(05-17-2022 04:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 02:20 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think we're getting way into the weeds of what a "few million" more means.

Just run the numbers of $1 billion per year in TV rights for the Big Ten.

With 14 schools plus a share for the conference office, that translates to $66,666,667 per year per school in TV rights.

That would seem to translate pretty closely to $80-90 million in total conference payouts per school.

Is that a "few million" more that isn't double? Who knows!

I'm more interested in who Barta explicitly named as part of the negotiations, which still indicates that effectively everyone in media is bidding: FOX, ESPN, CBS, NBC, Amazon, TNT. The Big Ten is really being open about this compared to the last contract negotiation.

We are all speculating. None of us knows the final number. But walk through this:

Prior reports on existing contracts said that the current deals with Fox and ESPN pay the Big Ten about $31 million per year per member. The total distribution paid out to conference members, including BTN, March Madness money, corporate sponsorships and whatever else, may bring that total over $50 million -- but the "$1 billion a year" number that was tossed around by Sports Business Journal a few weeks ago referred only to the content that is currently with Fox and ESPN.

$1 billion or more per year for the rights that are now sold to Fox and ESPN would be more than double that $31 million per year per member. That's what Sports Business Journal and others wrote/speculated a few weeks ago.

And that is what Barta, Iowa's AD, is saying won't happen in his comments that were quoted in The Athletic.

Barta said the number will be "a few million more" than what it is now. He didn't say that anything went wrong. IMO he simply meant that the previous speculation by SBJ and others was grossly exaggerated, way off the mark, and there was never any real prospect of doubling the amount of money the Big Ten gets for the content that Fox and ESPN now have.

I guess we'll know for sure in a couple of weeks if the details are made public after Memorial Day.

(05-17-2022 04:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 04:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 02:20 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think we're getting way into the weeds of what a "few million" more means.

Just run the numbers of $1 billion per year in TV rights for the Big Ten.

With 14 schools plus a share for the conference office, that translates to $66,666,667 per year per school in TV rights.

That would seem to translate pretty closely to $80-90 million in total conference payouts per school.

Is that a "few million" more that isn't double? Who knows!

I'm more interested in who Barta explicitly named as part of the negotiations, which still indicates that effectively everyone in media is bidding: FOX, ESPN, CBS, NBC, Amazon, TNT. The Big Ten is really being open about this compared to the last contract negotiation.

We are all speculating. None of us knows the final number. But walk through this:

Prior reports on existing contracts said that the current deals with Fox and ESPN pay the Big Ten about $31 million per year per member. The total distribution paid out to conference members, including BTN, March Madness money, corporate sponsorships and whatever else, may bring that total over $50 million -- but the "$1 billion a year" number that was tossed around by Sports Business Journal a few weeks ago referred only to the content that is currently with Fox and ESPN.

$1 billion or more per year for the rights that are now sold to Fox and ESPN would be more than double that $31 million per year per member. That's what Sports Business Journal and others wrote/speculated a few weeks ago.

And that is what Barta, Iowa's AD, is saying won't happen in his comments that were quoted in The Athletic.

Barta said the number will be "a few million more" than what it is now. He didn't say that anything went wrong. IMO he simply meant that the previous speculation by SBJ and others was grossly exaggerated, way off the mark, and there was never any real prospect of doubling the amount of money the Big Ten gets for the content that Fox and ESPN now have.

I guess we'll know for sure in a couple of weeks if the details are made public after Memorial Day.

Yep. And it is only important as an indicator which could demonstrate an increase in the actual revenue gap which in turn drives the urgency some may feel to leave their current conditions. Or, it may indicate the beginning of the end of big revenue leaps which carries a different kind of pressure, but could also result in the SEC and B1G shutting down expansion.

It will be interesting to see.

What it doesn't do is explain the stupidity of stopping playoff expansion.

(05-17-2022 02:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 01:49 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 12:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-16-2022 12:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-16-2022 11:45 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  That would be the smart way to go - and I think the Big Ten has enough quality inventory to do it.

And the Memorial Day timeline makes it seem that expansion, to create even more content, is not on the table at this time.

