You're welcome, Big Ten!



http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/big-ten-...llars.html

It is amusing to me to recall all of the "ND is greedy" talk about ND's NBC deal.

Now that others are cashing big TV paychecks, articles like this tout the "greed is good" line.

... and that's why the B1G also doesn't need UConn.

Quote:Mark Silverman, president of the Big Ten Network, confirmed Monday that the network had reached deals with Time Warner Cable and Cablevision to broadly distribute its channel to the millions of homes in the market. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Silverman also said he is optimistic that a deal will be reached with the third cable giant — Comcast — before the football season.

So, either UConn is needed to get Comcast signed on or the talk of UConn to the B1G is hogwash.

What tier is the BTN with these new agreements? Does every subscriber automatically get the BTN?

(05-20-2014 01:33 PM)Dasville Wrote:  What tier is the BTN with these new agreements? Does every subscriber automatically get the BTN?

I believe it's the basic tier, so yes, everyone would get it.

(05-20-2014 01:23 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

Quote:Mark Silverman, president of the Big Ten Network, confirmed Monday that the network had reached deals with Time Warner Cable and Cablevision to broadly distribute its channel to the millions of homes in the market. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Silverman also said he is optimistic that a deal will be reached with the third cable giant — Comcast — before the football season.

So, either UConn is needed to get Comcast signed on or the talk of UConn to the B1G is hogwash.

I wondered if Comcast might have some UConn connection before they (Comcast) would get on board. I couldn't tell from the article what area Comcast served.

Another part I assume is market penetration for ad rates. I believe the last I saw the BTN pulled in $30M/yr in advertising monies (I believe that article I saw was from 2011). UConn could help in penetration of the NYC coverage area (someone else could probably answer that better).

So, this new NYC and surrounding area deal is going to exponentially increase ad revenue.

The last thing is I believe the Big 10 has 51% of the BTN. I'm not sure how the Big 10 and Fox actually split the pot contract-wise, but all this money does not fall to the Big 10 bottom line. Never the less, its a lot of money.

(05-20-2014 01:41 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 01:23 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

Quote:Mark Silverman, president of the Big Ten Network, confirmed Monday that the network had reached deals with Time Warner Cable and Cablevision to broadly distribute its channel to the millions of homes in the market. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Silverman also said he is optimistic that a deal will be reached with the third cable giant — Comcast — before the football season.

So, either UConn is needed to get Comcast signed on or the talk of UConn to the B1G is hogwash.

I wondered if Comcast might have some UConn connection before they (Comcast) would get on board. I couldn't tell from the article what area Comcast served.

Another part I assume is market penetration for ad rates. I believe the last I saw the BTN pulled in $30M/yr in advertising monies (I believe that article I saw was from 2011 or 2012). UConn could help in penetration of the NYC coverage area (someone else could probably answer that better).

So, this new NYC and surrounding area deal is going to exponentially increase ad revenue.

The last thing is I believe the Big 10 has 51% of the BTN. I'm not sure how the Big 10 and Fox actually split the pot contract-wise, but all this money does not fall to the Big 10 bottom line. Never the less, its a lot of money.

$25 million divided by 12 is nothing to sneeze at. If the cable market grows over the next 7 years it should still be a great deal of money for each school when Rutgers and Maryland start to get some of that.

I didn't get how he begins by listing off 4 million subscribers, continues to assume that they will each pay a dollar (which is realistic but optimistic), and then determines that the implications of that are in the ball park of $48 million. Also, I don't know this, but it was my understanding that the BTN was available on premium packages, yet he never backed that money out.

As a side note, I question how much of the deal was Rutgers, and how much of it was the horde of B1G alumni in the city who graduated from the other B1G schools. To clarify, I have no doubt that Rutgers contributed *something*. However, aside from questioning his total amount, I question his emphasis on the RU add. He seems to attribute it all to RU, whereas I would bet money that PSU played more of a part in the deal than the knights.

Don't get me wrong, although I think that his number is extremely optimistic, it may very well be right. However, his article is undeniably poorly written and I question how much of a grasp he has on the situation. Either way, this is a good day for the Big Ten, especially Rutgers. Enjoy it

Awful optimistic numbers...let's wait until it plays out.

