Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Sports Business Journal: FOX and B1G have deal in place
Author Message
random asian guy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,001
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 66
I Root For: VT, Georgetown
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Sports Business Journal: FOX and B1G have deal in place
(04-16-2022 02:04 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  
(04-16-2022 11:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(04-15-2022 10:37 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  
(04-15-2022 09:52 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  And Fox is apparently having a hand in selecting the conference's second partner(maybe paywalled):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ESPN won’t need to move all eight schools to the PAC. Just move four teams out of the B12 to the Pac (so that it becomes P16) and move Cincy, Houston, or TCU to the ACC, and then the B12 would be pretty much done. It would become a G level conference. The ideal scenario for the ESPN then would be that the AAC absorbs/merge/ with the remaining the B12 teams.
04-16-2022 05:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MadisonHawk Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 54
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 7
I Root For: Iowa, Wisconsin
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Sports Business Journal: FOX and B1G have deal in place
(04-16-2022 02:11 PM)solohawks Wrote:  
(04-16-2022 09:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To clarify my earlier post, I’d be really surprised if there are any streaming-only football games. Some men’s basketball or non-revenue sports would be a different story. The latter is the only justifiable reason (at least to me) of allowing the Fox executives in the room where games that are currently on BTN Plus (which is a terrible and expensive platform) can be integrated into a different streaming platform (such as ESPN+ or Apple TV+). 10 years ago, the Big Ten was ahead of everyone else in terms of exposure for non-football/basketball sports, but they’re now arguably behind a whole host of leagues because BTN Plus is an inferior platform. That’s something that Fox/BTN has to sign off on, so I can understand if they need knowledge of those types of proposals. I’m still not a fan of them being involved with the primary tier 1 football/basketball rights discussions at all, though.

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

Agree. BTN Plus content would also work well with an ABC/ESPN game of the week (with another GOTW going to NBC/CBS) or Amazon or Apple Plus. BTN Plus has great content but as Frank said it is really expensive and has a subpar platform. It would be in the B1G's and Fox's interest to better monetize that content on another platform.
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2022 06:05 PM by MadisonHawk.)
04-16-2022 06:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big 12 fan too Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 476
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 22
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Sports Business Journal: FOX and B1G have deal in place
(04-16-2022 05:58 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  
(04-16-2022 02:04 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  
(04-16-2022 11:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(04-15-2022 10:37 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  
(04-15-2022 09:52 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  And Fox is apparently having a hand in selecting the conference's second partner(maybe paywalled):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ESPN won’t need to move all eight schools to the PAC. Just move four teams out of the B12 to the Pac (so that it becomes P16) and move Cincy, Houston, or TCU to the ACC, and then the B12 would be pretty much done. It would become a G level conference. The ideal scenario for the ESPN then would be that the AAC absorbs/merge/ with the remaining the B12 teams.
Why would ESPN subsidize the Pac12 when it could just buy USC?? Much more cost effective means to an end of weakening Alliance opposition. The Pac12 ratings are bad. Performance often American level. Without USC, it likely is likely very cheap inventory for ESPN

The issue with Big 12 schools joining other conferences is last I heard, it was talked about this in the summer and decided why be the one piecemealed and geographical misfits based on thinking one move at a time? The P12 deal up first, so USC is going to need an answer before Big 12 has to decide.

The B12 schools don’t have the value to make P12 and ACC P2 money or even close without subsidization. All three will be in the same neighborhood with no movement. That move, moving to unstable P12 and ACC, will always be on the table, particularly if they lose top brands to P2.

USC, Clemson aren’t going to be content in Frankenstein conferences making so much less than P2. ESPN wants to own a side, with least amount of brand subsidization. A best of the rest conference is coming. The Big 12 only must wait for the Pac12 and ACC to have their turn in consolidation for that to be based on the Big 12
(This post was last modified: 04-17-2022 06:55 PM by Big 12 fan too.)
04-17-2022 06:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 44,670
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1694
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #44
RE: Sports Business Journal: FOX and B1G have deal in place
(04-17-2022 06:51 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(04-16-2022 05:58 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  
(04-16-2022 02:04 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  
(04-16-2022 11:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(04-15-2022 10:37 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  Thanks for posting, very interesting. If that 2nd partner isn't ESPN the PAC is going to be in a great position.

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

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

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

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

The ESPN won’t need to move all eight schools to the PAC. Just move four teams out of the B12 to the Pac (so that it becomes P16) and move Cincy, Houston, or TCU to the ACC, and then the B12 would be pretty much done. It would become a G level conference. The ideal scenario for the ESPN then would be that the AAC absorbs/merge/ with the remaining the B12 teams.


Why would ESPN subsidize the Pac12 when it could just buy USC?? Much more cost effective means to an end of weakening Alliance opposition. The Pac12 ratings are bad. Performance often American level. Without USC, it likely is likely very cheap inventory for ESPN

The issue with Big 12 schools joining other conferences is last I heard, it was talked about this in the summer and decided why be the one piecemealed and geographical misfits based on thinking one move at a time? The P12 deal up first, so USC is going to need an answer before Big 12 has to decide.

The B12 schools don’t have the value to make P12 and ACC P2 money or even close without subsidization. All three will be in the same neighborhood with no movement. That move, moving to unstable P12 and ACC, will always be on the table, particularly if they lose top brands to P2.

USC, Clemson aren’t going to be content in Frankenstein conferences making so much less than P2. ESPN wants to own a side, with least amount of brand subsidization. A best of the rest conference is coming. The Big 12 only must wait for the Pac12 and ACC to have their turn in consolidation for that to be based on the Big 12

I disagree. IMO, the PAC is naturally the third-most valuable conference. It is loaded with good brands - all four California schools are A or A+ level brands and institutions, and the two Arizona schools, Oregon and Washington are very good brands as well.

The PAC is fine, it has just had poor leadership for a while now.

I expect the PAC to right its ship soon. We'll see.
04-17-2022 10:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,045
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 141
I Root For: RU/Big Ten
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Sports Business Journal: FOX and B1G have deal in place
(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.
04-17-2022 10:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 54,036
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2242
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Sports Business Journal: FOX and B1G have deal in place
(04-17-2022 10:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-17-2022 06:51 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(04-16-2022 05:58 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  
(04-16-2022 02:04 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  
(04-16-2022 11:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  Pac and Big 12 are probably hoping that is the case. Its not clear if NBC, CBS and TNT would be as interested in those 2 conferences, at least for football.

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

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

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

The ESPN won’t need to move all eight schools to the PAC. Just move four teams out of the B12 to the Pac (so that it becomes P16) and move Cincy, Houston, or TCU to the ACC, and then the B12 would be pretty much done. It would become a G level conference. The ideal scenario for the ESPN then would be that the AAC absorbs/merge/ with the remaining the B12 teams.


Why would ESPN subsidize the Pac12 when it could just buy USC?? Much more cost effective means to an end of weakening Alliance opposition. The Pac12 ratings are bad. Performance often American level. Without USC, it likely is likely very cheap inventory for ESPN

The issue with Big 12 schools joining other conferences is last I heard, it was talked about this in the summer and decided why be the one piecemealed and geographical misfits based on thinking one move at a time? The P12 deal up first, so USC is going to need an answer before Big 12 has to decide.