What is interesting in the link Transic posted is Iowa's AD basically says the big number isn't happening. The B1G has already placed a put to get FOX to buy 10% more interest in the BTN. I don't care what the cover story is, the move was to de-lever an asset position which is trending down, and therefore a smart, but telling, move.

What I am about to say isn't Big Ten bashing at all, but a cautionary observation to all conferences, SEC included. We could be seeing a top in the sports rights market being defined. Most such moves are made 10 years away from a projected downturn. So a 6 year contract for say a 10-15% bump would be a cautious offer given a widely held belief that a recession is looming, and in 2036 the college sports rights business is set to face a significant decline in its audience numbers. Live advertising can only offset these numbers just so much and then it is pointless. It becomes pointless when the audience with the largest disposable income dies out and the subsequent market is much less affluent. And that's where we are headed.

Does this mean oblivion? No! But a shrinkage of 30% of audience and that much or more in purchasing power simply doesn't equate to more ad revenue and a reduction in media revenue which is proportional may begin to take place at that time.

This also could spur more consolidation as key programs milk every potential to stretch out those revenue streams. Or, it could mean that the top conferences batten down the hatches, close ranks, and simply use their already acquired advantages to ride out a storm which will consume part of their competition.

When the lag of 2 years between the SEC's deal and B1G's deal could disadvantage a relatively equal rival, I think it could signal that the market is topping, buyers are cautious for macro and market specific reasons, and that the sports rights bubble is about to stabilize (not pop) and that's a healthy and good thing because if it deflates it will do so slowly and manageably instead of collapsing. Pay for Play also will need to become familiar, and public response to it known, before a slow expansion of value can build off of a new bottom.

Not to throw a wet blanket on all of the realignment and conference expansion threads, but this kind of development could absolutely spell the end of realignment in the P conferences for over a decade.

If you can stay in the PAC, BigXII, or ACC and make 50million per year, is it really that enticing to jump to the B1G for 60?

I still think the B1G money per school is going to be closer to 80million but if it's less I think it significantly de-incentivizes P schools from moving. Just one mans opinion.

How do you consistently add 2 +2 and get 9? The PAC, Big 12, and ACC have not signed new contracts, have smaller viewership, and fewer national brands than the B1G. If the Big 10 gets a modest bump of 10-15% they would be gaining 5.5 - 8 million over what they currently earn. This puts them in the low to mid 60's.

If the PAC 12 or ACC got a similar amount it puts them in the high 30's (3.2 million to 4.7 million). The gap with the Big 10 grows. The SEC deal is done and when Texas and Oklahoma come on board the SEC will be looking at 75 million plus change.

The B12 is a mystery because nobody knows what they are worth sans Texas and Oklahoma. They will add inventory and maybe they keep pace with the ACC and PAC 12 or maybe not.

IMO the PAC has a clear shot at jumping to #3 in payouts. Their contract is older and has more upside just based on built in changes. The ACC won't sniff a new deal for 14 years.

So while I agree it could easily put the brakes on more consolidation, or spur it on, there is no way that you can take away estimates of 96 million for the Big 10 which were used to project the 50 million range for the PAC, ACC & B12, and by the basis of the same projection claim the PAC, B12 and ACC will realize a 40% increase to 50 million while a clear leader only gets 10-15%. If the Big 10 only makes 63 million with the new deal (15%) then the other 3 will be in a range of 38-42 million. And the SEC stays at 75 because its contract is done and signed. That doesn't stabilize anything. But it could easily lead the B1G and SEC to simply stop and utilize their advantages.

It should also be noted that it will only put more pressure on breaking away from the NCAA to fully monetize basketball. In a topping of rights values having basketball emerge on the free market becomes a huge incentive to leave the NCAA completely.

One factor is that the B$G got a B$G bump in 2017. The Big 12 and Pac 12 are still operating under 2012 contracts. The B$G went from $136 million in their (mostly) 2006 contracts to $440 million in their 2017 contracts. The SEC has just now gotten revalued. The Big 12 and Pac 12 don't have that post 2012 escalation in market values built into their contracts. (note: these numbers exclude the amount from the BTN which has rights fees of $112 million a year and variable profits--and this is ONLY TV contracts, not other distributions).

