SEC Network

[LawDawg]

Here's a good discussion that confirms the idea of the size and scope of the B1G.

How Is A So-So Big Ten Rolling In Dough? It?s All About The Numbers

 

[LawDawg]

This is going to make everyone but us SEC homers throw up, and heads explode!

 

[LawDawg]

My last 2 references ... I haven't read this site in a while, and it is just one guy, but it aligns with my thoughts and some of the things I wrote above about ESPN.

How ESPN Sets The SEC Network Apart (Even From The Net?s Texas Project)

The SEC Network Is A Go, But Don?t Expect Accurate Financial Numbers Right Away (Plus Links)

There are more links in this article.

 

[bigred472]

You don't think that has anything to do with 1 school's limited scope (albeit in Texas) v. a 14 school, 11 state, top football conference scope? Quit comparing the SEC Network with the Longhorn Network ... it's ridiculous.

No, it's not ridiculous. If the nationwide appeal was that great for the SEC network why did ESPN/SEC pick AT&T to start with? Let me try again....SEC fans don't migrate from the south, Texas fans seldom migrate, & the southwest fans and west coast fans seldom migrate either. And it IS because of the weather. Over the decades, fans of midwestern schools (I don't care which conferences you are talking about), given the opportunity--and the offer of bigger monies--do not hesitate to move to warmer climates.

As such Big Ten fans/midwestern college fans are more spread out demographically. The bigger the demographic area, the bigger the number of outlets that will offer the games. Sponsers--and they are the ones supplying the monies--aren't just interested in the total number of people watching games--they're also interested in the areas where the viewers are coming from. If Ford only sees mostly southern viewers looking at SEC games, but they see Big Ten viewers from all over the country, which conference network do you think is going to be fed most of their money?

I totally get they are more dispersed ... who wants to live in Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio and Pennsylvania? Kind of kidding, but I get that the B1G is more dispersed.

I'm not offended by your kidding but I don't truly think you understand about the dispersal. Both the SEC & the Pac may end up with "national coverage", but they will never pull in the same amount of money because both conferences don't have the same appeal outside their own areas. Again, sponsers are going to look at demographics.

 

[LawDawg]

You don't think that has anything to do with 1 school's limited scope (albeit in Texas) v. a 14 school, 11 state, top football conference scope? Quit comparing the SEC Network with the Longhorn Network ... it's ridiculous.

No, it's not ridiculous. If the nationwide appeal was that great for the SEC network why did ESPN/SEC pick AT&T to start with? Let me try again....SEC fans don't migrate from the south, Texas fans seldom migrate, & the southwest fans and west coast fans seldom migrate either. And it IS because of the weather. Over the decades, fans of midwestern schools (I don't care which conferences you are talking about), given the opportunity--and the offer of bigger monies--do not hesitate to move to warmer climates.

As such Big Ten fans/midwestern college fans are more spread out demographically. The bigger the demographic area, the bigger the number of outlets that will offer the games. Sponsers--and they are the ones supplying the monies--aren't just interested in the total number of people watching games--they're also interested in the areas where the viewers are coming from. If Ford only sees mostly southern viewers looking at SEC games, but they see Big Ten viewers from all over the country, which conference network do you think is going to be fed most of their money?

I totally get they are more dispersed ... who wants to live in Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio and Pennsylvania? Kind of kidding, but I get that the B1G is more dispersed.

I'm not offended by your kidding but I don't truly think you understand about the dispersal. Both the SEC & the Pac may end up with "national coverage", but they will never pull in the same amount of money because both conferences don't have the same appeal outside their own areas. Again, sponsers are going to look at demographics.

This is wrong on so many levels, where to start.

We agree on this: As such Big Ten fans/midwestern college fans are more spread out demographically. But that is about all.

We certainly don't agree on this, and no one else will agree with you either: Comparing the SEC and the Texas Networks ... No, it's not ridiculous. Yes, it is ridiculous ... comparing the SEC Network with the Texas Network is ridiculous, and if you don't understand that, I'll never change your mind.