I question the $48 million a year number as well. I know $1 per subscriber per month is the going rate in-market for the most part for BTN, but I suspect we're talking about something less than that. Given that Fox now has the ability to leverage YES Network with the BTN I suspect its higher than originally looked for. I'd venture to guess around $0.75 per subscriber per month. Granted that's still a lot of money. But as others have stated you need to subtract whatever money annually BTN was making from folks who paid for the sports package or the top level of service. Let's say on the high end 2 million people out of the 5.5 million cable subscribers in the area (for Cablevision and TWC) paid for this at $0.50 a month. That's $12 million per year they were making on that deal. Let's say all 5.5 million now get BTN in the basic package at $0.75 per customer per month, that's an additional $37.5 million per year on top of the existing $12 million. Still seems a little optimistic, but long story short Rutgers and Maryland will pay for themselves here and some more.

While Rutgers was almost certainly the catalyst for this deal, its also the hordes of other Big Ten alumni in the area that gave the deal leverage. No doubt in my mind on that.

(05-20-2014 02:26 PM)brista21 Wrote:  I question the $48 million a year number as well. I know $1 per subscriber per month is the going rate in-market for the most part for BTN, but I suspect we're talking about something less than that. Given that Fox now has the ability to leverage YES Network with the BTN I suspect its higher than originally looked for. I'd venture to guess around $0.75 per subscriber per month. Granted that's still a lot of money. But as others have stated you need to subtract whatever money annually BTN was making from folks who paid for the sports package or the top level of service. Let's say on the high end 2 million people out of the 5.5 million cable subscribers in the area (for Cablevision and TWC) paid for this at $0.50 a month. That's $12 million per year they were making on that deal. Let's say all 5.5 million now get BTN in the basic package at $0.75 per customer per month, that's an additional $37.5 million per year on top of the existing $12 million. Still seems a little optimistic, but long story short Rutgers and Maryland will pay for themselves here and some more.

While Rutgers was almost certainly the catalyst for this deal, its also the hordes of other Big Ten alumni in the area that gave the deal leverage. No doubt in my mind on that.

Good call on the multiplying by 12. That at least answers that, and I tend to agree with your analysis. When it's all said and done, I'm sure the per school payout will increase (if for no other reason, inflation), but I don't think that it will be anything especially ground-breaking. I agree that I don't think that the conference will lose any money, though.

My gut tells me that the BTN will make about $30 from this, which will mean that the conference will make around $15 million, and then DC will add another 7.5-10 million to the conference's coffers. That's a gain of $22.5-25 million less the current per school payout of 8 million times two new schools, equalling a net increase of $6.5-9 million spread over 14 schools equalling about a half a million increase over the length of the contract (assuming population growths are reasonably stable). That's pretty in line with what I expected. Keep on mind that other areas should see rate increases over time, and I'm leaving out one NYC contract, so the end result will probably be a gain of around a million (an increase of 12.5%).

(05-20-2014 02:26 PM)brista21 Wrote:  While Rutgers was almost certainly the catalyst for this deal, its also the hordes of other Big Ten alumni in the area that gave the deal leverage. No doubt in my mind on that.

Right, this seems the most reasonable conclusion. Obviously that writer is spitballing and it would be interesting to see the exact numbers.

As you note, the vast amount of Big 10 alumni in the NYC area help drive the deal, to be sure. But Rutgers absolutely served as the excuse to make it possible. Remember, Rutgers has over a half million alums. It's a huge school despite competing in small time athletics for 90% of its history.

Also note, the Big10 hasn't even gotten to the same deal in the DC area yet which could result in similar numbers. Even if 48 is optimistic, if each one of these deals is worth something like 20-40 mil each, it sounds like a very substantial ROI on the RU-MD add, to this layman's ears.

Yeah, 3/4 of that to account for full carriage in New Jersey, rates negotiated down a bit elsewhere in greater NY would be a safer guess, which would be around $36m revenue to BTN. Since BTN is already in the black on operations, all those carriage fees are incremental profit, so $18m to the Big Ten, $18m to FOX, or more than $1m per school on the NYC deal alone ~ and, of course, any ad revenue gravy on top of that.