(05-17-2022 05:10 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  Big Ten commissioner: No timetable on new media deal, streaming remains option
By Matt Fortuna and Scott Dochterman
May 17, 2022

Reports earlier this month had indicated that the Big Ten could finalize its new deal by Memorial Day weekend and that the deal could net nearly double the current annual distribution of $54 million per school.

But Iowa athletic director Gary Barta said that figure was wishful thinking. “There’s talk of that doubling. I mean, I wish that were true,” Barta told The Athletic. “There’s nowhere even near that possibility. But there could be some potential upside, (though) nothing near that kind of money.” He added: “I wish that (media rights revenue doubling) were true, but it won’t even be a sniff of that. It will be maybe a few million more for each school, which would be great, but it won’t double.”

The Big Ten reportedly had Fox help consult on its behalf during this round of media rights negotiations, but there are a number of different networks in play.

“We have Fox. Obviously, a great relationship with ESPN, ABC, CBS (for basketball) — that’s our current group,” Barta said. “What I’m excited about as I watch and hear updates from our commissioner, you’ve got NBC interested. You’ve got maybe Amazon or some sort of streaming (service) interested. TNT. So as good as it has been, it looks like the interest is still there to make it even better. So, we’ll see, but I feel really good about it.”



Link
https://theathletic.com/news/big-ten-med...nzbXl1NaI/

FWIW, what I've been reading seems to indicate that $1 billion plus is on the table for the Big Ten, but it would require moving some games to streaming only (Amazon?). ESPN may not have bid what the B1G "would've liked", but that doesn't mean no one did. I would suggest the reason it's taken this long is because the Big Ten is trying to balance exposure and revenue.

(05-17-2022 07:46 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  FWIW, what I've been reading seems to indicate that $1 billion plus is on the table for the Big Ten, but it would require moving some games to streaming only (Amazon?). ESPN may not have bid what the B1G "would've liked", but that doesn't mean no one did. I would suggest the reason it's taken this long is because the Big Ten is trying to balance exposure and revenue.

I'd say it was a combination of these factors:

1. They received the most recent valuation of anyone, 2017. So the difference this time is the last 6 years whereas the SEC's T1, the PAC 12 and B12 all had/have contracts which are more out of date.

2. Recession is looming. It wasn't when the SEC signed in January of '21.

3. The B1G has not improved content or inventory. It hasn't diminished, it's just the same as in 2017.

4. If the news was promising you'd be hearing about it. I'd say it's taking longer because it's a harder sell. And FOX just had to cover a put for 10% more of the BTN and all linear conference networks are facing declines. How much? 25% off of peak. So likely FOX didn't want to cover that 10% and hand out a big raise as well.

5. CBS and NBC don't bid much on T1. CBS folded at 307 million on the SEC bid. So if ESPN isn't bidding it up the others may be bargain hunting.

If the Big Ten's media rights deal isn't actually close to that billion figure....some folks even more in the know than Gary Barta haven't been telling the truth.

(05-17-2022 07:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 07:46 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  FWIW, what I've been reading seems to indicate that $1 billion plus is on the table for the Big Ten, but it would require moving some games to streaming only (Amazon?). ESPN may not have bid what the B1G "would've liked", but that doesn't mean no one did. I would suggest the reason it's taken this long is because the Big Ten is trying to balance exposure and revenue.

I'd say it was a combination of these factors:

1. The received the most recent valuation of anyone, 2017. So the difference this time is the last 6 years whereas the SEC's T1, the PAC 12 and B12 all had/have contracts which are more out of date.

2. Recession is looming. It wasn't when the SEC signed in January of '21.

3. The B1G has not improved content or inventory. It hasn't diminished, it's just the same as in 2017.

4. If the news was promising you'd be hearing about it. I'd say it's taking longer because it's a harder sell. And FOX just had to cover a put for 10% more of the BTN and all linear conference networks are facing declines. How much? 25% off of peak. So likely FOX didn't want to cover that 10% and hand out a big raise as well.

