Before The BEast does anything, we need to get a new commisioner who has football interests at heart. Then continuing to build fanbases is next most important. A network can wait until we have enough fans to demand it.

We have 16 teams. There is more than enough content out there to fill time on a Big East network. Each member school has close to 20 sports. Then there is a gigantic inventory of classic games that could be shown in the offseason. I am not sure how much business sense a Big East Network would make, as a supplement to an expected increase in ESPN coverage, without looking at all of the available data but the programming definitely exists. What we do know is that such a venture is probably at least three or four years away from becoming a reality even if the league office gets started on it tomorrow.

TerryD Wrote:Actually, I would like to see ND and the Big East jointly attempt to partner with networks like NBC and ESPN.

I know that NBC has mostly gotten out of the sports market. It makes money on the ND contract partly due to low production costs. It has everything already set up at one location....Notre Dame Stadium.

That will change somewhat as they begin to televise the neutral site games for ND. So, I don't know if NBC would have any interest in televising any Big East football games as well.

However, if ND/the BE would work together, they might be able to set up a Big East game of the week on NBC along with the ND game.

Are there any existing contractual agreements with ABC or other networks that would eliminate this possibility?

I also think that the Big East could try to get some baseball, softball, etc...games broadcast on ESPN as part of a package along with basketball.

ESPN, as someone said, is already showing a bunch of BE football games on Thursdays and many BE basketball games.

They also televise as many ND away games in prime time as they can.

I think there is some room here for mutual benefit to all.

I will let someone like Neil tell me if this idea has any merit. I am really out of my league when I start to opine about television contracts, markets and things like that.

I just like the idea of these type of partnership agreements between ND, the BE, NBC and ESPN.

I love this idea Terry. Not sure if it can happen. I would hope that when the its time for new contracts that the Big East and new commish could and would pursue this. Hell the SEC has games on ESPN/ABC/ and CBS so why can't the Big East have its game of the week on NBC. I would like to push this a step further Terry and have the game of the week a primetime Saturday game. Again there wouldn't be even a need for a Thursday or Friday game.

Wilkie01 Wrote:

TerryD Wrote:I'd watch Big East football games instead of SEC games down here in Louisiana.

I would also hope to be able to see ND play baseball more often, too.

I never noticed you live in the "Red Stick" before. And they do not play LAX there any more. The French say the Indians did when they named the place.

French explorer Sieur d'Iberville sailed up the Mississippi River from New Orleans noted some red cypress bark trees (either stripped of bark or soaked with blood) that was the actual boundaries for 2 Indian Tribes (Houma and Bayou Goula)...so he called that area/site "Baton Rouge and/ or Le Baton Rouge"...aka Red Stick after the Indian boundaries over looking the river.

I really don't think the Big East is forward thinking enough to form their own TV network.

KnightLight Wrote:French explorer Sieur d'Iberville sailed up the Mississippi River from New Orleans noted some red cypress bark trees (either stripped of bark or soaked with blood) that was the actual boundaries for 2 Indian Tribes (Houma and Bayou Goula)...so he called that area/site "Baton Rouge and/ or Le Baton Rouge"...aka Red Stick after the Indian boundaries over looking the river.

As a former resident of Baton Rouge, I was aware of this story. But thanks for bringing it to the front of my brain. I haven't thought of that in quite a while.

Every once in a while a knock to the noggin' just might be the ticket.

TerryD Wrote:Actually, I would like to see ND and the Big East jointly attempt to partner with networks like NBC and ESPN.

I know that NBC has mostly gotten out of the sports market. It makes money on the ND contract partly due to low production costs. It has everything already set up at one location....Notre Dame Stadium.

That will change somewhat as they begin to televise the neutral site games for ND. So, I don't know if NBC would have any interest in televising any Big East football games as well.

However, if ND/the BE would work together, they might be able to set up a Big East game of the week on NBC along with the ND game.

Are there any existing contractual agreements with ABC or other networks that would eliminate this possibility?

I also think that the Big East could try to get some baseball, softball, etc...games broadcast on ESPN as part of a package along with basketball.

ESPN, as someone said, is already showing a bunch of BE football games on Thursdays and many BE basketball games.

