(01-30-2011 01:29 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(01-29-2011 11:51 PM)Cromie Wrote:  

(01-29-2011 11:13 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(01-29-2011 11:09 PM)Cromie Wrote:  

(01-29-2011 11:06 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Hell yeah! I'd build it out of used gum wrappers, if I had to. But the NFL network still sucks... LOL

the NFL network has changed the media face of the NFL and has been a HUGE cash cow for them.

Cash cow? riiiiiiggghhhhtttt

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/wr...index.html

So tell me again, how good is Tag?

53 million TV's

B10 does not cover that much and they make 30 mil out of it I say that good money to me

Any way go troll some where else

Whatever. Can't prove a point, so you drop back and punt, and call me a troll.

I think my point was more than valid.

Knightsweat is right. The NFL Network was a failure considering the value of the product. Remember the opportunity cost - the NFL Network's Thursday night package of games was worth well over $500 million PER YEAR in the open market and if/when the NFL expands to an 18-game season (which would also likely result in a full season of Thursday night football), that package would be worth in excess of $1 billion per year. ESPN just re-upped Monday Night Football for $1.9 BILLION per year. So, the NFL Network can't just make a few million dollars of profit for the NFL to have been worth it - that channel had to literally make BILLIONS per year in order for it to have been a good move.

The NFL Network was the most mismanaged channel launch in history and Tagliabue was in COMPLETE control of it - that was literally his baby. He pushed the owners to launch it, he's the one that turned down hundreds of millions of dollars from Comcast for the Thursday night games, and he's the one that fought every single cable provider in the country (including testifying in Congress against them), and as a result, the NFL Network has gone 7 years without being available in the majority of American cable households, including New York City and Los Angeles. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for him to help launch a BE network that MUST have NYC basic distribution to have a prayer of making money. I don't think BE fans quite realize how BAD it is to have Tagliabue as a public face with respect to cable companies - he's literally public enemy #1 to that industry. Comcast couldn't get a deal done with the NFL Network until Tagliabue left the commissioner's job.

Now, can Tagliabue negotiate a deal with ESPN or a third party provider? Absolutely. He's shown that he knows how to do that. I just wouldn't listen to a thing he says about actually creating a new cable network.

(01-31-2011 10:39 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-30-2011 01:29 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(01-29-2011 11:51 PM)Cromie Wrote:  

(01-29-2011 11:13 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(01-29-2011 11:09 PM)Cromie Wrote:  the NFL network has changed the media face of the NFL and has been a HUGE cash cow for them.

Cash cow? riiiiiiggghhhhtttt

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/wr...index.html

So tell me again, how good is Tag?

53 million TV's

B10 does not cover that much and they make 30 mil out of it I say that good money to me

Any way go troll some where else

Whatever. Can't prove a point, so you drop back and punt, and call me a troll.

I think my point was more than valid.

Knightsweat is right. The NFL Network was a failure considering the value of the product. Remember the opportunity cost - the NFL Network's Thursday night package of games was worth well over $500 million PER YEAR in the open market and if/when the NFL expands to an 18-game season (which would also likely result in a full season of Thursday night football), that package would be worth in excess of $1 billion per year. ESPN just re-upped Monday Night Football for $1.9 BILLION per year. So, the NFL Network can't just make a few million dollars of profit for the NFL to have been worth it - that channel had to literally make BILLIONS per year in order for it to have been a good move.

The NFL Network was the most mismanaged channel launch in history and Tagliabue was in COMPLETE control of it - that was literally his baby. He pushed the owners to launch it, he's the one that turned down hundreds of millions of dollars from Comcast for the Thursday night games, and he's the one that fought every single cable provider in the country (including testifying in Congress against them), and as a result, the NFL Network has gone 7 years without being available in the majority of American cable households, including New York City and Los Angeles. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for him to help launch a BE network that MUST have NYC basic distribution to have a prayer of making money. I don't think BE fans quite realize how BAD it is to have Tagliabue as a public face with respect to cable companies - he's literally public enemy #1 to that industry. Comcast couldn't get a deal done with the NFL Network until Tagliabue left the commissioner's job.

Now, can Tagliabue negotiate a deal with ESPN or a third party provider? Absolutely. He's shown that he knows how to do that. I just wouldn't listen to a thing he says about actually creating a new cable network.