5. CBS and NBC don't bid much on T1. CBS folded at 307 million on the SEC bid. So if ESPN isn't bidding it up the others may be bargain hunting.

Timing is everything.

(05-17-2022 08:08 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  If the Big Ten's media rights deal isn't actually close to that billion figure....some folks even more in the know than Gary Barta haven't been telling the truth.

If this was Delaney's tenure I'd bet on the SBJ info being correct. Warren isn't Delaney. A rookie mistake is to release the highest estimates in order to make a splash and then to look foolish when a mid range estimate proves true. We'll see.

Truly Matt the demographic and economic trends are not favorable, or at least as favorable as last January.

You might hit your number, or get close, but going in you had the most current valuation, and your inventory didn't increase. Truly 10-15% was more likely to be in order than another mega deal, especially with FOX picking up the put.

(05-17-2022 08:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 08:08 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  If the Big Ten's media rights deal isn't actually close to that billion figure....some folks even more in the know than Gary Barta haven't been telling the truth.

If this was Delaney's tenure I'd bet on the SBJ info being correct. Warren isn't Delaney. A rookie mistake is to release the highest estimates in order to make a splash and then to look foolish when a mid range estimate proves true. We'll see.

I'm not just talking about Kevin Warren, and I'm not just talking about info from SBJ.

(05-17-2022 08:55 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 08:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 08:08 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  If the Big Ten's media rights deal isn't actually close to that billion figure....some folks even more in the know than Gary Barta haven't been telling the truth.

If this was Delaney's tenure I'd bet on the SBJ info being correct. Warren isn't Delaney. A rookie mistake is to release the highest estimates in order to make a splash and then to look foolish when a mid range estimate proves true. We'll see.

I'm not just talking about Kevin Warren, and I'm not just talking about info from SBJ.

Am I supposed to be impressed? I knew Schiller and Kramer. Didn't know Slive but would have liked to. Even on the inside you have to filter for group think, or worse a group think souffle', which is what you get when group think starts recycling through for the 2nd and 3rd time. I believe things only when they are done.

All of the commissioners have strengths and weaknesses. Slive apparently was the best I've seen use leverage to keep things in line. I've never seen SEC presidents and AD's snap to like that. Fantastic manager and sound reasoning was Slive, at least as I heard it described and witnessed from the sidelines. An iron boot was placed on conference infighting. I'm not sure Slive liked the tedium of haggling. He did believe in not giving away anything a network might pay for.

When Sankey took over we had 2 years of infighting and rancor until he found it within himself to get tough. I think he's great at negotiations. It's one reason he is so pissed about the playoff failure.

Kramer was a thinker and visionary and loved by the presidents. Not all details came together. Schiller was on the way out when I met him so I didn't have an impression of his style but he was very approachable and seemed solid with people.

From a distance Delaney seemed to be a complete package. He had vision, could put a foot down, controlled expectations, must have worked well behind the scene because his meetings were productive. That doesn't happen unless you have your details and communications in order.

So far Warren was blindsided by differences of opinion over COVID, burned bridges and money for no good reason on the expanded playoff and came off as an obstructionist, and didn't communicate with Sankey. Even Kliavkoff handled that well, but not Warren.

He seems to me like he's trying hard to look effectual without doing the necessary things to ensure it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. The B1G under Delaney was a united front at all times and all pressers were conservative setting up good news as greatness. That's as good as PR gets. The B1G is hardly a united front now. I'm just calling it as I see it.

I don't know how much personnel changed around Warren from when Delaney left but something changed. And relations with the SEC are Frosty when Slive and Delaney swept minutia aside to work mutually for the game.

Maybe I'm wrong and you'll land a whopper. I just don't see the evidence to the contrary and Warren's beginning looks a lot like Tennis Larry's. Brash splash with no dash and no cash! Short version, a lot of talk and no deeds. Scott was the worst and maybe Warren figures it out. Scott had all of the advantages and screwed it up. Warren did takeover in a crisis, and one, which with the economy as is, isn't getting any better.

