Sports 'journalists' (Who Don't Work For ESPN)

[Steve19]

I get Fiutak, but I am sick of that "let me state an unprovable prejudice to bias your opinion" schtick.

Arkansas has been close in big games, but haven't beaten a team ranked higher than #77 in the Massey computer power ratings (link). When you look across computer rankings, they're an Iowa, Louisville, Georgia Tech, Wisconsin, or Minnesota (link). A good team, but at least a two or three loss team in any good conference, not in a run at the conference championship.

We'll see if his perceptions about Ohio State change after yesterday.

 

[LovelandBuckeye]

I get Fiutak, but I am sick of that "let me state an unprovable prejudice to bias your opinion" schtick.

Arkansas has been close in big games, but haven't beaten a team ranked higher than #77 in the Massey computer power ratings (link). When you look across computer rankings, they're an Iowa, Louisville, Georgia Tech, Wisconsin, or Minnesota (link). A good team, but at least a two or three loss team in any good conference, not in a run at the conference championship.

We'll see if his perceptions about Ohio State change after yesterday.

Don't get your hopes up.

 

[youra6]

Don't get your hopes up.

I CANT WAIT TO GET FUCKED OVER BY THE PLAYOFF COMMITEE

 

[SadSouthernBuck]

and here we go....

"Because Meyer is such a good coach, and the Big Ten is so weak, the Buckeyes have been able to win while they build. The Big Ten helped them look better than they were the last two years. And if the Buckeyes played in a better league, they probably would have been beaten two or three times already this season."

"A better league would have knocked the Buckeyes out of this year’s national-title race before they could grow up. But they play in the Big Ten."

http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/11/09/ohio-state-buckeyes-michigan-state-spartans-jt-barrett

 

[TooTall]

and here we go....

"Because Meyer is such a good coach, and the Big Ten is so weak, the Buckeyes have been able to win while they build. The Big Ten helped them look better than they were the last two years. And if the Buckeyes played in a better league, they probably would have been beaten two or three times already this season."

"A better league would have knocked the Buckeyes out of this year’s national-title race before they could grow up. But they play in the Big Ten."

http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/11/09/ohio-state-buckeyes-michigan-state-spartans-jt-barrett

Yep, the SEC really gave Texas A&M (Big XII doormat) a warm welcome.. Finishing the year 11-2.

Spare me with the "if they were in the SEC" bullshit.

Missouri had an 11-1 record in just their second season. When was the last time they competed for the Big XII crown? 2004?

 

[Woody1968]

Yep, the SEC really gave Texas A&M (Big XII doormat) a warm welcome.. Finishing the year 11-2.

Spare me with the "if they were in the SEC" bull[Mark May].

Missouri had an 11-1 record in just their second season. When was the last time they competed for the Big XII crown? 2004?

With all due respect. Texas A&M was not a Big XII doormat. That would clearly be Kansas or Baylor until RGIII. Missouri won the Big XII North in 2010. I would consider both teams to have been mid tier Big XII teams.

 

[BUCKYLE]

With all due respect. Texas A&M was not a Big XII doormat. That would clearly be Kansas or Baylor until RGIII. Missouri won the Big XII North in 2010. I would consider both teams to have been mid tier Big XII teams.

Exactly. Like Iowa or Minnesota. Everyone knows if both of those teams played in the sec they'd compete for titles.

 

[TooTall]

With all due respect. Texas A&M was not a Big XII doormat. That would clearly be Kansas or Baylor until RGIII. Missouri won the Big XII North in 2010. I would consider both teams to have been mid tier Big XII teams.

Mid tier teams in a conference that chooses when it wants to play defense. Then they go to the SEC and contend for the title in the first two seasons... Not an overhyped conference at all...

 

[kujirakira]

Meanwhile, Nebraska ... which seemed to own the BXII North, representing them 6 of 15 years winning 2 B12 champs and going 81-39 (.675) in regular conference

As opposed to Missouri, who went 63-66 (.488) playing in the very weak division that allowed Nebraska this dominance. Missouri represented the North 2 times with 0 championships (they got blown out by 21 points and 41 points... Nebraska's last 2 appearances also resulted in losses - of 1 point and 3 points.)

