Sports Business Daily: Fox- Big Ten close to 6 yr 1.5 billion deal for 1/2 Big Ten rights

[rgd213]

25 games for FOX means Network Fox would get 1 game per week for college football weeks and FS1 would get 11 games for the network.

Big Ten Network is going to keep the 3rd tier right games.

ESPN is likely going to pay the 250 million and split with the FOX the good tier 1 games.

While the Big Ten is getting paid they aren't getting as much as they projected and that is why Dennis Dodd rightfully said they are taking a shorter deal to get their rights up for sale again.

How would 35.7 million a school be less than what they expected...that doesn't include Championship games...ticket sales...Big Ten Network pay out ...bowl games...NCAA Tournament games...You mean they were expecting more than 50 million a school?...Geez

 

[Alsacs]

How would 35.7 million a school be less than what they expected...that doesn't include Championship games...ticket sales...Big Ten Network pay out ...bowl games...NCAA Tournament games...You mean they were expecting more than 50 million a school?...Geez

Mayland thought they were going to get mid 40's million per year. Championship game will be included in this 500 million.
Ticket sales are irrelevant.
BTN is still about 3,5 million per year. They have to repay FOX for the original losses.
NCAAT has potential.

Thy were expecting about 45-50 million. They are getting a lot of money but the fact they took a short term deal tells everyone the money wasn't as high as they expected.

 

[HtownOrange]

Mayland thought they were going to get mid 40's million per year. Championship game will be included in this 500 million.
Ticket sales are irrelevant.
BTN is still about 3,5 million per year. They have to repay FOX for the original losses.
NCAAT has potential.

Thy were expecting about 45-50 million. They are getting a lot of money but the fact they took a short term deal tells everyone the money wasn't as high as they expected.

The short term deal may also be a sign that the big players are still trying to figure out the next platform. Too many speculators are "expecting" the B1G to rake in all the cash, because they have for the last decade or so. However, the cord cutters are destroying the very basis of this expectation, which is the guaranteed cable money. Even if the cord cutters (and the cord avoiders - millennium crowd) never exceed 50%, that number is too high for the guaranteed money for basic level cable channels, which will hit sports the hardest as they bring in the most revenue from the cable guarantees at the basic level.

The B1G is not driving this train as many people think, though they will present the "facts" in a light most favorable to themselves. The truth is that the ACCN is not likely to be a cable network, the LHN and the SECN are facing issues (though the SECN will be the least affected). Once the tables turn to people selecting the channels they view and paying for them (whether singularly or in packages or tiers), the people will have gained the upper hand in control (i.e., they get exactly what they want, not every non-sense channel that does not pertain to them). ESPN will not be able to dictate that every person with cable will pay then $5, $6, $7, $8, or $9 per month. The BTN will not get $1.00 for every New Yorker (nor every other state!) which will crush their current business model).

All too often in business, the model is changing and the fools chasing profits fail to see the next profit generating model, and all too often the demise of the very model they are chasing. Trying to apply yesteryear's tactics of the cable network (recall the Big East was the first to do so and that was less than 40 years ago!) while we are witnessing the advent of the new model (over 20% of households have cut the cable already and millennials are simply not getting the cable to begin with!).

It is more likely that ESPN low balled the B1G knowing a few things:

1) The current model is dying a long slow death (we all know that the older generations are not as quick to change, cable will be around a long time and possibly indefinitely)
2) Fox is paying a premium for "up to" 25/50 games. There is no guarantee Fox selects all of these games and the payout is based "per game" not a guarantee of $250MM. Thus if one assumes the general consensus that football is 80% of the deal, Fox is paying $8MM/game average* for football and $1MM/game average for hoops, then Fox may choose to air only 10 football games, equaling $80MM for that year. In short, this may be Fox merely assisting its business partner by over inflating the value of the top level games to garner higher prices knowing the garbage relegated to the BTN is simply not sufficient to entice non-interested viewers (be honest, when was that last time anyone in the B1G watched the Indiana-Illinois football game that was not attached to one of the schools in some way, let alone any of us who couldn't care less about the bottom feeders in another conference). Top level games may worth $5MM-$15MM while midi level may be worth $2MM-$5MM if they can draw the viewers.
3) It remains unresolved how to market games to the cord cutters/avoiders. The potential is still there to make money off of sports fans, but the market will certainly be lessened by how it is marketed as the average person will not be forced to buy "basic" packages that will include useless (the the purchaser) channels. Sports fans may pay higher premiums for sports packages, which may be sufficient to keep the big money in play. Until this is resolved, the people in the know are not going to lay out cash for a dying model.
4) it is still possible that the Fox will pay what each game is worth. Thus, OU-MIchigan may be worth $15MM, while Nebraska-PSU may be worth $10MM, while Wisconsin-MState may be worth $2MM. The actual structure of the deal has not been disclosed. Thus, the potential could be there for the high dollar games, but if team s are not performing, Fox may get a discount on the price.
5) If the alleged average is $250MM/annually, the general method of payouts is to increase annually. Thus, year 1 would be the least valuable, year 2 would yield an increase, etc.
6) The NFL (and the other pro sports to some degree) have seen the value of parity. They know that they have to keep the league competitive to keep viewership and fandom at reasonable levels to keep generating the highest profits. The P5 will have to do the same, though loyalty will ease the burden somewhat, the fact remains that you and I will watch great games that are not involving our teams or conference mates but will not waste a minute watching teams we have zero interest in, especially if there is no impact (i.e. playoffs, seeding) to out team(s).
7) There are probably several more factors that I (a complete outsider to the industry) am unaware of. If I can see these factors, the professionals in the industry surely see more than I do.

The net result is that the landscape is changing, the foundation of the current model is eroding, a new model is taking form but is still difficult to determine what its exact shape will be, the broadcasters have likely been burned too many times with crap games to continue to pay exorbitant premiums for each game without some valuation occurring per game, paying more for teh best games and less for the bottom feeder games.

Thus, the B1G probably is not going to cash in on the big payday they dreamed of nor is their propaganda likely to be as accurate as has been touted to date. Time will tell.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

The short term deal may also be a sign that the big players are still trying to figure out the next platform. Too many speculators are "expecting" the B1G to rake in all the cash, because they have for the last decade or so. However, the cord cutters are destroying the very basis of this expectation, which is the guaranteed cable money. Even if the cord cutters (and the cord avoiders - millennium crowd) never exceed 50%, that number is too high for the guaranteed money for basic level cable channels, which will hit sports the hardest as they bring in the most revenue from the cable guarantees at the basic level.

The B1G is not driving this train as many people think, though they will present the "facts" in a light most favorable to themselves. The truth is that the ACCN is not likely to be a cable network, the LHN and the SECN are facing issues (though the SECN will be the least affected). Once the tables turn to people selecting the channels they view and paying for them (whether singularly or in packages or tiers), the people will have gained the upper hand in control (i.e., they get exactly what they want, not every non-sense channel that does not pertain to them). ESPN will not be able to dictate that every person with cable will pay then $5, $6, $7, $8, or $9 per month. The BTN will not get $1.00 for every New Yorker (nor every other state!) which will crush their current business model).

All too often in business, the model is changing and the fools chasing profits fail to see the next profit generating model, and all too often the demise of the very model they are chasing. Trying to apply yesteryear's tactics of the cable network (recall the Big East was the first to do so and that was less than 40 years ago!) while we are witnessing the advent of the new model (over 20% of households have cut the cable already and millennials are simply not getting the cable to begin with!).

The cord cutters have an impact on cable but not on sports IMO. Sure the BTN won't be able to get $0.80 in state per subscriber but instead they can charge $99 a year per subscriber. So they only need 10% of the current TV households for the BTN to break even. In some states they will make more money. Same with ESPN. I bet they could get $49 a month from most people. For those who don't have cable, they can get the app at the same price. Sports really is subsidizing all these crap channels that no one watches. Those are the ones who are in trouble. As long as sports are in high demand, the money will be there. Although the methods of delivery might change.