The B12 schools don’t have the value to make P12 and ACC P2 money or even close without subsidization. All three will be in the same neighborhood with no movement. That move, moving to unstable P12 and ACC, will always be on the table, particularly if they lose top brands to P2.

USC, Clemson aren’t going to be content in Frankenstein conferences making so much less than P2. ESPN wants to own a side, with least amount of brand subsidization. A best of the rest conference is coming. The Big 12 only must wait for the Pac12 and ACC to have their turn in consolidation for that to be based on the Big 12

I disagree. IMO, the PAC is naturally the third-most valuable conference. It is loaded with good brands - all four California schools are A or A+ level brands and institutions, and the two Arizona schools, Oregon and Washington are very good brands as well.

The PAC is fine, it has just had poor leadership for a while now.

I expect the PAC to right its ship soon. We'll see.

The west doesn't have the enthusiasm for college sports. If enthusiasm didn't matter, Syracuse, Rutgers and Boston College would be among the most valuable brands in the country. Instead, you have enthusiasm in parts of the midwest and from Austin to Columbia. Look at the TV ratings by city. Places like Columbus, Oklahoma City, Atlanta and Birmingham lead the way.
04-17-2022 10:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
random asian guy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,001
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 66
I Root For: VT, Georgetown
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Sports Business Journal: FOX and B1G have deal in place
(04-17-2022 10:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(04-17-2022 10:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-17-2022 06:51 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(04-16-2022 05:58 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  
(04-16-2022 02:04 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  I can't wait to see the final numbers on this. I'm really curious if Fox over paid to get the B1G.

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

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

The ESPN won’t need to move all eight schools to the PAC. Just move four teams out of the B12 to the Pac (so that it becomes P16) and move Cincy, Houston, or TCU to the ACC, and then the B12 would be pretty much done. It would become a G level conference. The ideal scenario for the ESPN then would be that the AAC absorbs/merge/ with the remaining the B12 teams.


Why would ESPN subsidize the Pac12 when it could just buy USC?? Much more cost effective means to an end of weakening Alliance opposition. The Pac12 ratings are bad. Performance often American level. Without USC, it likely is likely very cheap inventory for ESPN

The issue with Big 12 schools joining other conferences is last I heard, it was talked about this in the summer and decided why be the one piecemealed and geographical misfits based on thinking one move at a time? The P12 deal up first, so USC is going to need an answer before Big 12 has to decide.

The B12 schools don’t have the value to make P12 and ACC P2 money or even close without subsidization. All three will be in the same neighborhood with no movement. That move, moving to unstable P12 and ACC, will always be on the table, particularly if they lose top brands to P2.

USC, Clemson aren’t going to be content in Frankenstein conferences making so much less than P2. ESPN wants to own a side, with least amount of brand subsidization. A best of the rest conference is coming. The Big 12 only must wait for the Pac12 and ACC to have their turn in consolidation for that to be based on the Big 12

I disagree. IMO, the PAC is naturally the third-most valuable conference. It is loaded with good brands - all four California schools are A or A+ level brands and institutions, and the two Arizona schools, Oregon and Washington are very good brands as well.

The PAC is fine, it has just had poor leadership for a while now.

I expect the PAC to right its ship soon. We'll see.

The west doesn't have the enthusiasm for college sports. If enthusiasm didn't matter, Syracuse, Rutgers and Boston College would be among the most valuable brands in the country. Instead, you have enthusiasm in parts of the midwest and from Austin to Columbia. Look at the TV ratings by city. Places like Columbus, Oklahoma City, Atlanta and Birmingham lead the way.

You are probably right.

And that’s one reason why the Pac should have accepted OU when it wanted to join. They didn’t but they still have a chance. In my opinion, the Pac should strike the B12 before the B12 gets stabilized. Expanding into the Southwest would be beneficial for the future and at the same time it would weaken the B12.

Of course the media partner (most likely the ESPN) has to approve and California schools have to agree.

We will see.
04-17-2022 11:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,045
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 141
I Root For: RU/Big Ten
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Sports Business Journal: FOX and B1G have deal in place
(04-17-2022 10:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(04-17-2022 10:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-17-2022 06:51 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(04-16-2022 05:58 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  
(04-16-2022 02:04 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  I can't wait to see the final numbers on this. I'm really curious if Fox over paid to get the B1G.

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

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

The ESPN won’t need to move all eight schools to the PAC. Just move four teams out of the B12 to the Pac (so that it becomes P16) and move Cincy, Houston, or TCU to the ACC, and then the B12 would be pretty much done. It would become a G level conference. The ideal scenario for the ESPN then would be that the AAC absorbs/merge/ with the remaining the B12 teams.


Why would ESPN subsidize the Pac12 when it could just buy USC?? Much more cost effective means to an end of weakening Alliance opposition. The Pac12 ratings are bad. Performance often American level. Without USC, it likely is likely very cheap inventory for ESPN

The issue with Big 12 schools joining other conferences is last I heard, it was talked about this in the summer and decided why be the one piecemealed and geographical misfits based on thinking one move at a time? The P12 deal up first, so USC is going to need an answer before Big 12 has to decide.

The B12 schools don’t have the value to make P12 and ACC P2 money or even close without subsidization. All three will be in the same neighborhood with no movement. That move, moving to unstable P12 and ACC, will always be on the table, particularly if they lose top brands to P2.

USC, Clemson aren’t going to be content in Frankenstein conferences making so much less than P2. ESPN wants to own a side, with least amount of brand subsidization. A best of the rest conference is coming. The Big 12 only must wait for the Pac12 and ACC to have their turn in consolidation for that to be based on the Big 12

I disagree. IMO, the PAC is naturally the third-most valuable conference. It is loaded with good brands - all four California schools are A or A+ level brands and institutions, and the two Arizona schools, Oregon and Washington are very good brands as well.

The PAC is fine, it has just had poor leadership for a while now.

I expect the PAC to right its ship soon. We'll see.

The west doesn't have the enthusiasm for college sports. If enthusiasm didn't matter, Syracuse, Rutgers and Boston College would be among the most valuable brands in the country. Instead, you have enthusiasm in parts of the midwest and from Austin to Columbia. Look at the TV ratings by city. Places like Columbus, Oklahoma City, Atlanta and Birmingham lead the way.

The pre-NIL era has been great for programs in rural areas and small cities. That's because: 1) most major state flagships are located away from the major cities; 2) college sports had been catered to alumni and some casual fans in areas outside of 1).

The NIL and Alston may see a slow shift in attention and mindshare away from rural areas toward the major cities in other regions as the stigma of college sports being viewed as akin to indentured servitude slowly gets removed.
04-17-2022 11:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SouthEastAlaska Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,107
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 75
I Root For: UW,PAC12
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Sports Business Journal: FOX and B1G have deal in place
(04-17-2022 10:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(04-17-2022 10:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-17-2022 06:51 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(04-16-2022 05:58 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  
(04-16-2022 02:04 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  I can't wait to see the final numbers on this. I'm really curious if Fox over paid to get the B1G.

