Yeah I didn't mean it to sound like we were going to get 9 mill on basketball just that it would be in that neighborhood.

Everyone else you get a city & few watch but with ECU you get a region of 3 mil & IMO we can get 10% viewer-ship.

If Louisville moved to CUSA would the new CUSA TV deal go up 10 mil? NO!!! If WV moved to CUSA would it go up 10 mil?? NO!. U can not make any assumptions what a team will or will not be worth by what it is worth in it's current conf.

TCU was not worth 8 to 10 mil in the MWC, it was worth just over 1mil. U move any current BE school into a non bcs conf and that school insantly will be worth 2 mil or less. U move any non bcs team into a bcs conf and they will be worth 8 to 10 mil.

So what will the BE do?? Add nova for 10, and call it a day.

(02-08-2011 07:08 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  If Louisville moved to CUSA would the new CUSA TV deal go up 10 mil? NO!!! If WV moved to CUSA would it go up 10 mil?? NO!. U can not make any assumptions what a team will or will not be worth by what it is worth in it's current conf.

TCU was not worth 8 to 10 mil in the MWC, it was worth just over 1mil. U move any current BE school into a non bcs conf and that school insantly will be worth 2 mil or less. U move any non bcs team into a bcs conf and they will be worth 8 to 10 mil.

Good pts.

(02-08-2011 01:00 AM)whitey Wrote:  Everyone else you get a city & few watch but with ECU you get a region of 3 mil & IMO we can get 10% viewer-ship.

LOL. Nothing like being modest, eh?

A BEN does have have one advantage over theyankees with regards to basic cable clearance inNYC: the big east will not be asking for $2.50 per customer for something that was already on their cable system for 1/5 the amount

(02-08-2011 01:00 AM)whitey Wrote:  Everyone else you get a city & few watch but with ECU you get a region of 3 mil & IMO we can get 10% viewer-ship.

There is only two problems the BE sees

1 ECU would be the 5 NC school in BCS
2 WVU has a large alum base in NC already so many think there is not much more $$ to be earned

(02-08-2011 01:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  A BEN does have have one advantage over theyankees with regards to basic cable clearance inNYC: the big east will not be asking for $2.50 per customer for something that was already on their cable system for 1/5 the amount

LOL, thats a great point that many naysayers have overlooked. Thanks for making that point. That is a huge issue that many should be able to understand. One question though. Is that the price that the Yankees was charging the cable companies, or is that the final price that the consumers would have to pay??

Couple of random things:

1. I definitely agree that Nebraska is bringing a lot to the Big Ten. I was just pointing out that what they have brought so far has been overstated. The current Big Ten contract (negotiated with 11 members) remains in place. The only new piece so far is the Big Ten Championship game. While the game would have been worth less with Youngstown State than Nebraska, it still would have been very high with Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State still. I'd be surprised if Nebraska being the choice made as high as a $5 million difference on it.

2. East coast markets: The Big East has this for basketball, but I'm not convinced it has it for football. With Boston College, Notre Dame, and Penn State elsewhere, the Big East is years away from solidifying the area unfortunately.

3. Big East Network: I have strong doubts about it succeeding if tried. These networks are largely big hits or complete misses. They need a lot of screaming fans to get the cable companies to go along with it on basic cable (where it needs to go to succeed). The Big Ten struggled a lot for a year and that was in a better economic environment. Ohio State fans were screaming about missing football games and Time Warner still held out for close to a year. I truly believe that the Big East strengths (large market, high ranked basketball teams) works better for national programing than it's own network.

One last thought:

Why football is so much bigger than basketball in contracts:

If 1 million people watched a basketball game and 5 million watched a football game, it would seem that the football game should be worth 5 times more. That's actually not the case and here's why. Imagine ESPN has the choice of putting on a basketball game which would have 1 million viewers and Sportcenter which would have 1/2 million viewers. That means the basketball game gains it 1/2 a million viewers. Now let's compare that with the football game. If it gets 5 million viewers, that's 4.5 million more than Sportscenter. This means that it would take 9 basketball games to gain the same number extra viewers as one football game (for those who have taken economics, this is the opportunity cost).

All of this is magnified by when the big games are played. The NCAA Tournament is where the biggest basketball games are played and that money in controlled by the NCAA not the conferences.

What would a Big East Network charge? And would cable operators be willing to put it on? Think about these issues that cable companies and NYC sports channels have had

-YES wasn't on Cablevision systems for at least a year when it started up because CVC was suing the team over it leaving MSG Network, a CVC owned channel
-YES still isn't on Dish Network systems, may never be
-CVC fought with several operators about the use of MSG & MSG Plus's HD feeds, to the point that out-of-market people couldn't view them on PPV packages like NHL Center Ice
-Time Warner and Comcast are stakeholders in SNY, and are currently airing boatloads of Big East programming in the fall & winter months. Do you think they'd want to pony up channel space and additional money when they have a channel that they run that benefits by the Big East's presence?