They also televise as many ND away games in prime time as they can.

I think there is some room here for mutual benefit to all.

I will let someone like Neil tell me if this idea has any merit. I am really out of my league when I start to opine about television contracts, markets and things like that.

I just like the idea of these type of partnership agreements between ND, the BE, NBC and ESPN.

I disagree, NBC actually is just very smart about their deals. They picked NFL back up again because of a pretty beneficial rights deal and they cover NHL as well (and will continue to) because they actually don't pay any rights at all. Plus they upped their golf coverage and they will continue to broadcast the Olympics for many years.

They are a player, but not the best partner because they look to make good financial deals for themselves. ESPN and FOX will give BE the most money.

Cardinal Jim:

Thanks for asking about my son, Ryan. He is currently in week five of Marine Corps boot camp.

He had pneumonia for a while during the first couple of weeks of boot camp.

I can't imagine having a fever and being that sick and having to do what he had to do with the DI's kicking his butt. He is a tough kid, though.

This week is "water week", where they get to go into the pool with a pack, rifle, helmet, etc... and see if they can swim or drown. :)

Next week, his platoon goes to Camp Pendelton for three weeks to qualify on the rifle range, etc...

He hopes to graduate from boot camp on 8/15. We will definitely be in San Diego for that.

He starts college on 8/17. Some summer vacation, huh?

Dad is extremely proud, just for the record.

Bit:

When did you live in Baton Rouge? I moved here in August 1983 to attend LSU Law School. The plan was to do my three years of law school and head back to Pittsburgh.

Twenty five years later, I am still here.....

TerryD Wrote:Cardinal Jim:

Thanks for asking about my son, Ryan. He is currently in week five of Marine Corps boot camp.

He had pneumonia for a while during the first couple of weeks of boot camp.

I can't imagine having a fever and being that sick and having to do what he had to do with the DI's kicking his butt. He is a tough kid, though.

This week is "water week", where they get to go into the pool with a pack, rifle, helmet, etc... and see if they can swim or drown. :)

Next week, his platoon goes to Camp Pendelton for three weeks to qualify on the rifle range, etc...

He hopes to graduate from boot camp on 8/15. We will definitely be in San Diego for that.

He starts college on 8/17. Some summer vacation, huh?

Dad is extremely proud, just for the record.

Terry,
You should be proud. There is nothing like a Marine Corp graduation ceremony. When he puts on those dress blue he has earned the right to be called "Marine". Remember once a Marine always a Marine. Thank him for his service.
Jim

PS...
"US Marines: Heaven doesn't want us and Hell's afraid we'll take over"

animus Wrote:

TheLurker Wrote:With the cash that the Big Ten and [albiet relative cash] the MWC are raking in from thier TV networks, I think the Big East should at least consider it. We could always have NBC/ABC/ESPN barter for the rights to some of the bigger games. I'm sure we could get some coverage in New England [namely New York, New Jersey and Conn.] and maybe in some of the seconday markets as well, such as Louisville or Tampa.

Welcome to the board Lurker.

I'll agree to disagree with you Lurker. See the more conferences that get their own networks the more spots on ABC, CBS, Fox and ESPN the Big East will get. I know the Big East don't have a contract with CBS and FOX but who knows what will be available come time for new contracts.

I think it's extremely important to point out that the Big Ten actually increased the number of football games on ABC/ESPN (including national carriage of all football games where an ABC game that isn't shown in a particular market will still be shown on ESPN in such market as opposed to being kicked to the pay-per-view GamePlan) and basketball games on CBS/ESPN in its last contract. The football and basketball games that the BTN took over were the ones that used to be on the syndicated ESPN Plus package. So, the point is that each Big Ten school is making over $6 million per year a piece from the BTN for its second-tier sports events while pulling even more in increased national rights fees and coverage for its premium games (i.e. Michigan-Ohio State). As a result, it's wrong to assume that other conferences creating their own networks will create any more slots on the major networks. The SEC, for example, would likely use the games that have been on Jefferson Pilot/Raycom as the basis for their network (if and when it is created) while keeping the same contracts in place with CBS and ESPN. Once again, we're talking about creating huge sums of cash and exposure for second-tier games that weren't nationally televised before while still retaining the wide exposure on the major networks. It's a massive misnomer to state that there are currenly fewer Big Ten games on ABC/ESPN/CBS as a result of the BTN - it's actually the opposite.

