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

That's only one factor though. They still need to get high ratings to demand advertising dollars. UConn can still help with that in CT and the NYC market. Rutgers' location in the NYC market definitely has helped the BTN and Rutgers though, without a doubt. UConn women's basketball with a primary distribution via the BTN would be a ratings monster in the CT market and would certainly drive up ratings in other member's markets for that sport. They have to consider everything, as I'm sure they are.

UConn and Cincy are stuck...just that simple.

Is it me or is uconn begging and crying to the big 10 reminiscent of ecu begging you guys to get in the beast? Well whatever you all thought of them that's what people think of you all. Just saying....no offense. a

(05-20-2014 01:53 PM)Tigersmoke Wrote:  Is it me or is uconn begging and crying to the big 10 reminiscent of ecu begging you guys to get in the beast? Well whatever you all thought of them that's what people think of you all. Just saying....no offense. a

Can you post a link to the begging and crying...?

Didn't think so.

For UCONN to get into the Big ten it will need to double or triple its endowment and probably get an AAU invite.

(05-20-2014 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/big-ten-...llars.html

This is just bad journalism. I mean I live in the Baltimore area and we have had access to the BTN for as long as I can remember. From what I understand they collect about 37 cents a user today. So assuming the same holds true for the other markets listed they are already collecting 18 million of that money today without adding anyone. And to think ratings don't matter is absurd. If no one watches do you think comcast, time warner, etc... are going to pay more for the channel in the future?? Not to mention the paltry ad dollars you would get if the rating were.00001 like the writer has indicated.

$$$... What about the athletes

(05-20-2014 02:16 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/big-ten-...llars.html

This is just bad journalism. I mean I live in the Baltimore area and we have had access to the BTN for as long as I can remember. From what I understand they collect about 37 cents a user today. So assuming the same holds true for the other markets listed they are already collecting 18 million of that money today without adding anyone. And to think ratings don't matter is absurd. If no one watches do you think comcast, time warner, etc... are going to pay more for the channel in the future?? Not to mention the paltry ad dollars you would get if the rating were.00001 like the writer has indicated.

Yup. That's how SNY in New York/Connecticut hit a goldmine by picking up the rights to UCONN women's basketball - the highest ratings the channel had ever experienced (including Yankees, Mets, and other college men's basketball games). It was also interesting to see the ads transition from local businesses to national products/companies because those local businesses started to get priced out of ad space.

39 million people live in the NYC DMA.

People don't seem to understand this.

Rutgers is in a state with a lot more people than Connecticut.

But New Jersey isn't New York, and that article says nothing about the big enchilada, which is NYC.

People also don't understand that 1/3rd of Connecticut is in the NYC DMA, and while that is very significant for advertising dollars for outfits like ESPN, the BTN doesn't rely on advertising (in fact, it basically makes nothing off ads). That's why, for the B1G, DMAs are totally irrelevant. What is relevant is cable systems. The B1G has come to an agreement with cable systems in New Jersey. That's excellent for the B1G or Rutgers fans. Now, look up north to Connecticut's gold coast. I will bet you anything that this agreement does not give the BTN NYC nor does it give it the part of the NYC DMA that is northeast of the city.

If it did, I'd be astounded. Right now, those residents already pay $2.60+ per month to SNY which is on the basic tier. That's the money the BTN would be targeting when it looks at UConn.

UConn's value is already monetized through SNY. It's a known entity.

In other words, the fact that this very rich area of the country is willing to pay up for Rutgers in Rutgers territory is actually a good thing for Uconn BECAUSE Uconn still dominates the area northeast of NYC. Rutgers is southwest.

(05-20-2014 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/big-ten-...llars.html

I love how outsiders are so interested in parsing out the membership of this conference.

(05-20-2014 02:55 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  39 million people live in the NYC DMA.

People don't seem to understand this.

Rutgers is in a state with a lot more people than Connecticut.

But New Jersey isn't New York, and that article says nothing about the big enchilada, which is NYC.

It doesn't? Could have fooled me.

(05-20-2014 02:16 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/big-ten-...llars.html

This is just bad journalism. I mean I live in the Baltimore area and we have had access to the BTN for as long as I can remember. From what I understand they collect about 37 cents a user today.

