From the article:

Industry experts have predicted Fox will be a major player in bidding on the Big Ten. It is a partner with the conference in the Big Ten Network. Fox also has deals with the Big 12 and Pac-12 but has no postseason (bowl) presence now with the loss of the Cotton Bowl to the College Football Playoff. With the launch of Fox Sports 1, Fox also would be in need of content to drive viewership.

The $44.5 million figure would far outstrip any other conference's revenue at present. However, such deals are historically backloaded. The largest part of the payout comes at the end of the contract. For example, the Big 12 currently averages $20 million annually in revenue per school. The Pac-12 is still projecting an average of $30 million per school despite problems with carriage on its Pac-12 Network.

The Big Ten's bargaining position will be enhanced by the addition of a ninth conference game in 2016. That extra game means more inventory to sell to potential rightsholders as well as more content for that wildly successful Big Ten Network.

Commissioner Jim Delany began exploring the idea of a network about a decade ago when he perceived the conference being undervalued by ESPN.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ew-tv-deal

From the link:

Quote:According to a report in the Journal & Courier, the Big Ten projects that its revenues will continue to grow each year, and with a new television deal on the way, the conference expects 12 of its 14 schools to pull in approximately $44.5 million during the 2017-18 school year. That would be the first year of the new television deal.

The two Big Ten schools who won't bring in the full amount are the newest members, Maryland and Rutgers. Like Nebraska, the new Big Ten members won't receive their full share until after spending six years in the Big Ten.

While the $44.5 million payoff is still four years away, don't worry, Big Ten schools won't go broke before then. The conference projects that 11 -- Nebraska doesn't get its full share until 2017-18 -- schools will pull in $27 million this year, $30.9 million in 2014-15, $34.1 million in 2015-16 and $35.5 million in 2016-17.

It is crazy cash for basically an inferior product on the court and field in comparison to the Pac 12, ACC and SEC Football...

(04-26-2014 11:19 AM)Dasville Wrote:  From the link:

Quote:According to a report in the Journal & Courier, the Big Ten projects that its revenues will continue to grow each year, and with a new television deal on the way, the conference expects 12 of its 14 schools to pull in approximately $44.5 million during the 2017-18 school year. That would be the first year of the new television deal.

The two Big Ten schools who won't bring in the full amount are the newest members, Maryland and Rutgers. Like Nebraska, the new Big Ten members won't receive their full share until after spending six years in the Big Ten.

While the $44.5 million payoff is still four years away, don't worry, Big Ten schools won't go broke before then. The conference projects that 11 -- Nebraska doesn't get its full share until 2017-18 -- schools will pull in $27 million this year, $30.9 million in 2014-15, $34.1 million in 2015-16 and $35.5 million in 2016-17.

So all B10 revenue is projected to be $34.1 after the playoff and bowl money hits, and ratchet up to $35.5 million the next year. If the base deal is advancing at about 1.4 million a year, then the projected TV renegotiation will produce and averaged $7.6 million bump in overall TV revenues stating in 2018/19. That's a great increase, but not the bazillions promised by so many.

The lowly ACC will only be at about $36.5 million when the B10 gets to 44.5. That's just 82% of B10 money, guess ESPN will have to kick in a 3% during the 2017 contract look-in.

That means it will take Maryland over 6 years to make a profit off moving to the B10 and that's before they spend any money to bring their facilities up to B10 standards.

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!

(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...

(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!

(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!

You just dropped the mic...

(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!

Post of the MONTH!!!!



Cheers,
Neil

(04-26-2014 11:08 AM)Maize Wrote:  From the article:

Industry experts have predicted Fox will be a major player in bidding on the Big Ten. It is a partner with the conference in the Big Ten Network. Fox also has deals with the Big 12 and Pac-12 but has no postseason (bowl) presence now with the loss of the Cotton Bowl to the College Football Playoff. With the launch of Fox Sports 1, Fox also would be in need of content to drive viewership.

The $44.5 million figure would far outstrip any other conference's revenue at present. However, such deals are historically backloaded. The largest part of the payout comes at the end of the contract. For example, the Big 12 currently averages $20 million annually in revenue per school. The Pac-12 is still projecting an average of $30 million per school despite problems with carriage on its Pac-12 Network.

