I'd like all of the business/finance folks to chime in on this one. In your opinion is there more value created by separating the various content possessed by the B1G or bundling them all together?

For starters, I've been a fan of Fox taking over the primary role from ESPN for football and basketball for a while because 1) Fox could reasonably deliver 2 nationwide OTA broadcasts per week and 2) I've felt nothing but contempt from ESPN for all things B1G for the better part of a decade until this past year. Now while browsing the net I found this article

http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2015/...im-sports/

explaining how a little known ruling is changing the math and substantially reducing ESPNs advantage. To add to the not quite falling knife that is ESPNs business model, accelerating cord cutting is taking a huge bite from top line revenues while their major expenses (rights fees) are fixed and long term. Demands are now coming down from the head mouse to cut expenses which has resulted in some very high profile talent leaving the world wide leader. There has even been speculation that ESPN may not retain B1G as a cost cutting measure (which I personally would love)

Back to selling rights piece by piece or in one big chunk which would offer the B1G more leverage? I would argue that at the very minimum separating football from basketball and doing those deals completely independent of one another makes the most sense. I think that when you compare the ratios of revenues between the NFL and college football and the NBA and college hoops that college hoops is severely underrvalued. I can understand the gap in baseball but NCAA basketball is very popular alas in a few pockets of the country more popular than the NBA.

The new Big East drew a fair sum for it's 10 members and I think it is fair to say the B1G is at least as valuable to a network perhaps double or triple that if the B1G pulls Fox's rating out of the gutter.

In the final analysis as a casual fan I want max exposure now and into the future whatever the trends may be. Of course as a chest beating exercise I want to see the B1G earn a ton of revenue but the trick is to get the right blend. I like Fox for the potential unmatched OTA nationwide coverage they'd offer but would hate being ignored by the WWL. My solution would be to expand (to get more content) and divie up the rights so as to get the best of both worlds. What say you?

Kinda off topic but now that the B1G is sponsoring hockey, could it eventually be treated as a second or even a first tier sport? I can imagine B1G hockey generating nice tv ratings and revenues.

there is a big shift coming in broadcast entertainment strategy. I believe the subscription model without commercials will take over. Its what many consumers want. there was an article today about how Hulu is thinking of switching to a subscription model without commercials. essentially Netflix with 65 million subscribers is kicking the butt of Hulu with only 9M. No commercials is the main reason I pay for Netflix but do not have Hulu. the customer has spoken and the customer clearly prefers the service with no commercials.

I would love to see a service like HBO start bidding on and offering sports without commercials. If a service started like that with a reasonable price, I would pay for it just like I pay for Netflix now.

If Networks like Fox, ESPN, or BTN refuse to recognize this coming shift, they will not survive.

(07-18-2015 02:31 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Kinda off topic but now that the B1G is sponsoring hockey, could it eventually be treated as a second or even a first tier sport? I can imagine B1G hockey generating nice tv ratings and revenues.

In my opinion hockey is a niche sport even on the pro level unless you're Canadian. That being said there are several sports I think could be at least revenue neutral if not profitable across the league.
1. Hockey heads the list and I know of 2 (Minnesota & Penn State) that are already turning a profit.
2. Wrestling is the 3rd most watched sport on BTN so there is potential to turn programs like Iowa, PSU, Minn, & OSU profitable.
3. Women's volleyball has only one profitable team in the sport so it is a bit of a stretch but if attendance can keep growing and facilities are crafted around the sport like Nebraska did there is potential there.
4. Women's basketball if the league ever gets good and can average 5000 or so per contest then there is potential.
5. Baseball if ever the season is pushed back to a more favorable time of year for northern teams. Several southern and western schools are already making money.
6. Lacrosse is the fastest growing sport in America and is full of action. I could see this being a revenue neutral sport in 10-15 years. The ACC draws decent crowds for Duke, UVA, and UNC.

Back to hockey. A lot was lost when the B1G hockey conference was formed. Minnesota and Wisconsin gave up a super competitive bus league with tons of history & tradition and their most hated rival in North Dakota. Minnesota makes it a point to play in-state schools but suffice it to say Minnesota has sacrificed the most for the creation of B1G hockey. That being said there is more long term potential for revenue growth (Especially through TV exposure) in the B1G with well known schools and established rivals. IMO the non-conf should be heavy on local schools with 2 or 3 national type games I.e. Minn v BC. I'd also like to see a B1G v NCHC competition similar to B1G v Hockey east.
Finally, the B1G needs to step it up and become really competitive. Right now it feels like we are a bunch of rich pushovers. If we are qualifying 4+ teams every year and consistently getting 2 or more into the frozen 4 then interest will go up and with it revenue.
So to answer your original question, I think Hockey will remain a niche sport and at best tier 2, but I do think that it can be profitable because those that like hockey...really like hockey.

