(06-25-2014 11:24 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Nobody is debating the network would not get on Cable...after YES was used as leverage by FOX. The question is how much...I haven't seen any numbers yet. Guess what? The B1G programs even with the new money that usually suck will still suck and the usually good ones will still be good.

You will never see the actual numbers. But that won't stop bloggers from making them up just like they did after the last press release last month.

The exposure is the important thing here for the BTN, and there is no denying that, nor was it ever debated.

(06-25-2014 11:24 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Nobody is debating the network would not get on Cable...after YES was used as leverage by FOX. The question is how much...I haven't seen any numbers yet. Guess what? The B1G programs even with the new money that usually suck will still suck and the usually good ones will still be good.

Once again, not the point. What IS the point is that yes many of you said that Rutgers and Maryland wouldn't help in the regard that they have obviously helped in.

Yes you still cant admit that you and others were wrong. Obviously you were one of them as you continue with the deflection defense tactic.

Whether or not any Big Ten programs get better or worse due to the money is yet to be determined. The money isn't the only determining factor but we all know that money helps.

So stop throwing the little tantrum over being wrong and just say you were wrong and be done with it.

This thread is just about cable access, nothing more. Trying to take the debate broader just shows you cannot admit you were wrong in this one regard.

The rest all belongs elsewhere. That is why there are MULTIPLE threads. Certainly you educated folks can understand compartmentalization? Maybe?

(06-26-2014 12:15 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 11:24 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Nobody is debating the network would not get on Cable...after YES was used as leverage by FOX. The question is how much...I haven't seen any numbers yet. Guess what? The B1G programs even with the new money that usually suck will still suck and the usually good ones will still be good.

You will never see the actual numbers. But that won't stop bloggers from making them up just like they did after the last press release last month.

The exposure is the important thing here for the BTN, and there is no denying that, nor was it ever debated.

Yes, it was debated plenty. I would think a man of "science" such as you try to proclaim wouldn't be one to try and rewrite the history around here. Not only was it debated, it was heavily and harshly debated. No surprise it is a couple of new blood ACC guys trying to whitewash that.

(06-26-2014 12:31 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 12:15 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 11:24 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Nobody is debating the network would not get on Cable...after YES was used as leverage by FOX. The question is how much...I haven't seen any numbers yet. Guess what? The B1G programs even with the new money that usually suck will still suck and the usually good ones will still be good.

You will never see the actual numbers. But that won't stop bloggers from making them up just like they did after the last press release last month.

The exposure is the important thing here for the BTN, and there is no denying that, nor was it ever debated.

Yes, it was debated plenty. I would think a man of "science" such as you try to proclaim wouldn't be one to try and rewrite the history around here. Not only was it debated, it was heavily and harshly debated. No surprise it is a couple of new blood ACC guys trying to whitewash that.

Depends which part you say was being debated. I did say, and absolutely believe, that they are getting nowhere near the per subscriber rights fee numbers that they did in the midwest and that are constantly trumpeted by bloggers. They don't even get those fees in Pennsylvania. Like Fox Sports 1, the Big Ten is likely going after exposure as a strategy in moving into its new territory over drawing a hard line on in-state minimum rights fees, which makes sense, and it is the smart thing for them to do. The difference in rights fees contracts from one territory to another is also why you'll likely never see the actual numbers, and why simple blogger multiplication is nothing but fantasy.

So, if someone suggested that the BTN was going to impose $1 per subscriber fees while insisting on being carried on basic cable tiers in NJ and MD and have negotiations go smoothly in time for people to see a couple of Rutgers and Maryland football games this fall, then yes, I believe that was fantasy and still do because it defies the simple logic of the prior known value of those two properties.

Everyone knew that the BTN was getting into MD and NJ. That was never up for debate. What WAS up for debate is what would happen to the B1G's overall strength. Delany wouldn't have moved on UMD and Rutgers if he knew that he wouldn't be able to extend the BTN footprint.

