+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: Terrific article by Sports Business Daily (/thread-778598.html)
Pages: 1 2
Terrific article by Sports Business Daily - Nebraskafan - 04-26-2016 04:06 PM
This is a very good article that speaks the truth about the B1G TV deal with FOX and ESPN offer.
ESPN DID want to get B1G rights.
http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2016/04/25/Media/Big-Ten.aspx
RE: Terrific article by Sports Business Daily - Hokie Mark - 04-27-2016 10:25 AM
There is some contradictory information, but it's useful for calculating the true value of this new contract.
Quote:if ESPN’s bid wasn’t competitive for the first package, we’re skeptical that it will be competitive on the second one.- i.e. the author does NOT think ESPN will bid anywhere near $250 million.
Quote:Fox could pay as much as $250 million a year... [or the Big Ten] could try to entice bidders by putting its football championship game in the second package — a move that would lower Fox’s payout.- this indicates that the $250 million bid by Fox apparently includes the CCG.
Also, to get their $35.7 million per school number, they had to divide $500 million by 14... Jim Delaney doesn't work from free... the divisor should've been 15, not 14.
...a more reasonable average TV payout is $400M / 15 = $26.7 million per school per year - still a very good number... [note: add another $8 million/year on top of that for the BTN, which gets the Big Ten to about $35 million per school per year, by my calculations].
for more analysis, click http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2016/04/ridiculous-b1g-propaganda.html
BOTTOM LINE: $35M/year is nothing to sneeze at, and should edge out the SEC for 1st place. However, those $40+ million/year estimates for TV revenue only are very reminiscent of "the Dude of WV" type numbers, IMO!
RE: Terrific article by Sports Business Daily - stever20 - 04-27-2016 10:29 AM
lol. more ACC hope.
About dividing by 15 rather than 14. It's very possible the Big Ten takes out their stuff from other things- a la the Big Ten network.
Also your math skills are pretty poor- last I checked 26.7 million plus 8 million is pretty damn close to 35 million.
RE: Terrific article by Sports Business Daily - domer1978 - 04-27-2016 10:30 AM
(04-27-2016 10:29 AM)stever20 Wrote: lol. more ACC hope.
About dividing by 15 rather than 14. It's very possible the Big Ten takes out their stuff from other things- a la the Big Ten network.
Also your math skills are pretty poor- last I checked 26.7 million plus 8 million is pretty damn close to 35 million.
Lol, as a partial ACC person it reminds me of this
RE: Terrific article by Sports Business Daily - Hokie Mark - 04-27-2016 10:50 AM
(04-27-2016 10:29 AM)stever20 Wrote: lol. more ACC hope.
About dividing by 15 rather than 14. It's very possible the Big Ten takes out their stuff from other things- a la the Big Ten network.
Also your math skills are pretty poor- last I checked 26.7 million plus 8 million is pretty damn close to 35 million.
TIME TO EAT CROW!
Yep, I was looking at a different number... you are correct: $34.7 million/year [I fixed it].
RE: Terrific article by Sports Business Daily - CardinalJim - 04-27-2016 10:55 AM
Unless Delaney is writing you a check for it, the number really doesn't matter. Then again if you get all excited about that kind of thing, maybe you fantasize it; to each his own I guess.
Aside from Ohio State, the rest of the Big Ten, big dollars or not, is not very competitive. Dollars are yet to equate to championships.
Perhaps I speak from a more informed position because I grew up around the boredom that is Big Ten athletics but the conference has always had these advantages. They have done nothing with them except manage to be The SEC's ***** on the field where it matters.
Until they change that, the size of their bank account doesn't matter.
CJ
RE: Terrific article by Sports Business Daily - stever20 - 04-27-2016 11:16 AM
the difference now from before- used to be the difference was like 1-2 million dollars. But when the advantages are like 20 million or more- that makes a HUGE difference.
RE: Terrific article by Sports Business Daily - CardFan1 - 04-27-2016 11:29 AM
It's like anything else . Someone gets a larger contract. Soon it becomes the standard for the next conference to get close too when They come up for bid. Someone is always going to be taking the lead then gradually fall back as the pack catches up just like being in the Daytona 500. A big lead means nothing when the rest of the field catches up to You.
RE: Terrific article by Sports Business Daily - TexanMark - 04-27-2016 11:36 AM
(04-27-2016 11:16 AM)stever20 Wrote: the difference now from before- used to be the difference was like 1-2 million dollars. But when the advantages are like 20 million or more- that makes a HUGE difference.
How many more recruiting lounges can they build? Can Harbaugh fly in 2 jets at the same time? Schools will surely find a way to waste it.
If the B1G schools were smart they would put the excess money into the school's O+M account. Note: I'm not saying put all the excess...just a decent amount after the AD is done with commonsense "Bling" projects.
I don't think it will happen but if ABC/ESPN say cya to the B1G...you might see the tone of these gloating posts change.
RE: Terrific article by Sports Business Daily - stever20 - 04-27-2016 11:48 AM
the big thing that is going to change will be with the coaches. You're going to see assistant coaches salaries sky rocket. More moves like what happened where BC's DC got poached by Michigan.
RE: Terrific article by Sports Business Daily - TexanMark - 04-27-2016 12:04 PM
(04-27-2016 11:48 AM)stever20 Wrote: the big thing that is going to change will be with the coaches. You're going to see assistant coaches salaries sky rocket. More moves like what happened where BC's DC got poached by Michigan.
Good point...the downside is coaches will have to produce almost immediately.
