(02-15-2016 07:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-15-2016 06:19 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  And football is the biggest driver of TV revenue.

About 80% of TV revenue.

The Pac-12 TV contract is consistent with that -- ESPN and Fox get the same number of FB games. ESPN gets twice as many men's BB games. The money they pay to the Pac-12 is 53% from ESPN and 47% from Fox. That works out to FB being 82% of the contract value, and men's BB being 18%.

If the plan is for a conference network, those numbers change drastically.

Also PAC 12 basketball is not as valuable as 3 of be other 4 conferences, so it's not a great metric.

Regular season college basketball is not a great TV draw, period. The FB/BB split by conference might be a little different; the ACC for example has less valuable football and more valuable basketball, but I bet even the ACC's "value split" would be about 75-25.

The Big Ten Network might have failed, period, if not for Big Ten basketball. You can look it up. Tier 3 football consists of Big name teams playing FCS or smaller named schools, and conference games against the bottom teams. They didn't sell well. Because of the large nature of basketball games, with 15-20 games per team on the network, including big name matchups, it was a bigger part of the success and ultimate clearance of the network, and draws many more total viewers, than football games.

Big name football draws better than big name basketball. When you pop off the top, and are talking about the drawing power of the non-national TV games, the dynamics change, and the quantity counts a lot more.

(02-15-2016 07:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

So only 25 CBB regular season games, fewer than 3% of the televised games, got a rating of 1.5 or better -- in contrast, there were about 90 CFB regular season games in 2015 that got ratings that good or better.

Here are some season numbers for you (note these are from last year, I don't have full numbers yet for this year). People can cherry pick numbers as they see them, but when it comes to football vs. basketball, the frequency of games must be considered.

National TV games only

Regular Season
Sport_____ Gms_ viewership____Est Prod Cost*
Football___ 204__558,079,000__$30,600,000
Basketball_ 678__355,558,000__$12,750,000
Viewership ratio 61.16%/38.9%

Post Season
Sport_____ Gms_ viewership____Est Prod Cost*
Football___ 46___238,482,000__$34,500,000
Basketball_ 145__391,495,000__$22,500,000
Viewership ratio 37.9%/62.1%

Total
Sport_____ Gms_ viewership____Est Prod Cost*
Football___ 250___796,561,000_$65,100,000
Basketball_ 823___747,053,000__$35,300,000
Viewership ratio 51.6%/48.4%

*Estimated cost to produce the games, does not include rights fees

Football has more "events" which draw a premium in ad rates. But daily viewership adds up.

(02-16-2016 03:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The Big Ten Network might have failed, period, if not for Big Ten basketball.

(02-16-2016 03:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  when it comes to football vs. basketball, the frequency of games must be considered.

The value of "Tier 3" type games that are shown on conference networks is wholly different than the value of the "non conference-network" group of games purchased by ESPN/ABC and Fox/FS1 (and CBS for their SEC FB games). Your argument is, essentially, that 100 CBB games/year is worth more to a conference network than one FB game/year/conference member vs. an FCS opponent. Maybe so, but those "Tier 3" games in either sport are both less valuable in general and not purchased to show on ESPN/ABC or Fox/FS1.

Look at that pie chart again. Over half of the "national" CBB games (more than 350 games) have essentially no viewers at all. 25-year-old reruns of "Full House" on Nickelodeon crush almost every CBB telecast.

It makes complete sense that you commingle post-season CBB ratings in to make your argument, because it's only in the post-season that CBB moves the ratings needle.

(02-16-2016 04:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 03:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The Big Ten Network might have failed, period, if not for Big Ten basketball.

(02-16-2016 03:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  when it comes to football vs. basketball, the frequency of games must be considered.