(06-26-2014 12:44 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 12:31 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 12:15 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 11:24 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Nobody is debating the network would not get on Cable...after YES was used as leverage by FOX. The question is how much...I haven't seen any numbers yet. Guess what? The B1G programs even with the new money that usually suck will still suck and the usually good ones will still be good.

You will never see the actual numbers. But that won't stop bloggers from making them up just like they did after the last press release last month.

The exposure is the important thing here for the BTN, and there is no denying that, nor was it ever debated.

Yes, it was debated plenty. I would think a man of "science" such as you try to proclaim wouldn't be one to try and rewrite the history around here. Not only was it debated, it was heavily and harshly debated. No surprise it is a couple of new blood ACC guys trying to whitewash that.

Depends which part you say was being debated. I did say, and absolutely believe, that they are getting nowhere near the per subscriber rights fee numbers that they did in the midwest and that are constantly trumpeted by bloggers. They don't even get those fees in Pennsylvania. Like Fox Sports 1, the Big Ten is likely going after exposure as a strategy in moving into its new territory over drawing a hard line on in-state minimum rights fees, which makes sense, and it is the smart thing for them to do. The difference in rights fees contracts from one territory to another is also why you'll likely never see the actual numbers, and why simple blogger multiplication is nothing but fantasy.

So, if someone suggested that the BTN was going to impose $1 per subscriber fees while insisting on being carried on basic cable tiers in NJ and MD and have negotiations go smoothly in time for people to see a couple of Rutgers and Maryland football games this fall, then yes, I believe that was fantasy and still do because it defies the simple logic of the prior known value of those two properties.

The B1G doesn't give a damn about "exposure" in NYC or DC. They want carriage fees. They have an alumni base in both cities. If "exposure" occurs, fine, all the better for advertising sales, but the real goal is cable boxes. And they got 'em.

(06-26-2014 03:45 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 12:44 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 12:31 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 12:15 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 11:24 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Nobody is debating the network would not get on Cable...after YES was used as leverage by FOX. The question is how much...I haven't seen any numbers yet. Guess what? The B1G programs even with the new money that usually suck will still suck and the usually good ones will still be good.

You will never see the actual numbers. But that won't stop bloggers from making them up just like they did after the last press release last month.

The exposure is the important thing here for the BTN, and there is no denying that, nor was it ever debated.

Yes, it was debated plenty. I would think a man of "science" such as you try to proclaim wouldn't be one to try and rewrite the history around here. Not only was it debated, it was heavily and harshly debated. No surprise it is a couple of new blood ACC guys trying to whitewash that.

Depends which part you say was being debated. I did say, and absolutely believe, that they are getting nowhere near the per subscriber rights fee numbers that they did in the midwest and that are constantly trumpeted by bloggers. They don't even get those fees in Pennsylvania. Like Fox Sports 1, the Big Ten is likely going after exposure as a strategy in moving into its new territory over drawing a hard line on in-state minimum rights fees, which makes sense, and it is the smart thing for them to do. The difference in rights fees contracts from one territory to another is also why you'll likely never see the actual numbers, and why simple blogger multiplication is nothing but fantasy.

So, if someone suggested that the BTN was going to impose $1 per subscriber fees while insisting on being carried on basic cable tiers in NJ and MD and have negotiations go smoothly in time for people to see a couple of Rutgers and Maryland football games this fall, then yes, I believe that was fantasy and still do because it defies the simple logic of the prior known value of those two properties.

The B1G doesn't give a damn about "exposure" in NYC or DC. They want carriage fees. They have an alumni base in both cities. If "exposure" occurs, fine, all the better for advertising sales, but the real goal is cable boxes. And they got 'em.

I distinctly remember folks saying there would be fighting with the cable companies, no one cared about the schools, so no one would pay the carriage rates, etc. Etc. Etc. Now all will say, " well, you didnt get paid enough, or the B1G settled for less than they wanted". Keep changing your stories, while the B1G cashes the checks.

Maybe the ACC network can do better in the city/nj/md. Oh wait a minute, the ACC doesnt have a network.......

Yes, $1 a month x around 7 million cable subscribers between both states. Not a bad days work.

(06-26-2014 12:15 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  You will never see the actual numbers.

