The Big 10 will get a decent bump, but it isn't going to blow everyone away. The increase in value has been more in the Tier II and Tier III, which they get value from in the BTN. The Big 12's previous contract was signed at a similar time. Tier I got broader national coverage and went from $60 million to $100 million. Tier II went from $20 million to $90 million (later $100 million when deal was restructured with the renewal of the Tier I which was on a different contract cycle).

So if the Big 10 goes up 2/3 in value per school, that would bump their $100 million Tier I (based on 11 schools) to $210 million, from $9 to $15 million per school. That only bumps them up $6 million and they would be the ones early in their back-loaded contract while the other conferences would be 5 or 6 years in. If it only goes up 2/3 total, that takes them to $167 million and only from $9 to $12 per school. It takes a really big increase to add much in $/school.

The Big 10 already gets national coverage of 3 games a week on ABC or ESPN mirrored with ESPN2. They won't get any more coverage, so any increase would be due to market conditions. Now if the current rate of escalation continues for another 3 years, that could be a big number, but IMO the rate of increase has to slow. And they signed their last contract when they probably were the premier football league and basketball was relatively more valuable. That has changed.

The Big 10 will be the highest paid in 2017, but I don't see them blowing anyone away, even moreso in view of ESPN's comments about the SEC being in a leadership position. ESPN doesn't want to fight with everyone again in 3 years if the B1G gets massive money. It will be a bidding process, but with their distribution, ESPN has an advantage over everyone else, both in terms of monetizing the asset and in terms of exposure for the conference.

(05-07-2013 09:16 AM)bullet Wrote:  The Big 10 will get a decent bump, but it isn't going to blow everyone away. The increase in value has been more in the Tier II and Tier III, which they get value from in the BTN. The Big 12's previous contract was signed at a similar time. Tier I got broader national coverage and went from $60 million to $100 million. Tier II went from $20 million to $90 million (later $100 million when deal was restructured with the renewal of the Tier I which was on a different contract cycle).

So if the Big 10 goes up 2/3 in value per school, that would bump their $100 million Tier I (based on 11 schools) to $210 million, from $9 to $15 million per school. That only bumps them up $6 million and they would be the ones early in their back-loaded contract while the other conferences would be 5 or 6 years in. If it only goes up 2/3 total, that takes them to $167 million and only from $9 to $12 per school. It takes a really big increase to add much in $/school.

The Big 10 already gets national coverage of 3 games a week on ABC or ESPN mirrored with ESPN2. They won't get any more coverage, so any increase would be due to market conditions. Now if the current rate of escalation continues for another 3 years, that could be a big number, but IMO the rate of increase has to slow. And they signed their last contract when they probably were the premier football league and basketball was relatively more valuable. That has changed.

The Big 10 will be the highest paid in 2017, but I don't see them blowing anyone away, even moreso in view of ESPN's comments about the SEC being in a leadership position. ESPN doesn't want to fight with everyone again in 3 years if the B1G gets massive money. It will be a bidding process, but with their distribution, ESPN has an advantage over everyone else, both in terms of monetizing the asset and in terms of exposure for the conference.

What's very different between the Big Ten and Big 12, though, is that the Big Ten is going to the open market and will likely incur a bidding war as opposed to getting an extension. The Pac-12 got $250 million per year for Tier 1 rights with worse ratings and fewer brand names in an open market bidding situation. To give you a sense of what the Pac-12 is worth compared to the Big Ten, they both signed deals for their respective championship games with the same network (Fox) in the same month and the Pac-12 received $14 million per year while the Big Ten received over $23 million (about 65% more than the Pac-12). So, I think it's going to be much more than a decent bump. This isn't some type of small package that the Big Ten is selling - it has as much content as the Pac-12 and Big 12 ESPN/Fox deals with higher ratings, larger markets, more brand names and will be in a complete open market bidding situation.

