Big Ten about to get paid

[Clark]

This is starting to get out of hand. I feel like all of this money is going to soon dry up and the entire landscape is going to change drastically.

nah, the money will just come from somewhere else. I can see a scenario where people are given options to purchase a season of Big 10 or Big 12, or SEC football, or pay a smaller amount for a certain game, or pay a larger amount for an all college football package

For instance, it could be a HBO-now like setup where a person purchases an entire conference football season for $25 or a single game for $1 or an all college football package for $75.

People aren't just going to stop watching or following sports, they'll just change the way they do it.

 

[HFCS]

nah, the money will just come from somewhere else. I can see a scenario where people are given options to purchase a season of Big 10 or Big 12, or SEC football, or pay a smaller amount for a certain game, or pay a larger amount for an all college football package

For instance, it could be a HBO-now like setup where a person purchases an entire conference football season for $25 or a single game for $1 or an all college football package for $75.

People aren't just going to stop watching or following sports, they'll just change the way they do it.

The question is what programs are valuable when that transition happens. Current cable market based models say Rutgers is more valuable than Nebraska. The likely future model of paying more directly for content says Nebraska is waaaaaaaaaay more valuable than Rutgers.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

The biggest reason people cite for NOT cutting the cord is live sports. I think you'll see networks try to get every contract they can because if live sports goes to the pay per view model, cable as we know it is pretty much over. People that don't watch sports complain about how expensive ESPN is, but don't realize that a large part of the reason that the rest of the channels they do watch are viable is because of ESPN.

 

[CarrollCyclone]

Actually even the bottom teams play basically their entire B12 season on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. Just the better you are the more regular ESPN and the worse you are the more 2/U. There are generally 8-10 games a week and 8-9 of them on those 3 networks.

Our football TV coverage absolutely sucks in comparison. It's only been the last couple years that all the conference games were even televised and we're constantly on channels the average person doesn't know exists.

Our conference is gaining a ton of exposure with the basketball deal and has always lost a ton with horrible football deals, outside of just pure payday.

http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2016/04/notes-on-future-for-big-ten-and-fox.html

Per this blogger (that seems to follow this stuff), our (Big 12) football coverage might get even a little worse as a result of this Big Ten deal. He says that FOX is only required to carry six games each on the main FOX broadcast channel and FS1. So, in order to make room for the Big Ten, after those 12 games a lot of Big 12 games will be moved down to Fox Sports Net and possibly FS2. However, apparently ABC/ESPN picks up four more Big 12 games this year than in years past.

 

[HFCS]

The biggest reason people cite for NOT cutting the cord is live sports. I think you'll see networks try to get every contract they can because if live sports goes to the pay per view model, cable as we know it is pretty much over. People that don't watch sports complain about how expensive ESPN is, but don't realize that a large part of the reason that the rest of the channels they do watch are viable is because of ESPN.

That's a good point, an argument that made some sense 10-15 years ago really isn't anymore.

 

[HFCS]

http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2016/04/notes-on-future-for-big-ten-and-fox.html

Per this blogger (that seems to follow this stuff), our (Big 12) football coverage might get even a little worse as a result of this Big Ten deal. He says that FOX is only required to carry six games each on the main FOX broadcast channel and FS1. So, in order to make room for the Big Ten, after those 12 games a lot of Big 12 games will be moved down to Fox Sports Net and possibly FS2. However, apparently ABC/ESPN picks up four more Big 12 games this year than in years past.

Don't worry, I'm sure some new channel will be invented that nobody has heard of that will have ISU football on it.

 

[Judoka]

you gotta think at some point this is going to saturate and the money isn't going to be what it is now.

Honestly I expected that to happen this time around. Not a burst bubble necessarily. But not further jump up.

 

[LivntheCyLife]

Seems like a bad investment with the cord cutting

I think cord cutting is driving the structuring of these deals. I don't think it's a coincidence Sling announced there's now a Fox Sports package last week. Interestingly, right now you have to choose the package with ESPN or the one with Fox Sports. To get both you need to still have cable. It looks to me like the networks clearly don't want somebody to be able to get all their conference's games with only one network.

Probably the big showdown will be whether conferences can make it on their own with a subscription steaming service. The problem is big college football fans have a favorite conference but also like to watch the big games in other conferences. And casual college fans who are bigger pro fans might tune into some college games but aren't likely to pony up for a subscription.

 

[cycloneworld]

College football is popular but it can't touch the NFL.

Of course not. That's why Fox paid 6 times less and got 4x as many games.

 

[CarrollCyclone]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned... the impact that this kind of money may have on expansion. Don't kid yourselves. Delany and the B10 aren't done with expansion. They'll use this big money deal to try to lure some big fish into the B10.

They are positioning themselves for cord cutting. Some of you are way off base by saying that this deal isn't smart because of cord cutting. It's actually the opposite in my opinion. It's a 6 year deal. I'm guessing they'll use the money to try and lure a few more schools into their conference and then they'll have even more fans ready to pay $5 a month for a streaming B10 app. Texas, OU, ND, GT, North Carolina... I have a feeling they will all be targeted.

Not only will leagues like the Big Ten want to expand to ensure their big paydays in the future, but the SEC and Big Ten will be so far ahead of every other league in terms of revenue teams will start jumping at the chance to join in on the cash cow.

 

[cycloneworld]

With the amount of teams they have most of their basketball games will still be on a network nobody watches or on the freaking internet.

Our football deal has always sucked and inched toward not being horrible year by year, but our basketball TV of the past 5 seasons has probably been the most successful ISU marketing in the history of the university. I could walk into any bar or restaurant in the country with a TV and there's a 90% chance ISU basketball is on if we're playing...just because we play on the one or two channels they leave TVs on all the time. I live in LA (city that doesn't care about sports) and never have to ask a bartender to put on ISU basketball because it's already on in every bar in the country.