 

[Alsacs]

The short term deal may also be a sign that the big players are still trying to figure out the next platform. Too many speculators are "expecting" the B1G to rake in all the cash, because they have for the last decade or so. However, the cord cutters are destroying the very basis of this expectation, which is the guaranteed cable money. Even if the cord cutters (and the cord avoiders - millennium crowd) never exceed 50%, that number is too high for the guaranteed money for basic level cable channels, which will hit sports the hardest as they bring in the most revenue from the cable guarantees at the basic level.

The B1G is not driving this train as many people think, though they will present the "facts" in a light most favorable to themselves. The truth is that the ACCN is not likely to be a cable network, the LHN and the SECN are facing issues (though the SECN will be the least affected). Once the tables turn to people selecting the channels they view and paying for them (whether singularly or in packages or tiers), the people will have gained the upper hand in control (i.e., they get exactly what they want, not every non-sense channel that does not pertain to them). ESPN will not be able to dictate that every person with cable will pay then $5, $6, $7, $8, or $9 per month. The BTN will not get $1.00 for every New Yorker (nor every other state!) which will crush their current business model).

All too often in business, the model is changing and the fools chasing profits fail to see the next profit generating model, and all too often the demise of the very model they are chasing. Trying to apply yesteryear's tactics of the cable network (recall the Big East was the first to do so and that was less than 40 years ago!) while we are witnessing the advent of the new model (over 20% of households have cut the cable already and millennials are simply not getting the cable to begin with!).

It is more likely that ESPN low balled the B1G knowing a few things:

1) The current model is dying a long slow death (we all know that the older generations are not as quick to change, cable will be around a long time and possibly indefinitely)
2) Fox is paying a premium for "up to" 25/50 games. There is no guarantee Fox selects all of these games and the payout is based "per game" not a guarantee of $250MM. Thus if one assumes the general consensus that football is 80% of the deal, Fox is paying $8MM/game average* for football and $1MM/game average for hoops, then Fox may choose to air only 10 football games, equaling $80MM for that year. In short, this may be Fox merely assisting its business partner by over inflating the value of the top level games to garner higher prices knowing the garbage relegated to the BTN is simply not sufficient to entice non-interested viewers (be honest, when was that last time anyone in the B1G watched the Indiana-Illinois football game that was not attached to one of the schools in some way, let alone any of us who couldn't care less about the bottom feeders in another conference). Top level games may worth $5MM-$15MM while midi level may be worth $2MM-$5MM if they can draw the viewers.
3) It remains unresolved how to market games to the cord cutters/avoiders. The potential is still there to make money off of sports fans, but the market will certainly be lessened by how it is marketed as the average person will not be forced to buy "basic" packages that will include useless (the the purchaser) channels. Sports fans may pay higher premiums for sports packages, which may be sufficient to keep the big money in play. Until this is resolved, the people in the know are not going to lay out cash for a dying model.
4) it is still possible that the Fox will pay what each game is worth. Thus, OU-MIchigan may be worth $15MM, while Nebraska-PSU may be worth $10MM, while Wisconsin-MState may be worth $2MM. The actual structure of the deal has not been disclosed. Thus, the potential could be there for the high dollar games, but if team s are not performing, Fox may get a discount on the price.
5) If the alleged average is $250MM/annually, the general method of payouts is to increase annually. Thus, year 1 would be the least valuable, year 2 would yield an increase, etc.
6) The NFL (and the other pro sports to some degree) have seen the value of parity. They know that they have to keep the league competitive to keep viewership and fandom at reasonable levels to keep generating the highest profits. The P5 will have to do the same, though loyalty will ease the burden somewhat, the fact remains that you and I will watch great games that are not involving our teams or conference mates but will not waste a minute watching teams we have zero interest in, especially if there is no impact (i.e. playoffs, seeding) to out team(s).
7) There are probably several more factors that I (a complete outsider to the industry) am unaware of. If I can see these factors, the professionals in the industry surely see more than I do.

The net result is that the landscape is changing, the foundation of the current model is eroding, a new model is taking form but is still difficult to determine what its exact shape will be, the broadcasters have likely been burned too many times with crap games to continue to pay exorbitant premiums for each game without some valuation occurring per game, paying more for teh best games and less for the bottom feeder games.