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

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

The ESPN won’t need to move all eight schools to the PAC. Just move four teams out of the B12 to the Pac (so that it becomes P16) and move Cincy, Houston, or TCU to the ACC, and then the B12 would be pretty much done. It would become a G level conference. The ideal scenario for the ESPN then would be that the AAC absorbs/merge/ with the remaining the B12 teams.


Why would ESPN subsidize the Pac12 when it could just buy USC?? Much more cost effective means to an end of weakening Alliance opposition. The Pac12 ratings are bad. Performance often American level. Without USC, it likely is likely very cheap inventory for ESPN

The issue with Big 12 schools joining other conferences is last I heard, it was talked about this in the summer and decided why be the one piecemealed and geographical misfits based on thinking one move at a time? The P12 deal up first, so USC is going to need an answer before Big 12 has to decide.

The B12 schools don’t have the value to make P12 and ACC P2 money or even close without subsidization. All three will be in the same neighborhood with no movement. That move, moving to unstable P12 and ACC, will always be on the table, particularly if they lose top brands to P2.

USC, Clemson aren’t going to be content in Frankenstein conferences making so much less than P2. ESPN wants to own a side, with least amount of brand subsidization. A best of the rest conference is coming. The Big 12 only must wait for the Pac12 and ACC to have their turn in consolidation for that to be based on the Big 12

I disagree. IMO, the PAC is naturally the third-most valuable conference. It is loaded with good brands - all four California schools are A or A+ level brands and institutions, and the two Arizona schools, Oregon and Washington are very good brands as well.

The PAC is fine, it has just had poor leadership for a while now.

I expect the PAC to right its ship soon. We'll see.

The west doesn't have the enthusiasm for college sports. If enthusiasm didn't matter, Syracuse, Rutgers and Boston College would be among the most valuable brands in the country. Instead, you have enthusiasm in parts of the midwest and from Austin to Columbia. Look at the TV ratings by city. Places like Columbus, Oklahoma City, Atlanta and Birmingham lead the way.

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach...c03c689e50

This has been posted multiple times but it obviously needs to be looked at again. The SEC and B1G are the only conferences that can clearly hold their own water. Moving schools to their new conferences, The average viewership per conference is as follows, SEC 2.032 million, B1G 1.734 million, ACC 1.016 million, PAC 998K, New BigXII 885K.

Please keep in mind that during the period that was used for the article only one PAC school, Washington, made the CFP, and Clemson made the CFP every year. Essentially the PAC was at a historic low while the ACC was at a historic high and they almost average the same amount of viewership.

The SEC with Texas and Oklahoma is a juggernaut, no one can argue that, and the B1G is the B1G.

What I would be worried about is that the historic impotency of the PAC over the last 10 years is not going to last and the BigXII just lost their meal tickets and their commissioner. Take a big sip of your bourbon while you mull that over.
04-17-2022 11:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,116
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 938
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #50
RE: Sports Business Journal: FOX and B1G have deal in place
(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.

Everyone knows that I’m a Big Ten partisan.

However, I’ll say this: Big Ten fans as a whole whine waaaaay too much about supposed ESPN bias.

No, ESPN doesn’t talk about Illinois football much… but that’s because we’ve generally been terrible. Have you really heard much ESPN talk about Vanderbilt or Mississippi State more compared to the dregs of the Big Ten? You think anyone other than Clemson gets ESPN coverage in the ACC? Sure, ESPN talks a lot about the top of the SEC like Alabama and Georgia, but it’s difficult for me to blame them based on the results on-the-field. They certainly talk plenty about the top Big Ten brands like Ohio State and Michigan, as well. Note that their two primary (and highest paid) College GameDay commentators are Ohio State and Michigan alums, respectively.

Bottom line: too many Big Ten fans are getting completely myopic about ESPN at this point that they’re not seeing the forest for the trees. We can’t be insular when ESPN (and more importantly, the Walt Disney Company) is still the single most important entity for the Average Joe T-shirt Sports Fan that gives the Big Ten such outsized value in the first place.

We ALL think ESPN is biased against our favorite teams just like we ALL think referees are biased against our favorite teams. For every fan that thinks that ESPN is biased toward the Yankees/Cowboys/Lakers/Alabama/Duke, there’s a Yankees/Cowboys/Lakers/Alabama/Duke fan that thinks ESPN is constantly biased against them as heels on all of their blabbering talk shows.

Simply put, if we want more favorable subjective coverage, then we need to win freaking more games and championships. I actually have little sympathy for the argument that media coverage is biased when it is really just covering the winners the most. That’s actually how it’s supposed to be.

Once again, I’m not saying that the Big Ten should take a bad offer from ESPN just to stay with them. However, it’s also insane to me to suggest that the Big Ten should actively *avoid* ESPN.
Not even the NFL, who TRULY had personal animosity with ESPN for several years to the point where their respective top executives weren’t talking to each other, would end up divorcing from ESPN (and the NFL has the ultimate ability of anyone to waive off the power of Disney in all of sports and entertainment).
(This post was last modified: 04-17-2022 11:33 PM by Frank the Tank.)
04-17-2022 11:27 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 54,036
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2242
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Sports Business Journal: FOX and B1G have deal in place
(04-17-2022 11:20 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(04-17-2022 10:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(04-17-2022 10:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-17-2022 06:51 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(04-16-2022 05:58 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  The ESPN won’t need to move all eight schools to the PAC. Just move four teams out of the B12 to the Pac (so that it becomes P16) and move Cincy, Houston, or TCU to the ACC, and then the B12 would be pretty much done. It would become a G level conference. The ideal scenario for the ESPN then would be that the AAC absorbs/merge/ with the remaining the B12 teams.


Why would ESPN subsidize the Pac12 when it could just buy USC?? Much more cost effective means to an end of weakening Alliance opposition. The Pac12 ratings are bad. Performance often American level. Without USC, it likely is likely very cheap inventory for ESPN

The issue with Big 12 schools joining other conferences is last I heard, it was talked about this in the summer and decided why be the one piecemealed and geographical misfits based on thinking one move at a time? The P12 deal up first, so USC is going to need an answer before Big 12 has to decide.

The B12 schools don’t have the value to make P12 and ACC P2 money or even close without subsidization. All three will be in the same neighborhood with no movement. That move, moving to unstable P12 and ACC, will always be on the table, particularly if they lose top brands to P2.

USC, Clemson aren’t going to be content in Frankenstein conferences making so much less than P2. ESPN wants to own a side, with least amount of brand subsidization. A best of the rest conference is coming. The Big 12 only must wait for the Pac12 and ACC to have their turn in consolidation for that to be based on the Big 12

I disagree. IMO, the PAC is naturally the third-most valuable conference. It is loaded with good brands - all four California schools are A or A+ level brands and institutions, and the two Arizona schools, Oregon and Washington are very good brands as well.

The PAC is fine, it has just had poor leadership for a while now.

I expect the PAC to right its ship soon. We'll see.

The west doesn't have the enthusiasm for college sports. If enthusiasm didn't matter, Syracuse, Rutgers and Boston College would be among the most valuable brands in the country. Instead, you have enthusiasm in parts of the midwest and from Austin to Columbia. Look at the TV ratings by city. Places like Columbus, Oklahoma City, Atlanta and Birmingham lead the way.

