(04-15-2022 10:16 PM)cubucks Wrote:  Good, Mark Silverman is in the room so Kevin Warren doesn't screw this up. Silverman should be running this conference.

I noticed this as well. Very good news for the Big Ten.

(04-16-2022 10:13 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-16-2022 10:01 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(04-16-2022 09:58 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  What's most odd to me about FOX is they really have no robust online offerings at all. Everybody and their brother is creating a streaming service these days and FOX hasn't budged.

I'm not sure what that says about the future of the company, but it puts their content partners at a disadvantage.

Because they sold off all their back-library to Disney. They have no content.

Yes, and Disney has been upfront that their purchase of the Fox assets was about building out the Disney+ streaming service above all else.

It seems that Rupert Murdoch effectively came to the conclusion that the Fox assets were more valuable combined with Disney in a new streaming world compared to going it alone. He’s getting the financial benefit of being one of Disney’s largest shareholders while still running his own Fox networks. Plus, I think there was an undercurrent that he trusted Disney to take steward of those assets better than his family. (Succession on HBO has thinly-veiled parallels to the Murdoch family fight over the Fox/News Corp. business.)

IIRC, Rupert doesn’t hold any shares of Disney. The deal was structured so that Rupert got cash (and then increased his stake in Fox) while other Murdoch family members got Disney stock.

(04-16-2022 11:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-15-2022 10:15 PM)Tmac13 Wrote:  

(04-15-2022 09:52 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  And Fox is apparently having a hand in selecting the conference's second partner(maybe paywalled):

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Jo...media.aspx

If that 2nd partner is not ESPN, watch out.

The best news in this article for college football is how many networks are interested in bidding. NBC, looking to add, CBS, looking to replace the SEC, and Turner Sporrs looking to get into the college football business. That should bode well for conferences with expiring media deals in the next few years..

From the article (it also notes Amazon and Apple are interested in streaming):

"...The specifics of Fox’s new deal are not set — not even Big Ten or Fox executives know how many games that package will have as the conference still is trying to sell one, two or possibly three more packages to other suitors. The number of games going to Fox is dependent on how the conference structures these other packages. The conference expects to award these packages by Memorial Day.

Fox will have the main package and its deal will feature at least as many games as its current deal, probably more. Under its current agreement, Fox carries 27 Big Ten football games each season.

So far, traditional media companies CBS, ESPN and NBC have taken meetings with the Big Ten and Fox Sports.

CBS is looking for top-level football games to replace its Saturday afternoon SEC game, which is leaving for ESPN after the 2023 season.

NBC has pushed for a weekly Big Ten game that it can package with Notre Dame for a Saturday doubleheader. NBC has the rights to Notre Dame football through the 2025 season.

ESPN carries more of the top college football games than any other network and wants to keep a piece of the always highly rated Big Ten.

Turner Sports also has expressed interest, though its executives have waited on making a formal pitch until Discovery’s purchase of WarnerMedia passed through regulatory channels. That $43 billion deal became official April 8, and they are expected to meet with the Big Ten in the coming weeks....":

If Apple and Amazon buy a slice I will be interested to see if it is a transitional step into replacing the BTN, paying existing full members a buyout and eliminating the Big Ten's cumbersome buy in.

(04-16-2022 11:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-15-2022 10:37 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(04-15-2022 09:52 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  And Fox is apparently having a hand in selecting the conference's second partner(maybe paywalled):

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Jo...media.aspx

If that 2nd partner is not ESPN, watch out.

Thanks for posting, very interesting. If that 2nd partner isn't ESPN the PAC is going to be in a great position.

Pac and Big 12 are probably hoping that is the case. Its not clear if NBC, CBS and TNT would be as interested in those 2 conferences, at least for football.

I can't wait to see the final numbers on this. I'm really curious if Fox over paid to get the B1G.

I agree ESPN not being the 2nd partner would be ideal for the PAC and BigXII. It also might be exactly what ESPN
wants.

I've said it before and I don't think people take the idea seriously, I could really see ESPN going all in on the PAC. The caveat being that they absorb the 8 schools currently in the BigXII. I really believe we're entering a very dangerous window for the BigXII, no commissioner and your two biggest brands leaving. They're vulnerable and if ESPN was able to orchestrate a PAC20, they would own every time slot, with the AAC, ACC, PAC, and SEC, coast to coast football starting at noon and running thru midnight.

(04-16-2022 09:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To clarify my earlier post, I’d be really surprised if there are any streaming-only football games. Some men’s basketball or non-revenue sports would be a different story. The latter is the only justifiable reason (at least to me) of allowing the Fox executives in the room where games that are currently on BTN Plus (which is a terrible and expensive platform) can be integrated into a different streaming platform (such as ESPN+ or Apple TV+). 10 years ago, the Big Ten was ahead of everyone else in terms of exposure for non-football/basketball sports, but they’re now arguably behind a whole host of leagues because BTN Plus is an inferior platform. That’s something that Fox/BTN has to sign off on, so I can understand if they need knowledge of those types of proposals. I’m still not a fan of them being involved with the primary tier 1 football/basketball rights discussions at all, though.

