coopercougar wrote: This article is a little over a month old but seems relevant to this thread today since Fox is taking advantage of the Cotton Bowl exposure to make a statement since they have already aired one commercial...

Pedigree part of pitch for Fox Sports 1

By John Ourand, Staff Writer

Published November 26, 2012, Page 1

Font Size   Resize SmallResize NormalResize Large  |  Print  |  Share  |  Tweet

Fox Sports actively is positioning Fox Sports 1 to sports industry insiders, and the message is clear: We have the pedigree to compete with ESPN where others do not. 

Network officials have been showing league and conference executives a “sizzle reel” that offers detailed plans about the company’s forthcoming all-sports channel.

Sources who have seen the five- to 10-minute-long video describe it as slickly produced and say it provides the clearest sign yet that Fox plans to rebrand its motorsports channel Speed, which is in 81 million homes, into Fox Sports 1 and launch by August.

Fox executives have not formally announced its plans around the channel.

But the promotional piece shows that Fox is far along in its planning for the channel, which it is positioning as a potential competitor to ESPN. The main theme is that, unlike others, Fox has the background to compete against the sports behemoth. Among examples: It highlights Fox as the company that broke the ABC/CBS/NBC broadcast TV monopoly in 1986 to launch its own TV network. It also points to Fox News, which launched in 1996 against a dominant CNN.

To underscore the notion that Fox Sports 1 plans to compete with ESPN, sources say the video includes a focus group of mostly men talking about their desire to have a competitor to ESPN. They complain about its perceived East Coast bias and programming like the ESPYs, sources say. When asked which network is best suited to offer competition, each answers “Fox.”


Sources say the video focuses on the channel’s live-game programming, which will come from rights deals with MLB, NASCAR, college basketball and football, soccer and UFC.

In addition to live games, the video talks about studio programming, mentioning a potential show hosted by Jay Glazer and another one described as a late-night alternative to “SportsCenter.”

League executives were especially intrigued by a plan that would run in-game advertising as part of a “double box” — an ad that runs in a box on-screen alongside the event footage, even during timeouts and other stoppages. When a game goes to commercial, a second box will pop up showing the ads, with video from the stadium or arena in a smaller box still on the screen.

League executives were told the channel will launch in August, but they expect its big coming-out party to be the following January, the week before Super Bowl XLVIII in New York.

Fox Sports holds the rights to that game and the video says Fox Sports 1 plans to carry several New York-based events in the run-up to the game. It’s impossible to confirm the events so far in advance, but the sizzle reel specifically mentions college basketball games, a U.S. women’s national soccer team game from Yankee Stadium and a UFC event from the Prudential Center, sources said.

At a sports media conference in New York this month, Fox Sports co-President Eric Shanks said Fox had no plans to formally announce the channel any time soon. “The leadership at Fox, Chase [Carey] and Rupert [Murdoch], have been big believers in sports driving value for a really long time,” he said. “We have conversations all the time about what’s the best mix of programming and the portfolio, the names of channels. Still, I think that we’re in that process of deciding what’s the best thing to do.”

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily...FoxSports1.aspx

dcphx wrote: You have to imagine Fox is going to throw Fort Knox at the B1G for their rights package.

buckEYEdr2B wrote: 2017 will be a bidding war (between FOX, NBC and ESPN) that changes college football TV contracts forever.

buckEYEdr2B wrote: 2017 will be a bidding war (between FOX, NBC and ESPN) that changes college football TV contracts forever.

coopercougar wrote: League executives were especially intrigued by a plan that would run in-game advertising as part of a “double box” — an ad that runs in a box on-screen alongside the event footage, even during timeouts and other stoppages. When a game goes to commercial, a second box will pop up showing the ads, with video from the stadium or arena in a smaller box still on the screen.

WinchesterBUCK wrote:

buckEYEdr2B wrote: 2017 will be a bidding war (between FOX, NBC and ESPN) that changes college football TV contracts forever.

