(04-27-2014 09:59 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 09:19 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  A 9th game likely doesn't add overall inventory (actually it will probably take away a little), but it does add conference games which are more valuable for TV than the games lost.

Basically, you figure, one of three models were going to be used by the teams in 8 conference games remained.
1. 4 games against one and done opponents (increasingly rare, but still happened)
2. 3 games against one and done opponents and one home and home vs. a power conference team or higher Group of 5
3. 2 games against one and done opponents and two home and home vs. power conference teams

There is a little variation in this (say a 2 for 1 with some of the G5 teams), but that's the basic models. Those models will likely switch to:

1. 1 extra conference game, 3 games against one and dones
2. 1 extra conference game, 1 games against one and dones, 1 home and home
3. 1 extra conference game, 1 games against one and dones, 1 home and home

Basically the only time TV is likely loosing a game between two power conferences it is replacing it with a conference game and at worst that's probably usually a wash (option 3). In the other two set-ups, TV is usually gaining a better match-up. While this sacrifices a few one and done games, most those were airing at the same time on the Big Ten Network anyway meaning little TV loss.

That said, the bigger losses are in a) home game stadium revenue, b) schedule flexibility (Iowa with Iowa State and Michigan State with Notre Dame especially).

a) A one and done (if a team would have originally planning 1 home and home out of conference and 3 home only over a 2 year period, it will now likely drop one of the one and dones).
b) A secondary home and home (if a team was planning two home and home games and 2 home only games, then one of the home and home will likely be dropped, most likely the lesser profile ones).

You are severely understating the number of variants of option 3, and my gut tells me that those variants represent the overwhelming majority of P5 teams' scheduling philosophies.

Have you really looked at schedules outside the ACC? Few outside the ACC actually play 10 P5 games per year (whether that's 8+2 or 9+2). Still seeing too many 8+1 (some 8+none) and 9+nobody.

(04-28-2014 09:24 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 09:59 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 09:19 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  A 9th game likely doesn't add overall inventory (actually it will probably take away a little), but it does add conference games which are more valuable for TV than the games lost.

Basically, you figure, one of three models were going to be used by the teams in 8 conference games remained.
1. 4 games against one and done opponents (increasingly rare, but still happened)
2. 3 games against one and done opponents and one home and home vs. a power conference team or higher Group of 5
3. 2 games against one and done opponents and two home and home vs. power conference teams

There is a little variation in this (say a 2 for 1 with some of the G5 teams), but that's the basic models. Those models will likely switch to:

1. 1 extra conference game, 3 games against one and dones
2. 1 extra conference game, 1 games against one and dones, 1 home and home
3. 1 extra conference game, 1 games against one and dones, 1 home and home

Basically the only time TV is likely loosing a game between two power conferences it is replacing it with a conference game and at worst that's probably usually a wash (option 3). In the other two set-ups, TV is usually gaining a better match-up. While this sacrifices a few one and done games, most those were airing at the same time on the Big Ten Network anyway meaning little TV loss.

That said, the bigger losses are in a) home game stadium revenue, b) schedule flexibility (Iowa with Iowa State and Michigan State with Notre Dame especially).

a) A one and done (if a team would have originally planning 1 home and home out of conference and 3 home only over a 2 year period, it will now likely drop one of the one and dones).
b) A secondary home and home (if a team was planning two home and home games and 2 home only games, then one of the home and home will likely be dropped, most likely the lesser profile ones).

You are severely understating the number of variants of option 3, and my gut tells me that those variants represent the overwhelming majority of P5 teams' scheduling philosophies.

Have you really looked at schedules outside the ACC? Few outside the ACC actually play 10 P5 games per year (whether that's 8+2 or 9+2). Still seeing too many 8+1 (some 8+none) and 9+nobody.

Well to answer your question, like I said in my post, I was going w my gut. I didn't really look at anyone's schedule in particular.

It's worth noting, though, that there aren't really that many schools outside the ACC that play 8 conference games.