Thus, the B1G probably is not going to cash in on the big payday they dreamed of nor is their propaganda likely to be as accurate as has been touted to date. Time will tell.

I don't have the time to break all this down. I do think FOX will get good games. I also agree the Big Ten propaganda overblows their power but I will say the conference will be 1 or 2 in annual revenue.
BTN will not be this huge cashcow the more cord cutters increase. It will give the teams a couple of million dollars each year which is nice but not this huge difference.
Big Ten will get paid but the revenue won't be this double what the ACC/Big XII/Pac-12 myth they try to make fact.

 

[SU2NASA]

The short term deal may also be a sign that the big players are still trying to figure out the next platform. Too many speculators are "expecting" the B1G to rake in all the cash, because they have for the last decade or so. However, the cord cutters are destroying the very basis of this expectation, which is the guaranteed cable money. Even if the cord cutters (and the cord avoiders - millennium crowd) never exceed 50%, that number is too high for the guaranteed money for basic level cable channels, which will hit sports the hardest as they bring in the most revenue from the cable guarantees at the basic level.

The B1G is not driving this train as many people think, though they will present the "facts" in a light most favorable to themselves. The truth is that the ACCN is not likely to be a cable network, the LHN and the SECN are facing issues (though the SECN will be the least affected). Once the tables turn to people selecting the channels they view and paying for them (whether singularly or in packages or tiers), the people will have gained the upper hand in control (i.e., they get exactly what they want, not every non-sense channel that does not pertain to them). ESPN will not be able to dictate that every person with cable will pay then $5, $6, $7, $8, or $9 per month. The BTN will not get $1.00 for every New Yorker (nor every other state!) which will crush their current business model).

All too often in business, the model is changing and the fools chasing profits fail to see the next profit generating model, and all too often the demise of the very model they are chasing. Trying to apply yesteryear's tactics of the cable network (recall the Big East was the first to do so and that was less than 40 years ago!) while we are witnessing the advent of the new model (over 20% of households have cut the cable already and millennials are simply not getting the cable to begin with!).

It is more likely that ESPN low balled the B1G knowing a few things:

1) The current model is dying a long slow death (we all know that the older generations are not as quick to change, cable will be around a long time and possibly indefinitely)
2) Fox is paying a premium for "up to" 25/50 games. There is no guarantee Fox selects all of these games and the payout is based "per game" not a guarantee of $250MM. Thus if one assumes the general consensus that football is 80% of the deal, Fox is paying $8MM/game average* for football and $1MM/game average for hoops, then Fox may choose to air only 10 football games, equaling $80MM for that year. In short, this may be Fox merely assisting its business partner by over inflating the value of the top level games to garner higher prices knowing the garbage relegated to the BTN is simply not sufficient to entice non-interested viewers (be honest, when was that last time anyone in the B1G watched the Indiana-Illinois football game that was not attached to one of the schools in some way, let alone any of us who couldn't care less about the bottom feeders in another conference). Top level games may worth $5MM-$15MM while midi level may be worth $2MM-$5MM if they can draw the viewers.
3) It remains unresolved how to market games to the cord cutters/avoiders. The potential is still there to make money off of sports fans, but the market will certainly be lessened by how it is marketed as the average person will not be forced to buy "basic" packages that will include useless (the the purchaser) channels. Sports fans may pay higher premiums for sports packages, which may be sufficient to keep the big money in play. Until this is resolved, the people in the know are not going to lay out cash for a dying model.
4) it is still possible that the Fox will pay what each game is worth. Thus, OU-MIchigan may be worth $15MM, while Nebraska-PSU may be worth $10MM, while Wisconsin-MState may be worth $2MM. The actual structure of the deal has not been disclosed. Thus, the potential could be there for the high dollar games, but if team s are not performing, Fox may get a discount on the price.
5) If the alleged average is $250MM/annually, the general method of payouts is to increase annually. Thus, year 1 would be the least valuable, year 2 would yield an increase, etc.
6) The NFL (and the other pro sports to some degree) have seen the value of parity. They know that they have to keep the league competitive to keep viewership and fandom at reasonable levels to keep generating the highest profits. The P5 will have to do the same, though loyalty will ease the burden somewhat, the fact remains that you and I will watch great games that are not involving our teams or conference mates but will not waste a minute watching teams we have zero interest in, especially if there is no impact (i.e. playoffs, seeding) to out team(s).
7) There are probably several more factors that I (a complete outsider to the industry) am unaware of. If I can see these factors, the professionals in the industry surely see more than I do.

