- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Texas A&M's Addition To SEC Wouldn't Mean Much To TV Contracts
Posted on 8/30/11 at 1:05 pm
Posted on 8/30/11 at 1:05 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/id/44329182
quote:
There's been much talk about the SEC's television contracts and how the addition of Texas A&M would change the conference. If the conference is different, even by one member, the thinking goes that the SEC could re-open its television deals with CBS [CBS 25.01 0.54 (+2.21%) ] and ESPN [DIS 33.10 -0.06 (-0.18%) ], deals that were signed in 2009 and now seem to be below market value.
But adding A&M won't mean that CBS and ESPN will automatically have to pay more than the $825 million and the $2.25 billion they respectively agreed to pay for 15 years of rights. Why? Because there's already protections in its current contract. It's called a composition of conference clause and it says that if the composition of the conference changes, the networks and the conference has to prove whether the change makes the conference TV rights more or less valuable. Texas A&M adds some of Texas, but it does not deliver the state of Texas like the Longhorns do.
And the SEC already has a lucrative championship game. "Adding one or two teams does not cause the entire agreement to be renegotiated," said Neal Pilson, former CBS Sports president, who now consults on television deals. While Pilson said it's hard to argue that A&M's addition would dilute the conference, he says the Aggies have "minimal impact." "There are smart people at both ESPN and CBS and I would anticipate that they foresaw this type of contingency," Pilson said. "Based on their record over a period of time, it doesn't appear like Texas A&M is going to be in the top tier of teams in the SEC.
So if there's any adjustment to the TV deals, I would anticipate that it would be a very modest adjustment, if anything." If A&M was added as an equal partner, the TV deals would have to be bumped up by 8.3 percent in order for the SEC members to make the same money they make now off the TV deals. It's not a guarantee that will happen.
Posted on 8/30/11 at 1:08 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
In the SEC we believe that conferences are forever, contracts are not. In time it will pay.
Posted on 8/30/11 at 1:15 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
Mmhmm, Mike Slive has no clue what he's doing and has let it progress this far, almost to the point of completion without knowing the end... yeah right.
Posted on 8/30/11 at 1:17 pm to Indiana Tiger
Still, it makes it a harder sell for A&M. Their pitch to pacify Texas politicians is that they will make more $ in the SEC. The SEC TV contracts don't expire for a while (unless I am mistaken) and that coupled with the buyout means A&M would be making much less than in the Big 12 for the next decade or so.
Look, I want aggie gone just to end the bitching & instability and I enjoy watching Baylor panic but this could be a monkey wrench for the aggie plans.
Look, I want aggie gone just to end the bitching & instability and I enjoy watching Baylor panic but this could be a monkey wrench for the aggie plans.
Posted on 8/30/11 at 1:17 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
you headline is very misleading. whereas it is entirely possible the contracts would not be immediately renegotiated, they would be ultimately renegotiated. adding a big slice of the texas market plus additional tv sets represented by the new east member will indeed add much new tv dollars. any attempt to deflect or deny this FACT makes you look pretty bad in my eyes. what it looks like to me (and feel free to clear this up)is that you are butt hurt that A&M would even dare to break away from Texas. it stands to reason that the long term dollars per team in the sec are larger than those in the big 12, as it currently stands. i am aware that there is not equal revenue sharing in the big 12 and i'm aware there is some "exit money" from nebraska and colorado that will be split up but the sec has a lot more tv sets tuned in that the big 12.
Posted on 8/30/11 at 1:18 pm to GerryDiNardo
There is literally zero data or research in that article to support that. Nothing. You're telling me that adding a team with the 5 or 6th largest enrollment in the US and hundreds of thousands of Alumni is going to have little impact to the viewership?
Common sense is not this mans friend.
Our largest alumni bases live in two top 10 media markets.
I wouldn't even wipe my arse with that piece of journalism.
Common sense is not this mans friend.
Our largest alumni bases live in two top 10 media markets.
I wouldn't even wipe my arse with that piece of journalism.
Posted on 8/30/11 at 1:20 pm to Bob Ag
Maybe this is the same "journalist" who released the A&M has sent a letter to the Big XII article.
Posted on 8/30/11 at 1:20 pm to Bob Ag
quote:
Still, it makes it a harder sell for A&M. Their pitch to pacify Texas politicians is that they will make more $ in the SEC.
ORLY?
Show me some data instead of some idiot's conjecture, then we'll talk.