Then there's the whole NFL Network thing I brought up in a thread on the main board, where neither Time Warner nor CVC has elected to carry the channel. Everyone is looking at sports channels w/more scrutiny because they are becoming a larger part of the cable/satellite bill. ESPN, for example, wants to sell off a portion (somewhere close to 20%) of the new U. of Texas channel to Time Warner in exchange for Time Warner guaranteeing channel placement on their systems as TWC has a large number of systems in Texas.

The only thing a BEN would change is the type of coverage we'd receive, and those in charge of making it happen. That's not necessarily be a bad thing. But like all new enterprises, it would be a risky move. It could pay off big, about the same, or not at all. It all depends on the circumstances, and the people in charge of the marketing and production...

(02-09-2011 11:53 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  What would a Big East Network charge? And would cable operators be willing to put it on? Think about these issues that cable companies and NYC sports channels have had

-YES wasn't on Cablevision systems for at least a year when it started up because CVC was suing the team over it leaving MSG Network, a CVC owned channel
-YES still isn't on Dish Network systems, may never be
-CVC fought with several operators about the use of MSG & MSG Plus's HD feeds, to the point that out-of-market people couldn't view them on PPV packages like NHL Center Ice
-Time Warner and Comcast are stakeholders in SNY, and are currently airing boatloads of Big East programming in the fall & winter months. Do you think they'd want to pony up channel space and additional money when they have a channel that they run that benefits by the Big East's presence?

Then there's the whole NFL Network thing I brought up in a thread on the main board, where neither Time Warner nor CVC has elected to carry the channel. Everyone is looking at sports channels w/more scrutiny because they are becoming a larger part of the cable/satellite bill. ESPN, for example, wants to sell off a portion (somewhere close to 20%) of the new U. of Texas channel to Time Warner in exchange for Time Warner guaranteeing channel placement on their systems as TWC has a large number of systems in Texas.

Yes, this is all true. Also remember that the Big Ten Network, which is the model for college conference TV networks, had distribution problems for a year. The BTN looks like easy money now, but it was HARD to get basic cable distribution. It largely succeeded, but only after a lot of acrimony and public fighting.

The biggest leveraging point that the BTN had was that since it was partially-owned by Fox, it instantly got basic carriage nationally on DirecTV (which Fox controlled at the time of the BTN launch). Thus, the BTN could point to fans and say that they should drop cable and move to DirecTV if their cable providers wouldn't add the channel. There was a certain point that enough cable subscribers were switching over the DirecTV and other providers that offered the BTN in the Big Ten footprint that the cable providers realized that they were losing more money with all of those lost customers than paying up for the BTN. That's where the Big Ten's combination of large markets plus huge fan bases came in - there were enough of them that were willing to switch solely for the BTN that the cable companies HAD to work with the BTN.

This is the key for any conference network to work: they need leverage where there are enough fans out both in sheer numbers AND passion there that are willing to switch cable providers SOLELY for that channel. The BE's advantage is in the numbers, where they have large markets on paper. However, the BE's disadvantage is the passion (or lack thereof) in the conference's largest markets. While a BEN is an easy sell in places like Louisville and the state of West Virginia, getting basic carriage in the NYC market is going to be VERY tough if we're being realistic here. The BE's markets are an advantage only to the extent that they can be delivered.

This is why I think the BE would still make the most money by focusing on national TV contracts as opposed to a conference network. Once again, this isn't exactly crazy or negative - the SEC and ACC came to the exact same conclusion and are making tons of money.

(02-09-2011 11:53 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  -YES still isn't on Dish Network systems, may never be

Wow - I didn't realize this. In all seriousness, did Dish simply give up on trying to sell anything in the NYC market? I don't see how they'd get very many people to sign up there without YES.

(02-09-2011 05:37 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-09-2011 11:53 AM)mattsarz Wrote:  -YES still isn't on Dish Network systems, may never be

Wow - I didn't realize this. In all seriousness, did Dish simply give up on trying to sell anything in the NYC market? I don't see how they'd get very many people to sign up there without YES.

Yep. Dish has always wanted YES under special terms. They want it to be a la carte in the areas that the Yankees/Nets server and I don't think they'll make it available via a sports pack.

Another couple that Dish doesn't carry: MLB Network and The mtn. In MLB Network's case, when they started they tied its carriage to being able to take the MLB Extra Innings package. For a long time, Dish didn't carry MLBEI, they started carrying it for a three year period. Then when MLBNet came up, Dish didn't want conditions tied to carrying MLBEI, so they dropped the package and aren't carrying MLBNet.

DirecTV is so much better than Dish Network that it ain't even funny. You get more channels, and at a better price. Why would anyone choose Dish over DirecTV, if they're going to go with satellite TV?

