****The Official NEW new new conference realignment & shit talk thread****

[Saul Good]

Let's do it.

[kepp]

Originally Posted by WhawhaWhat

Emmanuel Mudiay, former SMU basketball commit, agrees to $1.2 million deal to play in China



Play for free in NCAA or take a million bucks for go overseas for a few months?

That's one way to do it. Hope it works out for him.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by WhawhaWhat

Emmanuel Mudiay, former SMU basketball commit, agrees to $1.2 million deal to play in China



Play for free in NCAA or take a million bucks for go overseas for a few months?

If American Football seriously caught on in other parts of the world like basketball has this could be an issue for CFB as well.

Fortunately for fans I think there are simply so many good players nowadays that although Mudiay is a pleasure to watch he isn't going to be missed all that much. Good luck

[KChiefs1]

www.foxsports.com

SEC Network Poised to Be Fifth Most Lucrative Sports Channel In Country

I've been writing about the coming value of the SEC Network for years now.

Years ago I told you it would be a gamechanger for college athletics, but despite my optimistic outlook this channel is actually going to be even more successful than even I imagined. With the recent announcement that the SEC Network had been picked up by Comcast and Outkick's news that DirecTV would be carrying the network, it's clear that the SEC Network will reach its stated distribution goal of right at 75 million cable and satellite households.

But ESPN and the SEC may be making even more money off the subscription fee than even I've been forecasting. According to the Sports Business Journal Comcast will be paying $1.40 per month in the 11 state SEC footprint.

There are roughly 28 million cable and satellite subscribers in the 11 state SEC footprint and another 47 million outside the SEC. Those cable and satellite subscribers outside the footprint will be paying just .25 a month.

So the vast majority of the SEC Network money will be coming from SEC fans, which makes total sense. If we accept an average value of $1.40 a month inside the SEC states -- I'd previously projecting around $1.10 -- and .25 outside the SEC states, the SEC Network would do $611 million in revenue off subscription fees alone.

I'm going to dive into this number later this week to talk about what it means for the individual SEC schools, but for purposes of this article I decided to contextualize that revenue within the overall sports TV marketplace. (If you want to be more conservative and say they'll average $1.25 in the footprint that's still $541 million).

I contacted SNL Kagan and asked them to provide me with the average cost per subscriber per month for every major national network. Here was the information they provided me. (Note, the SEC Network and Pac 12 Networks are my own numbers based on published reports).

Cost per month for each sports channel per SNL Kagan. (The rankings are also mine):

1. ESPN $6.04 or $72.48 a year

2. NFL Network $1.22 or $14.64 a year

3. Pac 12 Network .80 or $9.60 a year

4. ESPN2 .74 or $8.88 a year

5. SEC Network .68 or $8.16 a year

5. FS1 .68 or $8.16 a year

7. Big Ten Network .38 or $4.56 a year

8. NBATV .27 or $3.24 a year

9. NBC Sports Network .27 or $3.24 a year

10. CBS Sports Network .25 or $3 a year

11. ESPN News .23 or $2.76 a year

12. ESPN Classic .21 or $2.52 a year

13. ESPNU .21 or $2.52 a year

(The Pac 12 Network cost looks way out of line, but it makes more sense when you consider that it's not very widely available. Meaning the average cost is driven up by availabiilty in its target markets).

But then you have to plug in the number of cable or satellite subscribers who are paying for each of these channels. After all, some channels are better distributed than others.

When you do that the order changes quite a bit:


1. ESPN: 97 million households $7 billion

2. NFL Network: 72 million households $1.05 billion

3. ESPN2: 97 million households $861.4 million

4. FS1: 88 million households $718.8 million

5. SEC Network: 75 million households $611 million

6. NBC Sports Network: 80 million households $259.2 million

7. Pac 12 Network: 26 million households $249.6 million

8. Big Ten Network: 52 million households $237.1 million

9. ESPN News: 75 million households $207 million

10. NBATV: 60 million households $194.4 million

11. ESPNU: 75 million households $189 million

12. CBS Sports Network: 53 million households $159 million

13. ESPN Classic: 31 million households $78.1 million

Look at that revenue drop off after the top five sports networks. It's extraordinary. The SEC Network is poised to bring in more revenue than the Big Ten Network and the Pac 12 Network combined, with $120 million more to spare on top of that.

Holy hell.

When you factor in advertising -- which typically runs around a quarter of revenue at other ESPN properties -- ESPN and the SEC have almost created an $800 million network. Indeed, add up all the revenue streams here and ESPN is going to be poised to do nearly nine billion dollars just in subscriber fees. Good lord.

And how about the NFL Network?

Now that CBS is going to be airing its Thursday night NFL games, how in the world can that fee be justified? The NFL Network is by far the worst deal for sports fans on this list.

My point in putting all this out here -- the SEC Network is going to be even bigger and more successful than I thought. The SEC Network is now the most successful new sports cable launch and it's still a month away from the launch. And, amazingly, most fans and media still haven't realized the impact it's going to have.

You thought the SEC had a competitive advantage before?

You ain't seen nothing yet.