(05-07-2013 07:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Most important isn't the BTN, but rather that the Big Ten is near the end of an ESPN deal that was signed in 2006 and they are *still* making the most TV money out of anyone. When they get their new deal into place, it's going to destroy everyone else, including the SEC. The Big Ten is essentially only getting about 50% (or even less) of what their 1st tier games are worth on the open market right now. The Pac-12 is getting about $20 million per year for the same set of rights (not including the Pac-12 Network), so just imagine what the bidding war will be for the Big Ten with much higher TV ratings by comparison... and that's before the BTN even pays out a dime. Anyone from another conference or independent thinking that they're anywhere near where the Big Ten will be in 2 or 3 years is quite naive.

ok.

http://outkickthecoverage.com/sec-networ...letics.php

(05-07-2013 09:35 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 07:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Most important isn't the BTN, but rather that the Big Ten is near the end of an ESPN deal that was signed in 2006 and they are *still* making the most TV money out of anyone. When they get their new deal into place, it's going to destroy everyone else, including the SEC. The Big Ten is essentially only getting about 50% (or even less) of what their 1st tier games are worth on the open market right now. The Pac-12 is getting about $20 million per year for the same set of rights (not including the Pac-12 Network), so just imagine what the bidding war will be for the Big Ten with much higher TV ratings by comparison... and that's before the BTN even pays out a dime. Anyone from another conference or independent thinking that they're anywhere near where the Big Ten will be in 2 or 3 years is quite naive.

ok.

http://outkickthecoverage.com/sec-networ...letics.php

Meh. It's hyperbole from Clay Travis that can't fathom that anything could possibly be more important than SEC football. The SEC will certainly make an incredibly large amount of money (so I agree with him at that basic level), but no, the SEC Network is not the "game changer" that the BTN originally was. Despite the argument from Travis to the contrary, it's very much the same thing structurally as the Longhorn Network at the conference level, albeit with a much greater chance of success with higher quality content from a wider range of schools. The SEC is playing catch up with the Big Ten here no matter what spin the SEC partisans want to use (or else they would have never admitted that the signing of their original 2008 deal with ESPN as opposed to creating a network at that time when they had the leverage to have equity ownership was a mistake, which is what they're admitting by creating this new deal). Now, I wouldn't put it past the SEC to catch up to Big Ten dollar-wise since they're the only conference that's really in a position to do so, but make no mistake about it, the SEC *is* going to be 7 years behind the Big Ten when the SEC Network launches in 2014 and they don't have an equity stake. That much is certain.

(05-07-2013 07:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 07:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Most important isn't the BTN, but rather that the Big Ten is near the end of an ESPN deal that was signed in 2006 and they are *still* making the most TV money out of anyone. When they get their new deal into place, it's going to destroy everyone else, including the SEC. The Big Ten is essentially only getting about 50% (or even less) of what their 1st tier games are worth on the open market right now. The Pac-12 is getting about $20 million per year for the same set of rights (not including the Pac-12 Network), so just imagine what the bidding war will be for the Big Ten with much higher TV ratings by comparison... and that's before the BTN even pays out a dime. Anyone from another conference or independent thinking that they're anywhere near where the Big Ten will be in 2 or 3 years is quite naive.

Yes, the BTN is already contributing almost $8m per school on top of the $11m or so from their last media rights deal that expires in three years. Very wise of them to only sign a ten year deal in 2006.

As i have tried to explain, they will wallop the SEC in the coming years thanks to the SEC signing that awful 2008 deal the damage from which the new SECN does not mitigate.

Will that extra money do anything for the Big Ten on the football field, though? That is the question that I have.

(05-07-2013 09:35 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 07:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Most important isn't the BTN, but rather that the Big Ten is near the end of an ESPN deal that was signed in 2006 and they are *still* making the most TV money out of anyone. When they get their new deal into place, it's going to destroy everyone else, including the SEC. The Big Ten is essentially only getting about 50% (or even less) of what their 1st tier games are worth on the open market right now. The Pac-12 is getting about $20 million per year for the same set of rights (not including the Pac-12 Network), so just imagine what the bidding war will be for the Big Ten with much higher TV ratings by comparison... and that's before the BTN even pays out a dime. Anyone from another conference or independent thinking that they're anywhere near where the Big Ten will be in 2 or 3 years is quite naive.

ok.

http://outkickthecoverage.com/sec-networ...letics.php

Clay Travis makes Bleacher Reports look like outstanding journalism. He's not worth reading. He's quoted figures before that would make the SEC worth more than the NFL.