That's all fine and dandy. But I bet the Big 10 schools don't care when they cash their TV revenue check that will be 2x what ISU gets.

 

[Gonzo]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned... the impact that this kind of money may have on expansion. Don't kid yourselves. Delany and the B10 aren't done with expansion. They'll use this big money deal to try to lure some big fish into the B10.

They are positioning themselves for cord cutting. Some of you are way off base by saying that this deal isn't smart because of cord cutting. It's actually the opposite in my opinion. It's a 6 year deal. I'm guessing they'll use the money to try and lure a few more schools into their conference and then they'll have even more fans ready to pay $5 a month for a streaming B10 app. Texas, OU, ND, GT, North Carolina... I have a feeling they will all be targeted.

Agree. Delany isn't dumb. He knows what he's doing and will be ahead of the game as he usually is.

 

[aeroclone]

I think cord cutting is driving the structuring of these deals. I don't think it's a coincidence Sling announced there's now a Fox Sports package last week. Interestingly, right now you have to choose the package with ESPN or the one with Fox Sports. To get both you need to still have cable. It looks to me like the networks clearly don't want somebody to be able to get all their conference's games with only one network.

Probably the big showdown will be whether conferences can make it on their own with a subscription steaming service. The problem is big college football fans have a favorite conference but also like to watch the big games in other conferences. And casual college fans who are bigger pro fans might tune into some college games but aren't likely to pony up for a subscription.

This. As it is, I'm a pretty big college football and basketball fan. I'll watch any B12 game I can as an ISU fan, and then I'll watch whatever other good games may be on TV. However, if you start moving to subscription services or pay-per-view type models, I would probably dial back to Big 12 only. I just wouldn't get enough use out of a B1G, SEC, or PAC subscription to make it worth the investment.

 

[CarrollCyclone]

http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/big...e-media-revenues-skyrocket-thanks-new-tv-deal

This media outlet projects that the Big Ten will be able to distribute nearly $60 million per year per school starting in 2017-18.

 

[CySoup]

It isn't about collecting taxes. It is about ending the charade that college athletics is anything other than big business. It isn't about student-athletes. It isn't about amateur athletics. It is a business model that relies on an unpaid labor force. Removing tax exempt status just identifies it for what it is.

Right now there are 2 revenue generating sports on 99% of college campus. Those two sports are required to pay for all the other athletic programs a school has. So if you want to kill the 2 Golden geese, you will in essence be killing 20 some other non revenue generating sports on college campuses.

A long time ago before the money, it was deemed worthwhile to have athletics at colleges. So much so that the tax payer footed the bill for these sports. At least now the Golden goose is paying for a large majority of these sports, and it isn't a tax payer burden any longer.

 

[CySoup]

Yup. The B10 is ahead of the game. Delany is dictating what direction things go instead of reacting to it. He knows exactly what he's doing, and I'm sure he's enjoying sticking it to EsecPN. Because make no mistake that's exactly what he's doing. This deal will build up Fox's programming. It will legitimize FS1. All of which hurts ESPN.

Then, a few years from now, if he can manage to lure a few more major programs into the B10 the amount of money they will make off of individually purchased streaming apps will be insane. Delany is in the driver's seat.

Delany has been running rings around the other major conference since the inception of the BTN. Right now he is doing so again. By the time this 6 year deal is done, I'd bet the BigTen has 18 or 20 teams as members, they will have figured out how to navigate the new landscape (cord cutters, decline of ESPN, rise of a competing network to ESPN). Just in time to take advantage of it again.

For those that think that cord cutting is going to kill these deals, you are absolutely wrong. Live sports is the last bastion for advertisers (it is consumed live and ads are actually watched). The market is currently correcting, it ain't going to just implode.

 

[CarrollCyclone]

Also, even with the cord cutters, people still want content. People still love to watch live sports. There will still be a market and demand for college football games whether you watch them as part of your $100/month cable bill or your $50/month suite of streaming apps.

 

[cycloneworld]

Also, even with the cord cutters, people still want content. People still love to watch live sports. There will still be a market and demand for college football games whether you watch them as part of your $100/month cable bill or your $50/month suite of streaming apps.

Agreed. Although the scary thing for networks like ESPN and Fox Sports are the amount of people subsidizing sports fans live content. If ESPN had to stand alone, I read it would cost $30+. Cord cutting is pointless if you have to pay $30 for ESPN, $20 for Fox, $15 for Netflix, $10 for Hulu, etc, etc. Instead we get ESPN for like $6 because its bundled with cable/satellite.

 

[JonDMiller]

I'm just waiting to see how many years before we have a cable/satellite/TV network bailout from the government. I'll put the over/under at 5.5 years.

I'd wager there are 20M big ten fans who would pay $5/mo, 8 mos out of the year, for access to ala carte Big Ten Network...if the traditional cable/satellite monopoly goes away, the Big Ten would roll up all the games on their own network. That works out to be around 55 to 60M dollars per year for each school.

 

[JonDMiller]

What is funny about this is that the members of the B10 think this validates the level of play of their conference. 11 of their 14 football teams are average at best. And their basketball teams weren't much better. This comes down to (1) major media markets and (2) alumni base. And the squawkeyes have absolutely nothing to do with it at all. They, as a brand, add nothing. And yet, their white-trash fans will stick their chest out in pride. All because they play in a conference with Ohio State and Michigan. They don't realize they are the ISU of the B10, riding the coat tails of more successful programs.

I doubt they are all that concerned with 'validation'. I would suspect they are focusing more on the financial solvency this deal, and the other half of it, provides them for the next six years, with an out to re-up at higher values if the landscape is the same, but they also have their own network to adapt if it changes.