Do not forget CBS as well.  With them losing the SEC, they want back into college football.

coopercougar wrote: League executives were especially intrigued by a plan that would run in-game advertising as part of a “double box” — an ad that runs in a box on-screen alongside the event footage, even during timeouts and other stoppages. When a game goes to commercial, a second box will pop up showing the ads, with video from the stadium or arena in a smaller box still on the screen.

WinchesterBUCK wrote:

buckEYEdr2B wrote: 2017 will be a bidding war (between FOX, NBC and ESPN) that changes college football TV contracts forever.

Do not forget CBS as well.  With them losing the SEC, they want back into college football.

hidownthai95 wrote: very interesting. I would like to see how this would work. How intrusive is the in-game ad? It would be cool seeing baseball players take the field/grounders and what not. baseketball has all sorts of gimmicks during tv time outs. 

talk about selling out though. 

coopercougar wrote:

hidownthai95 wrote: very interesting. I would like to see how this would work. How intrusive is the in-game ad? It would be cool seeing baseball players take the field/grounders and what not. baseketball has all sorts of gimmicks during tv time outs. 

talk about selling out though. 

They did it some during the Cotton Bowl and I liked it.  I don't remember an ad box during the game but I do remember during the commercial breaks there was a separate box still showing the stadium, team huddles, replays, etc.

@ GaddyJames  @ dsbland B1G has reported passed on GT in favor of UNC & UVA.

BuffaloLion wrote: And based on the 43 million dollar revenue figure Maryland used for 2017, FOX has "unoffically" opened up the bidding at roughly 25 million per team (for 1st tier television rights).

Delany is just kicking back and smoking a big Cuban cigar while Swofford is bent over a desk, chain smoking cheap cigarettes, and wiping sweat from his forehead.  

buckEYEdr2B wrote: 2017 will be a bidding war (between FOX, NBC and ESPN) that changes college football TV contracts forever.

(2/2) Bowlsby trying to get the NCAA to allow a CCG at 10-11 teams to preserve round robin scheduling. Guess what? They won't. Ask the ACC

CalBayBuckeye wrote: FWIW MHver3 is posting that the big12 is petitioning the NCAA to allow a CCG for the Big12 with only 10-11 teams

 ‏ @ MHver3

(2/2) Bowlsby trying to get the NCAA to allow a CCG at 10-11 teams to preserve round robin scheduling. Guess what? They won't. Ask the ACC

Expand

That a grant of rights prevents conferences from being raided is a myth. The Big 12 is still vulnerable because Texas and Oklahoma are still in play to be gobbled up in conference realignment. To give you some background, I am a contract lawyer in Phoenix. I litigate a lot of contracts. Some that have liquidated damages clauses and some that don't.

At the end of the day, the liquidated damages clause is essentially an estimate by the parties of the expectant damages in the case of a breach. The liquidated damage clause cannot be used to punish the breaching party, but is used to indemnify the non-breaching party. An exit fee provision is a liquidated damage clause.  Because it cannot be used to punish, they are often negotiated down from the stated fee.

Contracts that don't have a liquidated damage clause have two remedies available to the non-breaching party; specific performance and compensatory damages. Contract law enforces the expectancy interests between contracting parties, providing redress for parties who fail to receive the benefit of their bargain. However, courts rarely use specific performance as a remedy, especially in an instance when compensatory damages are easily calculated. 

A grant of rights is a contract between each individual school and the conference pledging the school's media rights to conference for a number of year. Like all contracts, it can be broken. School X, member of Conference A who has granted its media rights to Conference A, thinks it can make more money in Conference B. So School X leaves Conference A for Conference B placing its media rights in Conference B. Now School X's games will be distributed by both confernces. At this point School X has breached the grant of rights agreement, Conference A will sue School X over the media rights under the grant of rights agreement.

Conference A would love to force School X to leave its media rights with Conference A, requesting a court require specific performance of the grant of rights. This is the threat of the grant of rights, the tie that binds so to speak. If a court were to elect the specific performance remedy then School X of course provides no value to Conference B. However, because specific performance is often difficult to enforce and requires more of the court's resources most courts rarely ever use this remedy.