I will say that off the top of my head, the UVA v Oregon, UVA v BYU, VT v Alabama, SU v PSU, SU v NW, Clemson v UGA games go away with a nine game schedule, pending who that team gets in the 9th game (Clemson's would go away anyway). I don't see that improving TV quality. I do, however, see it breaking even in most cases.

Like I said earlier, I'm just going a my gut. If you have any analysis I will gladly read it and change my opinion accordingly.

(04-27-2014 10:45 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 08:41 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(04-26-2014 01:12 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(04-26-2014 12:10 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(04-26-2014 11:52 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  I wonder how many will read the article and think the $44.5 million is just TV money and does not include Bowl, Playoff, and NCAA revenues?

I can hear the Dude explosion now!

Lol...oh so true...

Kooks: "UVA and UNC to the Big Ten! VT and NCSU to the SEC! FSU and Clemson to the B12!"

$100 million more per team! Tier 3 gazillions! CIC galactotrillions! WVU and Baylor on top of the world!

Hang tight -- I'm sure our resident Clemson and FSU kooks will be along to sing that chorus in 3-part harmony.

Nah! To be fair they tend to stay away from the full-blown kook nonsense mainly because it hurts too much to admit that the SEC would now want VT and either UNC or NCST more than their schools.

Of course, they do have legitimate concerns about both Florida and South Carolina getting too far out in front of them. I mean, it's not like the rest of us having any such concerns, you know, like Pitt has no need to be worried about PSU or SU to be worried about Rutgers, etc.

Cheers,
Neil

As for the Cardinals, our in-state rival continues to cash SEC welfare checks every year. We hope they don't one day stumble into a plan to use those resources.

Kentucky
-Two SEC wins or fewer in 9 of the last 13 seasons
-Record of 1-13 in last 14 vs South Carolina
-Record of 2-15 in last 17 vs Georgia
-Record of 1-28 in last 29 vs Tennessee
-27 game losing streak to Florida (Last win in 1986)
-Last SEC title in 1976
-Last time above .500 in conference play- 1977

(04-28-2014 06:34 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  As for the Cardinals, our in-state rival continues to cash SEC welfare checks every year. We hope they don't one day stumble into a plan to use those resources.

Kentucky
-Two SEC wins or fewer in 9 of the last 13 seasons
-Record of 1-13 in last 14 vs South Carolina
-Record of 2-15 in last 17 vs Georgia
-Record of 1-28 in last 29 vs Tennessee
-27 game losing streak to Florida (Last win in 1986)
-Last SEC title in 1976
-Last time above .500 in conference play- 1977

or another way of putting it, Louisville has as many sec wins the last 4 years as kentucky does.

I wrote this back in December re: Big Ten. There's a few moving parts to consider for FOX to make a bid to match ESPN. There's also the matter of the Big Ten actually making it to the open market.

Whether we like it or not, and I don't watch a lot of Big Ten sports, they're in a lot of major markets. Whether you think Rutgers controls NYC (I don't), the city counts sizable alumni chapters. There's a lot of people who do watch their sports, regardless of what you might think of the quality of play.

http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2013/...g-ten.html

(04-29-2014 10:35 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  I wrote this back in December re: Big Ten. There's a few moving parts to consider for FOX to make a bid to match ESPN. There's also the matter of the Big Ten actually making it to the open market.

Whether we like it or not, and I don't watch a lot of Big Ten sports, they're in a lot of major markets. Whether you think Rutgers controls NYC (I don't), the city counts sizable alumni chapters. There's a lot of people who do watch their sports, regardless of what you might think of the quality of play.

http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2013/...g-ten.html

How have the parts changed since your insightful Dec. post? I've been finding a lot of discussion along these lines:

http://www.cornnation.com/2014/4/30/5665...an-cash-in

There is not a way for the B1G to wait until they go to open market is there?