In Baltimore they currently collect about $.10 per subscriber and it is not on basic cable. Their aim is to put it on basic cable next to MASN in all of Maryland at $0.75 - $1.00 per subscriber. It is a big difference.

(05-20-2014 02:55 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  39 million people live in the NYC DMA.

People don't seem to understand this.

Rutgers is in a state with a lot more people than Connecticut.

But New Jersey isn't New York, and that article says nothing about the big enchilada, which is NYC.

Actually it does. It specifically states it, and talks about the subscribers in New York who are in the city. . Even further, the biggest thing that Rutgers has going for it, beyond the B10 Network is that most of the region that is Rutgers territory is in the NYC TV market. meaning even if no one in NYC actually watches or roots for Rutgers, the people in NJ who do show up on the NYC ratings reports.

The biggest flaw in the article is this part though:

' Wrote:Cablevision has 3.1 million subscribers in the area. Time Warner has a little more than 2.6 million subscribers in New York state, many of them concentrated in the city. New Jersey has a fraction of that at just over 40,000. Let’s just be extra conservative and put the total number of subscribers that will now get BTN at 4 million.

Just from this deal alone, the Big Ten just pocketed an extra $48 million per year.

Forty. Eight. Million. Dollars. Per. Year.

And that’s just from one carriage agreement in New York City.

He apparently does not realize that that is gross. Fox gets half of the profit, and expenses must still be accounted for. Still a good chunk of bread, as an "extra" $24 million in revenue per year would do a lot of conferences good, but it's not what he is projecting.

(05-20-2014 03:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 02:55 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  39 million people live in the NYC DMA.

People don't seem to understand this.

Rutgers is in a state with a lot more people than Connecticut.

But New Jersey isn't New York, and that article says nothing about the big enchilada, which is NYC.

It doesn't? Could have fooled me.

It doesn't.

(05-20-2014 03:14 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 02:16 PM)PT_american Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/big-ten-...llars.html

This is just bad journalism. I mean I live in the Baltimore area and we have had access to the BTN for as long as I can remember. From what I understand they collect about 37 cents a user today.

In Baltimore they currently collect about $.10 per subscriber and it is not on basic cable. Their aim is to put it on basic cable next to MASN in all of Maryland at $0.75 - $1.00 per subscriber. It is a big difference.

(05-20-2014 02:55 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  39 million people live in the NYC DMA.

People don't seem to understand this.

Rutgers is in a state with a lot more people than Connecticut.

But New Jersey isn't New York, and that article says nothing about the big enchilada, which is NYC.

Actually it does. It specifically states it, and talks about the subscribers in New York who are in the city. . Even further, the biggest thing that Rutgers has going for it, beyond the B10 Network is that most of the region that is Rutgers territory is in the NYC TV market. meaning even if no one in NYC actually watches or roots for Rutgers, the people in NJ who do show up on the NYC ratings reports.

The biggest flaw in the article is this part though:

' Wrote:Cablevision has 3.1 million subscribers in the area. Time Warner has a little more than 2.6 million subscribers in New York state, many of them concentrated in the city. New Jersey has a fraction of that at just over 40,000. Let’s just be extra conservative and put the total number of subscribers that will now get BTN at 4 million.

Just from this deal alone, the Big Ten just pocketed an extra $48 million per year.

Forty. Eight. Million. Dollars. Per. Year.

And that’s just from one carriage agreement in New York City.

He apparently does not realize that that is gross. Fox gets half of the profit, and expenses must still be accounted for. Still a good chunk of bread, as an "extra" $24 million in revenue per year would do a lot of conferences good, but it's not what he is projecting.

You're wrong. The actual article on New Jersey.com says nothing about the city. NOTHING.

The rest is just some bloggers speculation.

Cable systems (even the same company) charge different carriage fees for the same channel even WITHIN the same DMA. It happens all the time. SNY in Connecticut charges $2.60+ a month on the basic tier for the 1/3rd of Connecticut that is within the NYC DMA. But just over the line in Westchester, Cablevision charges $1.50+ a month (presumably because those people aren't as interested in UConn sports).

You took a blogger's speculation as a description of the deal.

We will know in 27 days or so.

(05-21-2014 08:27 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 03:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 02:55 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  39 million people live in the NYC DMA.