Courts are even less inclined to use it when there is an easy way to calculate damages. The resulting damages from a breach of grant of rights are easily calcualable. There is no reason to believe that a court would require specific performance in a suit over a breach of a grant of rights. 

The court is going to look at the value and duration of the media rights deal between Conference A and the networks. Then it will look at the duration of the grant of rights by School X to Conference A. Is the media rights deal worth less for the remainder of the grant of rights. If it is then this is the measure of damages School X must pay Conference A. My premise is that the networks have never reduced their payout to an existing contract, and there is no evidence they will going forward.

In 2003, the Big East is raided for two of its name brand schools, and a regionally significant school. The Big East added some lesser brands, and their media partners did not reduce their ongoing media deal. 2010, the Big 12 lost 2 schools in Colorado and Nebraska, did not replace those schools, and the Big 12 lost a significant amount of content (1/6th) in football and basketball. The Big 12's media partners did not reduce the payout on existing contracts but actually negotiated for more money on an expiring one. 2011, Texas A&M and Missouri left, the Big 12 replaced them with less valuable TV properties in TCU and WVU, and neither ESPN or FOX required a reduction in the payout to the Big 12. 2012, Maryland leaves the ACC for the Big 10, ACC replaces them with a less valuable media property. Not a single word is mentioned about a reduced payout for the ACC.

Networks, and one specifically, won't reduce the amount they pay to the conferences because it would violate their fiduciary duties to the conferences. Because one network (ESPN) has a hand in every league's media deal (except new Big East if it even exists) it can't in good faith pay one league more for raiding one league, then reducing its payout to league that was raided.

Because there is no evidence there would be a reduced payout to the league, the damages calculation is simple. The media deal for Conference A remains unchanged despite School X leaving, therefore there would be no damages for breach of grant of rights. The Big 12 grant of rights runs concurrently to media deals. So unless the networks change their strategy and go against precedent and start reducing the payouts to leagues, the only thing that binds these schools is money. Once the SEC starts its network there will be a new conference shuffle, and the Big 12 is still vulnerable.

rocknhoops wrote:

BuffaloLion wrote: And based on the 43 million dollar revenue figure Maryland used for 2017, FOX has "unoffically" opened up the bidding at roughly 25 million per team (for 1st tier television rights).

Delany is just kicking back and smoking a big Cuban cigar while Swofford is bent over a desk, chain smoking cheap cigarettes, and wiping sweat from his forehead.  

buckEYEdr2B wrote: 2017 will be a bidding war (between FOX, NBC and ESPN) that changes college football TV contracts forever.

to address a lot of the comments on this page,


A) we have no idea what they have included in that 43 mil figure, or how much optimistic speculation is involved in that number. (i wonder how much projected playoff money is included in that).

i highly doubt the league is "guaranteeing" that figure.

Actually, I think the 43 million dollar figure WAS somewhat "guaranteed". In fact, I think it was a lowball figure depending on how the bidding goes. 

As compared to you and me, who are anonymous message board posters, the people at Maryland staked their entire University's athletic future on these figures.

You have been going onto every message Board you can find, literally spouting with a tin foil hat, that Delany is a crazed tyrant, just because you've pretty much announced to the public that you hate his guts. That's all well and good, but the people at Maryland aren't complete idiots. Neither are the people at FOX.

FOX is as interested in the sucess of the Big 10 as Delany is. Plus, FOX would like nothing more than to weaken ESPN's product. Right now, The Big 10 is the perfect venue to accomplish that goal as it relates to College Football. FOX and Delany are in a no lose situation.

ESPN currently controls virtually all the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd tier football and basketball rights to the ACC. They also own all of the 1st tier football rights to the Big 10 and much of their basketball rights (with CBS).  FOX owns none of the Big 10's first tier rights in any major sport. But they ARE a 51% owner of The Big Ten Network, and they want to be a major player in College Sports.