This makes no sense:If the nationwide appeal was that great for the SEC network why did ESPN/SEC pick AT&T to start with? You do realize that AT&T U-Verse is a national system available in about 45 states? So much for that nationwide appeal argument. Negotiating these deals is difficult ... it was for the BTN. They obviously started with one that they knew they could get, and then have 16 months to negotiate with the rest.

Plain crazy: Let me try again....SEC fans don't migrate from the south, Texas fans seldom migrate, & the southwest fans and west coast fans seldom migrate either. Uh, yes, SEC fans do migrate from the South. Where you get the idea that SEC grads only stay in the south is nuts. I have frat brothers in Cali, Chicago, Boston, Kansas City, and I could go on and on. I've admitted they don't migrate as much as the B1G, but to act is if a good number don't move is either naive or disingenuous. You pick.

What, SEC grads don't get offered promotions and bigger monies?
Over the decades, fans of midwestern schools (I don't care which conferences you are talking about), given the opportunity--and the offer of bigger monies--do not hesitate to move to warmer climates.
What, you think we are just a bunch of hillbillies minding our moonshine?

You clearly don't understand how cable distribution works: Sponsers--and they are the ones supplying the monies--aren't just interested in the total number of people watching games--they're also interested in the areas where the viewers are coming from. If Ford only sees mostly southern viewers looking at SEC games, but they see Big Ten viewers from all over the country, which conference network do you think is going to be fed most of their money? By your confused logic, it isn't the total number of people watching games, but where they are from. I'm confident that if equal B1G and SEC fans are watching a game, Ford really doesn't care where they are located. SEC people buy Fords, too. Oh, and this still has nothing to do with cable distribution and getting your network on the cable and satellite providers. You have some reading to do before coming back and arguing any more about cable distribution.

Once again, you totally overstate the B1G distribution argument:
Both the SEC & the Pac may end up with "national coverage", but they will never pull in the same amount of money because both conferences don't have the same appeal outside their own areas. Again, sponsers are going to look at demographics. (1) The SEC Network already has national coverage with AT&T U-verse, albeit a small number of subscribers at the start. (2) even with us agreeing that the B1G alumni disperse more, you do realize that it is a marginally small number, right? Let's say that the B1G got into Atlanta. You want to compare the number of B1G alumni to all the citizens of Atlanta? And, again, it isn't about sponsors, it's about cable penetration.

 

[LawDawg]

Your insistence that AT&T is somehow a bad cable/DSL partner to start with seems misplaced. I was going right along with you as I am more of a Time Warner guy, and have had terrible dealings with AT&T business. But, after a little research - imagine that - I think you might want to reconsider the idea that starting with AT&T shows weakness.

Ironically, when the BTN launched, guess who their cable partner was? Yep, U-verse. Imagine that. They also had DirecTV.

AT&T second quarter: U-verse driving 'amazing' revenue growth - FierceCable [note that part where it says the NFL used the same strategy by starting with AT&T].

ESPN to use AT&T U-verse deal to demand expanded basic slot for SEC network - FierceCable

Google "is u-verse growing" and you might be surprised at what you see. I was.

 

[bigred472]

This is wrong on so many levels, where to start.

We agree on this: As such Big Ten fans/midwestern college fans are more spread out demographically. But that is about all.

We certainly don't agree on this, and no one else will agree with you either: Comparing the SEC and the Texas Networks ... No, it's not ridiculous. Yes, it is ridiculous ... comparing the SEC Network with the Texas Network is ridiculous, and if you don't understand that, I'll never change your mind.

This makes no sense:If the nationwide appeal was that great for the SEC network why did ESPN/SEC pick AT&T to start with? You do realize that AT&T U-Verse is a national system available in about 45 states? So much for that nationwide appeal argument. Negotiating these deals is difficult ... it was for the BTN. They obviously started with one that they knew they could get, and then have 16 months to negotiate with the rest.