(05-06-2014 02:25 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:35 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  I wrote this back in December re: Big Ten. There's a few moving parts to consider for FOX to make a bid to match ESPN. There's also the matter of the Big Ten actually making it to the open market.

Whether we like it or not, and I don't watch a lot of Big Ten sports, they're in a lot of major markets. Whether you think Rutgers controls NYC (I don't), the city counts sizable alumni chapters. There's a lot of people who do watch their sports, regardless of what you might think of the quality of play.

http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2013/...g-ten.html

How have the parts changed since your insightful Dec. post? I've been finding a lot of discussion along these lines:

http://www.cornnation.com/2014/4/30/5665...an-cash-in

There is not a way for the B1G to wait until they go to open market is there?

Nice find Dasville. It would be funny if the bubble did actually drop and the Big were to get very little increase in their tv deal.
On the other hand, I have been seriously thinking of getting rid of cable and going the Roku route and watch the Netflix and Hulus of the world. If there is a Syracuse game that I want to see, I would go to a local sports bar to watch or go to the game. I am sick of high cable bills and Time Warner and their yearly increases.

(05-06-2014 03:10 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 02:25 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:35 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  I wrote this back in December re: Big Ten. There's a few moving parts to consider for FOX to make a bid to match ESPN. There's also the matter of the Big Ten actually making it to the open market.

Whether we like it or not, and I don't watch a lot of Big Ten sports, they're in a lot of major markets. Whether you think Rutgers controls NYC (I don't), the city counts sizable alumni chapters. There's a lot of people who do watch their sports, regardless of what you might think of the quality of play.

http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2013/...g-ten.html

How have the parts changed since your insightful Dec. post? I've been finding a lot of discussion along these lines:

http://www.cornnation.com/2014/4/30/5665...an-cash-in

There is not a way for the B1G to wait until they go to open market is there?

Nice find Dasville. It would be funny if the bubble did actually drop and the Big were to get very little increase in their tv deal.
On the other hand, I have been seriously thinking of getting rid of cable and going the Roku route and watch the Netflix and Hulus of the world. If there is a Syracuse game that I want to see, I would go to a local sports bar to watch or go to the game. I am sick of high cable bills and Time Warner and their yearly increases.

Cuseroc call me tonight...I can tell you a few strategies Roku3 and TWC.

(05-06-2014 02:25 PM)Dasville Wrote:  How have the parts changed since your insightful Dec. post? I've been finding a lot of discussion along these lines:

http://www.cornnation.com/2014/4/30/5665...an-cash-in

There is not a way for the B1G to wait until they go to open market is there?

That article has truth to it. Since then we've seen the Dish Network-Disney deal that includes some form of IPTV possibilities for Dish to market with Disney content. ESPN themselves is down to their lowest subscriber level since '08. Folks are moving away from big pay tv subscriptions in favor of more VOD type options for watching TV series.

One big ESPN property goes on the market before the Big Ten and will command a lot of money: The NBA. FOX has interest there and Adam Silver did attend the FOX Sports 1 launch in March '13 to hear more about the network. FOX wants a piece of that pie to. They might get a piece, though it might be carved out by the NBA instead of taking content from TNT, ESPN or NBATV.

If the B1G wants to stay with ESPN, they could probably start negotiating an extension today. I bet ESPN is willing to listen, provided the rights agreement is favorable to them in terms of costs.

But they can't negotiate anything officially with FOX or another competitor to ESPN until exclusive negotiations end without an agreed upon deal.

ESPN has offered some of their smaller properties deal extensions in the past due to exceeding performance. When Boise St. made their first BCS bowl appearance, the network offered the WAC to double their existing rights deal from $1 million per year to $2 million with 2-3 year left in their current deal. The WAC turned it down and they did better a few years later, getting $4 million per year. In that time, Hawai'i had made their BCS bowl appearance.

Allegedly they offered the MAC some similar assurances after NIU made the Orange Bowl. Not sure if anything came of it.