The value of "Tier 3" type games that are shown on conference networks is wholly different than the value of the "non conference-network" group of games purchased by ESPN/ABC and Fox/FS1 (and CBS for their SEC FB games). Your argument is, essentially, that 100 CBB games/year is worth more to a conference network than one FB game/year/conference member vs. an FCS opponent. Maybe so, but those "Tier 3" games in either sport are both less valuable in general and not purchased to show on ESPN/ABC or Fox/FS1.

Look at that pie chart again. Over half of the "national" CBB games (more than 350 games) have essentially no viewers at all. 25-year-old reruns of "Full House" on Nickelodeon crush almost every CBB telecast.

It makes complete sense that you commingle post-season CBB ratings in to make your argument, because it's only in the post-season that CBB moves the ratings needle.

I suspect that some of the reason for that is the regular season has become virtually meaningless due to conference tournaments. A good season means nothing unless you win the tournament or are a lucky selection by the committee (who's selections often lean to the random side of logic). The regular season serves no purpose other than to seed the conference championship tourneys these days.

(02-14-2016 12:24 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Article by UConn beat writer/blogger Matt Schonvisky citing a "source."

Navigate also recommended other schools to the Big 12, but no information on which other schools Navigate recommended, or even whether the Big 12 will expand.

The source also said several Big 12 members have begun talking with their TV partners about ending their Tier 3 rights packages. A necessary step for a conference network.

Considering the author, sounds like the "source" is from UConn, not Chicago-based Navigate.

"Navigate recommends UCONN to Big 12"
Doubt it. Cheers!

(02-16-2016 03:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-15-2016 07:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-15-2016 06:19 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  And football is the biggest driver of TV revenue.

About 80% of TV revenue.

The Pac-12 TV contract is consistent with that -- ESPN and Fox get the same number of FB games. ESPN gets twice as many men's BB games. The money they pay to the Pac-12 is 53% from ESPN and 47% from Fox. That works out to FB being 82% of the contract value, and men's BB being 18%.

If the plan is for a conference network, those numbers change drastically.

Also PAC 12 basketball is not as valuable as 3 of be other 4 conferences, so it's not a great metric.

Regular season college basketball is not a great TV draw, period. The FB/BB split by conference might be a little different; the ACC for example has less valuable football and more valuable basketball, but I bet even the ACC's "value split" would be about 75-25.

The Big Ten Network might have failed, period, if not for Big Ten basketball. You can look it up. Tier 3 football consists of Big name teams playing FCS or smaller named schools, and conference games against the bottom teams. They didn't sell well. Because of the large nature of basketball games, with 15-20 games per team on the network, including big name matchups, it was a bigger part of the success and ultimate clearance of the network, and draws many more total viewers, than football games.

Big name football draws better than big name basketball. When you pop off the top, and are talking about the drawing power of the non-national TV games, the dynamics change, and the quantity counts a lot more.

(02-15-2016 07:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

So only 25 CBB regular season games, fewer than 3% of the televised games, got a rating of 1.5 or better -- in contrast, there were about 90 CFB regular season games in 2015 that got ratings that good or better.

Here are some season numbers for you (note these are from last year, I don't have full numbers yet for this year). People can cherry pick numbers as they see them, but when it comes to football vs. basketball, the frequency of games must be considered.

National TV games only

Regular Season
Sport_____ Gms_ viewership____Est Prod Cost*
Football___ 204__558,079,000__$30,600,000
Basketball_ 678__355,558,000__$12,750,000
Viewership ratio 61.16%/38.9%

Post Season
Sport_____ Gms_ viewership____Est Prod Cost*
Football___ 46___238,482,000__$34,500,000
Basketball_ 145__391,495,000__$22,500,000
Viewership ratio 37.9%/62.1%

Total
Sport_____ Gms_ viewership____Est Prod Cost*
Football___ 250___796,561,000_$65,100,000
Basketball_ 823___747,053,000__$35,300,000
Viewership ratio 51.6%/48.4%

*Estimated cost to produce the games, does not include rights fees

Football has more "events" which draw a premium in ad rates. But daily viewership adds up.