[Bambi]

Should be a fun year…

[TomBarndtsTwin]

It will be interesting to see what Mizzou can do with their football program when they're pulling in 40+ mil. per year in revenue distribution (if not this year, probably next . . .)

Guess that move to the SEC wasn't so bad after all . . . .


Who knew?

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by TomBarndtsTwin

It will be interesting to see what Mizzou can do with their football program when they're pulling in 40+ mil. per year in revenue distribution (if not this year, probably next . . .)

Guess that move to the SEC wasn't so bad after all . . . .


Who knew?

I think it's been proven that no matter what conference you play in there's plenty of money for everyone.

Mizzou has moved to the SEC and it's been interesting to watch how you guys need to adjust to what is admittedly a much more college sports centric part of the country. The work is just beginning for your school and out of the gate who can argue with what Pinkel has been able to do with the football program.

As we start another year the cycle begins again. Good luck

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by TomBarndtsTwin

It will be interesting to see what Mizzou can do with their football program when they're pulling in 40+ mil. per year in revenue distribution (if not this year, probably next . . .)

Guess that move to the SEC wasn't so bad after all . . . .


Who knew?

I think it means that, if true, all sec schools will get that same payout. Given Mizzou is near the bottom of that league in revenue they're still at a major competitive disadvantage, esp vs the big dollar schools. If money matters as you claim, then you've got a huge uphill climb in league.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

I think it means that, if true, all sec schools will get that same payout. Given Mizzou is near the bottom of that league in revenue they're still at a major competitive disadvantage, esp vs the big dollar schools. If money matters as you claim, then you've got a huge uphill climb in league.

Not being ranked dead last in recruiting could be a good place to start.

[stonedstooge]

Originally Posted by KChiefs1

www.foxsports.com

Where's that Big 12 Network?

[TomBarndtsTwin]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

I think it means that, if true, all sec schools will get that same payout. Given Mizzou is near the bottom of that league in revenue they're still at a major competitive disadvantage, esp vs the big dollar schools. If money matters as you claim, then you've got a huge uphill climb in league.

I'd say it worked out okay this past season.

More money means better facilities and better exposure. They're not only competing with the other SEC schools, they're also competing with other power conference teams and leagues that recruit in the areas they do. Being in the SEC helps Mizzou in a way that the Big 12 did not.

Besides over the last seven years or so, Mizzou has proven to be competitive while being at a financial disadvantage (ie not having a large revenue stream) against many of the schools in both the Big 12 and the SEC. I just think it will be interesting to see what they can accomplish with said revenue stream, irrespective of the other SEC schools.

If ever there was a chance to shine and take the FB program to the next level, this is it.

[TomBarndtsTwin]

Originally Posted by Bambi

Not being ranked dead last in recruiting could be a good place to start.

Recruiting rankings aren't the be all, end all. (See 2013 Florida Gators, for example). Good coaching can make up for a lot of that and Mizzou has a very good coaching staff. They know how to coach guys up and make them competitive with the big boys.

I'm pretty sure the last 5 years Mizzou was in the Big 12, they were in the bottom half of the recruiting rankings every year and they seemed to do okay.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by stonedstooge

Where's that Big 12 Network?

Everyone takes home their own 3rd tier. It's all kinds of cash.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by TomBarndtsTwin

I'd say it worked out okay this past season.

More money means better facilities and better exposure. They're not only competing with the other SEC schools, they're also competing with other power conference teams and leagues that recruit in the areas they do. Being in the SEC helps Mizzou in a way that the Big 12 did not.

Besides over the last seven years or so, Mizzou has proven to be competitive while being at a financial disadvantage (ie not having a large revenue stream) against many of the schools in both the Big 12 and the SEC. I just think it will be interesting to see what they can accomplish with said revenue stream, irrespective of the other SEC schools.

If ever there was a chance to shine and take the FB program to the next level, this is it.

Tennessee has more money than God and they don't win shit.

I'm not saying steady cash flow from the SEC is going to hurt Mizzou but I think what PB's point was that all the teams in your conference get the same thing. You're going up against psychopaths that will do anything to win in football. Money isn't what makes Champions.

[TomBarndtsTwin]

Originally Posted by Bambi

Tennessee has more money than God and they don't win shit.

I'm not saying steady cash flow from the SEC is going to hurt Mizzou but I think what PB's point was that all the teams in your conference get the same thing. You're going up against psychopaths that will do anything to win in football. Money isn't what makes Champions.

Tennessee's coaching staff is shit, so that nullifies they're recruiting advantage.

Secondly, I don't think anyone is arguing that money equals championships. If it did, Texas would be dominating every year instead of getting their ass handed to them at home by bottom tier SEC teams.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by TomBarndtsTwin

Tennessee's coaching staff is shit, so that nullifies they're recruiting advantage.

Secondly, I don't think anyone is arguing that money equals championships. If it did, Texas would be dominating every year instead of getting their ass handed to them at home by bottom tier SEC teams.

I'll agree with you on Texas.

But if you're going to take your little shot at the end I'll remind you that the Big 12's flagship made the SEC's flagship their bitch in 2014.

Saying bottom teams beating Texas is fine. Those teams being SEC doesn't have anything to do with where UT is as a program.