(05-07-2013 10:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:35 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 07:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Most important isn't the BTN, but rather that the Big Ten is near the end of an ESPN deal that was signed in 2006 and they are *still* making the most TV money out of anyone. When they get their new deal into place, it's going to destroy everyone else, including the SEC. The Big Ten is essentially only getting about 50% (or even less) of what their 1st tier games are worth on the open market right now. The Pac-12 is getting about $20 million per year for the same set of rights (not including the Pac-12 Network), so just imagine what the bidding war will be for the Big Ten with much higher TV ratings by comparison... and that's before the BTN even pays out a dime. Anyone from another conference or independent thinking that they're anywhere near where the Big Ten will be in 2 or 3 years is quite naive.

ok.

http://outkickthecoverage.com/sec-networ...letics.php

Clay Travis makes Bleacher Reports look like outstanding journalism. He's not worth reading. He's quoted figures before that would make the SEC worth more than the NFL.

+1. I will occasionally, cautiously, and grudgingly quote something from the Bleacher Reports; I won't quote anything uncorroborated that I find on Outkick the Coverage...

(05-07-2013 07:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Most important isn't the BTN, but rather that the Big Ten is near the end of an ESPN deal that was signed in 2006 and they are *still* making the most TV money out of anyone.

No, the Big Ten is not currently making more TV money than other leagues. Read the article linked by the OP.

$10.9 MM/school from ABC/ESPN.
$7.6 MM/school from BTN.

That's $18.5 MM/school, which is less than the per-school payouts in the Pac-12 and Big 12 this year. The rest of that Big Ten $25.7 MM number comes from other conference revenue including corporate sponsorships, football bowl money, and NCAA hoops tournament money. (Texas, FWIW, is making about $35 MM on TV this year if you add the LHN money to their Big 12 share.)

Also, while the next Big Ten TV deal might sell about the same amount of FB and BB rights (two-thirds of inventory) that the Pac-12 sold to ESPN/Fox, the Big 12 sold more to ESPN/Fox (reserving only a single FB game for each Big 12 school, and about 8 men's BB games).

The number that's going to increase in the next Big Ten deal is only the broadcast/cable portion that's going on the open market in a couple of years, the portion that is at $10.9 MM/school/year (total of $10.9 MM x 12 = 130.8 MM).

Let's say that the most optimistic projections of you and Delany are correct, and that broadcast/cable money per-year triples in the next TV deal, to $392.4 MM/year for the entire league, which, with 14 schools, would be $28.0 MM/school/year. Even if you assume that Maryland and Rutgers add enough value to BTN to be "revenue-neutral" -- and I think that's an overly optimistic assumption, but let's play along just for fun and add a small bit of inflation just for the heck of it -- then each of the 14 schools would also make $8 MM/year from BTN, and the total TV revenue (in this rosy projection) would be $36 MM/school/year.

Even if the Big Ten gets that much, I'd guess that the SEC is going to be right there with them. The SEC is starting a conference network with ESPN, and they are also extending their current ESPN broadcast deal through 2034. Unless you think Slive & Co. are incompetent (I certainly don't), then you must assume that the SEC is getting a very generous pay increase, to current market value, in exchange for letting ESPN lock them up for 20 years.