I bought big 10 network from 2007 to 2014 for 1 reason only: college wrestling. Cheers!

(02-15-2016 07:18 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-15-2016 07:17 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Looks like Cincinnati is in, and UConn is out.

I hear Arkansas Tech is in at #12.

AT turned down the Big 12. The Wonder Boys were going to help bridge the gap between Texas and West Virginia. Tough break for big 12. The bridge goes through Tulane now my friend.
Cheers!

(02-16-2016 11:45 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 03:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-15-2016 07:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-15-2016 06:19 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  About 80% of TV revenue.

The Pac-12 TV contract is consistent with that -- ESPN and Fox get the same number of FB games. ESPN gets twice as many men's BB games. The money they pay to the Pac-12 is 53% from ESPN and 47% from Fox. That works out to FB being 82% of the contract value, and men's BB being 18%.

If the plan is for a conference network, those numbers change drastically.

Also PAC 12 basketball is not as valuable as 3 of be other 4 conferences, so it's not a great metric.

Regular season college basketball is not a great TV draw, period. The FB/BB split by conference might be a little different; the ACC for example has less valuable football and more valuable basketball, but I bet even the ACC's "value split" would be about 75-25.

The Big Ten Network might have failed, period, if not for Big Ten basketball. You can look it up. Tier 3 football consists of Big name teams playing FCS or smaller named schools, and conference games against the bottom teams. They didn't sell well. Because of the large nature of basketball games, with 15-20 games per team on the network, including big name matchups, it was a bigger part of the success and ultimate clearance of the network, and draws many more total viewers, than football games.

Big name football draws better than big name basketball. When you pop off the top, and are talking about the drawing power of the non-national TV games, the dynamics change, and the quantity counts a lot more.

(02-15-2016 07:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

So only 25 CBB regular season games, fewer than 3% of the televised games, got a rating of 1.5 or better -- in contrast, there were about 90 CFB regular season games in 2015 that got ratings that good or better.

Here are some season numbers for you (note these are from last year, I don't have full numbers yet for this year). People can cherry pick numbers as they see them, but when it comes to football vs. basketball, the frequency of games must be considered.

National TV games only

Regular Season
Sport_____ Gms_ viewership____Est Prod Cost*
Football___ 204__558,079,000__$30,600,000
Basketball_ 678__355,558,000__$12,750,000
Viewership ratio 61.16%/38.9%

Post Season
Sport_____ Gms_ viewership____Est Prod Cost*
Football___ 46___238,482,000__$34,500,000
Basketball_ 145__391,495,000__$22,500,000
Viewership ratio 37.9%/62.1%

Total
Sport_____ Gms_ viewership____Est Prod Cost*
Football___ 250___796,561,000_$65,100,000
Basketball_ 823___747,053,000__$35,300,000
Viewership ratio 51.6%/48.4%

*Estimated cost to produce the games, does not include rights fees

Football has more "events" which draw a premium in ad rates. But daily viewership adds up.

I bought big 10 network from 2007 to 2014 for 1 reason only: college wrestling. Cheers!

So you're the one.

Actually I have know idea, is wrestling a spectator sport in the Midwest?

Cause here in MA the Big10 just comes with the sports package with a bunch of weird crap. Just incase I want to watch an Atlanta HS indoor track it's there too for some reason.

Tier 3 college basketball, like local Major League Baseball, may be a low-audience sport, but its a loyal-audience sport. There is a sizable number of Big Ten fans in old Big Ten states who would threaten to change cable systems if they can't see Ohio State or Indiana or Michigan or Michigan STate or Wisconsin basketball games on a regular basis. In a way that they won't revolt and change cable companies if they can't see one Big Ten vs FCS/MAC game a year.

That means cable providers in those states have to keep BTN on the sports tier or the basic tier, which gives BTN and Fox the leverage to make sure it's on the basic tier along with the local RSN.

