The bump that the addition of Syracuse, Pitt and ND's partial to the ACC regarding tv $ has been reported. I am not familiar what impact Nebraska had on the B1G contract? How about the addition of Rutgers and Maryland?
Because the ACC doesn't have a network, the bumb in the TV contract was for all three tiers. I'm just trying to get a numeric ballpark figure on the impact additions make on tier 1, 2 and 3 money. Backing out the Bowl money and NCAA money and P5 playoff distribution and trying to only focus on tv $. What extra did tv partners pay each conference for their addition?

I guess another way to ask my questions....

Is the B1G fully monetized with their upcoming contract?

How about the ACC?

The big ten is making so much money expansion might be dumb to do. I think the big ten and sec should want the pac 20 to occur just to stabilize things with both staying at 14.

(05-28-2016 06:18 PM)Dasville Wrote:  The bump that the addition of Syracuse, Pitt and ND's partial to the ACC regarding tv $ has been reported. I am not familiar what impact Nebraska had on the B1G contract? How about the addition of Rutgers and Maryland?
Because the ACC doesn't have a network, the bumb in the TV contract was for all three tiers. I'm just trying to get a numeric ballpark figure on the impact additions make on tier 1, 2 and 3 money. Backing out the Bowl money and NCAA money and P5 playoff distribution and trying to only focus on tv $. What extra did tv partners pay each conference for their addition?

Maryland Rutgers joined in July 2014. The fiscal year was already underway when they joined.

Maryland and Rutgers lead to a $110 million increase in revenue without a full cycle of membership. Maryland was given a front loaded contract with bigger BTN payouts (basically a loan that will be paid back over time) than Nebraska and Rutgers.

As far as the bump in the Tier 1/2 contract for the B1G with additions of Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska, the first half of the TV rights went for $250 million a year. That is based on a scale though so you have to wait until all of the details are released to know how it all breaks down.

Thus, it isn't known yet just how much expansion into Nebraska, Maryland, Washington D.C., New Jersey and New York (New York City!!) has been worth for a new TV contract.

So they MD and Rut $110 million bump was solely the enhanced cable subscriber fees?
The B1G has yet to realize any tier 1or2 $ bump from Nebraska, MD or Rutgers?

Am I understanding you correctly?

They have not altered their tier 1 or 2 tv contracts since any joined. THey wanted to wait until their contracts were up (any option to renegotiate when those teams's were added aurwly would have come with more years attached). Nebraska allowed Them to add the CCG, which added $25 million per year, plus a million or so BTN subscriptions. mD and aruthers allowed them to significantly expand the B10 Network home area footprint, and add money that way.

33% this past fiscal year.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col.../84553752/

There's no way of knowing, and it depends on what you mean by "add."

My guess is that most of the new value is because of Michigan deciding to not be terrible. Michigan vs. Michigan State games will be epic for the next decade. The same goes for Michigan vs. Ohio State. Michigan vs. Penn State should also be a big ratings boon now that at least one of the team's is good.

However, Iowashowing life in the B1G west is also a big deal. Iowa vs. Wisconsin should be a very strong game, as will the B1G championship, now that there's a high chance that both schools in it will be very good.

Add in other crossover games, a willingness to trade lower ratings for money, a growing market, dramatic improvement on the basketball front (partially thanks to UMD), and money is going to go up.

I also think that these markets are fairly inefficient, so there's a crazy lag. Look at coaching salaries as a comp. salaries that were record-breaking a decade ago are pedestrian at big name programs. Coaches were underpaid, just like schools have been underpaid for their content. In both instances, the markets are pushing towards equilibrium, but it takes time to reach it.

(05-28-2016 09:26 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Thus, it isn't known yet just how much expansion into Nebraska, Maryland, Washington D.C., New Jersey and New York (New York City!!) has been worth for a new TV contract.

You have to understand that Markets was NOT in the B1G plans, it has always been down the list.

Rutgers was added, IMHO because of the massive Alumni base in that part of the country. Maryland was on the table for a while and checked all of the boxes the Conference wanted as far as an Institution. Nebraska, to me seems odd. I know it helps Iowa and Wisconsin, but was it a move worth doing in the long run?

(05-30-2016 02:38 PM)lance99 Wrote:  

(05-28-2016 09:26 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Thus, it isn't known yet just how much expansion into Nebraska, Maryland, Washington D.C., New Jersey and New York (New York City!!) has been worth for a new TV contract.

You have to understand that Markets was NOT in the B1G plans, it has always been down the list.