The Big Ten's bargaining position will be enhanced by the addition of a ninth conference game in 2016. That extra game means more inventory to sell to potential rightsholders as well as more content for that wildly successful Big Ten Network.

Commissioner Jim Delany began exploring the idea of a network about a decade ago when he perceived the conference being undervalued by ESPN.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ew-tv-deal

How? I am for adding conference games because I think that frequent games build a sense of "togetherness" but I don't see how it adds inventory. I'm not sure that whoever wrote this article really knows what they're talking about.

The 9 game conference schedule produces 7 more conference games.

(04-26-2014 01:56 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The 9 game conference schedule produces 7 more conference games.

at the cost of 14 fewer non-conference games.

7 < 14, IIRC.

Well, presumably the extra game in the 9 game conference schedule would replace a home and home. In a home and home arrangement, a team gains the rights to one game ever to years (0.5 games per year). For each two games involved in an in-conference game, the conference gains one game per year. That means that every team gains 0.5 conference games per year. Since 0.5 equals 0.5, adding a conference game does not equal more TV inventory, unless teams are willing to drop 1-0 or 2-1 arrangements in favor of the extra conference game. Given that those games are unlikely to go away, don't think that lengthening the in-conference potion of a team's schedule will increase its conference's inventory.

I also think that any worth-while journalist knows that. Therefore, I question the validity of any fact stated in an article written by someone who can't grasp the fact that increasing conference games does not equal more inventory.

(04-27-2014 03:45 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Well, presumably the extra game in the 9 game conference schedule would replace a home and home. In a home and home arrangement, a team gains the rights to one game ever to years (0.5 games per year). For each two games involved in an in-conference game, the conference gains one game per year. That means that every team gains 0.5 conference games per year. Since 0.5 equals 0.5, adding a conference game does not equal more TV inventory, unless teams are willing to drop 1-0 or 2-1 arrangements in favor of the extra conference game. Given that those games are unlikely to go away, don't think that lengthening the in-conference potion of a team's schedule will increase its conference's inventory.

I also think that any worth-while journalist knows that. Therefore, I question the validity of any fact stated in an article written by someone who can't grasp the fact that increasing conference games does not equal more inventory.

So for Syracuse we are talking about replacing a home and home with, say, Northwestern with one against, say, Duke. At best that is probably a wash... are there SOME ACC teams better than OOC? Sure. There are some which are not as good, too.

Better OOC scheduling (for most schools) is probably the best solution.

(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.

(04-27-2014 06:24 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 03:45 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Well, presumably the extra game in the 9 game conference schedule would replace a home and home. In a home and home arrangement, a team gains the rights to one game ever to years (0.5 games per year). For each two games involved in an in-conference game, the conference gains one game per year. That means that every team gains 0.5 conference games per year. Since 0.5 equals 0.5, adding a conference game does not equal more TV inventory, unless teams are willing to drop 1-0 or 2-1 arrangements in favor of the extra conference game. Given that those games are unlikely to go away, don't think that lengthening the in-conference potion of a team's schedule will increase its conference's inventory.

I also think that any worth-while journalist knows that. Therefore, I question the validity of any fact stated in an article written by someone who can't grasp the fact that increasing conference games does not equal more inventory.

So for Syracuse we are talking about replacing a home and home with, say, Northwestern with one against, say, Duke. At best that is probably a wash... are there SOME ACC teams better than OOC? Sure. There are some which are not as good, too.

Better OOC scheduling (for most schools) is probably the best solution.

I' guessing that every ACC school will try to replace like with like.

(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

(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

I've seldom heard Pitt fans whine like little b*es about PSU making so much more money. Pitt has failed because Pitt hasn't been able to get out of its own way for 25 years, and 99% of Pitt fans will agree with that. Frankly, Pitt will never be in PSU's financial ballpark but how much the ACC distributes to Pitt is among the least of my concerns about why Pitt will or will not find athletic success. Financial situations are very different between any one school and another and it is a failure to understand that reality that leads to fruitless $ per $ comparisons and hand wringing over nonsense like tier 3 deals. The ultimate onus for success is on the schools themselves, not their conferences, and the cash rich Big Ten chock full of middling programs is the perfect example of that.

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).

(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.