That's what ADCorbett is saying about college basketball saving the Big Ten.

(02-16-2016 04:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 03:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The Big Ten Network might have failed, period, if not for Big Ten basketball.

(02-16-2016 03:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  when it comes to football vs. basketball, the frequency of games must be considered.

The value of "Tier 3" type games that are shown on conference networks is wholly different than the value of the "non conference-network" group of games purchased by ESPN/ABC and Fox/FS1 (and CBS for their SEC FB games). Your argument is, essentially, that 100 CBB games/year is worth more to a conference network than one FB game/year/conference member vs. an FCS opponent.

Actually my argument SPECIFICALLY was that if a conference network were to come, then basketball would be important. To clarify, the point I made that started this was "If the plan is for a conference network, those numbers change drastically." Remember that? You tried to change that statement into something else, pulling out antiquated statements that really are not true, that were used by conference commissioners to further an agenda. But I know what my argument was.

(02-16-2016 04:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Maybe so, but those "Tier 3" games in either sport are both less valuable in general and not purchased to show on ESPN/ABC or Fox/FS1.

seeing as how that was my argument to begin with, it is a VERY important point. Not a small one.

(02-16-2016 04:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Look at that pie chart again. Over half of the "national" CBB games (more than 350 games) have essentially no viewers at all. 25-year-old reruns of "Full House" on Nickelodeon crush almost every CBB telecast.

I saw your chart. They include games on smaller networks that were not included in the chart above. It does not change the total numbers.

(02-16-2016 04:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It makes complete sense that you commingle post-season CBB ratings in to make your argument, because it's only in the post-season that CBB moves the ratings needle.

It makes sense to include them, because it is a part of the equation. Unless you don't think money is earned for those games. Also, it still disproves your position, with even regular season games account for 40% of viewers in relation to football, a 6/40 split, not 80/20, or 82/18 as you tried to put it.

The bigger difference between football and basketball is "who" controls the money, as a large portion of money generated by basketball is paid to the school outside of the athletic departments control. But that does not mean the money is not earned. As I said, stats can be cherry picked to state want they want. But don't believe everything you read.

(02-17-2016 09:53 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Tier 3 college basketball, like local Major League Baseball, may be a low-audience sport, but its a loyal-audience sport. There is a sizable number of Big Ten fans in old Big Ten states who would threaten to change cable systems if they can't see Ohio State or Indiana or Michigan or Michigan STate or Wisconsin basketball games on a regular basis. In a way that they won't revolt and change cable companies if they can't see one Big Ten vs FCS/MAC game a year.

That means cable providers in those states have to keep BTN on the sports tier or the basic tier, which gives BTN and Fox the leverage to make sure it's on the basic tier along with the local RSN.

That's what ADCorbett is saying about college basketball saving the Big Ten.

Yup, this is literally what happened. In its infancy Fox was having a hard time getting cable companies to sign up the B1G Network (on their terms) due to precisely that. Even with the carrot of DirecTV carrying B1G Network as a basic channel nationwide, they were having issues. When basketball season came around, and fans started missing those games, they started switching to DirecTV in droves. That was what propelled the Big Ten Network.

I actually thought that the SEC Network might have some struggles getting started because of the lack of the DirecTV threat and the lack of the basketball issue, but I had forgotten that for many of the schools, they had to watch 1-2 games per year on PPV, so the SEC Network option was actually cheaper for all of them, combined with the ESPN bundle, making it a much easier sale to cable companies. Plus ESPN gives cable companies so many of their commercial slots...

(02-17-2016 12:14 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 09:53 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Tier 3 college basketball, like local Major League Baseball, may be a low-audience sport, but its a loyal-audience sport. There is a sizable number of Big Ten fans in old Big Ten states who would threaten to change cable systems if they can't see Ohio State or Indiana or Michigan or Michigan STate or Wisconsin basketball games on a regular basis. In a way that they won't revolt and change cable companies if they can't see one Big Ten vs FCS/MAC game a year.