Another point here - I don't know if the Big East can really consider a network until there is 100% stability in its membership ranks. That is, there needs to be a stake in the ground as to whether the football schools will form their own conference or stay with the non-football schools. Until that occurs, a network really isn't practically possible because any split of the Big East would be tough enough already, but just imagine the divorce proceedings if you throw in ownership of a TV network, as well.

That being said, I do think that conference TV networks are going to be the biggest separators between the haves and have-nots in the very near future because the potential cash flows are immense. It has already happened in professional sports where the most valuable teams (outside of the "egalitarian" NFL) are almost all the ones with their own regional TV networks. When you look at the New York Yankees, the biggest pro team of them all, the largest portion of their franchise value isn't their actual product on the field or ticket sales, but the ownership they have in and the fees that they generate from the YES Network. The same can be said for the Red Sox stake in NESN and the Cubs stake in Comcast SportsNet Chicago.

Of course, the prospect of a TV network might end up being a driving force in how the Big East membership will look long-term. For all of the references to the Big East being an East Coast/Northeastern league, it is really a Rust Belt/Appalachian league for football. If you take the non-football schools out of the equation, never mind relative newcomers like Chicago and Milwaukee, but how much value does a Big East TV network have in NYC, Philly, DC and Boston (if you consider Providence a Boston-area team) if the football schools split? How would the economics change when the largest Big East markets end up being Pittsburgh and Cincinnati as opposed to the aforementioned cities? I don't know about you, but if I were the Big East commissioner trying to pitch a TV network to the cable companies, the football members splitting off all of the sudden looks a whole lot less attractive in the scheme of things.

Frank the Tank Wrote:Another point here - I don't know if the Big East can really consider a network until there is 100% stability in its membership ranks. That is, there needs to be a stake in the ground as to whether the football schools will form their own conference or stay with the non-football schools. Until that occurs, a network really isn't practically possible because any split of the Big East would be tough enough already, but just imagine the divorce proceedings if you throw in ownership of a TV network, as well.

That being said, I do think that conference TV networks are going to be the biggest separators between the haves and have-nots in the very near future because the potential cash flows are immense. It has already happened in professional sports where the most valuable teams (outside of the "egalitarian" NFL) are almost all the ones with their own regional TV networks. When you look at the New York Yankees, the biggest pro team of them all, the largest portion of their franchise value isn't their actual product on the field or ticket sales, but the ownership they have in and the fees that they generate from the YES Network. The same can be said for the Red Sox stake in NESN and the Cubs stake in Comcast SportsNet Chicago.

Of course, the prospect of a TV network might end up being a driving force in how the Big East membership will look long-term. For all of the references to the Big East being an East Coast/Northeastern league, it is really a Rust Belt/Appalachian league for football. If you take the non-football schools out of the equation, never mind relative newcomers like Chicago and Milwaukee, but how much value does a Big East TV network have in NYC, Philly, DC and Boston (if you consider Providence a Boston-area team) if the football schools split? How would the economics change when the largest Big East markets end up being Pittsburgh and Cincinnati as opposed to the aforementioned cities? I don't know about you, but if I were the Big East commissioner trying to pitch a TV network to the cable companies, the football members splitting off all of the sudden looks a whole lot less attractive in the scheme of things.

Agree with most of what you said. Rutgers would be the in the NYC television market, so they would be coming with any proposed Big East Network.

mattsarz Wrote:

Frank the Tank Wrote:Another point here - I don't know if the Big East can really consider a network until there is 100% stability in its membership ranks. That is, there needs to be a stake in the ground as to whether the football schools will form their own conference or stay with the non-football schools. Until that occurs, a network really isn't practically possible because any split of the Big East would be tough enough already, but just imagine the divorce proceedings if you throw in ownership of a TV network, as well.