Posted on 8/30/11 at 1:22 pm to Bob Ag
quote:
I wouldn't even wipe my arse with that piece of journalism.
Posted on 8/30/11 at 1:22 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
Still, it makes it a harder sell for A&M.
I've been thinking about the money thing for a little while. You do realize % wise what the 1st and 2nd tier TV rights to any large school in a conference, right?
Its not like making 3 million less is a huge move percentage wise to any of the top 25 revenue schools. I figure A&M will make it up in increased ticket sales and merchandising.
This post was edited on 8/30/11 at 1:23 pm
Posted on 8/30/11 at 1:24 pm to Bob Ag
maybe not A&M alone but with the addition of a 14th team (which will have to happen) the contracts will be renegotiated.
Posted on 8/30/11 at 1:25 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
Of course a guy that was the former CBS Sports president is going to say that CBS won't have to pay more money. What he said was his opinion. I think the opinion is rather stupid, because Texas A&M definitely adds significant value to the TV contract. Even if A&M doesn't add much value by itself, the contract is already significantly undervalued compared to the Pac 12's.
He also uses the argument that A&M won't be very good in the SEC, but isn't that irrelivant when it comes to a TV contract? To the networks, it shouldn't matter whether A&M is a top tier team, it should only matter how many viewers they get. By using that completly irrelivant argument, Pilson revealed that he probably had an agenda when he said those quotes.
He also uses the argument that A&M won't be very good in the SEC, but isn't that irrelivant when it comes to a TV contract? To the networks, it shouldn't matter whether A&M is a top tier team, it should only matter how many viewers they get. By using that completly irrelivant argument, Pilson revealed that he probably had an agenda when he said those quotes.
Posted on 8/30/11 at 1:26 pm to LSU GrandDad
quote:
you headline is very misleading
How is that possible when I copied the headline from the article?
quote:
whereas it is entirely possible the contracts would not be immediately renegotiated, they would be ultimately renegotiated
A&M losing out on millions for a decade or so would freak out a lot of influential politicians.
quote:
any attempt to deflect or deny this FACT makes you look pretty bad in my eyes
I didn't write the article
quote:
what it looks like to me (and feel free to clear this up)is that you are butt hurt that A&M would even dare to break away from Texas.
Are you suggesting I forced this journalist to write the article at gun point because I am "butt hurt"?
Posted on 8/30/11 at 1:27 pm to relapse98
quote:
Its not like making 3 million less is a huge move percentage wise to any of the top 25 revenue schools. I figure A&M will make it up in increased ticket sales and merchandising.
when the dust settles and new tv contracts, y'all won't have to "make up" anything PLUS you will have increased ticket sales and merchandising. one note (probably negative to most) is that it seems to me that a&m allocates a hell of a lot of tickets to the students. that was not a factor money wise way back when, but y'alls student body is huge. expect the students to gradually get priced out (some anyway)and alumni, paying bigger bucks, taking their seats. it is, and i think sadly, the way of the world.
Posted on 8/30/11 at 1:29 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
A&M losing out on millions for a decade or so would freak out a lot of influential politicians.
Let's be clear here, its the athletic department that could possibly be losing out on millions, not the university at large.
As long as the athletic department continues to turn a profit (yeah yeah, $16 million loan is being paid back) [AD made $6+ in profit last year] then I'm not sure there's much anyone can complain about. Between ticket sales and merchandising increase, the profit will only go up.
Posted on 8/30/11 at 1:32 pm to LSU GrandDad
quote:
it seems to me that a&m allocates a hell of a lot of tickets to the students
29k, entire 2nd and 3rd decks on the east side plus a chunk of 1st deck.
I happen to believe that our former students will fight to allow any student that wants to go to games to get to them [*]. Its another one of those things that make A&M different.
[*] It appears that they are actually now sold out of student passes, not sure if there was a hard limit or after they passed some sort of deadline they sold those to others. This comes from a thread on texags.com.
This post was edited on 8/30/11 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 8/30/11 at 1:33 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
Dr Drunkenstein, now i see the error of my ways and i owe you an apology. you weren't expousing a view but merely informing us of and article that might enlighten us. i guess i really should be thanking you instead of accusing you.
Posted on 8/30/11 at 1:33 pm to Dr Drunkenstein
quote:
Are you suggesting I forced this journalist to write the article at gun point because I am "butt hurt"?
Strong enough with you, the butthurt is.
Popular
Back to top

7