Good pts.

Smart people sometimes make very bad business decisions.

(01-31-2011 10:44 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Good pts.

Smart people sometimes make very bad business decisions.

I think Tags is extremely smart. The NFL largely thrived under his leadership. I just wouldn't trust him to launch a cable network.

Tagliabue isn't launching the network he is just gathering Thr information. That is something people keep confusing and using as an excuse for failure, he is not launching our network. Sometimes I get the feeling that people are afraid that we will succeed at things.

(01-31-2011 12:59 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  Tagliabue isn't launching the network he is just gathering Thr information. That is something people keep confusing and using as an excuse for failure, he is not launching our network. Sometimes I get the feeling that people are afraid that we will succeed at things.

I don't think he is. It's just that a lot of people on this board want/hope for a BE network, so his presence is a factor if the BE chooses to go down that road.

Well from the way I see what is happening with the Big Ten network.....what would be the reason for not having a BEN?

I mean sure you sign a TV contract with ESPN or Comcast or Fox who pick off your top of the line games.....but there would still be a lot of games out there not being broadcast, especially in Basketball. Why not dedicate a network to all that other content.....maybe the demand for it isn't high but there is still some demand. I, obviously, as a BE fan would be interested in it.

ESPN learned a while back that even putting a MAC or Sun Belt football game on a Tuesday or Wednesday night is still going to draw higher ratings than anything else they put on. Why not follow the same philisophy? You may not get the BEN on a Basic tier cable package but someone will subscribe to it and that would bring in revenue.

(01-31-2011 01:49 PM)The Brown Bull Wrote:  Well from the way I see what is happening with the Big Ten network.....what would be the reason for not having a BEN?

I mean sure you sign a TV contract with ESPN or Comcast or Fox who pick off your top of the line games.....but there would still be a lot of games out there not being broadcast, especially in Basketball. Why not dedicate a network to all that other content.....maybe the demand for it isn't high but there is still some demand. I, obviously, as a BE fan would be interested in it.

ESPN learned a while back that even putting a MAC or Sun Belt football game on a Tuesday or Wednesday night is still going to draw higher ratings than anything else they put on. Why not follow the same philisophy? You may not get the BEN on a Basic tier cable package but someone will subscribe to it and that would bring in revenue.

The reason is that it's a straight-up money-loser if it doesn't have basic carriage. That's why the Big Ten never capitulated on that issue (and why the NFL Network continues to fight with cable providers 7 years after its launch). Going to the sports tier within your own footprint or PPV completely defeats the financial incentive to create a network in the first place. As a result, no cable partner will put up the capital necessary to launch a Big East Network without assurances that it will receive basic carriage throughout its footprint. Without a cable backer such as Fox, ESPN or Comcast, a BEN can be talked about all day in theory but it will never have the start-up capital to get off the ground.

To that end, the BE has to PROVE that it can get basic carriage within the NYC market. Even if the BE can deliver all of the other markets within its footprint (and that's not a guarantee at all), it still doesn't work without the entire NYC area. The problem is that NYC has so many regional sports networks already that cable companies are more wary of additional sports networks already. These are people that let the freaking Yankees go off the air in NYC for a year in fights with YES... and the Yankees have about a thousand times more pull than anyone else in NYC. The cable companies are going to argue that they're paying for 2 channels (SNY and BEN) that have virtually the exact same programming as SNY alone has today (as SNY has the Mets in the spring/summer with little else, while a BEN would be the exact opposite). In that dogfight, SNY and the Mets win everytime, especially since Time Warner Cable and Comcast already own stakes in that channel.

That why I realistically believe that the BE would maximize its TV rights in a deal with ESPN or Fox as opposed to building its own network. The NYC market is fool's gold for college sports conferences - there are already too many pro sports teams there and, even more importantly, the college loyalties are widely dispersed.

The above-statement isn't exactly a Debbie Downer viewpoint. The SEC and ACC went through the same analysis and came out more than fine.

(01-29-2011 06:08 AM)CatsClaw Wrote:  Guys the Big 12 isn't going anywhere so holding up the future of our conference in something like that makes no sense whatsoever.

AGREE!

(01-29-2011 12:19 AM)UofL07 Wrote:  ....I would pop some Cristal and spend the weekend with some fly UCF honeys.

Charlie? Charlie Sheen is that you?