That being said, I do think that conference TV networks are going to be the biggest separators between the haves and have-nots in the very near future because the potential cash flows are immense. It has already happened in professional sports where the most valuable teams (outside of the "egalitarian" NFL) are almost all the ones with their own regional TV networks. When you look at the New York Yankees, the biggest pro team of them all, the largest portion of their franchise value isn't their actual product on the field or ticket sales, but the ownership they have in and the fees that they generate from the YES Network. The same can be said for the Red Sox stake in NESN and the Cubs stake in Comcast SportsNet Chicago.

Of course, the prospect of a TV network might end up being a driving force in how the Big East membership will look long-term. For all of the references to the Big East being an East Coast/Northeastern league, it is really a Rust Belt/Appalachian league for football. If you take the non-football schools out of the equation, never mind relative newcomers like Chicago and Milwaukee, but how much value does a Big East TV network have in NYC, Philly, DC and Boston (if you consider Providence a Boston-area team) if the football schools split? How would the economics change when the largest Big East markets end up being Pittsburgh and Cincinnati as opposed to the aforementioned cities? I don't know about you, but if I were the Big East commissioner trying to pitch a TV network to the cable companies, the football members splitting off all of the sudden looks a whole lot less attractive in the scheme of things.

Agree with most of what you said. Rutgers would be the in the NYC television market, so they would be coming with any proposed Big East Network.

Yeah - as soon as I posted I realized that I hadn't taken into account Rutgers. That being said, Rutgers is located in the NYC market but doesn't really "deliver" it, where they draw a critical mass of viewers year-in and year-out (I'm not just talking about the last couple of years with the front-running New York media). I think that you can argue that Louisville, Pitt, UConn (with Hartford), West Virginia and Syracuse (upstate New York) "deliver" their respective local markets out of the football schools, but the others are pretty tenuous. This is the Big East's biggest obstacle to a successful TV network: its base of schools don't really deliver the largest markets in the same manner as the other BCS conferences do. Now, the Big East could probably do something better than the MWC in terms of getting a deal into place, but the Big East is also dealing with a region of the country (the Northeast) that has the weakest bond to college sports compared to the South, Midwest and West Coast. It also takes a lot more work to break into NYC basic cable (look at the issues that the Yankees had in starting up the YES Network) than any other market because there are already so many regional sports channels - the Big East would likely either have to deal with a premium tier standing there or fairly reduced fees.

TerryD Wrote:Bit:

When did you live in Baton Rouge? I moved here in August 1983 to attend LSU Law School. The plan was to do my three years of law school and head back to Pittsburgh.

Twenty five years later, I am still here.....

You got there about a year after I left. I was working in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska when you moved down for Law School.

I traveled around a good bit until injuries and other associated health issues caught up with me.

Just in case you're interested, I lived in Sherwood Forest. Right off I-12, pretty much right at the exit.

Frank the Tank Wrote:

animus Wrote:

TheLurker Wrote:With the cash that the Big Ten and [albiet relative cash] the MWC are raking in from thier TV networks, I think the Big East should at least consider it. We could always have NBC/ABC/ESPN barter for the rights to some of the bigger games. I'm sure we could get some coverage in New England [namely New York, New Jersey and Conn.] and maybe in some of the seconday markets as well, such as Louisville or Tampa.

Welcome to the board Lurker.

I'll agree to disagree with you Lurker. See the more conferences that get their own networks the more spots on ABC, CBS, Fox and ESPN the Big East will get. I know the Big East don't have a contract with CBS and FOX but who knows what will be available come time for new contracts.

I think it's extremely important to point out that the Big Ten actually increased the number of football games on ABC/ESPN (including national carriage of all football games where an ABC game that isn't shown in a particular market will still be shown on ESPN in such market as opposed to being kicked to the pay-per-view GamePlan) and basketball games on CBS/ESPN in its last contract. The football and basketball games that the BTN took over were the ones that used to be on the syndicated ESPN Plus package. So, the point is that each Big Ten school is making over $6 million per year a piece from the BTN for its second-tier sports events while pulling even more in increased national rights fees and coverage for its premium games (i.e. Michigan-Ohio State). As a result, it's wrong to assume that other conferences creating their own networks will create any more slots on the major networks. The SEC, for example, would likely use the games that have been on Jefferson Pilot/Raycom as the basis for their network (if and when it is created) while keeping the same contracts in place with CBS and ESPN. Once again, we're talking about creating huge sums of cash and exposure for second-tier games that weren't nationally televised before while still retaining the wide exposure on the major networks. It's a massive misnomer to state that there are currenly fewer Big Ten games on ABC/ESPN/CBS as a result of the BTN - it's actually the opposite.