Big 10+ content would work well on a Peacock or Paramount+ to compliment a GOTW football game on NBC or CBS

The only thing I know for sure is ... the B1G is about to cash in B1Gly.

Just a question of how bigly.

And, they will likely sign for just another six years, giving them another boost in 2030 before the SEC and ACC rights come up again.

The question in my mind is not whether ESPN needs the B1G or not, but the reverse. I'm not convinced the B1G, even if it does get $1 Billion a year over its contract, is willing to stay with ESPN. This exclusion will not go over well with fans or recruits.

(04-16-2022 02:22 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  The question in my mind is not whether ESPN needs the B1G or not, but the reverse. I'm not convinced the B1G, even if it does get $1 Billion a year over its contract, is willing to stay with ESPN. This exclusion will not go over well with fans or recruits.

I don't see a conflict between ESPN and the B1G developing here. ESPN definitely wants some B1G content, and the B1G probably sees value in being on ESPN.

And since they have shown a willingness to spurn ESPN in the past when it didn't get what it wanted, I suspect ESPN will make a very competitive offer to retain its current rights.

(04-16-2022 02:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-16-2022 02:22 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  The question in my mind is not whether ESPN needs the B1G or not, but the reverse. I'm not convinced the B1G, even if it does get $1 Billion a year over its contract, is willing to stay with ESPN. This exclusion will not go over well with fans or recruits.

I don't see a conflict between ESPN and the B1G developing here. ESPN definitely wants some B1G content, and the B1G probably sees value in being on ESPN.

And since they have shown a willingness to spurn ESPN in the past when it didn't get what it wanted, I suspect ESPN will make a very competitive offer to retain its current rights.

Except their current rights might be equivalent to as many as three packages depending on how they're structured... Would have to be extraordinarily competitive to get all of them.

(04-16-2022 02:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The only thing I know for sure is ... the B1G is about to cash in B1Gly.

Just a question of how bigly.

And, they will likely sign for just another six years, giving them another boost in 2030 before the SEC and ACC rights come up again.

Troll away for now, but talking to a lot of prospects isn't necessarily indicative of large gains. Pay for play stands to raise significant divisions. That is yet to be decided. And the college sports market is showing signs of deterioration everywhere, just less rapidly in the SE and SW.

We still don't know if FOX is simply backing away slowly or jumping in with a new strategy, but most of their recent moves have indicated a repositioning away from deeper involvement.

It seems to me they'll hold serve with the Big Ten with a raise for their part, but it also seems they are present for negotiations because they are transitioning out of the BTN since it has suffered annual losses due to cord cutting. Hence they are negotiating on their 51% of the BTN and assisting Warren with his 49% since they are partners. This explains Apple and Amazon. CBS and NBC may be a way for FOX to also sublet part of their expanded T1 rights package. Hence their participation in that as well.

What the B1G is almost assured of getting is broader exposure, and that's good. But use logic here, if FOX holds T1 how much can Big 10 games be worth to NBC or CBS unless FOX leases part of theirs to them. And if FOX increased their inventory the operative question is did that increase encompass what ESPN had held? If so, massive increases are not as likely since that is what FOX would be subleasing.

So Quo there are a lot of details which much come into focus before anyone can make a declarative statement about it.

(04-16-2022 02:22 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  The question in my mind is not whether ESPN needs the B1G or not, but the reverse. I'm not convinced the B1G, even if it does get $1 Billion a year over its contract, is willing to stay with ESPN. This exclusion will not go over well with fans or recruits.

I disagree. I think the only way that there isn’t *some* Big Ten content in ESPN is if Disney truly and utterly presents a terrible offer.

Kevin Warren just attended an upfront presentation with ESPN last week. There’s no personal animosity whatsoever. It’s all in fans’ heads about the emotional part of it (e.g. SEC bias at ESPN). If the Big Ten gets the right exposure and money from ESPN, then they’ll sign with them. They’re not turning down ESPN with all things being relatively equal, much less if ESPN presents an even better offer. I said the same thing a few years ago when the Big Ten was negotiating their current deals and lots of people were trying to say the same thing about the league leaving ESPN entirely. Cooler heads prevailed all around: both sides ultimately need each other (or at least stronger with each other).

(04-16-2022 02:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-16-2022 02:22 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  The question in my mind is not whether ESPN needs the B1G or not, but the reverse. I'm not convinced the B1G, even if it does get $1 Billion a year over its contract, is willing to stay with ESPN. This exclusion will not go over well with fans or recruits.

I disagree. I think the only way that there isn’t *some* Big Ten content in ESPN is if Disney truly and utterly presents a terrible offer.

Kevin Warren just attended an upfront presentation with ESPN last week. There’s no personal animosity whatsoever. It’s all in fans’ heads about the emotional part of it (e.g. SEC bias at ESPN). If the Big Ten gets the right exposure and money from ESPN, then they’ll sign with them. They’re not turning down ESPN with all things being relatively equal, much less if ESPN presents an even better offer. I said the same thing a few years ago when the Big Ten was negotiating their current deals and lots of people were trying to say the same thing about the league leaving ESPN entirely. Cooler heads prevailed all around: both sides ultimately need each other (or at least stronger with each other).

