(04-20-2016 09:26 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  ......... what happens to the Big XII? I see them so much right now, and more than I ever did when they actually had twelve members. They can't be liking this. Does this jolt some of the malcontents more out into the open and start the conversations with other conferences?.......

Perhaps it jolts them into realizing that they need to expand, have a conference championship game which makes sense (as opposed to 10 schools which play round-robin) and fold the LHN into a Big 12 network.

I think $250M for the Top 25 B1G games is BS. That is valuing each game at $10M. Army/Navy is one of the top games on TV and only yields $5M a year...there is speculation it might go to $10M in a few years. The 12th or 13th best game in the Top 25 isn't worth $10M...the numbers trail off pretty good after the first 4 or so B1G exclusive games.

(04-20-2016 08:35 PM)krup Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 07:30 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  ESPN is starting the ACC Network so they are letting the BIG GO!!! Ok...Maybe not but it sure looks like the ACC Network may become a reality if BIG goes to FS or NBC!

I don't understand the logic. ESPN losing B1G games from the ESPN/2/U channels is going to make them MORE likely to also pull ACC games from those channels for a new cable network? I would think it would be the opposite.

This.

I am pretty sure one reason ESPN decided to match NBC's high exposure offer to the American conference because it knew it would be offloading SEC content to the SEC channel and therefore had room.

Should ESPN lose all ties to the Big 10, then ESPN can offer the ACC something better than a conference network: better exposure windows on higher rated channels within the ESPN family. Less games on NEWS. Less games on U. More on the bigger channels.

The trickle down effect on exposure should also benefit the American conference when it's deal comes up for renewal in 2018-19, assuming the American is not raided.

(04-21-2016 09:28 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  I think $250M for the Top 25 B1G games is BS. That is valuing each game at $10M. Army/Navy is one of the top games on TV and only yields $5M a year...there is speculation it might go to $10M in a few years. The 12th or 13th best game in the Top 25 isn't worth $10M...the numbers trail off pretty good after the first 4 or so B1G exclusive games.

You forgot the 50 basketball games.

And the article was clear that the deal could be less than $250M depending on how the second half was negotiated. I read that to mean that if Fox paid the full $250M, they would get the conference title game.

TexanMark...your math is weird. 25 football games and 50 bball games is what they are buying. So, if you more modestly price each football game at 8 million...you are then talking about 1 million per basketball game. I think Michigan vs. Minnesota (a mediocre Big Ten game) has equal national appeal of Army/Navy, which--despite its protected time slot--doesn't get wild ratings. (And Army/Navy will be able to get better money next negotiations as well...probably like 8-10 million, like you said.)

I think ESPN might be considering cutting a channel altogether. If they lose that much Big Ten content, I think they'll need to cut ESPNU or ESPNews. They just won't be able to pay the bills anymore.

(04-21-2016 09:50 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  TexanMark...your math is weird. 25 football games and 50 bball games is what they are buying. So, if you more modestly price each football game at 8 million...you are then talking about 1 million per basketball game. I think Michigan vs. Minnesota (a mediocre Big Ten game) has equal national appeal of Army/Navy, which--despite its protected time slot--doesn't get wild ratings. (And Army/Navy will be able to get better money next negotiations as well...probably like 8-10 million, like you said.)

I think ESPN might be considering cutting a channel altogether. If they lose that much Big Ten content, I think they'll need to cut ESPNU or ESPNews. They just won't be able to pay the bills anymore.

They have more content than they know what to do with. ESPN is fine even if they lose the other half.

(04-21-2016 09:50 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  TexanMark...your math is weird. 25 football games and 50 bball games is what they are buying. So, if you more modestly price each football game at 8 million...you are then talking about 1 million per basketball game. I think Michigan vs. Minnesota (a mediocre Big Ten game) has equal national appeal of Army/Navy, which--despite its protected time slot--doesn't get wild ratings. (And Army/Navy will be able to get better money next negotiations as well...probably like 8-10 million, like you said.)

I think ESPN might be considering cutting a channel altogether. If they lose that much Big Ten content, I think they'll need to cut ESPNU or ESPNews. They just won't be able to pay the bills anymore.

Yeah I forgot about BB...so it would be a probably anywhere from 60/40 to 70/30 spread...so back if off to $6.5 to 7.0M for the average game among the Top 25.

They also offloaded Curt today as well.No more foul mouth baseball analyst. Too bad they can't offload some more on air personalities like Smith, Bertrend and some others. Maybe get rid of that goofball Finebaum as well.

I think we see ESPN pick up 12-13 football games and some basketball for $75M+.

ESPN will have a Big Ten Game of the Week on ESPN. Illinois v. Penn St., Wisconsin v. Northwestern, Ohio St. v. Indiana, Michigan v. Maryland type games. May be on ABC 2-3 times when a good game falls to them.

ESPN still has tons of quality football inventory for the rest of its TV lineup - SEC (minus CBS game), all of ACC, half of PAC 12 and Big 12, BYU, Boise St., and AAC.

NBC or CBS will pickup the other 12 or 13 games. NBC could lead in to Notre Dame games with a decent B1G matchup; CBS could lead in to the SEC Game of the Week.

The other alternative for CBS would be a primetime game, especially since it could kickoff around 7:30 Eastern and CBS could still handoff to local affiliates in the Eastern and Central Time Zones for the late local news. Given how many SEC games run long, it may just work better to schedule 7.5 hours for both games.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a realization by ABC/ESPN management that they cannot corner the entire college sports market for themselves or the majority of it.