You are correct in that in the beginning the BTN is essentially only taking games that were going to be on ESPN+. However, the ultimate goal of the network and other conference networks is that once they reach the point of cable % as ESPN2 or eventuallly ESPN is to essentially cut out the middleman (ESPN) and just have everything or almost everything broadcast on the BTN. That may take a while and I think that ABC/ESPN has first choice but the Big 10/ABC contract runs to 2016. In that way (and it may take a while) ESPN will have slots open up.

Frank the Tank Wrote:Yeah - as soon as I posted I realized that I hadn't taken into account Rutgers. That being said, Rutgers is located in the NYC market but doesn't really "deliver" it, where they draw a critical mass of viewers year-in and year-out (I'm not just talking about the last couple of years with the front-running New York media). I think that you can argue that Louisville, Pitt, UConn (with Hartford), West Virginia and Syracuse (upstate New York) "deliver" their respective local markets out of the football schools, but the others are pretty tenuous. This is the Big East's biggest obstacle to a successful TV network: its base of schools don't really deliver the largest markets in the same manner as the other BCS conferences do. Now, the Big East could probably do something better than the MWC in terms of getting a deal into place, but the Big East is also dealing with a region of the country (the Northeast) that has the weakest bond to college sports compared to the South, Midwest and West Coast. It also takes a lot more work to break into NYC basic cable (look at the issues that the Yankees had in starting up the YES Network) than any other market because there are already so many regional sports channels - the Big East would likely either have to deal with a premium tier standing there or fairly reduced fees.

Breaking into NYC and other cable markets are going to be dependent on who/if the conference took on a broadcasting partner like the BTN did with Fox. You mentioned the struggles that YES had with Cablevision, but remember that YES was independent and didn't partner with a cable/satellite company and that the Yankees and Cablevision were involved in a lawsuit over the Yankees leaving MSG Network (Cablevision and MSG Network have common ownership).

Sportsnet NY, on the flip side, hasn't had these problems getting on basic cable in NYC as Comcast & Time Warner had equity stakes in the network and when the Mets left FSN NY/MSG, they left within the parameters of the contract and I don't remember the lawsuits flying back and forth. I think, though I'm not positive, that Cablevision did not repeat the same mistakes and had SNY from the start.

The Big Ten will work out the problems for everyone else. The SEC, or another conference won't have any problems, because the Big Ten will have done their suffering for them.

Quote:Yeah - as soon as I posted I realized that I hadn't taken into account Rutgers. That being said, Rutgers is located in the NYC market but doesn't really "deliver" it, where they draw a critical mass of viewers year-in and year-out (I'm not just talking about the last couple of years with the front-running New York media). I think that you can argue that Louisville, Pitt, UConn (with Hartford), West Virginia and Syracuse (upstate New York) "deliver" their respective local markets out of the football schools, but the others are pretty tenuous. This is the Big East's biggest obstacle to a successful TV network: its base of schools don't really deliver the largest markets in the same manner as the other BCS conferences do. Now, the Big East could probably do something better than the MWC in terms of getting a deal into place, but the Big East is also dealing with a region of the country (the Northeast) that has the weakest bond to college sports compared to the South, Midwest and West Coast. It also takes a lot more work to break into NYC basic cable (look at the issues that the Yankees had in starting up the YES Network) than any other market because there are already so many regional sports channels - the Big East would likely either have to deal with a premium tier standing there or fairly reduced fees.

-- I agree that Rutgers football would not deliver NYC, but would deliver Jersey. Remember the RU fan base was big and loud enough to get the NFL network to show the Texas Bowl to viewers who did not normally get that channel. Also, in the fall football would only be a small percentage of the programming (although the most popular). St Johns, Seton Hall fans etc would still have there olympic sports on TV

-- Obviously basketball would be the strenght of the network and would be mostly responsible for getting the channel on in DC/Philly/NYC etc. MASN (I think that this the channel) seems to have really invested in showing G-Town, WVU and BE bball games in the DC/Maryland area. So there must be some demand for it. The big east network should be overflowing with very good men's and women's basketball in the winter/spring. I would hope that would be enough to get the channel on in traditional BE areas.