The pre-NIL era has been great for programs in rural areas and small cities. That's because: 1) most major state flagships are located away from the major cities; 2) college sports had been catered to alumni and some casual fans in areas outside of 1).

The NIL and Alston may see a slow shift in attention and mindshare away from rural areas toward the major cities in other regions as the stigma of college sports being viewed as akin to indentured servitude slowly gets removed.

Alabama is in a small town. Texas A&M is in a small town. Knoxville is hardly a major metropolis. Many of these schools have huge alumni bases and draw the entire state. Whereas a Minnesota has to compete with the Vikings and Timberwolves. And nobody who thought of college sports as indentured servitude is suddenly going to increase their interest because of NIL. They either were fans or weren't and it won't change.

Major urban areas are tending to have less participation in football with the fear of head injuries. So the differences could be even more pronounced rather than less.
04-17-2022 11:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 54,036
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2242
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Sports Business Journal: FOX and B1G have deal in place
(04-17-2022 11:27 PM)Frank the Tank 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.

Everyone knows that I’m a Big Ten partisan.

However, I’ll say this: Big Ten fans as a whole whine waaaaay too much about supposed ESPN bias.

No, ESPN doesn’t talk about Illinois football much… but that’s because we’ve generally been terrible. Have you really heard much ESPN talk about Vanderbilt or Mississippi State more compared to the dregs of the Big Ten? You think anyone other than Clemson gets ESPN coverage in the ACC? Sure, ESPN talks a lot about the top of the SEC like Alabama and Georgia, but it’s difficult for me to blame them based on the results on-the-field. They certainly talk plenty about the top Big Ten brands like Ohio State and Michigan, as well. Note that their two primary (and highest paid) College GameDay commentators are Ohio State and Michigan alums, respectively.

Bottom line: too many Big Ten fans are getting completely myopic about ESPN at this point that they’re not seeing the forest for the trees. We can’t be insular when ESPN (and more importantly, the Walt Disney Company) is still the single most important entity for the Average Joe T-shirt Sports Fan that gives the Big Ten such outsized value in the first place.

We ALL think ESPN is biased against our favorite teams just like we ALL think referees are biased against our favorite teams. For every fan that thinks that ESPN is biased toward the Yankees/Cowboys/Lakers/Alabama/Duke, there’s a Yankees/Cowboys/Lakers/Alabama/Duke fan that thinks ESPN is constantly biased against them as heels on all of their blabbering talk shows.

Simply put, if we want more favorable subjective coverage, then we need to win freaking more games and championships. I actually have little sympathy for the argument that media coverage is biased when it is really just covering the winners the most. That’s actually how it’s supposed to be.

Once again, I’m not saying that the Big Ten should take a bad offer from ESPN just to stay with them. However, it’s also insane to me to suggest that the Big Ten should actively *avoid* ESPN.
Not even the NFL, who TRULY had personal animosity with ESPN for several years to the point where their respective top executives weren’t talking to each other, would end up divorcing from ESPN (and the NFL has the ultimate ability of anyone to waive off the power of Disney in all of sports and entertainment).

Its also paranoid. The Big 10 gets very favorable coverage. The Big 12 and Pac 12 signed with Fox a number of years ago and ESPN has seemingly never forgiven them. And its repeatedly ignored Big 12 contenders not named Oklahoma or Texas. In 2011 on their BCS show, they pushed an Alabama-LSU rematch by comparing Alabama to 2 loss Pac 12 champ Oregon and 1 loss runnerup Stanford, completely ignoring 1 loss Big 12 champ Oklahoma St. Baylor was similarly ignored a couple years later while a lower ranked Ohio St. team was discussed (this was a preliminary show-Baylor later lost).
04-17-2022 11:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,045
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 141
I Root For: RU/Big Ten
Location:
Post: #53
RE: Sports Business Journal: FOX and B1G have deal in place
(04-17-2022 11:27 PM)Frank the Tank 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.

Everyone knows that I’m a Big Ten partisan.

However, I’ll say this: Big Ten fans as a whole whine waaaaay too much about supposed ESPN bias.

No, ESPN doesn’t talk about Illinois football much… but that’s because we’ve generally been terrible. Have you really heard much ESPN talk about Vanderbilt or Mississippi State more compared to the dregs of the Big Ten? You think anyone other than Clemson gets ESPN coverage in the ACC? Sure, ESPN talks a lot about the top of the SEC like Alabama and Georgia, but it’s difficult for me to blame them based on the results on-the-field. They certainly talk plenty about the top Big Ten brands like Ohio State and Michigan, as well. Note that their two primary (and highest paid) College GameDay commentators are Ohio State and Michigan alums, respectively.

Bottom line: too many Big Ten fans are getting completely myopic about ESPN at this point that they’re not seeing the forest for the trees. We can’t be insular when ESPN (and more importantly, the Walt Disney Company) is still the single most important entity for the Average Joe T-shirt Sports Fan that gives the Big Ten such outsized value in the first place.

We ALL think ESPN is biased against our favorite teams just like we ALL think referees are biased against our favorite teams. For every fan that thinks that ESPN is biased toward the Yankees/Cowboys/Lakers/Alabama/Duke, there’s a Yankees/Cowboys/Lakers/Alabama/Duke fan that thinks ESPN is constantly biased against them as heels on all of their blabbering talk shows.

Simply put, if we want more favorable subjective coverage, then we need to win freaking more games and championships. I actually have little sympathy for the argument that media coverage is biased when it is really just covering the winners the most. That’s actually how it’s supposed to be.

Once again, I’m not saying that the Big Ten should take a bad offer from ESPN just to stay with them. However, it’s also insane to me to suggest that the Big Ten should actively *avoid* ESPN.
Not even the NFL, who TRULY had personal animosity with ESPN for several years to the point where their respective top executives weren’t talking to each other, would end up divorcing from ESPN (and the NFL has the ultimate ability of anyone to waive off the power of Disney in all of sports and entertainment).

The New York Knicks is a great counter point to your argument. They have not won anything of note since the early 1970s. I was only a baby the last time the Knicks won an actual championship. Yet, they get national coverage. The Domers haven't won a championship since 1988. Yet, they're on NBC. Then there is the famous Chicago Cubs 100+ years of futility and the Cleveland...uh...Guardians now.

It is the classic chicken-or-egg conundrum. Is my team not on TV because they suck or do they suck because they're not on TV? If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see it, did it make a sound?

There are teams all over the country scrapping to get a little attention and, yet, don't get nearly the attention of the Knicks or Notre Dame.

Mindshare.

Mindshare is what convinces the casual fan to check out a game. Mindshare doesn't appear out of thin air; it's the outcome of carefully-crafted narratives pushed by corporate image-makers, influential fans, yes, even message board users.

The Big Ten Network has done more for the Big Ten than CBS, NBC, Fox, and, certainly, ESPN, combined. Why? Because they give all the teams, not just the big names, the opportunity to convince fans that they should be checked out. Don't like one Big Ten team? Check out another Big Ten team? Or maybe you'll stick with the big names. But you'll never know if you want to follow a team until you check 'em out.

Of course, the teams have to do something to keep the fans coming back for more. Then again, the Knicks don't have to do much and fans still watch. LOL

But who's to say that Vanderbilt wouldn't gain new fans just because Vanderbilt football is on TV? Who deemed Vanderbilt football to be unworthy of attention? Who is the judge, jury and executioner here? If that was the logic, then teams like the New York Knicks or Chicago Cubs should've been shut down long ago.