(04-17-2022 10:21 PM)Transic_nyc 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.

That the 4-letter College Sports World Order narrative working on you. The irony of being blackpilled is that the most negative attitude helps create the very thing one says is most afraid of happening. Being redpilled is a much better assumption. Knowing that ESPN hates the Big Ten should help you understand what is needed to best go forward.

Monetizing on the share of BTN would be a good bet, since Fox Corporation is now grossly undercapitalized. Fox was a good partner when the College Sports World Order tried to lowball the Big Ten. But now Fox can no longer front the cash needed to stay ahead but is somehow hanging on the BTN share as a leverage play. Comcast, Discovery, as well as Apple or Amazon have much greater market cap. To me, the play should be selling BTN to Comcast, which would also buy up the Pac Networks. Comcast has both linear and digital options to play with, so there wouldn't be a difficult transition from one to the other.

But the last thing the Big Ten should do is stay at a corporation that wants them dead. We are much better than that.

(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).

Kevin Warren isn't dumb enough to flip the bird at a current rights holder when he doesn't know who would make the best offer. Still, I despise that network and everything they stand for. Maybe you're satisfied when Illinois makes an occasional appearance at the 4-letter network during football season. I'm not. When they talk football they don't talk Illinois. When they talk basketball they don't talk Nebraska. Yet, they make no distinction when it comes to the SEC and ACC teams.

I'm not the one that first made it personal. The corporation did. I'm simply the messenger who is relaying that fact, to too many deaf ears, it seems.

Transic NYC, you do know that I refer to ESPN as E$PN, right?? Ever wonder why that is?? I don't care for that monopoly either, but unfortunately they have just about everything going for them. Who's going to oppose them?? CBS?? Don't make me laugh. Even though officially Rupert Murdoch may have zero shares of Disney stock, I don't believe that he totally ignores what goes on at Disney either and probably has input via his family's stock shares.

Maybe Comcast/NBC could oppose E$PN. Would love it if they did. But E$PN has shown what it can do when you decide to oppose the Mouse unless you are Governor DeSantis. Conference USA's Judy McCloud could tell you what E$PN can do to you if you oppose them.

The key is striking an acceptable balance, IMO.

(05-17-2022 08:55 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 08:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 08:08 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  If the Big Ten's media rights deal isn't actually close to that billion figure....some folks even more in the know than Gary Barta haven't been telling the truth.

If this was Delaney's tenure I'd bet on the SBJ info being correct. Warren isn't Delaney. A rookie mistake is to release the highest estimates in order to make a splash and then to look foolish when a mid range estimate proves true. We'll see.

I'm not just talking about Kevin Warren, and I'm not just talking about info from SBJ.

I enjoy your work, Matt. Keep bringing us great information from the hard work you do behind the scenes.

(05-17-2022 08:55 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 08:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 08:08 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  If the Big Ten's media rights deal isn't actually close to that billion figure....some folks even more in the know than Gary Barta haven't been telling the truth.

If this was Delaney's tenure I'd bet on the SBJ info being correct. Warren isn't Delaney. A rookie mistake is to release the highest estimates in order to make a splash and then to look foolish when a mid range estimate proves true. We'll see.

I'm not just talking about Kevin Warren, and I'm not just talking about info from SBJ.

I enjoy your work, Matt. Keep bringing us great information from the hard work you do behind the scenes.

(05-17-2022 09:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 08:55 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 08:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 08:08 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  If the Big Ten's media rights deal isn't actually close to that billion figure....some folks even more in the know than Gary Barta haven't been telling the truth.

If this was Delaney's tenure I'd bet on the SBJ info being correct. Warren isn't Delaney. A rookie mistake is to release the highest estimates in order to make a splash and then to look foolish when a mid range estimate proves true. We'll see.

I'm not just talking about Kevin Warren, and I'm not just talking about info from SBJ.

Am I supposed to be impressed? I knew Schiller and Kramer. Didn't know Slive but would have liked to. Even on the inside you have to filter for group think, or worse a group think souffle', which is what you get when group think starts recycling through for the 2nd and 3rd time. I believe things only when they are done.