There isn't much room for emotions in a boardroom. It's strictly business. If each party makes money and is content that's emotion enough.

(04-16-2022 02:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-16-2022 02:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-16-2022 02:22 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  The question in my mind is not whether ESPN needs the B1G or not, but the reverse. I'm not convinced the B1G, even if it does get $1 Billion a year over its contract, is willing to stay with ESPN. This exclusion will not go over well with fans or recruits.

I disagree. I think the only way that there isn’t *some* Big Ten content in ESPN is if Disney truly and utterly presents a terrible offer.

Kevin Warren just attended an upfront presentation with ESPN last week. There’s no personal animosity whatsoever. It’s all in fans’ heads about the emotional part of it (e.g. SEC bias at ESPN). If the Big Ten gets the right exposure and money from ESPN, then they’ll sign with them. They’re not turning down ESPN with all things being relatively equal, much less if ESPN presents an even better offer. I said the same thing a few years ago when the Big Ten was negotiating their current deals and lots of people were trying to say the same thing about the league leaving ESPN entirely. Cooler heads prevailed all around: both sides ultimately need each other (or at least stronger with each other).

There isn't much room for emotions in a boardroom. It's strictly business. If each party makes money and is content that's emotion enough.

Exactly.

If ESPN makes the Big Ten a bad offer, then sure, they’ll turn it down. The Big Ten doesn’t HAVE to sign with ESPN.

However, if ESPN makes the Big Ten a competitive market rate offer, then the Big Ten also isn’t going to apply fan-based biases against ESPN at all. ESPN still has the most money of any linear network and way more exposure than any other entity (whether linear or digital). Why the heck wouldn’t the Big Ten want ESPN heavily involved in the bidding process? It makes no sense to unilaterally cut them out.

(04-16-2022 03:48 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-16-2022 02:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-16-2022 02:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-16-2022 02:22 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  The question in my mind is not whether ESPN needs the B1G or not, but the reverse. I'm not convinced the B1G, even if it does get $1 Billion a year over its contract, is willing to stay with ESPN. This exclusion will not go over well with fans or recruits.

I disagree. I think the only way that there isn’t *some* Big Ten content in ESPN is if Disney truly and utterly presents a terrible offer.

Kevin Warren just attended an upfront presentation with ESPN last week. There’s no personal animosity whatsoever. It’s all in fans’ heads about the emotional part of it (e.g. SEC bias at ESPN). If the Big Ten gets the right exposure and money from ESPN, then they’ll sign with them. They’re not turning down ESPN with all things being relatively equal, much less if ESPN presents an even better offer. I said the same thing a few years ago when the Big Ten was negotiating their current deals and lots of people were trying to say the same thing about the league leaving ESPN entirely. Cooler heads prevailed all around: both sides ultimately need each other (or at least stronger with each other).

There isn't much room for emotions in a boardroom. It's strictly business. If each party makes money and is content that's emotion enough.

Exactly.

If ESPN makes the Big Ten a bad offer, then sure, they’ll turn it down. The Big Ten doesn’t HAVE to sign with ESPN.

However, if ESPN makes the Big Ten a competitive market rate offer, then the Big Ten also isn’t going to apply fan-based biases against ESPN at all. ESPN still has the most money of any linear network and way more exposure than any other entity (whether linear or digital). Why the heck wouldn’t the Big Ten want ESPN heavily involved in the bidding process? It makes no sense to unilaterally cut them out.

And it would not be possible to set a higher bar of compensation in which good faith could be wholly placed without an earnest bid from ESPN.

FOX is supposedly upping it's stake in the BTN from 51% to 61%.

If that is true, how is that being paid for? Are they paying the Big Ten a lump sum to purchase the equity, or are they agreeing to pay a higher annual amount over X years to pay for it?

(04-16-2022 04:23 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  FOX is supposedly upping it's take in the BTN to 61%.

If that is true, how is that being paid for? Are they paying the Big Ten a lump sum to purchase the equity, or are they agreeing to pay a higher annual amount over X years to pay for it?

Stu, I figure their % of increase will grow about 9% of the original total until each full member receives full amounts for their value on the day the new contract is signed. This will inflate Big 10 values over the next 5 years and will allow FOX to convert BTN rights to streaming (Apple and Amazon's interest). It will also eliminate the buy in for new members which has been a substantial impediment in the era of cord cutting.

The Big East is carefully following these events.

Following, great conversation and very enjoyable read.

(04-16-2022 04:37 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  The Big East is carefully following these events.

Yup. Probably can’t be too thrilled about it, either.

(04-15-2022 09:52 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  And Fox is apparently having a hand in selecting the conference's second partner(maybe paywalled):

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Jo...media.aspx

If that 2nd partner is not ESPN, watch out.

Yes I am very curious about whether and how much the ESPN will retain the media rights. The ESPN is already heavily investing in the SEC and the ACC.