The 43 million dollar figure is simple arithmetic. As I said, the 25 million figure is ROUGHLY what FOX is telling Maryland they can expect as the opening bid in the 1st tier rights bidding war. That war will include basketball rights which will also expire at CBS at the same time ESPN/ABC's contract expires (the BT gets about 1 million per team per year in basketball rights from CBS right now).

The 18 million balance comes from a projected estimated increase of BTN revenue to around 10 million per team by 2017 (this figure is in the contract and is guaranteed but not public as far as I know, does not include additional revenue from the 70/30 profit sharing split), and an estimated 8 million in Conference Championship Game Revenue, Bowl revenue, and 4 team National Championship playoff revenue. You could include the one million in basketball revenue either in the 18 million or the 25 million, but it doesn't really matter. FOX is pretty much telling Maryland that after everything is added up, the opening bid for 1st tier rights from FOX will get the total figure to around 43 million.

FOX knows what schools they want from the ACC, and they know what they'll pay for them. If they can grab a couple of basketball schools like North Carolina and Virginia, to go along with Maryland, not only do they get demographics in those 3 states for the BTN, but that makes ESPN's (ACC) basketball product weaker, and the Big 10's FAR stronger. You can increase that 1 million dollar per team Big 10 basketball rights fee a couple of dollars with the addittions of North Carolina, Maryland, and Virginia. Just look what the Catholic 7 are being offered.

If ESPN wants to keep the Big 10 brand, FOX (and Delany) are in a no lose situation. FOX has basically announced to the world what the opening bid will be. That's what FOX is comfortable with. They know the financials better than we do.

If ESPN (or anyone else) wants to outbid FOX, great!! Delany gets more money, and FOX continues to break ESPN's bank while ESPN is forced to give FOX's Big Ten Network (meaning the Big 10 Conference) free advertising every week.  
  
   


B) Fox has been doing sports channels forever.

not like they wouldn't have liked to have been ESPN a long time ago.

how aggressive they will be in bidding remains to be seen.



C) right now, it seems like they're more interested in gaining teams' rights through assimilation, rather than winning any bidding wars. 

FOX doesn't care if they WIN the bidding war. They only care about starting one. FOX already knows the Big 10 better than any other Network, and they know what they are comfortable paying for its 1st tier rights. If someone wants to outbid them, fine. They've just forced that competing network to pay more money while FOX sits back and gets the free advertising. Meanwhile, they've weakened their (ESPN's) competing product (the ACC) by grabbing 3 of their best basketball brands.

D) if you're talking about Fox being an ESPN level competitor, then your games will all be national broadcasts. as are Disney's, (ABC/ESPN).not local or regional. 

Hmmm, when you use the word "your", do I detect an ACC or ESPN troll?? Naa. Couldn't be. Could it?? 
 

if they were regional, it would be the same as the regional Fox Sports Nets we have now, and have had for yrs.


therefore the more teams you have, the less they are going to pay per team.
(and vice versa).

they will have X number of time slots to fill, and they will be willing to pay X amount to fill them.

how many ways the conference wants to split that amount, is up to the conference.



E) by definition, the more teams one has in it's conference, the less tier 1 and 2 games per team.

tier 1 and 2, you're talking 2 games. whether you have a 10 team league or a 20 team league.

You DO know football games can be played at different times, don't you? The 1st tier rights holder could negotiate the first shot at the 12:00, 3:30, AND a night game if they wanted to. 


F) on the "double box" ad thing, they have done that a lot during the Indy 500 telecasts for several yrs.

works ok i guess for a sport that has zero breaks, but for most sports, i personally don't like it. (just my opinion).

they end up with 2 screens and a lot of buffer, so i end up with 2 tiny screens of which i pay attention to neither.

with the amount of production quality in tv ads these days, were i the advertiser, i'd want the full screen and the viewers undivided attention. (i'm sure Don would back me up on that). bwg

CalBayBuckeye wrote: from the dude:

The Dude of WV ‏ @ theDudeofWV

@ GaddyJames  @ dsbland B1G has reported passed on GT in favor of UNC & UVA.