(02-04-2011 07:07 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 04:17 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 10:27 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  There's a lot of fuzzy math going on - if you were to believe UCF, Houston and ECU boosters, they would raise revenue for the BE in a manner that would be in excess of SEVERAL TIMES the value of the ENTIRE new C-USA TV contract. Seriously - that's what would have to happen for the BE to get up to $10 million per team in a 10 or 12 team football league. So, if they were that valuable, then why hasn't C-USA been getting paid like that already?

The above poster has a point. Nebraska has been worth about has as much to the Big Ten as the entire current Big XII contract. Rutgers could have been worth about $20 million a year plus just in Big Ten Network subscriber fees (payable to the Big Ten), not including extra revenue from a championship game, not including any expectation of basic cable access in NYC, not including an increase in B10N advertising revenue (with 4 million more household clearances), not including additional TV inventory to sell, and not including the risdual exposure in the northeast, it woudl bring, yet it would still be worth more than the ENTIRE Big East football contract is today. So yes, what conference you are in, does affect how valuable a team can be, especially if you are talking a about a team that resides in a big market.

There is a very valid argument that the sum of the parts can be worth a lot more than the parts themselves. I agree with you completely and that's actually exactly how I feel about the basketball schools in the conference. With that said, I wanted to comment a little on Nebraska and Rutgers. Nebraska themselves didn't bring $20 million. They added to the that extra total, but that money is for the Big Ten Championship Game and likely would have been in that range even in Youngstown State was the 12th team. Not saying it wouldn't have been less, but a larger part of the value of the championship game comes from teams that are already in the conference. Meanwhile, the Big Ten must have concluded that Rutgers couldn't bring in something like $20 million by themselves to the Big Ten Network (meaning getting on basic cable would have been too difficult) or they definitely would have been invited.

Now on to the next contract. Let's look at this from a network perspective and think about what the Big East offers. This all my own opinion of course.

Basketball:
Positives: Best basketball conference, lots of high ranked teams playing each other, northeastern market cornered.
Negatives: Basketball regular season is small potatoes compared to football and this has to be divided at least 17 ways.
Likely outcome: The basketball portion of the contract will be very good for a basketball contract, but unable to make up the gap to the other 5 BCS conferences if football leaves a hole.

Football:
Positives: Nine (or more) football teams in a very competitive conference. Unlike in other conferences, there isn't a single team you look at and say they have close to zero chance to win. The league is also more flexible to playing off Saturdays (or at least was last time).
Negatives: There are no huge names. This is a big deal as the huge names earn a very disproportionate part of the contract in most other conferences. If you take Florida State and Miami out of the ACC or USC out of the PAC-10, the conference money declines a lot. This shows the huge power of their names. The Big East is largely lacking a superpower which brings in a huge amount of the conference dollars (West Virginia is currently closest to the status, but there yet). Also, even if incorrectly, the conference is viewed as the weakest by a large segment of the nation. That is going to hurt with a TV contract.
Likely outcomes: A big increase is coming, but the conference still hasn't fully developed what TV stations are looking for. The football side will bring less than what most on here are hoping for and the basketball side won't be enough to make up the difference. It will be a big leap forward all the same though.

good commentary....I agree

(02-08-2011 08:40 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  All of this is magnified by when the big games are played. The NCAA Tournament is where the biggest basketball games are played and that money in controlled by the NCAA not the conferences.

This is something that I think the Big East is helping TV to re-think. One of the drawbacks to a mega-conference is that an NCAA-tournament-worthy team or 2 might get overlooked in the end because the committee doesn't want one conference to dominate (though I'm not convinced this is the case after they allowed the Big East 3/4 of #1 seeds a couple of years ago).

But it's also creating more of an NCAA-tournament-feel during the regular season. The more big teams you have - especially when a lot of those teams are located in big cities - the more it feels like the Big East is a league unto itself. And with that, the feeling that the biggest games are NCAA tourney games is not so strong.

I think basketball is going to get bigger over the next few years, and a tough basketball conference is going to be worth a lot more in 2020 than it was in 2010.

(02-10-2011 09:45 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  DirecTV is so much better than Dish Network that it ain't even funny. You get more channels, and at a better price. Why would anyone choose Dish over DirecTV, if they're going to go with satellite TV?

Totally agree. It isn't perfect (i.e. issues in very bad weather), but my experience with DirecTV overall has been the best out of any cable/satellite provider. Certainly much better than Comcast (which I've had before) and Dish (where they didn't offer the channels I wanted).

When I switched from Comcast (I do miss the added bandwidth, but AT&T DSL ain't that much slower), I looked at several options. But only DirecTV allowed me to see everything I wanted to see, and they had the best price too. To me, it was a no brainer, which was nice, since I have little brains left...