I was born in Indiana. I live in Indiana, Home to two Big Ten programs. My son is a student at IU. For the life of me I don't understand why Big Ten football and basketball are popular. Honestly Big Ten football is boring. A one dimensional offense went undefeated in that league last year. Big Ten basketball is God awful. Their teams are woefully out of shape. Everyone in the league was over-rated as The Big East showed in the tournament. Syracuse ran IU out of the gym and UofL ran away from a tired Michigan squad. Just because they make the most money by forcing everyone to pay for Wisconsin vs Minnesota volleyball or even Indiana vs Purdue football doesn't make The Big Ten the best conference. As a proud Hoosier I wish I could enjoy Big Ten athletics, I just can't.
CJ

(05-07-2013 10:41 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 07:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 07:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Most important isn't the BTN, but rather that the Big Ten is near the end of an ESPN deal that was signed in 2006 and they are *still* making the most TV money out of anyone. When they get their new deal into place, it's going to destroy everyone else, including the SEC. The Big Ten is essentially only getting about 50% (or even less) of what their 1st tier games are worth on the open market right now. The Pac-12 is getting about $20 million per year for the same set of rights (not including the Pac-12 Network), so just imagine what the bidding war will be for the Big Ten with much higher TV ratings by comparison... and that's before the BTN even pays out a dime. Anyone from another conference or independent thinking that they're anywhere near where the Big Ten will be in 2 or 3 years is quite naive.

Yes, the BTN is already contributing almost $8m per school on top of the $11m or so from their last media rights deal that expires in three years. Very wise of them to only sign a ten year deal in 2006.

As i have tried to explain, they will wallop the SEC in the coming years thanks to the SEC signing that awful 2008 deal the damage from which the new SECN does not mitigate.

Will that extra money do anything for the Big Ten on the football field, though? That is the question that I have.

Maybe. Maybe not. Your alma mater spent quite a few years collecting a lot of TV checks without much success on the field, either. I certainly won't sit here and say that the Big Ten will be overtaking the SEC on-the-field - there are some structural and geographic pure football-focused recruiting advantages that the SEC has and will always have. The thing is that everyone outside of the SEC (and when I say "SEC", I really mean Alabama, Florida, LSU, Georgia and maybe Tennessee whenever they stop underachieving with the resources that they have) is in the same boat, so in that sense, the money does matter in terms of overcoming some of those disadvantages.

(05-07-2013 09:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:16 AM)bullet Wrote:  The Big 10 will get a decent bump, but it isn't going to blow everyone away. The increase in value has been more in the Tier II and Tier III, which they get value from in the BTN. The Big 12's previous contract was signed at a similar time. Tier I got broader national coverage and went from $60 million to $100 million. Tier II went from $20 million to $90 million (later $100 million when deal was restructured with the renewal of the Tier I which was on a different contract cycle).

So if the Big 10 goes up 2/3 in value per school, that would bump their $100 million Tier I (based on 11 schools) to $210 million, from $9 to $15 million per school. That only bumps them up $6 million and they would be the ones early in their back-loaded contract while the other conferences would be 5 or 6 years in. If it only goes up 2/3 total, that takes them to $167 million and only from $9 to $12 per school. It takes a really big increase to add much in $/school.

The Big 10 already gets national coverage of 3 games a week on ABC or ESPN mirrored with ESPN2. They won't get any more coverage, so any increase would be due to market conditions. Now if the current rate of escalation continues for another 3 years, that could be a big number, but IMO the rate of increase has to slow. And they signed their last contract when they probably were the premier football league and basketball was relatively more valuable. That has changed.

The Big 10 will be the highest paid in 2017, but I don't see them blowing anyone away, even moreso in view of ESPN's comments about the SEC being in a leadership position. ESPN doesn't want to fight with everyone again in 3 years if the B1G gets massive money. It will be a bidding process, but with their distribution, ESPN has an advantage over everyone else, both in terms of monetizing the asset and in terms of exposure for the conference.

What's very different between the Big Ten and Big 12, though, is that the Big Ten is going to the open market and will likely incur a bidding war as opposed to getting an extension. The Pac-12 got $250 million per year for Tier 1 rights with worse ratings and fewer brand names in an open market bidding situation. To give you a sense of what the Pac-12 is worth compared to the Big Ten, they both signed deals for their respective championship games with the same network (Fox) in the same month and the Pac-12 received $14 million per year while the Big Ten received over $23 million (about 65% more than the Pac-12). So, I think it's going to be much more than a decent bump. This isn't some type of small package that the Big Ten is selling - it has as much content as the Pac-12 and Big 12 ESPN/Fox deals with higher ratings, larger markets, more brand names and will be in a complete open market bidding situation.