All of the commissioners have strengths and weaknesses. Slive apparently was the best I've seen use leverage to keep things in line. I've never seen SEC presidents and AD's snap to like that. Fantastic manager and sound reasoning was Slive, at least as I heard it described and witnessed from the sidelines. An iron boot was placed on conference infighting. I'm not sure Slive liked the tedium of haggling. He did believe in not giving away anything a network might pay for.

When Sankey took over we had 2 years of infighting and rancor until he found it within himself to get tough. I think he's great at negotiations. It's one reason he is so pissed about the playoff failure.

Kramer was a thinker and visionary and loved by the presidents. Not all details came together. Schiller was on the way out when I met him so I didn't have an impression of his style but he was very approachable and seemed solid with people.

From a distance Delaney seemed to be a complete package. He had vision, could put a foot down, controlled expectations, must have worked well behind the scene because his meetings were productive. That doesn't happen unless you have your details and communications in order.

So far Warren was blindsided by differences of opinion over COVID, burned bridges and money for no good reason on the expanded playoff and came off as an obstructionist, and didn't communicate with Sankey. Even Kliavkoff handled that well, but not Warren.

He seems to me like he's trying hard to look effectual without doing the necessary things to ensure it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. The B1G under Delaney was a united front at all times and all pressers were conservative setting up good news as greatness. That's as good as PR gets. The B1G is hardly a united front now. I'm just calling it as I see it.

I don't know how much personnel changed around Warren from when Delaney left but something changed. And relations with the SEC are Frosty when Slive and Delaney swept minutia aside to work mutually for the game.

Maybe I'm wrong and you'll land a whopper. I just don't see the evidence to the contrary and Warren's beginning looks a lot like Tennis Larry's. Brash splash with no dash and no cash! Short version, a lot of talk and no deeds. Scott was the worst and maybe Warren figures it out. Scott had all of the advantages and screwed it up. Warren did takeover in a crisis, and one, which with the economy as is, isn't getting any better.

To be sure JRsec, unlike all of the rest of us here that are ultimately just opinion people (including me), Matt's a real reporter with a real depth of sources from across the entire college sports world. Maybe Barta ends up being more right than his sources, but I wouldn't question the validity of who his sources might be. Matt does excellent work with this newsletter - it's really a must have for anyone interested in the college sports business.

(05-18-2022 12:14 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(04-17-2022 10:21 PM)Transic_nyc 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.

That the 4-letter College Sports World Order narrative working on you. The irony of being blackpilled is that the most negative attitude helps create the very thing one says is most afraid of happening. Being redpilled is a much better assumption. Knowing that ESPN hates the Big Ten should help you understand what is needed to best go forward.

Monetizing on the share of BTN would be a good bet, since Fox Corporation is now grossly undercapitalized. Fox was a good partner when the College Sports World Order tried to lowball the Big Ten. But now Fox can no longer front the cash needed to stay ahead but is somehow hanging on the BTN share as a leverage play. Comcast, Discovery, as well as Apple or Amazon have much greater market cap. To me, the play should be selling BTN to Comcast, which would also buy up the Pac Networks. Comcast has both linear and digital options to play with, so there wouldn't be a difficult transition from one to the other.

But the last thing the Big Ten should do is stay at a corporation that wants them dead. We are much better than that.

(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).

Kevin Warren isn't dumb enough to flip the bird at a current rights holder when he doesn't know who would make the best offer. Still, I despise that network and everything they stand for. Maybe you're satisfied when Illinois makes an occasional appearance at the 4-letter network during football season. I'm not. When they talk football they don't talk Illinois. When they talk basketball they don't talk Nebraska. Yet, they make no distinction when it comes to the SEC and ACC teams.

I'm not the one that first made it personal. The corporation did. I'm simply the messenger who is relaying that fact, to too many deaf ears, it seems.

Transic NYC, you do know that I refer to ESPN as E$PN, right?? Ever wonder why that is?? I don't care for that monopoly either, but unfortunately they have just about everything going for them. Who's going to oppose them?? CBS?? Don't make me laugh. Even though officially Rupert Murdoch may have zero shares of Disney stock, I don't believe that he totally ignores what goes on at Disney either and probably has input via his family's stock shares.