If college sports were ran like the pros then at least 75% of teams wouldn't exist today. It's that uniqueness of the experience that differentiates it from the pro counterparts. The 4-letter network wants to kill the goose that laid the golden egg because they believe they know better than fans, alumni, the student-athletes who give all they have to give fans what they want. That is what I'm objecting to, not wins and losses.
04-18-2022 12:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,045
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 141
I Root For: RU/Big Ten
Location:
Post: #54
RE: Sports Business Journal: FOX and B1G have deal in place
(04-17-2022 11:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(04-17-2022 11:27 PM)Frank the Tank 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.

Everyone knows that I’m a Big Ten partisan.

However, I’ll say this: Big Ten fans as a whole whine waaaaay too much about supposed ESPN bias.

No, ESPN doesn’t talk about Illinois football much… but that’s because we’ve generally been terrible. Have you really heard much ESPN talk about Vanderbilt or Mississippi State more compared to the dregs of the Big Ten? You think anyone other than Clemson gets ESPN coverage in the ACC? Sure, ESPN talks a lot about the top of the SEC like Alabama and Georgia, but it’s difficult for me to blame them based on the results on-the-field. They certainly talk plenty about the top Big Ten brands like Ohio State and Michigan, as well. Note that their two primary (and highest paid) College GameDay commentators are Ohio State and Michigan alums, respectively.

Bottom line: too many Big Ten fans are getting completely myopic about ESPN at this point that they’re not seeing the forest for the trees. We can’t be insular when ESPN (and more importantly, the Walt Disney Company) is still the single most important entity for the Average Joe T-shirt Sports Fan that gives the Big Ten such outsized value in the first place.

We ALL think ESPN is biased against our favorite teams just like we ALL think referees are biased against our favorite teams. For every fan that thinks that ESPN is biased toward the Yankees/Cowboys/Lakers/Alabama/Duke, there’s a Yankees/Cowboys/Lakers/Alabama/Duke fan that thinks ESPN is constantly biased against them as heels on all of their blabbering talk shows.

Simply put, if we want more favorable subjective coverage, then we need to win freaking more games and championships. I actually have little sympathy for the argument that media coverage is biased when it is really just covering the winners the most. That’s actually how it’s supposed to be.

Once again, I’m not saying that the Big Ten should take a bad offer from ESPN just to stay with them. However, it’s also insane to me to suggest that the Big Ten should actively *avoid* ESPN.
Not even the NFL, who TRULY had personal animosity with ESPN for several years to the point where their respective top executives weren’t talking to each other, would end up divorcing from ESPN (and the NFL has the ultimate ability of anyone to waive off the power of Disney in all of sports and entertainment).

Its also paranoid. The Big 10 gets very favorable coverage. The Big 12 and Pac 12 signed with Fox a number of years ago and ESPN has seemingly never forgiven them. And its repeatedly ignored Big 12 contenders not named Oklahoma or Texas. In 2011 on their BCS show, they pushed an Alabama-LSU rematch by comparing Alabama to 2 loss Pac 12 champ Oregon and 1 loss runnerup Stanford, completely ignoring 1 loss Big 12 champ Oklahoma St. Baylor was similarly ignored a couple years later while a lower ranked Ohio St. team was discussed (this was a preliminary show-Baylor later lost).

I do think the Big 12 has gotten a bum rap. But your point reinforces mine, which is that the 4-letter College Sports World Order wants to be the judge, jury and executioner of college sports. And that's not what college sports should be. So instead of going along with the Borg or running down fans of other conferences maybe we can figure out how to counter them. Won't be easy but where there's a will there's a way.
04-18-2022 12:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 29,730
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 3903
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Sports Business Journal: FOX and B1G have deal in place
(04-18-2022 12:07 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(04-17-2022 11:27 PM)Frank the Tank 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.

Everyone knows that I’m a Big Ten partisan.

However, I’ll say this: Big Ten fans as a whole whine waaaaay too much about supposed ESPN bias.

No, ESPN doesn’t talk about Illinois football much… but that’s because we’ve generally been terrible. Have you really heard much ESPN talk about Vanderbilt or Mississippi State more compared to the dregs of the Big Ten? You think anyone other than Clemson gets ESPN coverage in the ACC? Sure, ESPN talks a lot about the top of the SEC like Alabama and Georgia, but it’s difficult for me to blame them based on the results on-the-field. They certainly talk plenty about the top Big Ten brands like Ohio State and Michigan, as well. Note that their two primary (and highest paid) College GameDay commentators are Ohio State and Michigan alums, respectively.

Bottom line: too many Big Ten fans are getting completely myopic about ESPN at this point that they’re not seeing the forest for the trees. We can’t be insular when ESPN (and more importantly, the Walt Disney Company) is still the single most important entity for the Average Joe T-shirt Sports Fan that gives the Big Ten such outsized value in the first place.

We ALL think ESPN is biased against our favorite teams just like we ALL think referees are biased against our favorite teams. For every fan that thinks that ESPN is biased toward the Yankees/Cowboys/Lakers/Alabama/Duke, there’s a Yankees/Cowboys/Lakers/Alabama/Duke fan that thinks ESPN is constantly biased against them as heels on all of their blabbering talk shows.

Simply put, if we want more favorable subjective coverage, then we need to win freaking more games and championships. I actually have little sympathy for the argument that media coverage is biased when it is really just covering the winners the most. That’s actually how it’s supposed to be.

Once again, I’m not saying that the Big Ten should take a bad offer from ESPN just to stay with them. However, it’s also insane to me to suggest that the Big Ten should actively *avoid* ESPN.
Not even the NFL, who TRULY had personal animosity with ESPN for several years to the point where their respective top executives weren’t talking to each other, would end up divorcing from ESPN (and the NFL has the ultimate ability of anyone to waive off the power of Disney in all of sports and entertainment).

The New York Knicks is a great counter point to your argument. They have not won anything of note since the early 1970s. I was only a baby the last time the Knicks won an actual championship. Yet, they get national coverage. The Domers haven't won a championship since 1988. Yet, they're on NBC. Then there is the famous Chicago Cubs 100+ years of futility and the Cleveland...uh...Guardians now.

It is the classic chicken-or-egg conundrum. Is my team not on TV because they suck or do they suck because they're not on TV? If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see it, did it make a sound?

There are teams all over the country scrapping to get a little attention and, yet, don't get nearly the attention of the Knicks or Notre Dame.

Mindshare.

Mindshare is what convinces the casual fan to check out a game. Mindshare doesn't appear out of thin air; it's the outcome of carefully-crafted narratives pushed by corporate image-makers, influential fans, yes, even message board users.

The Big Ten Network has done more for the Big Ten than CBS, NBC, Fox, and, certainly, ESPN, combined. Why? Because they give all the teams, not just the big names, the opportunity to convince fans that they should be checked out. Don't like one Big Ten team? Check out another Big Ten team? Or maybe you'll stick with the big names. But you'll never know if you want to follow a team until you check 'em out.