Who's the open market? Looks like ESPN may be busy. CBS?...no. NBC? Too busy with ND. Looks like Fox.

(05-07-2013 12:36 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:16 AM)bullet Wrote:  The Big 10 will get a decent bump, but it isn't going to blow everyone away. The increase in value has been more in the Tier II and Tier III, which they get value from in the BTN. The Big 12's previous contract was signed at a similar time. Tier I got broader national coverage and went from $60 million to $100 million. Tier II went from $20 million to $90 million (later $100 million when deal was restructured with the renewal of the Tier I which was on a different contract cycle).

So if the Big 10 goes up 2/3 in value per school, that would bump their $100 million Tier I (based on 11 schools) to $210 million, from $9 to $15 million per school. That only bumps them up $6 million and they would be the ones early in their back-loaded contract while the other conferences would be 5 or 6 years in. If it only goes up 2/3 total, that takes them to $167 million and only from $9 to $12 per school. It takes a really big increase to add much in $/school.

The Big 10 already gets national coverage of 3 games a week on ABC or ESPN mirrored with ESPN2. They won't get any more coverage, so any increase would be due to market conditions. Now if the current rate of escalation continues for another 3 years, that could be a big number, but IMO the rate of increase has to slow. And they signed their last contract when they probably were the premier football league and basketball was relatively more valuable. That has changed.

The Big 10 will be the highest paid in 2017, but I don't see them blowing anyone away, even moreso in view of ESPN's comments about the SEC being in a leadership position. ESPN doesn't want to fight with everyone again in 3 years if the B1G gets massive money. It will be a bidding process, but with their distribution, ESPN has an advantage over everyone else, both in terms of monetizing the asset and in terms of exposure for the conference.

What's very different between the Big Ten and Big 12, though, is that the Big Ten is going to the open market and will likely incur a bidding war as opposed to getting an extension. The Pac-12 got $250 million per year for Tier 1 rights with worse ratings and fewer brand names in an open market bidding situation. To give you a sense of what the Pac-12 is worth compared to the Big Ten, they both signed deals for their respective championship games with the same network (Fox) in the same month and the Pac-12 received $14 million per year while the Big Ten received over $23 million (about 65% more than the Pac-12). So, I think it's going to be much more than a decent bump. This isn't some type of small package that the Big Ten is selling - it has as much content as the Pac-12 and Big 12 ESPN/Fox deals with higher ratings, larger markets, more brand names and will be in a complete open market bidding situation.

Who's the open market? Looks like ESPN may be busy. CBS?...no. NBC? Too busy with ND. Looks like Fox.

Fox has the same reasons as ESPN to want to keep the Big Ten's new contract within reason, so as not to face demands for more money from other conferences. Fox and ESPN share the Pac-12 and Big 12 contracts, and both have clauses allowing the conference to ask for more money during a "look-in" period every few years if the market has changed; the ESPN-ACC and ESPN-SEC contracts also have such clauses.

It's in the best interests of both ESPN and Fox to not "reset the market" with a new Big Ten deal. The Big Ten and SEC can be at the top of the current market, but if the Big Ten's new deal is significantly ahead of the SEC's reworked deal with ESPN, and the market is "changed", then every top conference is going to invoke its look-in clause and ask for more money in only a few years.

And as you note, ESPN and Fox are likely to be the only serious bidders for the entire Big Ten package. Comcast/NBC lets itself get outbid almost every time; CBS has never shown interest in buying an entire conference package for CBS broadcast and CBSSN. And the elephant in the room is that no major conference wants to put more than a small fraction of games on rarely-watched outlets like NBCSN and CBSSN, which gives ESPN and Fox even more leverage; they know that even if the Big Ten wants to use NBC or CBS to drive up the price, the Big Ten really wants to have the lion's share of its broadcast/cable FB and BB on ESPN and/or Fox like the other top conferences.

