Will adding A&M cost SEC teams money?

That's simply dumb - see recent TV deals for Big 12 and Pac 12. Those other conferences have a higher population base but don't have the viewers/ ratings that the SEC carries on a national level. People in the south watch TV - this guy is just dumb.

Yeah, that may be one exec's thoughts on it, but let several stations start bidding on it and see what happens.

LOL

Poor Texas.

quote:

---

Dr Drunkenstein

---

A C C!! A C C!! A C C!!

Drunkystain,

You've obviously been in Washington DC too long, where markets don't work and economics don't matter.

In the real world, the Pac12 and B1G 10 have surpassed the SEC in media revenue. Minnesota will make more from TV than 'Bama will this year.

But the SEC is locked into its contracts. And you watch--adding A&M and another team will allow the SEC to renegotiate, and if the CBS/ESPN execs play hardball, the SEC will win in arbitration, pointing to the Pac12 and B1G 10 contracts as "comparables" or "comps" in today's markets.

A&M doesn't solely make this deal--it's the fact that networks have made the market much richer that will benefit the SEC in renegotiation efforts.

A&M and the 14th team will bring enough to earn their keep just through the renegotiation. The real payoff will come whenever the SEC gets around to forming its own network, as the Big Ten and Pac 12 have done. That's when adding 40% more population (with just A&M, not taking into account a 14th team) to the leagues geographic footprint will really pay off. Go check out how much more the Big Ten gets per subscriber within its geographic footprint versus what they get outside the league's geographic footprint. That's where the real money in this deal can be found. Going to 14 or 16 teams will provide the content needed to make such a channel viable (something that ESPN should have thought about before agreeing to pay $300 million for a single team network with limited programming options).

quote:

---

I would love to see an SEC network, but don't know how possible it is in the near future even with Aggie given ESPN is now the SEC Network.

---

With the deal the SEC has with ESPN and CBS, an SEC network is completely unnecessary. Any fan can watch a conference match up from anywhere in the U.S. Especially considering the streaming option on cbs.com SEC fans should be happy with they have in the way television contracts because its not going to get much better for the fan.

quote:

---

Those other conferences have a higher population base but don't have the viewers/ ratings that the SEC carries on a national level.

---

Would like to see proof of this. Not saying it isn't true, but I've never heard that the SEC gets higher ratings.

basically, what i see is that people that against this move inflate a&m's value to the big 12 and deflate it's value to the sec. balderdash! you are correct, sir, in saying that it is CORRECT to assess their value going forward with a new contract. while it is possible adding them will cost some money going in but will pay handsome dividends in the future. duh. like an investment.

quote:

---

Darren Rovell says TV execs tell him that A&M to the SEC adds only about 3% to the TV deal the league has.

---

3%? Three pecent? Tres porciento?

Digital Syndicate's top 100 TV Markets

Here is just the top 10:

1. New York, NY

2. Los Angeles, CA

3. Chicago, IL

4. Philadelphia, PA

5. San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA

6. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX

7. Boston, MA (Manchester, NH)

8. Washington, DC (Hagerstown, MD)

9. Atlanta, GA

10. Houston, TX

Adding A&M increases the SEC's footprint in the top 10 by 300%!!! JUST THOSE TWO MARKETS add a potential for 7-10 million viewers. But it doesn't stop there.

37. San Antonio

49. Austin (Yes. Loads of Aggies in Austin and more-than-admitted obsession from the nutless bovines)

94. Waco-Temple-Bryan

98. El Paso

So, I don't know where that guy is getting his information. The SEC contract would NECESSARILY be torn to shreds and an new, MUCH BIGGER contract would be negotiated. That new contract could include deleting the term that prohibits an SEC network (which is necessary for non-football sports).

My estimates are an increase of at least 24%, even though they already broadcast the SEC in Texas. It's all about the ability to charge more $$$ for advertising. Even if A&M actually brought ZERO new viewers, advertising rates are based on POTENTIAL viewers.

I saw estimates that each school would get an increase of $12-15 million a year, or close to $34 million for each school, which is about an 83% increase. Even if we take the percentage increase at market rates back when the SEC contract was signed, each team would get about $22.5 million (24% increase), a $4 million increase, not a measly $500,000.

Maybe the guy is basing it on the already-available, national coverage of SEC football, but that is NOT how advertising rates are estimated. Either way, 3%? The guy is telling us that we should carve out an exception for A&M on potential viewers because A&M will only have the potential to draw less than 10% of the Texas population.

You can dry that out and fertilize the lawn with it. That is bullshite, especially given that they count all the potential viewers in every other state.

Here is a good article posted by our soon-to-be-SEC Jawja brotha's.

SEC Expansion by the Numbers