Nebraska entered the B1G during a downturn when scUM was junk, and Ohio State and Penn State were being sanctioned. They've performed at about the same level as they did in the B12 North, representing their division once in 3 years -- getting blown out by Wisconsin. Nebraska has gone 19-8 (.704) overall during regular conference play, a slight improvement from B12.

Missouri on the other hand has gone 13-8 (.619) ... a huge increase, already competed in 1 conference championship in 2 years and on track for a second division championship this year.

 

[DiamondBuck]

Meanwhile, Nebraska ... which seemed to own the BXII North, representing them 6 of 15 years winning 2 B12 champs and going 81-39 (.675) in regular conference

As opposed to Missouri, who went 63-66 (.488) playing in the very weak division that allowed Nebraska this dominance. Missouri represented the North 2 times with 0 championships (they got blown out by 21 points and 41 points... Nebraska's last 2 appearances also resulted in losses - of 1 point and 3 points.)

Nebraska entered the B1G during a downturn when scUM was junk, and Ohio State and Penn State were being sanctioned. They've performed at about the same level as they did in the B12 North, representing their division once in 3 years -- getting blown out by Wisconsin. Nebraska has gone 19-8 (.704) overall during regular conference play, a slight improvement from B12.

Missouri on the other hand has gone 13-8 (.619) ... a huge increase, already competed in 1 conference championship in 2 years and on track for a second division championship this year.

Stop it with the numbers already... SEC teams pass the look test. End of story.

 

[Woody1968]

Exactly. Like Iowa or Minnesota. Everyone knows if both of those teams played in the sec they'd compete for titles.

Mid tier teams in a conference that chooses when it wants to play defense. Then they go to the SEC and contend for the title in the first two seasons... Not an overhyped conference at all...

Meanwhile, Nebraska ... which seemed to own the BXII North, representing them 6 of 15 years winning 2 B12 champs and going 81-39 (.675) in regular conference

As opposed to Missouri, who went 63-66 (.488) playing in the very weak division that allowed Nebraska this dominance. Missouri represented the North 2 times with 0 championships (they got blown out by 21 points and 41 points... Nebraska's last 2 appearances also resulted in losses - of 1 point and 3 points.)

Nebraska entered the B1G during a downturn when scUM was junk, and Ohio State and Penn State were being sanctioned. They've performed at about the same level as they did in the B12 North, representing their division once in 3 years -- getting blown out by Wisconsin. Nebraska has gone 19-8 (.704) overall during regular conference play, a slight improvement from B12.

Missouri on the other hand has gone 13-8 (.619) ... a huge increase, already competed in 1 conference championship in 2 years and on track for a second division championship this year.

Stop it with the numbers already... SEC teams pass the look test. End of story.

I'm not saying the Big XII was good. I think it has always been an over-hyped garbage conference. My point was that Texas A&M was not the conference doormat, and that Missouri had competed for the Big XII title more recently than 2004.

 

[BUCKYLE]

Right. But if the SEC was as mighty as ESPN would have us believe, two middle of the road teams from the BXII wouldn't have been able to compete for a title at all.

 

[TooTall]

I'm not saying the Big XII was good. I think it has always been an over-hyped garbage conference. My point was that Texas A&M was not the conference doormat, and that Missouri had competed for the Big XII title more recently than 2004.

Oh I know, I was accepting that they may not have been a doormat, but the fact they went to the SEC and competed for the title in the first few seasons is ridiculous. No one thought either team would have much of a chance, and there they were. Then it instantly went to the "that just goes to show how good the SEC is" argument.

EDIT: What Kyle said.

 

[Woody1968]

Right. But if the SEC was as mighty as ESPN would have us believe, two middle of the road teams from the BXII wouldn't have been able to compete for a title at all.

I agree, but I also remember that the Big XII was constantly touted as being a great conference as well, up until it imploded. ESPN has a weird agenda against the B1G, that doesn't make a lot of sense when you consider the fact that they air so many B1G games, and those games draw viewers no matter how good/bad the teams are.