(05-07-2013 12:36 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Who's the open market? Looks like ESPN may be busy. CBS?...no. NBC? Too busy with ND. Looks like Fox.

Are you serious? ESPN is "busy"? Doesn't anyone actually pay attention to the details of all of these deals? The formation of the SEC Network doesn't change the fact that ABC and ESPN still depend upon the Big Ten for most of their highest rated football games (as CBS gets first pick of the SEC games). 12 pm ET on at least 2 of ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU? Big Ten games. 3:30 pm ET on ABC? Big Ten game with a guaranteed nationwide reverse mirror. 8 pm ET on ABC in September and October? Big Ten game more often than not (and November isn't included only because the Big Ten simply doesn't play night games that month for fan comfort). You're honestly thinking that ABC/ESPN can just plug in all of those time slots... or more importantly, that they actually *want* to plug in those time slots with conferences that have shown year-in and year-out to draw lower ratings than the Big Ten? Don't get me wrong - even some Big Ten fans seem to forget how much the Big Ten and ESPN are in bed with each other because they're blinded by Fox's ownership stake in the BTN.

Look - I'm the guy that kept arguing that the Big Ten wouldn't be able to pick the ACC apart for months on end. I'm also skeptical that Rutgers will end up paying the dividends for the BTN in the way that the conference hopes for. So, I don't have 100% faith in the Big Ten's ability to do or get whatever it wants.

However, on the first tier contract front, there should be no debate for anyone that follows sports rights and the media: the Big Ten is going to receive a monster contract. There is only one conference that beats the Big Ten in football ratings: the SEC, which is expected. The Big Ten has beaten the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC top-to-bottom for years on end (and it's not even really close) and, even on the basketball front, the Big Ten is ahead of everyone (even the vaunted ACC with Duke/UNC). Plus, when the Big Ten rights come up for bid, it will be the only major sports property (pro or college) that will be available for anyone during that time period, so everyone has cash to spend. Seriously - anyone that thinks that the Big Ten is somehow going to underwhelm on the first tier rights contract front is fooling themselves (or at least going through some self-rationalizations to pump up their own favorite conference and/or hope/wish the Big Ten fails at something). This rise in the first tier rights contract is much more bankable than anything that the Big Ten has done in conference realignment.

There's a colorable argument that the SEC can be in the same league as the Big Ten's TV revenue (although it's still hampered by the fact that the SEC wasn't ever able to truly go out on the open market). The Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC aren't going to be anywhere close, though.

(05-07-2013 03:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 12:36 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Who's the open market? Looks like ESPN may be busy. CBS?...no. NBC? Too busy with ND. Looks like Fox.

Are you serious? ESPN is "busy"? Doesn't anyone actually pay attention to the details of all of these deals? The formation of the SEC Network doesn't change the fact that ABC and ESPN still depend upon the Big Ten for most of their highest rated football games (as CBS gets first pick of the SEC games). 12 pm ET on at least 2 of ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU? Big Ten games. 3:30 pm ET on ABC? Big Ten game with a guaranteed nationwide reverse mirror. 8 pm ET on ABC in September and October? Big Ten game more often than not (and November isn't included only because the Big Ten simply doesn't play night games that month for fan comfort). You're honestly thinking that ABC/ESPN can just plug in all of those time slots... or more importantly, that they actually *want* to plug in those time slots with conferences that have shown year-in and year-out to draw lower ratings than the Big Ten? Don't get me wrong - even some Big Ten fans seem to forget how much the Big Ten and ESPN are in bed with each other because they're blinded by Fox's ownership stake in the BTN.

Look - I'm the guy that kept arguing that the Big Ten wouldn't be able to pick the ACC apart for months on end. I'm also skeptical that Rutgers will end up paying the dividends for the BTN in the way that the conference hopes for. So, I don't have 100% faith in the Big Ten's ability to do or get whatever it wants.

