the SEC do fear that very thing. And I think over time -- whether you want to acknowledge it or not -- that our sources have proven to be pretty good on a number of issues that other people simply weren't talking about before we broached them.

Therefore, it's our belief that the SEC is willing to wait -- even for a year -- to see what happens... rather than going out to potentially stir up a hornet's nest. If someone's going to change the landscape and force all the major leagues to go to 16... it likely won't be the SEC.

Now, if Va Tech or FSU came -- as A&M did -- and said "we're leaving; do you want us or not," then the SEC would likely take them. If the league is going to go into uncharted waters, it might as well pick its crew. But they will not be the league that intentionally steers everyone into those unchartered waters.

But if you want to insult us or claim that we're inaccurate, fine. Say again that we just throw out so many scenarios that we're bound to hit on something. Or suggest again that we're not saying anything new or different from anyone else. You've attacked us in a number of ways in the last two days.

I need to learn to live with that fact. If this were a McDonald's, the manager wouldn't give someone a megaphone to shout, "Don't eat here, this place sucks." But we do just that at this website. Why? Heck if I know.

So rip away, if you like. If you want to hurt our business, you've got that power. I'm the one who was dumb enough to give it to you.

But I hope I've made myself more clear this time around. And whether you believe me or not, I hope you'll respect the fact that I'm basing my comments on what I've been told by sources who've gained my trust. I didn't start this site to pull stuff out of my backside.

John

MikeTheTiger
MikeTheTiger

John, I'm sorry this took such an ugly turn. I was just trying to make a point after our exchange last night, but ended up proving an entirely different one. Unfortunately, I proved a not-so-flattering point about myself in the process as well. My goal then and now was an exchange of ideas. I didn't mean to step on your toes. It bothered me that you were so unwilling to entertain the idea that your supposition about the SEC not wanting to take an ACC might be wrong. You presented it as a guess on your part, even if it is an educated guess. If it's more than that, then I guess I misunderstood. I'm still confused as to how that matches with all the speculation about possible additions from the ACC over the last couple of months. Did something change along the way to make you change you mind about that? I'm honestly trying to figure out what's going on, not trying to bait you.

UofA72
UofA72

If he got your message (or looks in the mirror) he'll change his name to MikeTheTabbie.

I for one am glad you don't go into that much detail. I'd rather read more short articles.

I haven't figured out when you sleep as it is.

johnmrsec
johnmrsec

MikeTheTiger...

Read the above post. Then add into it the following:

"Now, we're not dealing with an absolute number in each season. The SEC controls the rights to its schools non-conference games WHEN they are played at home. Most schools still schedule at least three home, non-conference games per season, so we're probably talking about 5 to 6 new games as opposed to 8, but that changes by the year."

And then we would have had to tweak the math formula we used to try and make the whole thing clear in the first place.

Sorry, but that's unnecessary and it's just more confusing. It doesn't impact the bottomline of our story -- the SEC will have more inventory to sell.

Also, I'm glad you "never" cut corners on your messageboard. Because that's certainly akin to what we do around here.

If you did do what we do, you'd cut corners on everything. That's why I can't post a nugget stating that Arkansas and Texas A&M will have to each find a new non-con opponent next year without someone posting beneath it -- "Actually, A&M plays 9 Big 12 games, not 8, so they'll have to find 2 new non-conference opponents."

To me -- and to 99% of our readers, that's not the story. The story is the two games the schools will have to add because they're non-con game will be a conference game next year. But to one person with access to a comment box that I've given him (and an "I must correct everyone" attitude), it appears as though I completely lost track of the big picture because I didn't veer off to discuss the totality of A&M's 2012 schedule.

It's called editing. And we're not The Wall Street Journal to begin with. There will be typos and slip-ups and miscounts. There is no proof-reading team.

What we provide is as follows:

More SEC news than any other site everyday
A deep media background to ensure that we're not going to just run with BS
Honest opinions
20-years worth of connections and contacts from media and athletic sources
And, yes, a heckuva lot of ideas that we put out there first -- thanks to our sources

As for your last insult... the things we posted today... no, no one else that we know of was talking A&M, Missouri, BCS caps or an SEC Network when we were. And we have a lot of insulting emails from readers calling us stupid at the time to prove it.

Here's my suggestion... you don't like this site and that's fine. Go run your messageboard and enjoy your life. We'll try to continue to do as good a job of bringing as many stories as possible in as short a time as possible each and everyday. Only to let others skip the big picture and focus on the minutiae. Unfortunately, I don't have time for the minutiae in every story.