Rutgers was added, IMHO because of the massive Alumni base in that part of the country. Maryland was on the table for a while and checked all of the boxes the Conference wanted as far as an Institution. Nebraska, to me seems odd. I know it helps Iowa and Wisconsin, but was it a move worth doing in the long run?

Nebraska was a money grab.

(05-30-2016 01:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  There's no way of knowing, and it depends on what you mean by "add."

My guess is that most of the new value is because of Michigan deciding to not be terrible. Michigan vs. Michigan State games will be epic for the next decade. The same goes for Michigan vs. Ohio State. Michigan vs. Penn State should also be a big ratings boon now that at least one of the team's is good.

However, Iowashowing life in the B1G west is also a big deal. Iowa vs. Wisconsin should be a very strong game, as will the B1G championship, now that there's a high chance that both schools in it will be very good.

Add in other crossover games, a willingness to trade lower ratings for money, a growing market, dramatic improvement on the basketball front (partially thanks to UMD), and money is going to go up.

I also think that these markets are fairly inefficient, so there's a crazy lag. Look at coaching salaries as a comp. salaries that were record-breaking a decade ago are pedestrian at big name programs. Coaches were underpaid, just like schools have been underpaid for their content. In both instances, the markets are pushing towards equilibrium, but it takes time to reach it.

So would it be fair to say that MD and Rutgers added nothing for tier 1 and 2 in football but added some to the basketball side of the deal? Would it also be fair to say that Nebraska added some to tier 1,2 in football but nothing in basketball in tier1 and 2?

Im trying to figure out if the extra mouths were worth it. If MD and Rutgers bring nothing more than eyeballs and Nebraska brings competition but limited eyeballs, how do you judge? Would the B1G have enjoyed a pay raise with out the addition of Maryland and Rutgers? If so, how much?

(05-30-2016 02:43 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 01:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  There's no way of knowing, and it depends on what you mean by "add."

My guess is that most of the new value is because of Michigan deciding to not be terrible. Michigan vs. Michigan State games will be epic for the next decade. The same goes for Michigan vs. Ohio State. Michigan vs. Penn State should also be a big ratings boon now that at least one of the team's is good.

However, Iowashowing life in the B1G west is also a big deal. Iowa vs. Wisconsin should be a very strong game, as will the B1G championship, now that there's a high chance that both schools in it will be very good.

Add in other crossover games, a willingness to trade lower ratings for money, a growing market, dramatic improvement on the basketball front (partially thanks to UMD), and money is going to go up.

I also think that these markets are fairly inefficient, so there's a crazy lag. Look at coaching salaries as a comp. salaries that were record-breaking a decade ago are pedestrian at big name programs. Coaches were underpaid, just like schools have been underpaid for their content. In both instances, the markets are pushing towards equilibrium, but it takes time to reach it.

So would it be fair to say that MD and Rutgers added nothing for tier 1 and 2 in football but added some to the basketball side of the deal? Would it also be fair to say that Nebraska added some to tier 1,2 in football but nothing in basketball in tier1 and 2?

Im trying to figure out if the extra mouths were worth it. If MD and Rutgers bring nothing more than eyeballs and Nebraska brings competition but limited eyeballs, how do you judge? Would the B1G have enjoyed a pay raise with out the addition of Maryland and Rutgers? If so, how much?

I don't think it's as simple as you're making it sound.

1. Being in a market doesn't equate to TV value.

2. Every school adds *something* for all the sports that they sponsor. The issue is whether that something is enough to justify that school's cost.

3. Keeping PSU from getting wandering eyes was a significant motivation for the additions. How do you wuantify that? You'd have to know how much the B1G values PSU and the decreased likelihood of PSU jumping.

4. Indirect benefits. How does having UMD and RU impact recruiting, donations, etc., and how much is that worth?

My guess is that the two schools added value on the whole, but would have cost the conference money in a vacuum. If PSU would have stayed in either scenario, I think that the B1G would have gotten a bigger short term per school pay raise w/o UMD and RU. I think that schools like Michigan did most of the heavy lifting. Hiring Harbough was a HUGE win for the conference.

(05-30-2016 02:38 PM)lance99 Wrote:  

(05-28-2016 09:26 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Thus, it isn't known yet just how much expansion into Nebraska, Maryland, Washington D.C., New Jersey and New York (New York City!!) has been worth for a new TV contract.

You have to understand that Markets was NOT in the B1G plans, it has always been down the list.

Rutgers was added, IMHO because of the massive Alumni base in that part of the country. Maryland was on the table for a while and checked all of the boxes the Conference wanted as far as an Institution. Nebraska, to me seems odd. I know it helps Iowa and Wisconsin, but was it a move worth doing in the long run?