Maybe Comcast/NBC could oppose E$PN. Would love it if they did. But E$PN has shown what it can do when you decide to oppose the Mouse unless you are Governor DeSantis. Conference USA's Judy McCloud could tell you what E$PN can do to you if you oppose them.

The key is striking an acceptable balance, IMO.

That makes me happy!

I’m hopeful that the $1 Billion dollar is what the Big 10 gets but I have not been impressed by Kevin Warren since he took over and the economic climate doesn’t look rosy. I see the Big 10 falling shy of its financial goals and Warren blaming the economy to try to cover for his own shortfalls and mismanagement.

(05-17-2022 07:46 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  FWIW, what I've been reading seems to indicate that $1 billion plus is on the table for the Big Ten, but it would require moving some games to streaming only (Amazon?). ESPN may not have bid what the B1G "would've liked", but that doesn't mean no one did. I would suggest the reason it's taken this long is because the Big Ten is trying to balance exposure and revenue.

You might be right. Streaming only is less appealing. The only reason why it’s even being considered is probably whoever doing the streaming (Amazon?) is willing to pay a lot more than the ESPN. Barta did say there could be some potential upside.

(05-18-2022 08:19 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 07:46 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  FWIW, what I've been reading seems to indicate that $1 billion plus is on the table for the Big Ten, but it would require moving some games to streaming only (Amazon?). ESPN may not have bid what the B1G "would've liked", but that doesn't mean no one did. I would suggest the reason it's taken this long is because the Big Ten is trying to balance exposure and revenue.

You might be right. Streaming only is less appealing. The only reason why it’s even being considered is probably whoever doing the streaming (Amazon?) is willing to pay a lot more than the ESPN. Barta did say there could be some potential upside.

I know that there's skepticism about Warren in a lot of circles, but the biggest reason why he was brought in was that he was familiar with the NFL media rights process.

It's a balance with streaming packages. The Big Ten (or any other conference) can't just move Illinois-Rutgers to streaming and expect to get a premium. By the same token, no one in the Big Ten is obtuse enough to think that it's a good idea to move games like Ohio State-Michigan, Ohio State-Penn State or Michigan-Penn State to streaming no matter what Amazon or Apple might offer, either. The NFL doesn't do that. The highest and best use for any streaming package is to be in a non-traditional time slot where it has little-to-no competition (which likely means Friday night since the NFL has Thursdays on Amazon) that either (a) features one of the major brands like OSU/Michigan/PSU versus an Illinois/Rutgers-type or (b) has a solid second-level matchup - think games between Wisconsin/Iowa/Michigan State. It might also be a smaller package, too - maybe 5 or 6 games instead of a full 12-13 week slate.

Essentially, if the Big Ten were to move the games that it has had on Friday night on FS1 to a streaming place like Amazon, that may garner a lot more money and arguably as much or more exposure (as you're comparing the reach of Amazon Prime versus FS1 as opposed to Amazon Prime versus ABC/ESPN/NBC/CBS/FOX). That is how I would get on board with a streaming package if I were the Big Ten - it's not actually taking away the top content that makes the most sense for the OTA networks or ESPN, but rather maximizing more value for the next tier of games (which is really what the BTN did).

(05-18-2022 08:19 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 07:46 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  FWIW, what I've been reading seems to indicate that $1 billion plus is on the table for the Big Ten, but it would require moving some games to streaming only (Amazon?). ESPN may not have bid what the B1G "would've liked", but that doesn't mean no one did. I would suggest the reason it's taken this long is because the Big Ten is trying to balance exposure and revenue.

You might be right. Streaming only is less appealing. The only reason why it’s even being considered is probably whoever doing the streaming (Amazon?) is willing to pay a lot more than the ESPN. Barta did say there could be some potential upside.

I'm selfishly hoping that the B1G strengthens its relationship with Amazon. Would let me cut more cords. But it's unlikely they dive in head first. A neat trial solution could be to give the basketball package to Amazon and see how it does.