John

MikeTheTiger
MikeTheTiger

How much more space does it take to say, "3 home games per team" vs. "4 games per team"? You lose all credibility when you're not man enough to admit that you didn't think through the complex issue enough. Instead you come up with a lame excuse about space/time. I admire you for having the guts to make this sort of venture your full-time job and I do appreciate the information you bring to the table. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here. That doesn't mean I think you're always right in your suppositions. I do run a CF message board on a volunteer basis and do post on there with the frequency that my schedule will allow. Never do I cut corners for the sake of space/time. Many of the things you bring up here are discussed in various outposts of the internet before the mainstream media. I appreciate the way that you bring a lot of those together. That is a great service to me and to the others who frequent your site. That doesn't mean this site is coming up with ideas no one else is. You should be rightfully proud of what you have created. A little humility might help though.

johnmrsec
johnmrsec

MikeTheTiger...

I would love for you to TRY to do what we do around here on a daily basis. And then I could come and pick nits when you try to save space/time in order to simplify a complex issue.

I would LOVE it.

But you don't have to believe what we write here. You can be 18 months behind if you so choose.

John

badgercat
badgercat

Again...great site John! It's must see TV...or must read "re-TV"...

atl14dat
atl14dat

This article as a look back, plus the Travis article (OKTC) are both highly informative and spot on with the analysis.

Good work John !

atl14dat
atl14dat

Nice article John especially the foresight to do it months back.

To me it seals Missouri as the 14th team and also takes Florida State Out of consideration "on all fronts".

FSU adds nothing to a possible SEC Network. Sub rates in Florida and all other SEC states will be the same with or without FSU.

If Missouri declines,(doubtful) then Va Tech or one of the North Carolina Schools are far better options than FSU, Maryland too for that matter.

All about Increasing Revenues, TV footprints and the creation of an SEC network

Not about some "ode to days past" and talking about Florida State as some .elite program, because they aren't.

Bobby Bowden has left the building, and neither Warrick Dunn nor Charlie Ward are walking through that door.

MikeTheTiger
MikeTheTiger

The greater the perceived strength of the conference, the greater the number of high level games, and the greater the national following a conference has, the greater its Tier 1 and Tier 2 deals will be. Even if FSU added nothing to Tier 3 deals (which is debatable), they most certainly would enhance Tier 1 and Tier 2. What the balance is between Tier 1/2 and Tier 3 and what potential expansion partners bring to the table, I don't know, but I don't think you do either.

AllTideUp
AllTideUp

You're right, but that would only be relevant if the SEC can renegotiate its 1st and 2nd Tier rights due to expansion. I think that is what a lot of us have been believing for a while, but if it is true that no new revenue deal for those rights can be established until the end of the contract(12 years from now?) then the only gain we could receive from the new deal is to put the SEC Network in new markets. I don't think the other SEC programs are going to reduce their share of the 1st and 2nd Tier revenue a full 12 years before it could benefit everyone to have FSU in the fold.

I'm not sure if all of this is right, but it would make the SEC's moves the last few months make more sense.

Jass
Jass

Damn, John, pat yourself on the back much?

johnmrsec
johnmrsec

Jass...

Critical much? I don't see you ever patting us on the back for being so far out in front of the game. Also it's the only way to advertise the site to new readers.

But if you can A) come up with a better way for us to prove performance

or

B) Name me one tv/radio station, newspaper, or website that doesn't tout itself as first, fast and accurate...

we'll never plug our previous stories again.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that we are writing these things weeks, months and even years ahead of the other sites out there.

John

Jass
Jass

John, I don't pat you on the back because you never write ANY original news, but only link to others' reporting. A high school kid could do that. Yes, there is a better way to advertise your site; it's called ADVERTISING.

I've never read another site out there that touts itself like you do. Can you name one?

Your BS about how you can predict the future is just that BS. Who's going to be the 14th SEC team, John? Oh, wait, you don't have a clue.

UofA72
UofA72

Jass

Do you have a poopie diaper?

johnmrsec
johnmrsec

Jass...

Rather ironic that you would post that under a piece that is entirely our own information. We link only to Clay Travis' comment from ESPN. All the rest of it, we wrote 18 months ago.

(By the way, if you want to see some sites that tout their own work, check out Travis' site or SportsByBrooks or ProFootballTalk.com, etc, etc, etc.)

We've never said we could predict the future. We said that we often tell you in advance what's going to happen because we have excellent sources.

Rather than admit that, you claim that a high school kid could do what we do around here. Seeing as you sound like a high school kid, I invite you to try.

Of course, we both know you turned against this site when you came to the nutjob belief that it's anti-Florida. So rip away if you like. Every click of your mouse helps our business.

John



Follow Us On:
Mobile MrSEC