Granted, you can point to the WAC and say it doesn't exist anymore. But they did bet on themselves favorably at the time.

We may be seeing signs of the cable TV bubble reaching its limits already. Fox and ESPN may realize that all they are doing is bidding against themselves (and they already collude on several contracts).

(05-06-2014 03:23 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 03:10 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 02:25 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 10:35 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  I wrote this back in December re: Big Ten. There's a few moving parts to consider for FOX to make a bid to match ESPN. There's also the matter of the Big Ten actually making it to the open market.

Whether we like it or not, and I don't watch a lot of Big Ten sports, they're in a lot of major markets. Whether you think Rutgers controls NYC (I don't), the city counts sizable alumni chapters. There's a lot of people who do watch their sports, regardless of what you might think of the quality of play.

http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2013/...g-ten.html

How have the parts changed since your insightful Dec. post? I've been finding a lot of discussion along these lines:

http://www.cornnation.com/2014/4/30/5665...an-cash-in

There is not a way for the B1G to wait until they go to open market is there?

Nice find Dasville. It would be funny if the bubble did actually drop and the Big were to get very little increase in their tv deal.
On the other hand, I have been seriously thinking of getting rid of cable and going the Roku route and watch the Netflix and Hulus of the world. If there is a Syracuse game that I want to see, I would go to a local sports bar to watch or go to the game. I am sick of high cable bills and Time Warner and their yearly increases.

Cuseroc call me tonight...I can tell you a few strategies Roku3 and TWC.

OK, Ill get home late tonight, but I'll call you tomorrow night. Interesting in hearing your strategies, and anyone else who has some ideas.

I also think the very lackluster ratings of college football, not just on FS1 but also on big Fox, make it unlikely that Fox will win all the B1G.

Let's face it...the B1G doesn't have a money problem. If the BTN disappeared tomorrow...most B1G schools wouldn't have a money problem. They've got a football problem, a football perception problem, and a demographic problem. Their stomping grounds are just simply not producing enough football athletes to fill more than a couple elite programs.

If the B1G doesn't want to slip into Ivy League territory, they absolutely have to get more athletes from outside the footprint, and not lose any athletes in their footprint. And they are NOT going to do that by going dark on ESPN.

They already put a healthy chunk of content on the BTN, which is lightly viewed if at all outside the footprint. How much can they afford to put on FS1 or FS2? When you have a premier matchup like Oregon-Washington drawing low 1's on FS1, and some big Fox games doing similar numbers, the B1G has to think hard about exposure.

Which doesn't even factor in the fact that ESPN is simply THE tastemaker in college sports. Fox has nothing to compare to Gameday, or ESPN's online presence, etc.

I'm not saying FS1 or Fox college football is dead in the water...they can and probably will improve. But people are rightly now talking about it taking a generation for them to make real inroads on ESPN, when before the launch people were throwing around a few years.

Can the B1G really afford, with the perception of their football product floundering, their recruiting suffering, the addition of two historically pathetic football programs, etc, to yank all their product off of ESPN? Do they really want to sacrifice their own well-being so that Fox can continue a (possibly quixotic) uphill battle against ESPN?

At some point, what do you do with the extra money? You can coat the helmets in platinum, but if every team has 4-6 losses, what's the point?

They've got serious obstacles to remaining football relevant, and ditching ESPN doesn't help with any of them.

Don't get me wrong, the B1G is going to get PAID. But a few years ago we were all anticipating the leverage they would have by a willingness to walk away from ESPN completely, and the terror that would strike in ESPN.

I'm just not convinced that they have that leverage, considering the downward trajectory of their football and recruiting, combined with the sluggish liftoff of FS1 and Fox college football. I don't think that the B1G really CAN walk away from ESPN and thrive, which certainly weakens their negotiating position. I expect they are or will be renegotiating with ESPN before their contract even ends.

I just don't think it's going to be the crazy, sky high projections some of us were thinking a couple years ago. It will be great, for sure, but I don't think it will be insane.