(07-18-2015 03:46 AM)goofus Wrote:  there is a big shift coming in broadcast entertainment strategy. I believe the subscription model without commercials will take over. Its what many consumers want. there was an article today about how Hulu is thinking of switching to a subscription model without commercials. essentially Netflix with 65 million subscribers is kicking the butt of Hulu with only 9M. No commercials is the main reason I pay for Netflix but do not have Hulu. the customer has spoken and the customer clearly prefers the service with no commercials.

I would love to see a service like HBO start bidding on and offering sports without commercials. If a service started like that with a reasonable price, I would pay for it just like I pay for Netflix now.

If Networks like Fox, ESPN, or BTN refuse to recognize this coming shift, they will not survive.

Wait. What? Don't take away our "TV Timeouts". Games will go too fast!!

The most important part of live sports telecasts for advertisers is that they know viewers literally can't risk changing the channel when the commercials come on, or else they might miss a huge play that changes the game.

Commercials might leave every other type of program, but they'll be married to live sports until the bitter end. I'm afraid.

(07-18-2015 01:02 AM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  I'd like all of the business/finance folks to chime in on this one. In your opinion is there more value created by separating the various content possessed by the B1G or bundling them all together?

For starters, I've been a fan of Fox taking over the primary role from ESPN for football and basketball for a while because 1) Fox could reasonably deliver 2 nationwide OTA broadcasts per week and 2) I've felt nothing but contempt from ESPN for all things B1G for the better part of a decade until this past year. Now while browsing the net I found this article

http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2015/...im-sports/

explaining how a little known ruling is changing the math and substantially reducing ESPNs advantage. To add to the not quite falling knife that is ESPNs business model, accelerating cord cutting is taking a huge bite from top line revenues while their major expenses (rights fees) are fixed and long term. Demands are now coming down from the head mouse to cut expenses which has resulted in some very high profile talent leaving the world wide leader. There has even been speculation that ESPN may not retain B1G as a cost cutting measure (which I personally would love)

Back to selling rights piece by piece or in one big chunk which would offer the B1G more leverage? I would argue that at the very minimum separating football from basketball and doing those deals completely independent of one another makes the most sense. I think that when you compare the ratios of revenues between the NFL and college football and the NBA and college hoops that college hoops is severely underrvalued. I can understand the gap in baseball but NCAA basketball is very popular alas in a few pockets of the country more popular than the NBA.

The new Big East drew a fair sum for it's 10 members and I think it is fair to say the B1G is at least as valuable to a network perhaps double or triple that if the B1G pulls Fox's rating out of the gutter.

In the final analysis as a casual fan I want max exposure now and into the future whatever the trends may be. Of course as a chest beating exercise I want to see the B1G earn a ton of revenue but the trick is to get the right blend. I like Fox for the potential unmatched OTA nationwide coverage they'd offer but would hate being ignored by the WWL. My solution would be to expand (to get more content) and divie up the rights so as to get the best of both worlds. What say you?

I think that makes a lot of sense.

They could have 3 packages:
1) Tier I football similar to the SEC's CBS package
2) Tier II football and a certain amount of miscellaneous sports
3) Tier I men's basketball

Everything else would fall to BTN.

1) and 3) would get attention on those packages from the public and the broadcaster who wouldn't just be juggling a bunch between various networks (ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, etc.).

(07-18-2015 01:02 AM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  I'd like all of the business/finance folks to chime in on this one. In your opinion is there more value created by separating the various content possessed by the B1G or bundling them all together?

There are four rights that are in the mix ... regular season FB and BBall, CCG, and Big Ten Tourney. The balance of rights are going to be residual rights for the BTN to carry or else pass on down to online streaming.

As far as bundling those four, it depends on the inventory needs of the top bidder for first tier football rights. If they don't need Big Ten Bball, either regular season or tourney, then there will certainly be someone willing to pick up those rights separately.

So its not something that is intrinsic to the sports, its more about the mix of rights that the various bidders already have, and the number of distribution channels they have. If NBC came in with a strong first tier bid for three football games a week, one on NBC and two on NBCSN, they might leave the BBall regular season rights on the table, and only go for the Tourney. If ESPN and FS1 came in with a consortium bid for the rights, they have enough different channels in the mix that they could well hoover up everything.