Of course, the teams have to do something to keep the fans coming back for more. Then again, the Knicks don't have to do much and fans still watch. LOL

But who's to say that Vanderbilt wouldn't gain new fans just because Vanderbilt football is on TV? Who deemed Vanderbilt football to be unworthy of attention? Who is the judge, jury and executioner here? If that was the logic, then teams like the New York Knicks or Chicago Cubs should've been shut down long ago.

If college sports were ran like the pros then at least 75% of teams wouldn't exist today. It's that uniqueness of the experience that differentiates it from the pro counterparts. The 4-letter network wants to kill the goose that laid the golden egg because they believe they know better than fans, alumni, the student-athletes who give all they have to give fans what they want. That is what I'm objecting to, not wins and losses.
CBS and ESPN had to be cajoled by the SEC office contractually to show Vanderbilt at all. So, who says who is on TV, the TV execs that's who! And why do they care? They're in the business to make money!

Why are the Cubs and Knicks on? Their franchises occupy some big damn cities where some of the population is awake in shifts and people watch 24/7. So they make ad money on the games and again on the replays.

And if college sports were "run" like professional sports, and they are about to be, there will be about 66.7% less schools involved. It's called brand recognition and is why North Carolina vs Tennessee in football will still draw a lot of eyes nationwide.

It's simply business. It's called overhead reduction and product placement. If brand Upstate U draws 750,000 viewers while West State U pulls down 2 million guess who gets cut. What's more West State U will now be in a division with East Neighbor U, North Neighbor U, West Neighbor U, and South Neighbor U because all of them draw 2 million plus. That way any telecast can reach 4 plus million and pick up another million plus of casual viewers who recognize the names.

We are headed into a period of inflationary austerity. Less resources, more consumers, and less secure trade routes. Everyone will either need to make more or use less. Having 5 sets of conference overhead expenses and properties is absurd when 2 can handle it. That's profit through reduction. The SEC and B1G are the two most Iconic brands and they polarize fans which drives interest which drives profits. Cut the lackluster draws, cut out FCS and G5 vs P schools, have a larger playoff and place brand against brand and everyone makes more money. It is a recipe for success, not failure. What it is not is how it used to be!

Will football, good football, still exist at smaller schools? You bet! The major brands will sign fewer and fewer recruits and rely on transfers who've proved themselves on the field and in conduct. There will be more future stars at small schools, but they'll only be there a year or two.

It's good business all the way around if people quit kicking it! It won't be what any of us have been used to seeing as alums. It will be what Joe Average Fan will love.

And if you are Rutgers and Vanderbilt, and possibly Duke and Northwestern
count your blessings that you were grandfathered into the show because you would never have gotten there on your numbers! Just don't expect to be on in prime time. Your 101-117 million is expected to end your griping. You'll be the richest T3 schools on the tube!
04-18-2022 12:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Realignment Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 642
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 24
I Root For: USC Trojans
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Post: #56
RE: Sports Business Journal: FOX and B1G have deal in place
Quite honestly with FOX taking the primary package, I suspect that CBS/Turner form a hybrid bid for the ESPN package. I don't think streaming will be involved in this at all other than a simulcast. ESPN isn't the giant it use to be. FOX will pay top dollar though to have the best Big Ten games. And honestly streaming services are too much now. Netflix is digressing, HBO Max has seen gains and honestly cable and these media companies need to get their heads out of the sand and slim down the channel options. Cable will still be king or dishes until the whole country has adequate broadband.
04-18-2022 01:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 44,670
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1694
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #57
RE: Sports Business Journal: FOX and B1G have deal in place
(04-18-2022 12:07 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(04-17-2022 11:27 PM)Frank the Tank 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.

Everyone knows that I’m a Big Ten partisan.

However, I’ll say this: Big Ten fans as a whole whine waaaaay too much about supposed ESPN bias.

No, ESPN doesn’t talk about Illinois football much… but that’s because we’ve generally been terrible. Have you really heard much ESPN talk about Vanderbilt or Mississippi State more compared to the dregs of the Big Ten? You think anyone other than Clemson gets ESPN coverage in the ACC? Sure, ESPN talks a lot about the top of the SEC like Alabama and Georgia, but it’s difficult for me to blame them based on the results on-the-field. They certainly talk plenty about the top Big Ten brands like Ohio State and Michigan, as well. Note that their two primary (and highest paid) College GameDay commentators are Ohio State and Michigan alums, respectively.

Bottom line: too many Big Ten fans are getting completely myopic about ESPN at this point that they’re not seeing the forest for the trees. We can’t be insular when ESPN (and more importantly, the Walt Disney Company) is still the single most important entity for the Average Joe T-shirt Sports Fan that gives the Big Ten such outsized value in the first place.

We ALL think ESPN is biased against our favorite teams just like we ALL think referees are biased against our favorite teams. For every fan that thinks that ESPN is biased toward the Yankees/Cowboys/Lakers/Alabama/Duke, there’s a Yankees/Cowboys/Lakers/Alabama/Duke fan that thinks ESPN is constantly biased against them as heels on all of their blabbering talk shows.

Simply put, if we want more favorable subjective coverage, then we need to win freaking more games and championships. I actually have little sympathy for the argument that media coverage is biased when it is really just covering the winners the most. That’s actually how it’s supposed to be.

Once again, I’m not saying that the Big Ten should take a bad offer from ESPN just to stay with them. However, it’s also insane to me to suggest that the Big Ten should actively *avoid* ESPN.
Not even the NFL, who TRULY had personal animosity with ESPN for several years to the point where their respective top executives weren’t talking to each other, would end up divorcing from ESPN (and the NFL has the ultimate ability of anyone to waive off the power of Disney in all of sports and entertainment).

The New York Knicks is a great counter point to your argument. They have not won anything of note since the early 1970s. I was only a baby the last time the Knicks won an actual championship. Yet, they get national coverage. The Domers haven't won a championship since 1988. Yet, they're on NBC. Then there is the famous Chicago Cubs 100+ years of futility and the Cleveland...uh...Guardians now.

It is the classic chicken-or-egg conundrum. Is my team not on TV because they suck or do they suck because they're not on TV? If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see it, did it make a sound?

There are teams all over the country scrapping to get a little attention and, yet, don't get nearly the attention of the Knicks or Notre Dame.

Mindshare.

Mindshare is what convinces the casual fan to check out a game. Mindshare doesn't appear out of thin air; it's the outcome of carefully-crafted narratives pushed by corporate image-makers, influential fans, yes, even message board users.

The Big Ten Network has done more for the Big Ten than CBS, NBC, Fox, and, certainly, ESPN, combined. Why? Because they give all the teams, not just the big names, the opportunity to convince fans that they should be checked out. Don't like one Big Ten team? Check out another Big Ten team? Or maybe you'll stick with the big names. But you'll never know if you want to follow a team until you check 'em out.

Of course, the teams have to do something to keep the fans coming back for more. Then again, the Knicks don't have to do much and fans still watch. LOL

But who's to say that Vanderbilt wouldn't gain new fans just because Vanderbilt football is on TV? Who deemed Vanderbilt football to be unworthy of attention? Who is the judge, jury and executioner here? If that was the logic, then teams like the New York Knicks or Chicago Cubs should've been shut down long ago.