I don't want to quote all of Lou's post above and there are a lot of valid points being made there particularly about the shortcomings of FOX (many that were self-inflicted), but I don't think the conference's position is nearly as tenuous. FOX has more to prove that they can get to the point to be a good home for the Big Ten than ESPN does.

Re: FOX's broadcast platform - I do think you'd see better ratings if you had conferences that were better TV draws. The Big 12 and Pac-12 for whatever reason don't seem to compel viewers to tune in. I don't know if its the lack of big markets surrounding the Big 12 or the sometimes forgotten nature of the Pac-12 because to some on the east coast, they play "out there" (point to the west).

Ohio St. did lose its final two games including by five to Clemson, but they'll likely start next year somewhere in the top ten. Michigan St. may play a boring defensive slugfest, but they muscled over Pac-12 champ Stanford. I realize I've only ticked off two teams, but Wisconsin, Iowa and Nebraska has also been decent enough to be ranked lately.

The conference still does well on TV. The cities where they have their "in-market" fan bases seem to tune in and the fan/almuni bases seem to extend outside of those markets more than other conferences seem to right now. They seem to draw consistently well nationally, probably better than any conference nationally except the SEC.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/

I believe the number of BTN subscribers is around 54 million and this is before what should be a jump in subscribing homes in Maryland and the NY tri-state area. About equal to CBS Sports Network today. I think that's pretty decent for a conference owned network to have a comparable subscriber level to a network that programs itself to be more national in nature.

(05-07-2014 07:35 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  I don't want to quote all of Lou's post above and there are a lot of valid points being made there particularly about the shortcomings of FOX (many that were self-inflicted), but I don't think the conference's position is nearly as tenuous. FOX has more to prove that they can get to the point to be a good home for the Big Ten than ESPN does.

Re: FOX's broadcast platform - I do think you'd see better ratings if you had conferences that were better TV draws. The Big 12 and Pac-12 for whatever reason don't seem to compel viewers to tune in. I don't know if its the lack of big markets surrounding the Big 12 or the sometimes forgotten nature of the Pac-12 because to some on the east coast, they play "out there" (point to the west).

Ohio St. did lose its final two games including by five to Clemson, but they'll likely start next year somewhere in the top ten. Michigan St. may play a boring defensive slugfest, but they muscled over Pac-12 champ Stanford. I realize I've only ticked off two teams, but Wisconsin, Iowa and Nebraska has also been decent enough to be ranked lately.

The conference still does well on TV. The cities where they have their "in-market" fan bases seem to tune in and the fan/almuni bases seem to extend outside of those markets more than other conferences seem to right now. They seem to draw consistently well nationally, probably better than any conference nationally except the SEC.

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/

I believe the number of BTN subscribers is around 54 million and this is before what should be a jump in subscribing homes in Maryland and the NY tri-state area. About equal to CBS Sports Network today. I think that's pretty decent for a conference owned network to have a comparable subscriber level to a network that programs itself to be more national in nature.

Oh, I don't disagree that the B1G does great ratings and have a deep fan base. And the BTN is wonderful.

Also, a lot of Fox's issues is leveraging their games to try solidify FS1. Putting Oregon-Washington on FS1 and Kansas State-Baylor on big Fox doesn't make much sense, but they're (like every fledgling network does) sacrificing viewers to drive "must have" and awareness of the network.

That's something that the PAC has been very vocal about being dissatisfied with, and I don't think the B1G wants any part of giving up exposure to prop up a new network. Hard to tell how long that is going to go on though.

I don't think the B1G is in a tenuous position as far as survival, or money. They'll always have a massive fan base and interest. But I do think they are in danger of sliding into the spot the ACC held for about 10 years of being the clear afterthought football conference. Ohio State and Michigan should always be able to recruit nationally, and eventually Penn State I would think, but I just don't think there are enough elite football athletes cycling through the B1G anymore, and I don't see that changing.