The net result is that the landscape is changing, the foundation of the current model is eroding, a new model is taking form but is still difficult to determine what its exact shape will be, the broadcasters have likely been burned too many times with crap games to continue to pay exorbitant premiums for each game without some valuation occurring per game, paying more for teh best games and less for the bottom feeder games.

Thus, the B1G probably is not going to cash in on the big payday they dreamed of nor is their propaganda likely to be as accurate as has been touted to date. Time will tell.

Fox bidding for the B1G reeks of the overpaying they did years ago to steal the NFC content from CBS. ESPN is hemorrhaging subscribers and they're in dire need to tightening their purse strings. The B1G is a bubble that's going to burst. BTN is built upon forcing subscribers to pay for it as part of their basic sports package. Once you take away those subscribers when they cut the cord, the BTN's business case starts falling apart. The dynamics of the B1G's media deals are going to be in a vastly different position 6 years from now.

And as a fan of a B1G team, I'm not sure I'd pay for BTN if we ever cut the cord.

 

[HtownOrange]

The cord cutters have an impact on cable but not on sports IMO. Sure the BTN won't be able to get $0.80 in state per subscriber but instead they can charge $99 a year per subscriber. So they only need 10% of the current TV households for the BTN to break even. In some states they will make more money. Same with ESPN. I bet they could get $49 a month from most people. For those who don't have cable, they can get the app at the same price. Sports really is subsidizing all these crap channels that no one watches. Those are the ones who are in trouble. As long as sports are in high demand, the money will be there. Although the methods of delivery might change.

The key is that the B1G will not be able to force everyone tonsubsidize them. Sure, they will carry the Midwestern States but they will not get New York and New Jersy nor much of the East coast to support the BTN. Florida will supply the reirees but the state will not be forced to pay for the BTN. The B1G is being overly optimistic in their speculations that everyone cares about B1G sports. Sports fans care about their teams, not every team. As a Giants fan, I would not pay for Chiefs games, I might watch a Chiefs game if it was available, but I would not pay for it. As a Syracuse/ACC fan, I would not pay for the BTN, though I enjoy following Michigan and tOSU (in my defense, I was stationed in Ohio and observed the rivalry first hand, it's amusing as I have nothing at stake in the rivalry).

 

[HtownOrange]

I don't have the time to break all this down. I do think FOX will get good games. I also agree the Big Ten propaganda overblows their power but I will say the conference will be 1 or 2 in annual revenue.
BTN will not be this huge cashcow the more cord cutters increase. It will give the teams a couple of million dollars each year which is nice but not this huge difference.
Big Ten will get paid but the revenue won't be this double what the ACC/Big XII/Pac-12 myth they try to make fact.

Fox will get the great games, they are paying for them. They do not have to buy 25 games yearly.

I agree that for the near future, at least ten years or so, the BTN will be a revenue leader.

 

[HtownOrange]

Fox bidding for the B1G reeks of the overpaying they did years ago to steal the NFC content from CBS. ESPN is hemorrhaging subscribers and they're in dire need to tightening their purse strings. The B1G is a bubble that's going to burst. BTN is built upon forcing subscribers to pay for it as part of their basic sports package. Once you take away those subscribers when they cut the cord, the BTN's business case starts falling apart. The dynamics of the B1G's media deals are going to be in a vastly different position 6 years from now.

And as a fan of a B1G team, I'm not sure I'd pay for BTN if we ever cut the cord.

It does seem a little desperate. In this instance, Fox at least has to protect its interest in the BTN. (For a conspiracy debate, is Fox pricing B1G games too high to force better games to the BTN?).