If college sports were ran like the pros then at least 75% of teams wouldn't exist today. It's that uniqueness of the experience that differentiates it from the pro counterparts. The 4-letter network wants to kill the goose that laid the golden egg because they believe they know better than fans, alumni, the student-athletes who give all they have to give fans what they want. That is what I'm objecting to, not wins and losses.

About teams like the NY Knicks, Chicago Cubs and Notre Dame football - those teams get coverage even when they are lousy because of their track record. They are "famous" programs in big markets and fans are interested in them, which is ultimately what drives network coverage decisions.

I emphasize winning for programs that want attention sooner, because winning is usually a fast-track way to grow fan interest. Gonzaga doesn't have any kind of historical pedigree, but their hoops draws a lot of media coverage because they have been winning.

And about TV coverage, before 1984, there was very little college football on TV, the NCAA had a strangehold on the TV deals. IIRC, in 1979, there were a grand total of 23 regular season college football games televised, basically two per week. And a school was limited to one appearance, so they couldn't show Alabama or Notre Dame every week. Nobody had much national exposure.

And yet, Alabama and Notre Dame were nationally-famous college football programs in 1979 just like they are now. Because they had built up huge fan-interest in their football over the years, despite the lack of TV.

Ultimately, it isn't the casual viewer that makes a program famous. it is local support, which every school can foster. If my USF put 55,000 students in the stands each game, and all of our alumni tuned in for games, we'd get better TV deals and a higher profile too. That's entirely in our hands to do, whether bigwigs at ESPN talk about us or not.
04-18-2022 08:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,116
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 938
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #58
RE: Sports Business Journal: FOX and B1G have deal in place
(04-18-2022 08:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-18-2022 12:07 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(04-17-2022 11:27 PM)Frank the Tank 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:  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.

Everyone knows that I’m a Big Ten partisan.

However, I’ll say this: Big Ten fans as a whole whine waaaaay too much about supposed ESPN bias.

No, ESPN doesn’t talk about Illinois football much… but that’s because we’ve generally been terrible. Have you really heard much ESPN talk about Vanderbilt or Mississippi State more compared to the dregs of the Big Ten? You think anyone other than Clemson gets ESPN coverage in the ACC? Sure, ESPN talks a lot about the top of the SEC like Alabama and Georgia, but it’s difficult for me to blame them based on the results on-the-field. They certainly talk plenty about the top Big Ten brands like Ohio State and Michigan, as well. Note that their two primary (and highest paid) College GameDay commentators are Ohio State and Michigan alums, respectively.

Bottom line: too many Big Ten fans are getting completely myopic about ESPN at this point that they’re not seeing the forest for the trees. We can’t be insular when ESPN (and more importantly, the Walt Disney Company) is still the single most important entity for the Average Joe T-shirt Sports Fan that gives the Big Ten such outsized value in the first place.

We ALL think ESPN is biased against our favorite teams just like we ALL think referees are biased against our favorite teams. For every fan that thinks that ESPN is biased toward the Yankees/Cowboys/Lakers/Alabama/Duke, there’s a Yankees/Cowboys/Lakers/Alabama/Duke fan that thinks ESPN is constantly biased against them as heels on all of their blabbering talk shows.

Simply put, if we want more favorable subjective coverage, then we need to win freaking more games and championships. I actually have little sympathy for the argument that media coverage is biased when it is really just covering the winners the most. That’s actually how it’s supposed to be.

Once again, I’m not saying that the Big Ten should take a bad offer from ESPN just to stay with them. However, it’s also insane to me to suggest that the Big Ten should actively *avoid* ESPN.
Not even the NFL, who TRULY had personal animosity with ESPN for several years to the point where their respective top executives weren’t talking to each other, would end up divorcing from ESPN (and the NFL has the ultimate ability of anyone to waive off the power of Disney in all of sports and entertainment).

The New York Knicks is a great counter point to your argument. They have not won anything of note since the early 1970s. I was only a baby the last time the Knicks won an actual championship. Yet, they get national coverage. The Domers haven't won a championship since 1988. Yet, they're on NBC. Then there is the famous Chicago Cubs 100+ years of futility and the Cleveland...uh...Guardians now.

It is the classic chicken-or-egg conundrum. Is my team not on TV because they suck or do they suck because they're not on TV? If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see it, did it make a sound?

There are teams all over the country scrapping to get a little attention and, yet, don't get nearly the attention of the Knicks or Notre Dame.

Mindshare.

Mindshare is what convinces the casual fan to check out a game. Mindshare doesn't appear out of thin air; it's the outcome of carefully-crafted narratives pushed by corporate image-makers, influential fans, yes, even message board users.

The Big Ten Network has done more for the Big Ten than CBS, NBC, Fox, and, certainly, ESPN, combined. Why? Because they give all the teams, not just the big names, the opportunity to convince fans that they should be checked out. Don't like one Big Ten team? Check out another Big Ten team? Or maybe you'll stick with the big names. But you'll never know if you want to follow a team until you check 'em out.

Of course, the teams have to do something to keep the fans coming back for more. Then again, the Knicks don't have to do much and fans still watch. LOL

But who's to say that Vanderbilt wouldn't gain new fans just because Vanderbilt football is on TV? Who deemed Vanderbilt football to be unworthy of attention? Who is the judge, jury and executioner here? If that was the logic, then teams like the New York Knicks or Chicago Cubs should've been shut down long ago.

If college sports were ran like the pros then at least 75% of teams wouldn't exist today. It's that uniqueness of the experience that differentiates it from the pro counterparts. The 4-letter network wants to kill the goose that laid the golden egg because they believe they know better than fans, alumni, the student-athletes who give all they have to give fans what they want. That is what I'm objecting to, not wins and losses.

About teams like the NY Knicks, Chicago Cubs and Notre Dame football - those teams get coverage even when they are lousy because of their track record. They are "famous" programs in big markets and fans are interested in them, which is ultimately what drives network coverage decisions.

I emphasize winning for programs that want attention sooner, because winning is usually a fast-track way to grow fan interest. Gonzaga doesn't have any kind of historical pedigree, but their hoops draws a lot of media coverage because they have been winning.

And about TV coverage, before 1984, there was very little college football on TV, the NCAA had a strangehold on the TV deals. IIRC, in 1979, there were a grand total of 23 regular season college football games televised, basically two per week. And a school was limited to one appearance, so they couldn't show Alabama or Notre Dame every week. Nobody had much national exposure.

And yet, Alabama and Notre Dame were nationally-famous college football programs in 1979 just like they are now. Because they had built up huge fan-interest in their football over the years, despite the lack of TV.

Ultimately, it isn't the casual viewer that makes a program famous. it is local support, which every school can foster. If my USF put 55,000 students in the stands each game, and all of our alumni tuned in for games, we'd get better TV deals and a higher profile too. That's entirely in our hands to do, whether bigwigs at ESPN talk about us or not.

The other thing is that it's not the job of any TV network to provide equal access. Their sole job is to put on programming that they believe that will get the most viewers. There's no Big Ten or SEC or ACC or any other bias. The ONLY bias is for the color green (AKA money).