(05-20-2014 03:15 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Yeah, 3/4 of that to account for full carriage in New Jersey, rates negotiated down a bit elsewhere in greater NY would be a safer guess, which would be around $36m revenue to BTN. Since BTN is already in the black on operations, all those carriage fees are incremental profit, so $18m to the Big Ten, $18m to FOX, or more than $1m per school on the NYC deal alone ~ and, of course, any ad revenue gravy on top of that.

Even if that is a reasonable guess, it in itself doesn't cover the cost of adding the extra mouth to feed, does it? Kudos, because you've realized that Fox owns 51% of the BTN, and that isn't shared. You can see why Rutgers isn't scheduled to receive a full share until 2020. And knowing that they are going to front Maryland $30 million for "travel", what does that mean for expectations in MD and DC?''

Anyone want to take a guess on how much it costs to lease class A office space in midtown Manhattan staffed by three full-time employees? How about downtown DC?

How much value do you think Rutgers and Maryland are going to add to a new media deal with ESPN/Fox vs what the Big Ten would have received without them?

Really since the full share payouts for the newbies are six years down the road, no one will really be able to figure out if the Big Ten would have actually payed out more per team without adding RU and MD. But personally, I'm not hearing cash register chimes because of their additions unless one of these self-proclaimed sleeping giants finally wakes up.

The 48 million estimate (or whatever you want to use as an estimate) doesn't even include Comcast. It also doesn't include DC or any other markets. Plus these are third tier rights.

It's obvious Rutgers and MD are going to add substantial value. Big time money. It's not like Delaney didn't know this going in.

Welcome to party Yanks...
I been paying for this crappy station for a few years now. Have never watched it once. Until a majority of people complain we are all stuck paying for this crap. Same with The SEC Network, Longhorn Network and the planned ACC Network.

I don't give a crap about SEC Football anymore than I do boring Big Ten Football or ACC Volleyball for that matter. I am a Louisville fan. If a game doesn't involve Louisville I don't want to pay for it.

I would guess I am not the only one who feels this way. I don't want fans in other areas in the country to have to pay to watch my team.
CJ

Oh it's funny. Certain persons proclaimed that Rutgers and Maryland wouldn't be enough to get this kind of insertion into the Cable Providers. I laughed because of course the Big Ten was going to get that insertion. You don't make that big of a move without having already gotten a feel for the situation in advance.

Now folks want to attack "The Numbers". Some folks definitely have a case of something, whether it be little brother disease or they are simply Big Ten haters and have to constantly try to rip on anything having to do with the Big Ten.

Either way, I laugh again.

Keep hating folks, keep hating. Meanwhile, I am looking forward to matchups such as Rutgers and Penn State. Unfortunately I don't have The Big Ten Network anymore.

(05-20-2014 08:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh it's funny. Certain persons proclaimed that Rutgers and Maryland wouldn't be enough to get this kind of insertion into the Cable Providers. I laughed because of course the Big Ten was going to get that insertion. You don't make that big of a move without having already gotten a feel for the situation in advance.

Now folks want to attack "The Numbers". Some folks definitely have a case of something, whether it be little brother disease or they are simply Big Ten haters and have to constantly try to rip on anything having to do with the Big Ten.

Either way, I laugh again.

Keep hating folks, keep hating. Meanwhile, I am looking forward to matchups such as Rutgers and Penn State. Unfortunately I don't have The Big Ten Network anymore.

I wish I didn't have the BTN either, but I'm still forced to pay for it on basic cable. Seriously, it sucks and I hope people finally wake up and force cable networks to stop forcing consumers to pay for other conference networks.

I seriously fail to understand why so many of you guys are running around posting how awesome it is for the conference your school belongs to has the ability to fleece people out of money. What do you POSSIBLY gain from this? Do you gain any money from this personally?

I guess a few of you must sit around beating off and fantasizing about all the money conference ABC or XYZ will be making...

I just like BTN so I can watch college hockey and baseball...

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App