 

[DoctorBombay]

Regardless of how the numbers or changing circumstances might affect CFB & realignment- I'd much prefer to have Delaney negotiating than Swofford.
The B1G has a great advantage from the start because of their leadership. Let's hope Delaney doesn't look to expand because those numbers would be very tempting to most programs.

 

[Alsacs]

Regardless of how the numbers or changing circumstances might affect CFB & realignment- I'd much prefer to have Delaney negotiating than Swofford.
The B1G has a great advantage from the start because of their leadership. Let's hope Delaney doesn't look to expand because those numbers would be very tempting to most programs.

Jim Delany is 68 years old I don't see him negotiating the next deal in 5 years. He has to be near retirement.

 

[TheCusian]

The short term deal may also be a sign that the big players are still trying to figure out the next platform. Too many speculators are "expecting" the B1G to rake in all the cash, because they have for the last decade or so. However, the cord cutters are destroying the very basis of this expectation, which is the guaranteed cable money. Even if the cord cutters (and the cord avoiders - millennium crowd) never exceed 50%, that number is too high for the guaranteed money for basic level cable channels, which will hit sports the hardest as they bring in the most revenue from the cable guarantees at the basic level. The B1G is not driving this train as many people think, though they will present the "facts" in a light most favorable to themselves. The truth is that the ACCN is not likely to be a cable network, the LHN and the SECN are facing issues (though the SECN will be the least affected). Once the tables turn to people selecting the channels they view and paying for them (whether singularly or in packages or tiers), the people will have gained the upper hand in control (i.e., they get exactly what they want, not every non-sense channel that does not pertain to them). ESPN will not be able to dictate that every person with cable will pay then $5, $6, $7, $8, or $9 per month. The BTN will not get $1.00 for every New Yorker (nor every other state!) which will crush their current business model). All too often in business, the model is changing and the fools chasing profits fail to see the next profit generating model, and all too often the demise of the very model they are chasing. Trying to apply yesteryear's tactics of the cable network (recall the Big East was the first to do so and that was less than 40 years ago!) while we are witnessing the advent of the new model (over 20% of households have cut the cable already and millennials are simply not getting the cable to begin with!). It is more likely that ESPN low balled the B1G knowing a few things: 1) The current model is dying a long slow death (we all know that the older generations are not as quick to change, cable will be around a long time and possibly indefinitely) 2) Fox is paying a premium for "up to" 25/50 games. There is no guarantee Fox selects all of these games and the payout is based "per game" not a guarantee of $250MM. Thus if one assumes the general consensus that football is 80% of the deal, Fox is paying $8MM/game average* for football and $1MM/game average for hoops, then Fox may choose to air only 10 football games, equaling $80MM for that year. In short, this may be Fox merely assisting its business partner by over inflating the value of the top level games to garner higher prices knowing the garbage relegated to the BTN is simply not sufficient to entice non-interested viewers (be honest, when was that last time anyone in the B1G watched the Indiana-Illinois football game that was not attached to one of the schools in some way, let alone any of us who couldn't care less about the bottom feeders in another conference). Top level games may worth $5MM-$15MM while midi level may be worth $2MM-$5MM if they can draw the viewers. 3) It remains unresolved how to market games to the cord cutters/avoiders. The potential is still there to make money off of sports fans, but the market will certainly be lessened by how it is marketed as the average person will not be forced to buy "basic" packages that will include useless (the the purchaser) channels. Sports fans may pay higher premiums for sports packages, which may be sufficient to keep the big money in play. Until this is resolved, the people in the know are not going to lay out cash for a dying model. 4) it is still possible that the Fox will pay what each game is worth. Thus, OU-MIchigan may be worth $15MM, while Nebraska-PSU may be worth $10MM, while Wisconsin-MState may be worth $2MM. The actual structure of the deal has not been disclosed. Thus, the potential could be there for the high dollar games, but if team s are not performing, Fox may get a discount on the price. 5) If the alleged average is $250MM/annually, the general method of payouts is to increase annually. Thus, year 1 would be the least valuable, year 2 would yield an increase, etc. 6) The NFL (and the other pro sports to some degree) have seen the value of parity. They know that they have to keep the league competitive to keep viewership and fandom at reasonable levels to keep generating the highest profits. The P5 will have to do the same, though loyalty will ease the burden somewhat, the fact remains that you and I will watch great games that are not involving our teams or conference mates but will not waste a minute watching teams we have zero interest in, especially if there is no impact (i.e. playoffs, seeding) to out team(s). 7) There are probably several more factors that I (a complete outsider to the industry) am unaware of. If I can see these factors, the professionals in the industry surely see more than I do. The net result is that the landscape is changing, the foundation of the current model is eroding, a new model is taking form but is still difficult to determine what its exact shape will be, the broadcasters have likely been burned too many times with crap games to continue to pay exorbitant premiums for each game without some valuation occurring per game, paying more for teh best games and less for the bottom feeder games. Thus, the B1G probably is not going to cash in on the big payday they dreamed of nor is their propaganda likely to be as accurate as has been touted to date. Time will tell.