People don't seem to understand this.

Rutgers is in a state with a lot more people than Connecticut.

But New Jersey isn't New York, and that article says nothing about the big enchilada, which is NYC.

It doesn't? Could have fooled me.

It doesn't.

The article I LINKED does indeed refer specifically to NYC. Absent any specific qualifiers to the contrary, that's the article being referenced in this thread. Your lame attempt to claim to Adcorbett that you were referring to an article referenced within the article I posted sounds lame to me but that's up to him to decide. But if that is what you meant, you should have said so.

But you didn't, so you were dead wrong.

(05-21-2014 08:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 08:27 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 03:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 02:55 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  39 million people live in the NYC DMA.

People don't seem to understand this.

Rutgers is in a state with a lot more people than Connecticut.

But New Jersey isn't New York, and that article says nothing about the big enchilada, which is NYC.

It doesn't? Could have fooled me.

It doesn't.

The article I LINKED does indeed refer specifically to NYC. Absent any specific qualifiers to the contrary, that's the article being referenced in this thread. Your lame attempt to claim to Adcorbett that you were referring to an article referenced within the article I posted sounds lame to me but that's up to him to decide. But if that is what you meant, you should have said so.

But you didn't, so you were dead wrong.

The article on the actual agreement says NOTHING about New York City, but I can see why you liked the bloggers WA speculations, because that's all you ever really bring to this board.

(05-21-2014 08:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 08:27 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 03:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 02:55 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  39 million people live in the NYC DMA.

People don't seem to understand this.

Rutgers is in a state with a lot more people than Connecticut.

But New Jersey isn't New York, and that article says nothing about the big enchilada, which is NYC.

It doesn't? Could have fooled me.

It doesn't.

The article I LINKED does indeed refer specifically to NYC. Absent any specific qualifiers to the contrary, that's the article being referenced in this thread. Your lame attempt to claim to Adcorbett that you were referring to an article referenced within the article I posted sounds lame to me but that's up to him to decide. But if that is what you meant, you should have said so.

But you didn't, so you were dead wrong.

Survey says: Yes it's lame. The article you linked, and I quoted, does mention it. If he wants to talk about another article, he can start his own thread, and look for his own responses. However, it is very clear, it specifically mentions the city, and lists the subscribers in the City they will reach with this deal.

(05-21-2014 10:02 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Survey says: Yes it's lame. The article you linked, and I quoted, does mention it. If he wants to talk about another article, he can start his own thread, and look for his own responses. However, it is very clear, it specifically mentions the city, and lists the subscribers in the City they will reach with this deal.

You guys are easily fooled by bloggers' idiocy. First off, he assumes 2 million of Time Warner's NY subscribers are in NYC even though TW owns the entire state of New York which has 2.5x as many residents as downstate has. And, while TW only competes with Verizon upstate (Comcast and Cablevision have low tens of thousands in the state), in NYC it competes with 4 different systems including Comcast (formerly Charter), RCN, Verizon, and Cablevision.

Then, consider that 22% of these customers are NO CABLE and only internet/phone.

2.6m x .22 = 2 million
2 million x .4 (% of state population in NYC) = 800,000.
AT BEST, when you consider the competition TWC faces in NYC.

The number of NY TW subscribers in NYC is AT BEST 1/4 of the number he stated.

As I said above, the actual article about the agreement says nothing about NYC, and only mentions NJ/NY DMA. It doesn't give a breakdown. You then have this blogger assigning $1 per sub a month to NYC's population. Which is total speculation based on nothing. And his numbers are totally wrong on top of it.

It should be nobody's surprise that the BTN has wrapped up NJ. That's as expected. If they didn't know they were going to conquer that, they never would have added Rutgers. The next thing though is to see what the subs will be region by region within the NYC DMA, because I can tell you for a fact, they are different according to each locality, even within the same system. Cablevision charges a different rate for SNY in Fairfield than it does in Westchester.

Given how rich this area is, I expect that his estimate of $1 per sub for BTN is rather conservative in New Jersey. After all, SNY is charging $2.60+ in Connecticut for the Mets and UConn. But even if $1 a month is conservative, it would be crazy to multiply that number times NYC DMA households (which far outnumber the NJ households who will pay that and more inside the NYC DMA).