However, on the first tier contract front, there should be no debate for anyone that follows sports rights and the media: the Big Ten is going to receive a monster contract. There is only one conference that beats the Big Ten in football ratings: the SEC, which is expected. The Big Ten has beaten the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC top-to-bottom for years on end (and it's not even really close) and, even on the basketball front, the Big Ten is ahead of everyone (even the vaunted ACC with Duke/UNC). Plus, when the Big Ten rights come up for bid, it will be the only major sports property (pro or college) that will be available for anyone during that time period, so everyone has cash to spend. Seriously - anyone that thinks that the Big Ten is somehow going to underwhelm on the first tier rights contract front is fooling themselves (or at least going through some self-rationalizations to pump up their own favorite conference and/or hope/wish the Big Ten fails at something). This rise in the first tier rights contract is much more bankable than anything that the Big Ten has done in conference realignment.

There's a colorable argument that the SEC can be in the same league as the Big Ten's TV revenue (although it's still hampered by the fact that the SEC wasn't ever able to truly go out on the open market). The Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC aren't going to be anywhere close, though.

My statement was ESPN MIGHT BE BUSY... pretty soon they are going to be competing against themselves if they own everything...that was my point. Maybe they will bid on the BTN... just saying.

(05-07-2013 03:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ...Seriously - anyone that thinks that the Big Ten is somehow going to underwhelm on the first tier rights contract front is fooling themselves (or at least going through some self-rationalizations to pump up their own favorite conference and/or hope/wish the Big Ten fails at something). This rise in the first tier rights contract is much more bankable than anything that the Big Ten has done in conference realignment.

There's a colorable argument that the SEC can be in the same league as the Big Ten's TV revenue (although it's still hampered by the fact that the SEC wasn't ever able to truly go out on the open market). The Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC aren't going to be anywhere close, though.

You may be right. Time will tell.

(05-07-2013 12:36 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 09:16 AM)bullet Wrote:  The Big 10 will get a decent bump, but it isn't going to blow everyone away. The increase in value has been more in the Tier II and Tier III, which they get value from in the BTN. The Big 12's previous contract was signed at a similar time. Tier I got broader national coverage and went from $60 million to $100 million. Tier II went from $20 million to $90 million (later $100 million when deal was restructured with the renewal of the Tier I which was on a different contract cycle).

So if the Big 10 goes up 2/3 in value per school, that would bump their $100 million Tier I (based on 11 schools) to $210 million, from $9 to $15 million per school. That only bumps them up $6 million and they would be the ones early in their back-loaded contract while the other conferences would be 5 or 6 years in. If it only goes up 2/3 total, that takes them to $167 million and only from $9 to $12 per school. It takes a really big increase to add much in $/school.

The Big 10 already gets national coverage of 3 games a week on ABC or ESPN mirrored with ESPN2. They won't get any more coverage, so any increase would be due to market conditions. Now if the current rate of escalation continues for another 3 years, that could be a big number, but IMO the rate of increase has to slow. And they signed their last contract when they probably were the premier football league and basketball was relatively more valuable. That has changed.

The Big 10 will be the highest paid in 2017, but I don't see them blowing anyone away, even moreso in view of ESPN's comments about the SEC being in a leadership position. ESPN doesn't want to fight with everyone again in 3 years if the B1G gets massive money. It will be a bidding process, but with their distribution, ESPN has an advantage over everyone else, both in terms of monetizing the asset and in terms of exposure for the conference.

What's very different between the Big Ten and Big 12, though, is that the Big Ten is going to the open market and will likely incur a bidding war as opposed to getting an extension. The Pac-12 got $250 million per year for Tier 1 rights with worse ratings and fewer brand names in an open market bidding situation. To give you a sense of what the Pac-12 is worth compared to the Big Ten, they both signed deals for their respective championship games with the same network (Fox) in the same month and the Pac-12 received $14 million per year while the Big Ten received over $23 million (about 65% more than the Pac-12). So, I think it's going to be much more than a decent bump. This isn't some type of small package that the Big Ten is selling - it has as much content as the Pac-12 and Big 12 ESPN/Fox deals with higher ratings, larger markets, more brand names and will be in a complete open market bidding situation.