Don't forget the BTN will have to pay people to watch Rutgers games. That's a drag ... on the bottom line.

 

[DoctorBombay]

Jim Delany is 68 years old I don't see him negotiating the next deal in 5 years. He has to be near retirement.

True- but who's to say he wouldn't want to go out w/ a splash, ie; Pick up a coupla extra teams thru CR? Not saying it'll happen, and your scenario seems more likely, but the B1G having him as Commish gives them a leg up on everyone else. He's been 2 steps ahead of every other commish so far.

 

[SU2NASA]

Don't forget the BTN will have to pay people to watch Rutgers games. That's a drag ... on the bottom line.

Watch? The Rutgers fans will just leave their TVs on.

 

[TexanMark]

Ok the latest from Sports Business Daily.

h/t: MadisonHawk from CSNBBS.com

This week's edition of Sports Business Journal has a column on the Big Ten negotiations. You can read the entire article here (subscription may be required), but here is a summary of major items.

1. ESPN's offer was significantly lower than Fox's.

2. ESPN tried to carve out a smaller deal that would "create a smaller package with the best games"

3. ESPN has reached out to the B1G to negotiate on the second package but John Ourand and Michael Smith (who are closer to the negotiations and dynamics than any other media persons) are skeptical ESPN will pay enough.

4. NBC has been in negotiations with the B1G, but NBC has historically focused on rights where it has exclusivity (e.g. Olympics, hockey).

5. CBS and Turner could team up as both networks want B1G basketball and CBS could use the B1G to create a double-header with the SEC.

6. Fox may also bid on the second package but at a much lower price as it already has at least some of the premium content it was seeking.

7. The deal is important to Fox as it "narrows the gap" with ESPN on college sports.

 

[Orangello]

Don't forget the BTN will have to pay people to watch Rutgers games. That's a drag ... on the bottom line.

There is going to be some serious coin needed for that. I understand that the CIA has found that continuous exposure to Rutgers sporting events is ten times more effective then waterboarding.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Ok the latest from Sports Business Daily.

h/t: MadisonHawk from CSNBBS.com

This week's edition of Sports Business Journal has a column on the Big Ten negotiations. You can read the entire article here (subscription may be required), but here is a summary of major items.

1. ESPN's offer was significantly lower than Fox's.

2. ESPN tried to carve out a smaller deal that would "create a smaller package with the best games"

3. ESPN has reached out to the B1G to negotiate on the second package but John Ourand and Michael Smith (who are closer to the negotiations and dynamics than any other media persons) are skeptical ESPN will pay enough.

4. NBC has been in negotiations with the B1G, but NBC has historically focused on rights where it has exclusivity (e.g. Olympics, hockey).

5. CBS and Turner could team up as both networks want B1G basketball and CBS could use the B1G to create a double-header with the SEC.

6. Fox may also bid on the second package but at a much lower price as it already has at least some of the premium content it was seeking.

7. The deal is important to Fox as it "narrows the gap" with ESPN on college sports.

I know this is too simplistic and would never happened but it would be nice if every conference had their own network for T3 games and each of the major networks each had one conference. Since Fox owns half of the BTN they could take that conference T1 & T2. ABC/ESPN with the SECN can take that conference. Since NBC has ND football they can take the ACC's T1 & T2. Then the B12 for CBS. I guess the P12 could go to ESPN since they actually have three cable channels that they need to fill with content.