You can believe whatever you want, but large markets = money. The B1G is locking down the worlds media epicenter and there is not a thing any other conference in the nation can do about it anymore.

Notre Dame is the most watched and most followed school in the country in New York City. If the B1G lands Notre Dame, the rest of the nation is locked out of the city.

OP, I am going over some BTN revenue data and a Texas move to the B1G generates over 100 million dollars of revenue to just the BTN. Notre Dame would generate 48 million dollars to BTN. Kansas is 46 million dollars to BTN. Rutgers brought in over 60 million dollars to BTN.

(05-30-2016 03:24 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  OP, I am going over some BTN revenue data and a Texas move to the B1G generates over 100 million dollars of revenue to just the BTN. Notre Dame would generate 48 million dollars to BTN. Kansas is 46 million dollars to BTN. Rutgers brought in over 60 million dollars to BTN.

I'm not sure how ND adds any money to a B1G network. They have no home market of their own (not already in the B1G footprint), and as a school who has had every game on national TV for a quarter century. I just don't see them voluntarily signing up to have 2-3 football games per year not on national TV.

(05-30-2016 03:24 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  OP, I am going over some BTN revenue data and a Texas move to the B1G generates over 100 million dollars of revenue to just the BTN. Notre Dame would generate 48 million dollars to BTN. Kansas is 46 million dollars to BTN. Rutgers brought in over 60 million dollars to BTN.

If your theory is that Rutgers is worth 25% more than Notre Dame, then I strongly suggest that you re-evaluate your methodology.

The same goes for Kansas - ESPECIALLY if you're primarily looking at non-football sports.

(05-30-2016 03:52 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 03:24 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  OP, I am going over some BTN revenue data and a Texas move to the B1G generates over 100 million dollars of revenue to just the BTN. Notre Dame would generate 48 million dollars to BTN. Kansas is 46 million dollars to BTN. Rutgers brought in over 60 million dollars to BTN.

If your theory is that Rutgers is worth 25% more than Notre Dame, then I strongly suggest that you re-evaluate your methodology.

The same goes for Kansas - ESPECIALLY if you're primarily looking at non-football sports.

Most of the ND value is Tier 1.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-s...22365.html

From the above article quoting the USAToday report on B1G tax returns for FY2015 (7/1/2014 - 6/30/2015 - 1st year of Maryland and Rutgers play), overall revenue for the conference increased by approx. $110M. Out of the $110M, sports revenue (TV revenue and revenue from bowl games including the playoffs) increased by approx. $80M compared to FY2014.

Out of the $80M, USAToday backed out the bowl/playoffs revenue based on data from other conferences. Maryland and Rutgers directly increased the TV rights fees in a range of $50M - $60M for the conference. TV rights fees have nothing to do with who plays well or doesn't. Simply due to adding the 2 schools and their marketplaces. Regardless, both schools made good business sense for the B1G

(05-30-2016 04:24 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 03:52 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 03:24 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  OP, I am going over some BTN revenue data and a Texas move to the B1G generates over 100 million dollars of revenue to just the BTN. Notre Dame would generate 48 million dollars to BTN. Kansas is 46 million dollars to BTN. Rutgers brought in over 60 million dollars to BTN.

If your theory is that Rutgers is worth 25% more than Notre Dame, then I strongly suggest that you re-evaluate your methodology.

The same goes for Kansas - ESPECIALLY if you're primarily looking at non-football sports.

Most of the ND value is Tier 1.

That's true with every school. However, unlike many schools, ND has excellent Olympic sports and basketball.

(05-30-2016 04:52 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 04:24 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 03:52 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 03:24 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  OP, I am going over some BTN revenue data and a Texas move to the B1G generates over 100 million dollars of revenue to just the BTN. Notre Dame would generate 48 million dollars to BTN. Kansas is 46 million dollars to BTN. Rutgers brought in over 60 million dollars to BTN.

If your theory is that Rutgers is worth 25% more than Notre Dame, then I strongly suggest that you re-evaluate your methodology.

The same goes for Kansas - ESPECIALLY if you're primarily looking at non-football sports.

Most of the ND value is Tier 1.

That's true with every school. However, unlike many schools, ND has excellent Olympic sports and basketball.

Getting ND doesn't add make cable companies pay more for the households in the state containing the new member because they already have Indiana locked up.

You can argue that having ND in the conference would allow for more lucrative BTN deals overall, but I think the original deals the BTN signed still have a ways to run, so for now "how big is the additional footprint" is the main consideration for adding BTN revenue.