There are plenty of reasons to critique ESPN, but their programming decisions aren't different than any other network. Look back at the games that Fox picked for Big Noon Saturday last year. EVERY game featured at least one of the following 5 teams: Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma and/or Wisconsin (with the 2 Wisconsin games being against blue bloods Penn State and Notre Dame). ABC actually had a greater variety and mix of Big Ten teams for its games last year than Fox.
(This post was last modified: 04-18-2022 11:54 AM by Frank the Tank.)
04-18-2022 11:53 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 44,670
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1694
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #59
RE: Sports Business Journal: FOX and B1G have deal in place
(04-18-2022 11:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(04-18-2022 08:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-18-2022 12:07 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(04-17-2022 11:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(04-17-2022 10:21 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  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.



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.

Everyone knows that I’m a Big Ten partisan.

However, I’ll say this: Big Ten fans as a whole whine waaaaay too much about supposed ESPN bias.

No, ESPN doesn’t talk about Illinois football much… but that’s because we’ve generally been terrible. Have you really heard much ESPN talk about Vanderbilt or Mississippi State more compared to the dregs of the Big Ten? You think anyone other than Clemson gets ESPN coverage in the ACC? Sure, ESPN talks a lot about the top of the SEC like Alabama and Georgia, but it’s difficult for me to blame them based on the results on-the-field. They certainly talk plenty about the top Big Ten brands like Ohio State and Michigan, as well. Note that their two primary (and highest paid) College GameDay commentators are Ohio State and Michigan alums, respectively.

Bottom line: too many Big Ten fans are getting completely myopic about ESPN at this point that they’re not seeing the forest for the trees. We can’t be insular when ESPN (and more importantly, the Walt Disney Company) is still the single most important entity for the Average Joe T-shirt Sports Fan that gives the Big Ten such outsized value in the first place.

We ALL think ESPN is biased against our favorite teams just like we ALL think referees are biased against our favorite teams. For every fan that thinks that ESPN is biased toward the Yankees/Cowboys/Lakers/Alabama/Duke, there’s a Yankees/Cowboys/Lakers/Alabama/Duke fan that thinks ESPN is constantly biased against them as heels on all of their blabbering talk shows.

Simply put, if we want more favorable subjective coverage, then we need to win freaking more games and championships. I actually have little sympathy for the argument that media coverage is biased when it is really just covering the winners the most. That’s actually how it’s supposed to be.

Once again, I’m not saying that the Big Ten should take a bad offer from ESPN just to stay with them. However, it’s also insane to me to suggest that the Big Ten should actively *avoid* ESPN.
Not even the NFL, who TRULY had personal animosity with ESPN for several years to the point where their respective top executives weren’t talking to each other, would end up divorcing from ESPN (and the NFL has the ultimate ability of anyone to waive off the power of Disney in all of sports and entertainment).

The New York Knicks is a great counter point to your argument. They have not won anything of note since the early 1970s. I was only a baby the last time the Knicks won an actual championship. Yet, they get national coverage. The Domers haven't won a championship since 1988. Yet, they're on NBC. Then there is the famous Chicago Cubs 100+ years of futility and the Cleveland...uh...Guardians now.

It is the classic chicken-or-egg conundrum. Is my team not on TV because they suck or do they suck because they're not on TV? If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see it, did it make a sound?

There are teams all over the country scrapping to get a little attention and, yet, don't get nearly the attention of the Knicks or Notre Dame.

Mindshare.

Mindshare is what convinces the casual fan to check out a game. Mindshare doesn't appear out of thin air; it's the outcome of carefully-crafted narratives pushed by corporate image-makers, influential fans, yes, even message board users.

The Big Ten Network has done more for the Big Ten than CBS, NBC, Fox, and, certainly, ESPN, combined. Why? Because they give all the teams, not just the big names, the opportunity to convince fans that they should be checked out. Don't like one Big Ten team? Check out another Big Ten team? Or maybe you'll stick with the big names. But you'll never know if you want to follow a team until you check 'em out.

Of course, the teams have to do something to keep the fans coming back for more. Then again, the Knicks don't have to do much and fans still watch. LOL

But who's to say that Vanderbilt wouldn't gain new fans just because Vanderbilt football is on TV? Who deemed Vanderbilt football to be unworthy of attention? Who is the judge, jury and executioner here? If that was the logic, then teams like the New York Knicks or Chicago Cubs should've been shut down long ago.

If college sports were ran like the pros then at least 75% of teams wouldn't exist today. It's that uniqueness of the experience that differentiates it from the pro counterparts. The 4-letter network wants to kill the goose that laid the golden egg because they believe they know better than fans, alumni, the student-athletes who give all they have to give fans what they want. That is what I'm objecting to, not wins and losses.

About teams like the NY Knicks, Chicago Cubs and Notre Dame football - those teams get coverage even when they are lousy because of their track record. They are "famous" programs in big markets and fans are interested in them, which is ultimately what drives network coverage decisions.

I emphasize winning for programs that want attention sooner, because winning is usually a fast-track way to grow fan interest. Gonzaga doesn't have any kind of historical pedigree, but their hoops draws a lot of media coverage because they have been winning.

And about TV coverage, before 1984, there was very little college football on TV, the NCAA had a strangehold on the TV deals. IIRC, in 1979, there were a grand total of 23 regular season college football games televised, basically two per week. And a school was limited to one appearance, so they couldn't show Alabama or Notre Dame every week. Nobody had much national exposure.

And yet, Alabama and Notre Dame were nationally-famous college football programs in 1979 just like they are now. Because they had built up huge fan-interest in their football over the years, despite the lack of TV.

Ultimately, it isn't the casual viewer that makes a program famous. it is local support, which every school can foster. If my USF put 55,000 students in the stands each game, and all of our alumni tuned in for games, we'd get better TV deals and a higher profile too. That's entirely in our hands to do, whether bigwigs at ESPN talk about us or not.

The other thing is that it's not the job of any TV network to provide equal access. Their sole job is to put on programming that they believe that will get the most viewers. There's no Big Ten or SEC or ACC or any other bias. The ONLY bias is for the color green (AKA money).

There are plenty of reasons to critique ESPN, but their programming decisions aren't different than any other network. Look back at the games that Fox picked for Big Noon Saturday last year. EVERY game featured at least one of the following 5 teams: Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma and/or Wisconsin (with the 2 Wisconsin games being against blue bloods Penn State and Notre Dame). ABC actually had a greater variety and mix of Big Ten teams for its games last year than Fox.

Yes, and if it was written in to those contracts that e.g. ESPN has to show Vanderbilt as many times as Alabama, then the SEC (and Vandy) would get paid less money because the broadcast rights would be worth less.

Really, the lower-profile schools are subsidized by the higher-profile schools, as it is the latter that make the TV deals more valuable. So it's IMO pretty silly for a Vandy fan to complain that his team's games aren't on as much, or talked about as much, on their conference's network partner, at least not while they are cashing the same media check that the top schools are cashing.
04-18-2022 12:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,276
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 421
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #60
RE: Sports Business Journal: FOX and B1G have deal in place
One has to wonder if future additions are baked into the B1G media pie?
Southern Cal football and Arizona basketball certainly wouldn't match the SEC addition of Texas and Oklahoma, but it would certainly have quite a few people talking......
04-18-2022 12:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2022 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2022 MyBB Group.