That means cable providers in those states have to keep BTN on the sports tier or the basic tier, which gives BTN and Fox the leverage to make sure it's on the basic tier along with the local RSN.

That's what ADCorbett is saying about college basketball saving the Big Ten.

Yup, this is literally what happened. In its infancy Fox was having a hard time getting cable companies to sign up the B1G Network (on their terms) due to precisely that. Even with the carrot of DirecTV carrying B1G Network as a basic channel nationwide, they were having issues. When basketball season came around, and fans started missing those games, they started switching to DirecTV in droves. That was what propelled the Big Ten Network.

I actually thought that the SEC Network might have some struggles getting started because of the lack of the DirecTV threat and the lack of the basketball issue, but I had forgotten that for many of the schools, they had to watch 1-2 games per year on PPV, so the SEC Network option was actually cheaper for all of them, combined with the ESPN bundle, making it a much easier sale to cable companies. Plus ESPN gives cable companies so many of their commercial slots...

Exactly. The tier 3 rights are driven more by the non-football sports and the actual market penetration. If people in CT couldn't watch all of UConn's men's and even women's hoops games on basic cable, there would be a revolt. If those games were to be on a conference network, that network would have to be carried on the basic tier throughout the state.

(02-17-2016 12:09 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 04:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It makes complete sense that you commingle post-season CBB ratings in to make your argument, because it's only in the post-season that CBB moves the ratings needle.

It makes sense to include them, because it is a part of the equation. Unless you don't think money is earned for those games. Also, it still disproves your position, with even regular season games account for 40% of viewers in relation to football, a 6/40 split, not 80/20, or 82/18 as you tried to put it.

The 82/18 split is for FB and MBB games the conference sells to TV, and doesn't include "Tier 3" games retained for a conference network. The only "postseason" games in that group are CCGs in football and conference tournaments in hoops. Those games skew the split even more in favor of FB, because the CCGs get much better ratings. Highest-rated conference tournament games last year were 2.6 for the Big Ten final and 2.2 for the ACC final -- and those games were already included in the statistics from Sports Media Watch I linked above; their stats include conference tournaments. In contrast, the highest-rated football CCGs were 7.8 for the SEC and 5.7 for the Big Ten.

So, let's include the conference tournaments in hoops and the CCGs in football, but not bowls, playoffs, or the NCAA tournament -- i.e., include only games the conferences retain the rights to sell -- and look again at the Sports Media Watch stats.

Here are the links again: http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/ for FB, and http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2015/03/...fs1-nbcsn/ for MBB. In 2015 there were 106 FB games that drew at least a 1.5 TV rating; in 2014-15 there were 25 MBB games with a rating at least that high.

Including the NCAA tournament or the NIT, or the football bowls or playoff games makes no sense when considering the value split for TV money paid to a conference for games not on conference networks. ESPN and Fox are not going to pay a conference more for regular-season hoops just because March Madness has TV value.

(02-17-2016 12:09 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  It makes sense to include them, because it is a part of the equation. Unless you don't think money is earned for those games. Also, it still disproves your position, with even regular season games account for 40% of viewers in relation to football, a 6/40 split, not 80/20, or 82/18 as you tried to put it.

I think Wedge has the better of the argument here, AD. The old Big East was a special case, in that the basketball was premium quality while the football was not.

Everything we heard from "sources" from the ACC-Fox-Raycom deal to now was that football accounted for 70-80% of TV revenues. We heard that from ACC sources who were told that by ESPN, we saw it in the Boise-Big East contract (No 70% for FB, Boise would pay no exit fee), we heard about it in the OBE-FB schools' exasperation with the basketball schools who were obstinate and bristled at the idea of a 75-25 split in the spring of 2011. And apparently we see it ratified in the PAC contracts.