RE: Terrific article by Sports Business Daily - Hokie Mark - 04-27-2016 12:58 PM
(04-27-2016 11:48 AM)stever20 Wrote: the big thing that is going to change will be with the coaches. You're going to see assistant coaches salaries sky rocket. More moves like what happened where BC's DC got poached by Michigan.
Initially it will be a big advantage. Then, as schools throw money at coaches who don't produce, they'll start paying more and more people NOT to coach... ultimately, the disposable [non committed] money will equalize... but until then, yes, it will be an advantage.
Personally, I'd like to see the NCAA invoke a salary cap for spending (by sport). That would do more to ensure a level playing field than all of the recruiting rules they have combined.
RE: Terrific article by Sports Business Daily - stever20 - 04-27-2016 01:01 PM
the thing with assistant coaches- generally speaking if you're a good assistant at 1 place, you're going to be a good assistant anywhere. So there's not going to be as much wasted money as you are making it out to be.....
good luck with a salary cap for spending.
RE: Terrific article by Sports Business Daily - Hokie Mark - 04-27-2016 01:11 PM
(04-27-2016 01:01 PM)stever20 Wrote: the thing with assistant coaches- generally speaking if you're a good assistant at 1 place, you're going to be a good assistant anywhere. So there's not going to be as much wasted money as you are making it out to be.....
good luck with a salary cap for spending.
A salary cap (or spending cap) would be difficult to pass, but may become absolutely necessary at some point. Schools have shown little to no signs of self control!
RE: Terrific article by Sports Business Daily - stever20 - 04-27-2016 01:13 PM
(04-27-2016 01:11 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:but those schools are going to agree to a salary cap?(04-27-2016 01:01 PM)stever20 Wrote: the thing with assistant coaches- generally speaking if you're a good assistant at 1 place, you're going to be a good assistant anywhere. So there's not going to be as much wasted money as you are making it out to be.....
good luck with a salary cap for spending.
A salary cap (or spending cap) would be difficult to pass, but may become absolutely necessary at some point. Schools have shown little to no signs of self control!
Also didn't they try that before with an asst coach salary cap- to only get defeated in court?
Re: RE: Terrific article by Sports Business Daily - shere khan - 04-27-2016 01:19 PM
(04-27-2016 10:55 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: Unless Delaney is writing you a check for it, the number really doesn't matter. Then again if you get all excited about that kind of thing, maybe you fantasize it; to each his own I guess.
Aside from Ohio State, the rest of the Big Ten, big dollars or not, is not very competitive. Dollars are yet to equate to championships.
Perhaps I speak from a more informed position because I grew up around the boredom that is Big Ten athletics but the conference has always had these advantages. They have done nothing with them except manage to be The SEC's ***** on the field where it matters.
Until they change that, the size of their bank account doesn't matter.
CJ
Something about diminishing returns or marginal utility. Not an econ major.
RE: Terrific article by Sports Business Daily - bullet - 04-27-2016 02:09 PM
(04-27-2016 01:13 PM)stever20 Wrote:(04-27-2016 01:11 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:but those schools are going to agree to a salary cap?(04-27-2016 01:01 PM)stever20 Wrote: the thing with assistant coaches- generally speaking if you're a good assistant at 1 place, you're going to be a good assistant anywhere. So there's not going to be as much wasted money as you are making it out to be.....
good luck with a salary cap for spending.
A salary cap (or spending cap) would be difficult to pass, but may become absolutely necessary at some point. Schools have shown little to no signs of self control!
Also didn't they try that before with an asst coach salary cap- to only get defeated in court?
Right. They can't do a salary cap.
RE: Terrific article by Sports Business Daily - domer1978 - 04-27-2016 02:10 PM
Salary cap will never happen....
RE: Terrific article by Sports Business Daily - Hokie Mark - 04-27-2016 02:21 PM
(04-27-2016 02:09 PM)bullet Wrote:(04-27-2016 01:13 PM)stever20 Wrote:(04-27-2016 01:11 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:but those schools are going to agree to a salary cap?(04-27-2016 01:01 PM)stever20 Wrote: the thing with assistant coaches- generally speaking if you're a good assistant at 1 place, you're going to be a good assistant anywhere. So there's not going to be as much wasted money as you are making it out to be.....
good luck with a salary cap for spending.
A salary cap (or spending cap) would be difficult to pass, but may become absolutely necessary at some point. Schools have shown little to no signs of self control!
Also didn't they try that before with an asst coach salary cap- to only get defeated in court?
Right. They can't do a salary cap.
Professional sports teams have salary caps and those have stood up in court...
RE: Terrific article by Sports Business Daily - stever20 - 04-27-2016 02:22 PM
(04-27-2016 02:21 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:(04-27-2016 02:09 PM)bullet Wrote:(04-27-2016 01:13 PM)stever20 Wrote:(04-27-2016 01:11 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:but those schools are going to agree to a salary cap?(04-27-2016 01:01 PM)stever20 Wrote: the thing with assistant coaches- generally speaking if you're a good assistant at 1 place, you're going to be a good assistant anywhere. So there's not going to be as much wasted money as you are making it out to be.....
good luck with a salary cap for spending.
A salary cap (or spending cap) would be difficult to pass, but may become absolutely necessary at some point. Schools have shown little to no signs of self control!
Also didn't they try that before with an asst coach salary cap- to only get defeated in court?
Right. They can't do a salary cap.
Professional sports teams have salary caps and those have stood up in court...
for players. Coaches don't though. It's a pipe dream if you really think there is any chance of a salary cap for coaches.