Who's the open market? Looks like ESPN may be busy. CBS?...no. NBC? Too busy with ND. Looks like Fox.

"ESPN may be busy"?? The SEC network means ESPN frees up some ESPNU slots by moving games to the cable network. The B1G already has 3-4 games on the ESPN family of networks.

With all of the other conferences having long term TV deals, how is ESPN going to replace 3-5 games a weekend if they completely lose the B1G?

The B1G deal seems to have an ESPN/Fox split written all over it.

(05-07-2013 06:53 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 06:49 AM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  So the big ten schools are paying out less on their network with another mouth to feed. Better damn well hope they get more money in DC and NY for Maryland and Rutgers.

Maryland obviously made the decision to go Big Ten based on projections, not on actual current payout data. If this doesn't work out, I look for Wallace Loh to be fired. I doubt he has lots of friends at Maryland to back him up after pulling this, so he's probably on shaky ground anyway.

If the B1G move doesn't materialize in terms of actual payouts and bump to academic rankings, he's gone.

(05-07-2013 04:58 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 06:53 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 06:49 AM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  So the big ten schools are paying out less on their network with another mouth to feed. Better damn well hope they get more money in DC and NY for Maryland and Rutgers.

Maryland obviously made the decision to go Big Ten based on projections, not on actual current payout data. If this doesn't work out, I look for Wallace Loh to be fired. I doubt he has lots of friends at Maryland to back him up after pulling this, so he's probably on shaky ground anyway.

If the B1G move doesn't materialize in terms of actual payouts and bump to academic rankings, he's gone.

How do you let one person get enough power to meet behind closed doors for a few weeks to throw away a century of history without any public input?

(05-07-2013 10:41 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 07:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 07:41 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Most important isn't the BTN, but rather that the Big Ten is near the end of an ESPN deal that was signed in 2006 and they are *still* making the most TV money out of anyone. When they get their new deal into place, it's going to destroy everyone else, including the SEC. The Big Ten is essentially only getting about 50% (or even less) of what their 1st tier games are worth on the open market right now. The Pac-12 is getting about $20 million per year for the same set of rights (not including the Pac-12 Network), so just imagine what the bidding war will be for the Big Ten with much higher TV ratings by comparison... and that's before the BTN even pays out a dime. Anyone from another conference or independent thinking that they're anywhere near where the Big Ten will be in 2 or 3 years is quite naive.

Yes, the BTN is already contributing almost $8m per school on top of the $11m or so from their last media rights deal that expires in three years. Very wise of them to only sign a ten year deal in 2006.

As i have tried to explain, they will wallop the SEC in the coming years thanks to the SEC signing that awful 2008 deal the damage from which the new SECN does not mitigate.

Will that extra money do anything for the Big Ten on the football field, though? That is the question that I have.

Probably not. But, that's only one point of making all that money.

(05-07-2013 04:58 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 06:53 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 06:49 AM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  So the big ten schools are paying out less on their network with another mouth to feed. Better damn well hope they get more money in DC and NY for Maryland and Rutgers.

Maryland obviously made the decision to go Big Ten based on projections, not on actual current payout data. If this doesn't work out, I look for Wallace Loh to be fired. I doubt he has lots of friends at Maryland to back him up after pulling this, so he's probably on shaky ground anyway.

If the B1G move doesn't materialize in terms of actual payouts and bump to academic rankings, he's gone.

You really think so? The typical tenure of even the most popular/successful university president is 10-12 years, tops, and no one will know overnight whether the new conference will be a long-term benefit for UMd. By the time UMd knows whether those metrics (or any others) have been fulfilled by Big Ten membership, Loh will be already gone or the university will have begun the transition to the next president.