In a way, it even got validated by the Fox-Big East contract. Big EAst is banking about $40M per year, which is about 20% of what the Big 12 TV package sold for.

Yes, low-tier basketball games are the bread and butter of a conference network. I don't konw how much that helps UConn--do the New York metro area cable providers swallow yet another conference network on basic cable?

Now if the answer to THAT question is yes, then UConn in the Big 12 on a Big 12 network makes sense.

(02-17-2016 12:34 PM)Wedge Wrote:  So, let's include the conference tournaments in hoops and the CCGs in football, but not bowls, playoffs, or the NCAA tournament -- i.e., include only games the conferences retain the rights to sell -- and look again at the Sports Media Watch stats. r regular-season hoops just because March Madness has TV value.

I actually included those in the numbers I listed, under regular season. My numbers are from the same source, I only have all of the games tabulated. You can keep fighting this, but it is a losing battle

(02-17-2016 09:20 AM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 11:45 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 03:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-15-2016 07:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-15-2016 06:19 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  If the plan is for a conference network, those numbers change drastically.

Also PAC 12 basketball is not as valuable as 3 of be other 4 conferences, so it's not a great metric.

Regular season college basketball is not a great TV draw, period. The FB/BB split by conference might be a little different; the ACC for example has less valuable football and more valuable basketball, but I bet even the ACC's "value split" would be about 75-25.

The Big Ten Network might have failed, period, if not for Big Ten basketball. You can look it up. Tier 3 football consists of Big name teams playing FCS or smaller named schools, and conference games against the bottom teams. They didn't sell well. Because of the large nature of basketball games, with 15-20 games per team on the network, including big name matchups, it was a bigger part of the success and ultimate clearance of the network, and draws many more total viewers, than football games.

Big name football draws better than big name basketball. When you pop off the top, and are talking about the drawing power of the non-national TV games, the dynamics change, and the quantity counts a lot more.

(02-15-2016 07:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

So only 25 CBB regular season games, fewer than 3% of the televised games, got a rating of 1.5 or better -- in contrast, there were about 90 CFB regular season games in 2015 that got ratings that good or better.

Here are some season numbers for you (note these are from last year, I don't have full numbers yet for this year). People can cherry pick numbers as they see them, but when it comes to football vs. basketball, the frequency of games must be considered.

National TV games only

Regular Season
Sport_____ Gms_ viewership____Est Prod Cost*
Football___ 204__558,079,000__$30,600,000
Basketball_ 678__355,558,000__$12,750,000
Viewership ratio 61.16%/38.9%

Post Season
Sport_____ Gms_ viewership____Est Prod Cost*
Football___ 46___238,482,000__$34,500,000
Basketball_ 145__391,495,000__$22,500,000
Viewership ratio 37.9%/62.1%

Total
Sport_____ Gms_ viewership____Est Prod Cost*
Football___ 250___796,561,000_$65,100,000
Basketball_ 823___747,053,000__$35,300,000
Viewership ratio 51.6%/48.4%

*Estimated cost to produce the games, does not include rights fees

Football has more "events" which draw a premium in ad rates. But daily viewership adds up.

I bought big 10 network from 2007 to 2014 for 1 reason only: college wrestling. Cheers!

So you're the one.

Actually I have know idea, is wrestling a spectator sport in the Midwest?

Cause here in MA the Big10 just comes with the sports package with a bunch of weird crap. Just incase I want to watch an Atlanta HS indoor track it's there too for some reason.

Iowa vs Oklahoma St wrestling meet drew 40,000 spectators just 2 months ago. Now that meet was held at Nile Kinnick football stadium, and not Carver Hawkeye Arena like usual. But I've been to at least 2 dozen meets that drew over 10,000 fans. Mostly in Iowa City at Carver, but also in Ames at Hilton (Iowa St) and in Stillwater for the Bedlam meets (OU vs OSU), and Iowa v OSU. I've been to wrestling meets, big 10 tournaments, big 8 and then big 12 tournaments and the NCAA tournament all over the country. I was in Cedar Falls Iowa (Northern Iowa) for the 1997 NCAA Wrestling Tournament that had at least 15,000 fans for each session. Penn St also has been known to draw crowds close to 10k. Other eastern schools close to where you live that have drawn well are Lehigh. It's mostly a mid western spectator sport but there's a ton of Division 1 wrestling schools out east as well....cheers!