 

[kujirakira]

I agree, but I also remember that the Big XII was constantly touted as being a great conference as well, up until it imploded. ESPN has a weird agenda against the B1G, that doesn't make a lot of sense when you consider the fact that they air so many B1G games, and those games draw viewers no matter how good/bad the teams are.

It makes sense when you see the rights breakdowns. This is several years old, but not much has changed recently.

ESPN owns 1st tier rights to B1G and B12.
ESPN owns 1st and 2nd tier rights to ACC.
ESPN shares 1st and 2nd tier rights with Fox on the PAC
ESPN owns 2nd tier rights to the SEC (CBS has 1st tier for mid-day game and evening seems to be shared? Or ESPN buys some games off CBS?)
ESPN owns the SEC Network outright**, giving them 3rd tier rights

Now look at the dollar amounts. The key here is that while you'd think they have more investment in 1st tier rights... that doesn't hold. The B1G and B12 rights are old and came dirt cheap (compare to what B1G is making off BTN content... ). Those contracts were made in a period when profits were still escalating -- but they've since escalated way beyond that level. To be honest, these contracts were made for way too long of a time period.

Old contracts (both expire after 2015/16 season):
$100mil/yr to the B1G for 1st tier
$60mil/yr to the B12 for 1st tier

Newer contracts:
$155mil/yr for ACC 1st and 2nd tier. (exp 2022/23)
$250mil/yr for PAC 1st and 2nd tier -- This is total amount, don't know how much Fox or ESPN pay individually (exp 2023/24)

$150mil/yr for SEC just 2nd tier (exp. 2023/24)

For comparisons:
BTN 2nd tier estimated worth in 2011 was $112mil/yr -- I'm betting this has gone up?
CBS pays $55mil/yr for SEC 1st tier -- almost 1/3rd of 2nd tier contract. (exp. 2023/24)
Fox pays $90mil/yr for B12 2nd tier (exp 2024/25)


Now this is before ownership of SECN is even considered, and you can already see that SEC is drawing huge amounts of money for just that 2nd tier contract -- far more than their 1st tier.
(As an aside, ACC is also pitifully behind)

The PAC draws the biggest overall single contract, and the most for combined 1st and 2nd tier... but the investment is split between Fox and ESPN. So there isn't as much incentive to prop up the PAC for ESPN (may be more for Fox who has smaller investment in B12 2nd tier only and non-controlling interest in BTN)

ESPN's primary investments here are everything SEC below 1st tier (lots of money), all of ACC (on the cheap), B1G & B12 1st tier (on the cheap and expiring soon).
ESPN *needs* the middle of the SEC to be highly profitable for them for that huge 2nd tier and 3rd tier (SECN) to pay off. Those B1G and B12 contracts will easily pay for themselves b/c they're old, and guaranteed there will be 2-4 top teams regardless of spin jobs, plus guaranteed ratings (at least for the B1G?). That ACC contract is also very cheap and they clearly made it knowing there'd be few good teams at any time.

But they're full-in on the SEC below the top-2 teams (CBS has first tier). This means they need those 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th etc. teams to be ranked... and preferably ranked as high as possible.

BTW, the contract for B12's 2nd tier rights starting in 2012/13 coincides with them suddenly becoming "mediocre/bad."
Just as BTN coincides with B10 suddenly becoming "mediocre/bad".
IMO, best case scenario for B10 for coming contract is to strike a very large PAC-esque joint deal with Fox and ESPN. Give neither a reason to advocate against us.

**The various philosophies towards the 3rd tier itself is interesting.
SECN is owned by ESPN outright
B1G has a partnership with Fox (giving them CCG) - but Fox doesn't have a controlling interest in BTN
PAC owns their own Network w/o partnership (CCG included in the 1st/2nd tier joint-deal with ESPN and Fox)
ACC rights sold to a relatively small operator, Raycom
and of course the B12 is OFP (ie LHN owned by ESPN)