Sure we will. We know that the BTN has been producing annual distributions of $7.5M to $8M per year per school for 12 schools. That's $90-96M.

So we can estimate how much Rutgers and Maryland add to the pie. And we can reason backwards to figure out the subscriber fees in the new territories.

If the BTN starts distributing $10M per year per school for 14 schools, then we can assume that extra subscriber fees in NJ, MD, DC and NYC produced $45-50M annually.

(06-26-2014 12:28 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 11:24 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Nobody is debating the network would not get on Cable...after YES was used as leverage by FOX. The question is how much...I haven't seen any numbers yet. Guess what? The B1G programs even with the new money that usually suck will still suck and the usually good ones will still be good.

Once again, not the point. What IS the point is that yes many of you said that Rutgers and Maryland wouldn't help in the regard that they have obviously helped in.

Yes you still cant admit that you and others were wrong. Obviously you were one of them as you continue with the deflection defense tactic.

Whether or not any Big Ten programs get better or worse due to the money is yet to be determined. The money isn't the only determining factor but we all know that money helps.

So stop throwing the little tantrum over being wrong and just say you were wrong and be done with it.

This thread is just about cable access, nothing more. Trying to take the debate broader just shows you cannot admit you were wrong in this one regard.

The rest all belongs elsewhere. That is why there are MULTIPLE threads. Certainly you educated folks can understand compartmentalization? Maybe?

The only one throwing a tantrum is you...reread what I said. Once YES was bought it was gameover for the cable companies. Let's see if you received the same subscriber fees as in the Midwest. That is what most of us were debating.

(06-26-2014 12:15 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 11:24 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Nobody is debating the network would not get on Cable...after YES was used as leverage by FOX. The question is how much...I haven't seen any numbers yet. Guess what? The B1G programs even with the new money that usually suck will still suck and the usually good ones will still be good.

You will never see the actual numbers. But that won't stop bloggers from making them up just like they did after the last press release last month.

The exposure is the important thing here for the BTN, and there is no denying that, nor was it ever debated.

Bingo

I just think FSU makes a lot of sense for the big 10 even if they aren't AAU. Add them and KU and your bringing in top football and basketball programs to get to 16. Worse case you got:

A: penn state, Florida State, Rutgers, Maryland
B: Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota
C: Northwestern, Illinois, Wisconsin, Mich State
D: Michigan, Ohio State State, Indiana, Purdue

best case, the big 12 and acc are can get cherry picked.

I'm sorry but I can't find the BTN on the basic channels in New York City in New York state. Perhaps I missed something but that's where the majority of the Metros population resides.

If BTN isn't in New York City already then they have failed to a large extent.

If the BTN is on the basic channels in New York City, New York, then can some one provide me the channels?

(06-26-2014 11:43 AM)USFRamenu Wrote:  I'm sorry but I can't find the BTN on the basic channels in New York City in New York state. Perhaps I missed something but that's where the majority of the Metros population resides.

If BTN isn't in New York City already then they have failed to a large extent.

If the BTN is on the basic channels in New York City, New York, then can some one provide me the channels?

The deal's not active until mid August - we'll see how wide the reach is then.

So the OP's premise is over stated and the B1G is just once again blowing steam. Gotcha!

(06-26-2014 12:02 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  So the OP's premise is over stated and the B1G is just once again blowing steam. Gotcha!

How do you figure?

Because a deal was signed and the result wasn't instantly apparent?

(06-26-2014 12:10 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 12:02 PM)USFRamenu Wrote:  So the OP's premise is over stated and the B1G is just once again blowing steam. Gotcha!

How do you figure?

Because a deal was signed and the result wasn't instantly apparent?

No, because the quote was that the deal brought in New York City, New York. It was miss leading once again. Now when the other deal is announced, then and only then if they gain New York State, can they claim New York.

Being honest is so out dated, I know.

(06-26-2014 05:16 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Yes, $1 a month x around 7 million cable subscribers between both states. Not a bad days work.