-- Again, I don't know a lot about this TV stuff like many people here and this is certainly not going to be the money maker that the Big 10 network is....but it could be advantagous in terms of exposure. Again ESPNU seems to do a poor job covering BE olympic sports and does not cover as many households as ESPN/Big East would like.

Maybe we can do better on our own

Jackson

Hoquista Wrote:

Frank the Tank Wrote:

animus Wrote:

TheLurker Wrote:With the cash that the Big Ten and [albiet relative cash] the MWC are raking in from thier TV networks, I think the Big East should at least consider it. We could always have NBC/ABC/ESPN barter for the rights to some of the bigger games. I'm sure we could get some coverage in New England [namely New York, New Jersey and Conn.] and maybe in some of the seconday markets as well, such as Louisville or Tampa.

Welcome to the board Lurker.

I'll agree to disagree with you Lurker. See the more conferences that get their own networks the more spots on ABC, CBS, Fox and ESPN the Big East will get. I know the Big East don't have a contract with CBS and FOX but who knows what will be available come time for new contracts.

I think it's extremely important to point out that the Big Ten actually increased the number of football games on ABC/ESPN (including national carriage of all football games where an ABC game that isn't shown in a particular market will still be shown on ESPN in such market as opposed to being kicked to the pay-per-view GamePlan) and basketball games on CBS/ESPN in its last contract. The football and basketball games that the BTN took over were the ones that used to be on the syndicated ESPN Plus package. So, the point is that each Big Ten school is making over $6 million per year a piece from the BTN for its second-tier sports events while pulling even more in increased national rights fees and coverage for its premium games (i.e. Michigan-Ohio State). As a result, it's wrong to assume that other conferences creating their own networks will create any more slots on the major networks. The SEC, for example, would likely use the games that have been on Jefferson Pilot/Raycom as the basis for their network (if and when it is created) while keeping the same contracts in place with CBS and ESPN. Once again, we're talking about creating huge sums of cash and exposure for second-tier games that weren't nationally televised before while still retaining the wide exposure on the major networks. It's a massive misnomer to state that there are currenly fewer Big Ten games on ABC/ESPN/CBS as a result of the BTN - it's actually the opposite.

You are correct in that in the beginning the BTN is essentially only taking games that were going to be on ESPN+. However, the ultimate goal of the network and other conference networks is that once they reach the point of cable % as ESPN2 or eventuallly ESPN is to essentially cut out the middleman (ESPN) and just have everything or almost everything broadcast on the BTN. That may take a while and I think that ABC/ESPN has first choice but the Big 10/ABC contract runs to 2016. In that way (and it may take a while) ESPN will have slots open up.

Agreed, Hoquista. But that is still ten years away.

What isn't factored into this equation yet is that a lot of the games that ESPN used to show on ESPN+ are being pushed over to ESPNU.

But, because of the BTN, I don't believe any of their games are going to ESPNU. For the SEC and ACC, Raycom is their regional rights owner or the equivalent of ESPN+.

So ESPNU would only have a shot of getting the ACC games that ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/Raycom chose not to televise. And for the SEC, it would be CBS, ESPN Saturday Night, and Raycom. If they get their own network, what games are going to be shown on CBS's new CSN (formerly CSTV)? Not to mention FOX and all of their Regional FOX Sports Networks.

Is there an opportunity for those conferences not strong enough to command their own networks now and for the foreseeable future to partner with ABC/ESPN for ESPNU or with CBS for CSN or with FOX and their Regional Sports affiliates for let's say 20-25% of the profits?

And I believe that carriage of those networks, particularly ESPNU, will increase over the next five years to reach between 50%-60% of all TVHHs. So if a partnership could be worked out, the carriage fees might be raised for TVHHs in the states that "belong" to those conferences, increasing the profit for the network involved as well.

It's not the same as having the BTN, but it's better than nothing. Anyway, I think it's worth at least considering.

Cheers,
Neil