 

[TexanMark]

BTW, Hokie Club Meeting via CSNBBS stated the expectation is an ACC Network announcement is coming soon and broadcasting to begin this year. It might be safe for Arbs to come back.

http://chat.virginiatech.sportswar.com/mid/7620951/board/vtrealignment/

Edit...sorry didn't see Cuseroc's thread of same info.

 

[SU2NASA]

BTW, Hokie Club Meeting via CSNBBS stated the expectation is an ACC Network announcement is coming soon and broadcasting to begin this year. It might be safe for Arbs to come back.

http://chat.virginiatech.sportswar.com/mid/7620951/board/vtrealignment/

Edit...sorry didn't see Cuseroc's thread of same info.

I'm surprised that he was beaten to the punch. I would have expected him to have reposted that as his own inside information already.

 

[Alsacs]

If ESPN won't pony up the money for the Big Ten then Delany's gamble of waiting will have short term blown up in his face. ESPN knows it can't destabilize the ACC by making the gap too large. If the Big Ten is making 5-10 million per year more that doesn't kill the market. The fact I hate ESPN makes this a situation I honestly don't care about.

The Big Ten will likely want a portion of its games on ESPN or that will hurt exposure. FOX paying \the 250 million makes sense because they want the content and need it. I bet they will demand good games as well. ESPN will likely give the Big Ten its max number and the Big Ten will have a decision. Take a little less for ESPN exposure or go for only the highest bidders.

 

[sutomcat]

Article from Awful Announcing speculating why ESPN is not being more aggressive bidding for B1G rights.

Could the Tirico to NBC move be related to this? Could NBC be positioning themselves to expand their coverage of college football greatly?

Regardless, I think the initiation reaction of many to the news of the pending B1G-Fox deal was wrong. The B1G is going to make out well but it isn't getting a huge pot of gold with this round of negotiations.

Linkage

 

[Alsacs]

Article from Awful Announcing speculating why ESPN is not being more aggressive bidding for B1G rights.

Could the Tirico to NBC move be related to this? Could NBC be positioning themselves to expand their coverage of college football greatly?

Regardless, I think the initiation reaction of many to the news of the pending B1G-Fox deal was wrong. The B1G is going to make out well but it isn't getting a huge pot of gold with this round of negotiations.

Linkage

Tirico lives in Ann Arbor and did the Big Ten Super Tuesday college basketball games the last 5 years. So he does have an appetite for the Big Ten.

I don't see NBC paying for the Big Ten though. If ESPN wouldn't it is doubtful NBC/NBCSN would pay the amount FOX did. I think the Big Ten will get a little more from ESPN and take their deal to keep ESPN exposure for the Big Ten coaches.

I will say times are changing and ESPN is really going downhill. Tirico will get TNF, Golf, Ryder Cup, Olympics that isn't bad. If NBC stepped up for the Big Ten he would be their obvious lead voice but I have heard Al Michaels is going to retire after Super Bowl 52.

 

[upperdeck]

cord cutters may want to take notice of all this. nbc buys the rights to more and puts it on its other networks like its doing with hockey now. espn has its spread over 3-4 chanels. fox puts it on fs1 and other channels. Cbs spreads its out over cbs/tnt/tbs already. B10 has its own stuff as well.

 

[Whitey23]

 

[Alsacs]

This is the key. The Big Ten is likely going to get 500 million per year. If 250 for half is the overpay part. I don't think the Big ten will average 44.5m per year.

Recent reports indicate that Big Ten schools are projecting $44.5 million in annual revenue by the first year of the new TV contract (2017-18) for 12 of its 14 schools. Maryland and Rutgers aren’t fully vested until they’ve been in the conference six years. The majority of that revenue will come from the league’s media contracts. The Big Ten Network pays $8 million per school annually. If the new deal eventually reaches $500 million per year, as Commissioner Jim Delany has sought, that would average $35.7 million per school once all of the schools are able to take a full share. Combined with the BTN revenue, the Big Ten’s annual revenue would reach a whopping $44 million per school.