Plain crazy: Let me try again....SEC fans don't migrate from the south, Texas fans seldom migrate, & the southwest fans and west coast fans seldom migrate either. Uh, yes, SEC fans do migrate from the South. Where you get the idea that SEC grads only stay in the south is nuts. I have frat brothers in Cali, Chicago, Boston, Kansas City, and I could go on and on. I've admitted they don't migrate as much as the B1G, but to act is if a good number don't move is either naive or disingenuous. You pick.

What, SEC grads don't get offered promotions and bigger monies?
Over the decades, fans of midwestern schools (I don't care which conferences you are talking about), given the opportunity--and the offer of bigger monies--do not hesitate to move to warmer climates.

What, you think we are just a bunch of hillbillies minding our moonshine?

You clearly don't understand how cable distribution works: Sponsers--and they are the ones supplying the monies--aren't just interested in the total number of people watching games--they're also interested in the areas where the viewers are coming from. If Ford only sees mostly southern viewers looking at SEC games, but they see Big Ten viewers from all over the country, which conference network do you think is going to be fed most of their money? By your confused logic, it isn't the total number of people watching games, but where they are from. I'm confident that if equal B1G and SEC fans are watching a game, Ford really doesn't care where they are located. SEC people buy Fords, too. Oh, and this still has nothing to do with cable distribution and getting your network on the cable and satellite providers. You have some reading to do before coming back and arguing any more about cable distribution.

Once again, you totally overstate the B1G distribution argument:
Both the SEC & the Pac may end up with "national coverage", but they will never pull in the same amount of money because both conferences don't have the same appeal outside their own areas. Again, sponsers are going to look at demographics. (1) The SEC Network already has national coverage with AT&T U-verse, albeit a small number of subscribers at the start. (2) even with us agreeing that the B1G alumni disperse more, you do realize that it is a marginally small number, right? Let's say that the B1G got into Atlanta. You want to compare the number of B1G alumni to all the citizens of Atlanta? And, again, it isn't about sponsors, it's about cable penetration.

First let me state, I wasn't aware that both the B1G & SEC networks were fronted by the same company (AT&T), so I concede that point.

What you still refuse to acknowledge and it is a huge point, is that B1G alums (in much larger numbers) move outside the demographic they came from. Whether it be SEC fans or even Pac fans, the number of those that migrate to cold climates compared to the number of B1G alums that migrate to warm climates is significantly smaller (for both conferences). And again, I'm not saying the SEC network won't make money but that actual viewership is going to be more concentrated to the south simply because there aren't as many southerners that migrate to colder clomates.

 

[LawDawg]

What you still refuse to acknowledge and it is a huge point, is that B1G alums (in much larger numbers) move outside the demographic they came from. Whether it be SEC fans or even Pac fans, the number of those that migrate to cold climates compared to the number of B1G alums that migrate to warm climates is significantly smaller (for both conferences). And again, I'm not saying the SEC network won't make money but that actual viewership is going to be more concentrated to the south simply because there aren't as many southerners that migrate to colder clomates.

To the contrary, I have conceded that point over and over again. In at least 4 posts, I have conceded both the larger size of the B1G alumni base, and the fact that it is more broadly dispersed. I can't imagine what I could write that would convince you of that if what I have written thus far doesn't.

What I have said is that based on the way that cable distribution works you are overemphasizing the greater size and spread of the B1G alumni as that impacts the distribution.

I think this is the third time that I have done this:

In my opinion, ESPN > Fox is more important than B1G alumni > SEC alumni in size and spread when it comes to cable distribution.

 

[LawDawg]

I really think we aren't that far off. I believe that the BTN and the SEC will be very profitable for both conferences. After that, I think the ACC actually has the next best chance for a couple reasons: (1) their geographic scope is actually better than the SEC (Syracuse to Boston to Miami to Louisville), and (2) while their football isn't the best starting next year their hoops are ... and I think that could really drive some cable subscriptions in months where people are all cooped up. For 4 months while the SEC is replaying football, the ACC could do some great basketball coverage.

