CBS tells SEC that TAMU & Mizzou do not add value

[knapplc]

The SEC is prepping new media rights deals, and they're getting a bit of flak from CBS, their major broadcast partner. Specifically, CBS doesn't feel it should pay more to the SEC simply because they added Texas A&M and Missouri:

 

 

CBS’s deal with the SEC, negotiated in 2008, pays an average of $55 million a year to the SEC over 15 years. A prorated increase would take the value of that deal up to $65 million a year. The SEC could generate additional revenue by adding more years on the end of the contract.

 

CBS still will carry the same number of football games each season as part of its package, and network executives are arguing that schools such as Alabama, Florida and LSU—not Missouri and Texas A&M—drive the value of the conference. Without additional inventory, CBS’s stance has been that it shouldn’t pay more solely because the conference added two new schools.

 

Clearly, the SEC can argue that the collegiate market has been reset since the deal was negotiated four years ago. The Pac-12’s deal with ESPN and Fox for $250 million a year over 12 years—agreed to last year—has been a game-changer for conferences that have expanded and gone back to the negotiating table.

LINK

 

That is just a bit of a slap in the face to the Aggies and Tigers.

[Blackshirts007]

The SEC is prepping new media rights deals, and they're getting a bit of flak from CBS, their major broadcast partner. Specifically, CBS doesn't feel it should pay more to the SEC simply because they added Texas A&M and Missouri:

 

 

CBS’s deal with the SEC, negotiated in 2008, pays an average of $55 million a year to the SEC over 15 years. A prorated increase would take the value of that deal up to $65 million a year. The SEC could generate additional revenue by adding more years on the end of the contract.

 

CBS still will carry the same number of football games each season as part of its package, and network executives are arguing that schools such as Alabama, Florida and LSU—not Missouri and Texas A&M—drive the value of the conference. Without additional inventory, CBS’s stance has been that it shouldn’t pay more solely because the conference added two new schools.

 

Clearly, the SEC can argue that the collegiate market has been reset since the deal was negotiated four years ago. The Pac-12’s deal with ESPN and Fox for $250 million a year over 12 years—agreed to last year—has been a game-changer for conferences that have expanded and gone back to the negotiating table.

LINK

 

 

That is just a bit of a slap in the face to the Aggies and Tigers.

 

I can see why mizzou doesnt add any value, but you would think A&M is a good addition

[Comish]

Hey, the periodic Pinkleisms alone are worth a bonus........

[WoodyHayes1951]

Mizzou doesn't add value but Texas A&M is a huge property. Probably top-15 CFB properties.

[irafreak]

I'm assuming that there are some major differences in what ESPN/Fox get for games to be giving over 200 million more per year to the Pac.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Well in a way, CBS is right. LSU, Alabama, and Florida really drive the value of that conference or have for the past few years. If Mizzou and aTm want to prove valuable, they need to perform well in their conference the first couple of years.

[bhamHusker]

CBS's issue seems to be that in spite of the expanded league, they're still carrying the same number of games each weekend. Without the option of additional games, merely adding more teams to the league does not add significant value with regards to their ability to generate revenue from broadcasting games. That's probably true, and it would still be true even if the SEC had added Michigan and USC instead of A&M and Missouri. I think they're probably angling for rights to an additional game each week.

[huKSer]

I'm sure this is a business ploy by CBS, but - - - - oh, yeah.

[VectorVictor]

CBS's issue seems to be that in spite of the expanded league, they're still carrying the same number of games each weekend. Without the option of additional games, merely adding more teams to the league does not add significant value with regards to their ability to generate revenue from broadcasting games. That's probably true, and it would still be true even if the SEC had added Michigan and USC instead of A&M and Missouri. I think they're probably angling for rights to an additional game each week.

 

 

 

It's inconceivable that Mizzou and aTm do not add value--St. Louis and Houston are major media markets, and like it or not, Mizzou and aTm do garner some ratings in those cities (though they're split with Kansas/KSU/Nebraska/Illinios in St. Louis and the 'Worns in Houston).