(02-15-2016 08:22 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  I think UConn would do well in the Big 12. They have a good TV market. Also, they get exposure in the NYC market, and having ESPN headquartered in their state will not hurt.

I did not know that the Hardford(NOT Fairfield/NYC) DMA was that strong!

(02-17-2016 01:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Everything we heard from "sources" from the ACC-Fox-Raycom deal to now was that football accounted for 70-80% of TV revenues. We heard that from ACC sources who were told that by ESPN

Actually that is false. It was well reported and known, back in 2008, that when the ACC signed their new deal, which at the time was the largest in college sports, that the reason for the substantial increase was that it now included ALL basketball rights, whereas previously Raycom held the primary basketball right in ACC markets (most ACC basketball games prior to that that were on ESPN, were blacked out in ACC markets). The new deal included nationwide first tier rights to basketball for the first time, and was the prime reason the contract doubled. It would take a lot of time to search for said sources now, since the key words would pull up more recent articles on more recent events, but if you can find them now, you will see this. I recall Frank the Tank mentioning it once as well, so he may have the source saved somewhere. This was prior to the ballooning of sports rights, which made it hard to allocate the reasons for the increase.

The ONLY person who said that ACC football was for 80%, was John Swofford, when defending the value of ACC football when it was under attack a few years back, who made it as an off the cuff comment, made at a time he thought he would never have to prove it (technically he still doesn't). Of course when ND joined the ACC, and they had to pay ND for their portion of basketball rights... well let's just say that they get more than the equivalent of 1/15 of 20% of the TV contract.

(02-17-2016 01:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  we saw it in the Boise-Big East contract (No 70% for FB, Boise would pay no exit fee)

I mentioned this above. Reading the agreement is a far better source than repeating what is said, when the specific wording makes a big difference. The actual agreement stated that in totality, the football playing schools must receive at least 70% of the money. But that really doesn't mean much. For example, under the old Big east agreement, the TV revenue was actually 70/30 in favor of basketball. But even with that set up, because half of the teams did not play football, even then the "football playing schools" STILL made 64% of the revenue [(8*($32MM/16)+(8*($13MM/8)]/$45MM=64%. That was all the contract stated. Essentially even if the prorations stayed the same, and for this calculation, I will just use the exact same numbers of 32/13 with the new membership, the numbers would be as follows [(9*($32MM/16)+(12*($13MM/12)/$45MM]= 69% (note there would have been 7 non-FB teams, 9 full members, and 3 FB only members). It was essentially protection against the football value going down relative to basketball value in the AAC.

(02-17-2016 01:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  we heard about it in the OBE-FB schools' exasperation with the basketball schools who were obstinate and bristled at the idea of a 75-25 split in the spring of 2011. And apparently we see it ratified in the PAC contracts.

Negotiation and final agreements are two different things. In this case, the BE would have lost a good chunk of its TV value (market size) without the non-football schools, to they were absolutely right, FB/BB split aside.

(02-17-2016 01:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  In a way, it even got validated by the Fox-Big East contract. Big EAst is banking about $40M per year, which is about 20% of what the Big 12 TV package sold for.

And was twice what the AAC got for both, and more importantly to them, a 100% increase over what they were getting before.

(02-17-2016 01:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Yes, low-tier basketball games are the bread and butter of a conference network. I don't konw how much that helps UConn--do the New York metro area cable providers swallow yet another conference network on basic cable?

Now if the answer to THAT question is yes, then UConn in the Big 12 on a Big 12 network makes sense.