Will be fun to see how it all plays out.

 

[LawDawg]

Over at CBS, and then here in this thread we've discussed conference networks. One of the things that I have been skeptical about is the optimism of B1G fans that there BTN will deliver $50 million per school by 2020. These projections are, presumably, based on the current state of cable and satellite. I've argued that we have no idea what the landscape will be like in 7 years. People are starting to get fed up with rising cable costs, and more people are starting to use alternative mediums ... when we added a TV in our bedroom recently, we chose not to connect it to cable and use Netflix and other similar services.

Here is an interesting article that discusses this shift. The interesting part to me is that the title of the article and the first few paragraphs makes it seem like this change is imminent. Yet, deeper into the article several experts in this area are skeptical that large amounts of people will give up cable.

Interesting read for those that are interested in this type of thing.

Cutting the cord: As sports and bundling boost TV bills, some viewers are fed up | al.com

 

[srf]

I liked the Big10 Network a lot mainly due to the Big 10 wrestling tournament coverage. SEC would be a good watch for football.

 

[4down20]

Over at CBS, and then here in this thread we've discussed conference networks. One of the things that I have been skeptical about is the optimism of B1G fans that there BTN will deliver $50 million per school by 2020. These projections are, presumably, based on the current state of cable and satellite. I've argued that we have no idea what the landscape will be like in 7 years. People are starting to get fed up with rising cable costs, and more people are starting to use alternative mediums ... when we added a TV in our bedroom recently, we chose not to connect it to cable and use Netflix and other similar services.

Here is an interesting article that discusses this shift. The interesting part to me is that the title of the article and the first few paragraphs makes it seem like this change is imminent. Yet, deeper into the article several experts in this area are skeptical that large amounts of people will give up cable.

Interesting read for those that are interested in this type of thing.

Cutting the cord: As sports and bundling boost TV bills, some viewers are fed up | al.com

On the flip side, college football is basically the only reason I have cable TV at all. I use netflix and hulu for regular TV now.

I've seriously considered cutting my cable TV off completely, and if I can find a place to watch the football games I will do so.

 

[HawkeyesRuleURFace]

LOL @ Stupid Ediot Conference

 

[geneh_33]

Good. Now maybe they will air all of the SEC games on one channel so it will be easier to ignore them.

 

[bamabear82]

LOL @ Stupid Ediot Conference

 

[Berkeley_Blues]

The rest of the programming will be Hee Haw re-runs, Swamp People and Duck Call Dynasty!!

John Boorman's classic said it best. He left us with the sounds of duelling banjos and images of the offspring of ince$t. He gave a clean roadmap to the cultural wasteland of a place we now call Jawja.

 

[BoiseMike19]

While I don't think it will be available in my market without paying a premium (which I won't) this is a good thing. Just got done watching the 2010 bowl Iowa vs Mizzo on the Big 10 Network (standard in Boise with the first level upgrade on DirevTV), In May, football is football. Some great ball played in the South, but love me some B1G for nothing out of pocket aside the package my wife isists on for the soap opera network.

 

[BucksFanInGA]

SEC Network will be pricey

SEC Network?s cost will top that of other college nets - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal | SportsBusiness Daily Global

What I found interesting, and it does make sense is this part:

Distributors in SEC country can expect to pay a rate of $1.30 to carry the soon-to-be-launched SEC Network, according to several sources with knowledge of the rate card.

That fee, paid on a monthly per-subscriber basis, is what cable and satellite companies within the SEC’s 11-state footprint would pay to ESPN, the owner of the SEC Network. Outside of SEC territory, the channel’s license fee drops to 25 cents.

 

[fordman84]

SEC Network?s cost will top that of other college nets - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal | SportsBusiness Daily Global

What I found interesting, and it does make sense is this part:

Simple demand. Just like the directv I used to have gave me big ten network for free, no one down here really wanted it (no offense B1G). If they charged full price outside of the SEC area, no one would pick it up.

 

[lilchi721]

Is Suddenlink gonna pick it up?