ESPN though continues to have the highest viewership of the sports networks with the long cable history. With built in viewership it can be more economical to sign every P5 but do it for a more limited amount of games. Have just enough college football on TV to keep the brand strong.

OTA is making a comeback with cord cutting and/or reducing the size of cable packages. ESPN is getting pushed into the premium packages to keep costs down for consumers.

The TV arms race slows down it will give the PAC, ACC and B12 time to catch up to the SEC and B1G in valuation. The key is going to make the conference networks happen. PAC is struggling, ACC doesn't have theirs yet and the B12 has a roadblock from getting one started with the Longhorn Network.

Could the PAC pick off a couple of schools from the B12.....Oklahoma and Kansas to the PAC so they can share in a conference network and enhance PAC basketball. Texas will stay until the very end most predictably.

(04-20-2016 09:26 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Fox thinks it needs more market share, and the Big Ten is just testing the limits of the market. If Fox wants it so bad, and the B1G thinks this is worth their while, let them both have at it. ESPN isn't seeing the return it thought it would, but try telling that to higher ed folks, and good luck with it.

Personally, Fox is virtually invisible in my area, and while I get Fox and FS1, I get more Comcast/NBC stations and ESPN ones. If you're a fan of a school not getting national broadcast love, and are dealt with the wastelands of second and third tier territory, and that's one heck of a footprint the Big Ten has, this will anger some of the schools. Penn State fans who already hate the Big Ten are going to foam at the mouth at this one.

Also, what happens to the Big XII? I see them so much right now, and more than I ever did when they actually had twelve members. They can't be liking this. Does this jolt some of the malcontents more out into the open and start the conversations with other conferences?

Could you clarify what you mean by this? The way I'm reading it is that you are saying the Big XII is now getting more exposure than ever. Why would you say they can't like that? Isn't more exposure a good thing?

(04-20-2016 09:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ESPN has a few options at their disposal and which one they choose will tell us a lot.

a. The could park their most valuable ACC property in the SEC and cut the rest loose by not starting an ACCN and leaving their revenue relatively low compared to the market.

If they do this though they will lose access to content. Right now between the ACC / SEC / and Big 12 ESPN has 7 of the top 10 revenue producers, and something like 16 or 17 of the top 20. They have the two markets that are most saturated with viewers in the SEC and Big 12. They have the largest market in the ACC. They have the best football, the best basketball in the P5 (Kudos AAC!) and the best baseball.

They have lacrosse, gymnastics, tennis, golf, track & field, soccer, softball and various other sports if they choose to broadcast them and champions are represented in each.

So I don't give option (a) a very high probability.

b. They could take the money they would spend on the Big 10 and use that cash to influence the brands they want most from the Big 12 and place them in either the SEC (more likely) or ACC (possible but not probable). By doing this they might be able to convert the LHN and open an ACCN.

A bowl pairing between the SEC champion and ACC champion could become a semifinal for the CFP on down the road as likely the Rose Bowl will become the same for the Big 10 and PAC at some point. By packaging the two networks together across the combined footprint they would eliminate the SEC's need to have Virginia and North Carolina and both sides could settle in.

I give option (b) a high probability.

c. They could buy the second half of the Big 10 rights but what would they get? The Big 10 has 6 brands that can command a T1 audience (UM, MSU, OSU, PSU, Neb, & Wisc.). They don't all play each other. The total possible number of T1 match ups between those six is about 10 or 11 games tops. Most years it would be less. After that with not much of a middle the quality of the games gets dramatically poorer.

On the other hand half of the Big 10 's basketball games would be worth going after......if you didn't already have the ACC which has plenty of competitive games.

If ESPN wanted anything from the Big 10 it was the first half of the rights, not so much the second half.

I give option © a lower probability.

d. ESPN could refuse to purchase Big 10 rights, refuse the ACCN, try to hang onto the LHN, and ride the SEC just like it is.

If they do this neither the ACC nor SEC will be likely to sign with them again from 2027 to 2035. That's a long time for me, if I make it, but it isn't much in the life of a company.

I don't know what probability to give this one, but it would be the worst decision ESPN ever made if that's the way they go.

To your point, there were 9 matchups between the top 6 B1G brands last year. Six of those involved either Nebraska or Penn State, arguably the ones with the least national appeal in recent years. They didn't even get one in the CCG.

IMO, there weren't 25 B1G conference games worth bidding on. And the OOC games a bidder might get the rights to are equally limited. By my count, last year there were 7 excellent OOC games involving B1G teams. I don't know how many of these might have been included in the rights package Fox just bid on. They were: OSU-Va Tech, Nebraska-BYU, Mich State-Oregon, Michigan-Utah, Michigan-BYU, Wisconsin-Alabama and Northwestern-Stanford.

To me, the only way $250 million makes any sense is if you are knowingly willing to overpay to capture market share in the short run that will help you command higher ad rates/carriage fees down the road. That doesn't describe ESPN's position in the marketplace today.

(04-20-2016 09:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  c. They could buy the second half of the Big 10 rights but what would they get?

There is no particular reason to believe that even if Fox gets the top end of whatever is contemplated in the contract, that will involve the top 25 games.

It is quite possible that the top end of the contract involves first pick for the Fox OTA GOTW and if the first pick is alternated the number goes down ... but in either event, the FS1 picks are not likely to be the balance of the top 25 games.

ESPN already has the mid-west region covered with the MAC. No need for Big Ten content, the MAC is taking over... :)

(04-24-2016 08:53 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  E*** already has the mid-west region covered with the MAC. No need for Big Ten content, the MAC is taking over... :)

And the four-letter network can claim partial credit for Kentucky, Louisville, Notre Dame, and Pittsburgh.