To break even on the expansion, the B10 has to add enough subscribers in the target area, paying enough a month, to cover the cost of adding two more shares to the B10 slices of their pie. Using an average distribution of $25 million per school, the Big 10 needs $50 million to pay for adding Rutgers and MD. On top of that, the B10 is splitting a future revenue stream the Playoff and Rose Bowl money smaller. MD and Rutgers would get about $6.3 million of that revenue, costing the other 12 B10 Teams about a $1 million a year over a 12 team league.

To break even going forward, the B10 needs to bring in about $62 million more from adding MD and Rutgers.

If there are 7 million subscribers and they are fully captured, meaning they will pay whatever the service passes along as a cost, then according to my math, the B10 needs to earn 74 cents per subscriber to break even. Above that is profit.

By my math, if the B10 get's a return of $1 dollar per all 7 million, they will net about $22 million a year that when divided by 15 shares, (14 schools and the conference office) nets about $1.5 million per team for adding Rutgers and MD.

Then in 2018, they would start to see any added revenues for MD and Rutgers in the base TV deal. However, figuring what that really is will be very difficult because the value of Ohio State football will be lumped in with the values of Neb, Rutgers and MD football and I don't know how you tease that out since their base TV deal did not change at the time of the additions. (If they did change with Nebraska, I missed it).

The B10 was not going to add MD and Rutgers to take a huge financial loss. They just aren't going to gain a huge windfall on a per team basis, but they will have taken players "off the board", poked a finger in the ACC's eye over ND, and helped their overall demographics.

The problem the B10, SEC, and ACC all face is that future additions have to feed 16 mouths. The 14 current members, the office, and the new member.

(06-26-2014 12:36 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 05:16 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Yes, $1 a month x around 7 million cable subscribers between both states. Not a bad days work.

To break even on the expansion, the B10 has to add enough subscribers in the target area, paying enough a month, to cover the cost of adding two more shares to the B10 slices of their pie. Using an average distribution of $25 million per school, the Big 10 needs $50 million to pay for adding Rutgers and MD. On top of that, the B10 is splitting a future revenue stream the Playoff and Rose Bowl money smaller. MD and Rutgers would get about $6.3 million of that revenue, costing the other 12 B10 Teams about a $1 million a year over a 12 team league.

To break even going forward, the B10 needs to bring in about $62 million more from adding MD and Rutgers.

If there are 7 million subscribers and they are fully captured, meaning they will pay whatever the service passes along as a cost, then according to my math, the B10 needs to earn 74 cents per subscriber to break even. Above that is profit.

By my math, if the B10 get's a return of $1 dollar per all 7 million, they will net about $22 million a year that when divided by 15 shares, (14 schools and the conference office) nets about $1.5 million per team for adding Rutgers and MD.

Then in 2018, they would start to see any added revenues for MD and Rutgers in the base TV deal. However, figuring what that really is will be very difficult because the value of Ohio State football will be lumped in with the values of Neb, Rutgers and MD football and I don't know how you tease that out since their base TV deal did not change at the time of the additions. (If they did change with Nebraska, I missed it).

You get into a lot of "what ifs" in these conference networks.

I've seen Delany quoted as saying the Big 10 wants to reach the point where they can bid on their own contract. After all, if ESPN is willing to pay $20M per school to make a hefty profit televising your conference games, why not just cut out the middle man. Care to guess how much money ESPN makes off the ACC? Why give that money away to a third party? Or, gradually start taking back important games (Ohio State/Michigan... Michigan/Michigan St) where advertising rates would probably be much higher.

Regardless, there is a lot of avenues that open up when you start controlling all your own (or a higher percentage of) content.

(06-25-2014 08:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 08:11 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 07:04 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  So will the naysayers please come forward and realize that the Big Ten had pretty good working knowledge of what they were doing, certainly much better knowledge than the naysayers here that have anti Big Ten clouded vision?

yes they were giving there better football teams a couple more bad teams to beat regularly and as a side benefit get b10 into basic tier in a few spots

I'm sure the likes of Florida State and Clemson fans probably thought the same about Pitt and Syracuse.

at least we bring a quality basketball and lacrosse program and program with some history in football