That is the key here for UConn. All cable providers in the state of CT will put it on the basic cable tier. That would be the entire Hartford-New Haven DMA, which is a top 30 market and the portion of the NYC DMA that is located in CT (Fairfield County). What I don't know is what the implications would be for the cable providers in NYC DMA outside of CT.

(02-17-2016 01:55 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 01:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Everything we heard from "sources" from the ACC-Fox-Raycom deal to now was that football accounted for 70-80% of TV revenues. We heard that from ACC sources who were told that by ESPN

The ONLY person who said that ACC football was for 80%, was John Swofford, when defending the value of ACC football when it was under attack a few years back, who made it as an off the cuff comment, made at a time he thought he would never have to prove it (technically he still doesn't).

Quote: Of course when ND joined the ACC, and they had to pay ND for their portion of basketball rights... well let's just say that they get more than the equivalent of 1/15 of 20% of the TV contract.

Well, Notre DAme's first year in the ACC they cashed a $4.9M check. Hard to say what that really means--does that account for ND football's bowl revenue, is there a phase-in period, etc. But if that's the real number, then that's more support for the idea that, at the P5 level, basketball and football split the revenues 3:1 or even 4:1 Article about ACC 2013-14 tax return

Total ACC revenue was $292M. Divide by 4 and then by 15, and my calculator says $4.866667M.

You may be right that CBB is generally undervalued. But the undervaluing seems to be shared by the college presidents and TV executives.

Quote:

(02-17-2016 01:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  we saw it in the Boise-Big East contract (No 70% for FB, Boise would pay no exit fee)

I mentioned this above. Reading the agreement is a far better source than repeating what is said, when the specific wording makes a big difference. The actual agreement stated that in totality, the football playing schools must receive at least 70% of the money.

Yeah, I remember when the NEw Big East fans tried to sell that malarkey. I'm pretty sure the contract (whose PDF is now beyond my google fu to conjure up out of the mists of time) stated something like "allocated to football contests". It was a nothing provision anyway, it did not commit the Big EAst to anything, just gave Boise the right to walk without paying the $5M "See ya never" fee.

Quote:It was essentially protection against the football value going down relative to basketball value in the AAC.

OR at least a negotiating point for Boise when it came time to divide up that yuuge New Big East payday that everyone expected to happen.

Quote:

(02-17-2016 01:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  we heard about it in the OBE-FB schools' exasperation with the basketball schools who were obstinate and bristled at the idea of a 75-25 split in the spring of 2011. And apparently we see it ratified in the PAC contracts.

Negotiation and final agreements are two different things. In this case, the BE would have lost a good chunk of its TV value (market size) without the non-football schools, to they were absolutely right, FB/BB split aside.

Yeah, we know that NOW. But at the time, the football school presidents saw it as evidence of the CYO schools' hopeless cluelessness. And when it trickled out a year or so later, the football school fans saw it the same way. The default assumption was that "football drives the bus" and generates the lions' share of TV revenue.

Quote:

(02-17-2016 01:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  In a way, it even got validated by the Fox-Big East contract. Big EAst is banking about $40M per year, which is about 20% of what the Big 12 TV package sold for.

And was twice what the AAC got for both, and more importantly to them, a 100% increase over what they were getting before.

Well, except of course for UConn, UC and USF.

But I'd say that the idea that ESPN and Fox pay 70-80% for football and 20-30% for basketball is pretty well supported. Yes, the Big EAst contracts didn't come out that way, but that makes the Big EAst an outlier. Syracuse vs UConn is a premium property in basketball, in football not so much.

Now, if you're talking about a conference network, you're talking about subscription dollars, and that is a very different picture. Then 10 UConn nonconference body-bag games and 25 womens' games are valuable.

^Just a note, on the above add my tag line [quote=adcorbett] under each one of yours, and it will format correctly so it is easier to read for anyone else just joining in.