engie
01-11-2015, 11:20 PM
I had never fully fleshed out this idea until tonight.
The SECNetwork content is what is known as "tier 3". It's basically the "rights" to all video content that ESPN or CBS doesn't pick up. This was previously owned by the schools themselves to monetize however they best saw fit. Thus, it was not "even" among the schools, and you can probably guess the ones that made the most $$ off of it. All of the schools in the SEC subleased these rights to either Learfield or IMG for a set amount of $$.
Learfield pays MSU a certain per year as part of their overall programming/advertisements rights package with MSU. The video rights part of this were "bought back" by MSU(and other schools) and leased to the conference longterm prior to the announcement of the forthcoming network. In reality, this "buyback" was just an agreement for Learfield to pay MSU less by the amount of their pre-determined valuation of those tier 3 rights per year. We still get a Learfield check for radio, signage, advertisements, etc... It's just a smaller one.
So, going forward, this $$ amount will be the same among conference members when it hasn't been before. I can't find a current article of what these rights were worth(nor one to show exactly what they were worth for MSU), but I do have one from 2011 that shows most of the conference...
http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/05/06/school-specific-broadcasting-revenue/
Alabama - $8.5 million
Kentucky - $7.8 million
Florida - $7.5 million
LSU - $7 million
Tennessee - $6.3 million
Georgia - $6.2 million
Auburn - $4.6 million
Mizzou - $4 million
South Carolina - $1.8 million
Ole Miss - $1.7 million
Arkansas - $0.95 million
Naturally, MSU was somewhere under $2million at that time. So, if the SECNetwork brings $10mil in year 1 after startup costs are paid, which is probably a mild estimate, MSU gained $8-9million off the network, while Alabama's gain is under $2million. It certainly won't turn us into Alabama -- but it does notably close the gap. Thank goodness for SEC socialism...
The SECNetwork content is what is known as "tier 3". It's basically the "rights" to all video content that ESPN or CBS doesn't pick up. This was previously owned by the schools themselves to monetize however they best saw fit. Thus, it was not "even" among the schools, and you can probably guess the ones that made the most $$ off of it. All of the schools in the SEC subleased these rights to either Learfield or IMG for a set amount of $$.
Learfield pays MSU a certain per year as part of their overall programming/advertisements rights package with MSU. The video rights part of this were "bought back" by MSU(and other schools) and leased to the conference longterm prior to the announcement of the forthcoming network. In reality, this "buyback" was just an agreement for Learfield to pay MSU less by the amount of their pre-determined valuation of those tier 3 rights per year. We still get a Learfield check for radio, signage, advertisements, etc... It's just a smaller one.
So, going forward, this $$ amount will be the same among conference members when it hasn't been before. I can't find a current article of what these rights were worth(nor one to show exactly what they were worth for MSU), but I do have one from 2011 that shows most of the conference...
http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/05/06/school-specific-broadcasting-revenue/
Alabama - $8.5 million
Kentucky - $7.8 million
Florida - $7.5 million
LSU - $7 million
Tennessee - $6.3 million
Georgia - $6.2 million
Auburn - $4.6 million
Mizzou - $4 million
South Carolina - $1.8 million
Ole Miss - $1.7 million
Arkansas - $0.95 million
Naturally, MSU was somewhere under $2million at that time. So, if the SECNetwork brings $10mil in year 1 after startup costs are paid, which is probably a mild estimate, MSU gained $8-9million off the network, while Alabama's gain is under $2million. It certainly won't turn us into Alabama -- but it does notably close the gap. Thank goodness for SEC socialism...