Big Ten about to get paid

[JonDMiller]

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.

The Big Ten has always pooled revenues..and in doing so, it has helped them all immensely. Probably only Ohio State would have the opportunity to out perform current revenues on their own...then again, look at the Longhorn Network.

 

[JonDMiller]

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.

Thank you for reading

 

[isufbcurt]

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.

Well there is a sucker born everyday, but in this case 20M suckers.

 

[JonDMiller]

Well there is a sucker born everyday, but in this case 20M suckers.

Nah, not really. I'm pretty sure you'd pay $5 per month to watch every Iowa State football and basketball game.

 

[CyTwins]

Jon Miller ‏@HawkeyeNation Feb 7
If I was going to draft a Big Ten team and I have to pick one true center..considering all facets, wld be hard to pass on Woody

 

[CyTwins]

Sorry wrong thread

 

[Clonehomer]

So does this mean that ESPN has more programming available? Maybe the Big12 can take advantage and we can decrease the number of night games we have. At this point, ISU is not benefitting at all by having night games going against the ABC prime time game. Maybe the occasional 11:00 kickoff would be nice.

 

[isufbcurt]

So does this mean that ESPN has more programming available? Maybe the Big12 can take advantage and we can decrease the number of night games we have. At this point, ISU is not benefitting at all by having night games going against the ABC prime time game. Maybe the occasional 11:00 kickoff would be nice.

Bite your tongue winch. Who in their right mind wants 11 AM kickoffs and no night games?

 

[LesMurphy]

Hard to imagine this contract not being renegotiated down at some point.

How do you "renegotiate down" a signed contract?

 

[cycloneworld]

Nah, not really. I'm pretty sure you'd pay $5 per month to watch every Iowa State football and basketball game.

I pay $10 per month to watch ONE football game and 6 crappy non-con basketball games on CyclonesTV. So yeah, people will pay.

 

[kingcy]

Does Rutgers at some point have to have a team that comes close to competing to get their share of the money.

 

[im4cyclones]

LOL of course he doesn't. How much do you want to bet that when the Big 12 announced their tv deal, he had a slightly different reaction than "Revoke their tax exempt status!!"

In fact, you can read him not saying those things in this thread right here:

http://cyclonefanatic.com/forum/showthread.php?t=147929&page=2&highlight=big+12+tv+deal

Actually, I have said it before. Back during the whole realignment race. Colleges made it very clear that athletics was no longer about the student athlete but about the business. I think it is ridiculous how much money college programs and coaches make. And I have also said before that I think athletes should be paid. You can't say that athletic programs can't afford it and then sign a deal to make $35M a year.

 

[kingcy]

Actually, I have said it before. Back during the whole realignment race. Colleges made it very clear that athletics was no longer about the student athlete but about the business. I think it is ridiculous how much money college programs and coaches make. And I have also said before that I think athletes should be paid. You can't say that athletic programs can't afford it and then sign a deal to make $35M a year.

If it was Men's basketball and Football they could afford to pay players all day long. But when you spend millions on funding college rowing or whatever other nitch sport the money dries up fast.

Yes it is a business, but their business model sucks. If it was a real business there would be 2 college sports.

There are ways to pay players that wouldn't hurt the bottom line of the athletic dept.

 

[im4cyclones]

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.

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.

The Big Ten has always pooled revenues..and in doing so, it has helped them all immensely. Probably only Ohio State would have the opportunity to out perform current revenues on their own...then again, look at the Longhorn Network.

Thank you for reading

Nah, not really. I'm pretty sure you'd pay $5 per month to watch every Iowa State football and basketball game.

Don't you have some propane to sell?

 

[Judoka]

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.

Weird, because according to wikipedia there's less than 70 million cable subscribers in the US period. So you're telling me that you think almost 1/3 of all cable subscribers would pay for an ala carte Big Ten channel?

Huh.

 

[keepngoal]

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.

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.

The Big Ten has always pooled revenues..and in doing so, it has helped them all immensely. Probably only Ohio State would have the opportunity to out perform current revenues on their own...then again, look at the Longhorn Network.

Thank you for reading

^^ doesn't know how to multi-quote ^^

 

[Clonehomer]

Weird, because according to wikipedia there's less than 70 million cable subscribers in the US period. So you're telling me that you think almost 1/3 of all cable subscribers would pay for an ala carte Big Ten channel?

Huh.

I'd put the number closer to 10M for 4 months out of the year. Maybe another 6M for the remaining 3 months in basketball season.

That puts you at a respectable $20M per school but obviously far less than you get by forcing everyone with a cable subscription to subsidize your programs.

 

[Judoka]

This thread just reminded me to cancel my SlingTV subscription until August.

 

[Clark]

Weird, because according to wikipedia there's less than 70 million cable subscribers in the US period. So you're telling me that you think almost 1/3 of all cable subscribers would pay for an ala carte Big Ten channel?

Huh.

pssst. you wouldn't need a cable subscription with this model. Just like you don't need a cable subscription to get HBO.


Huh.

 

[Judoka]

pssst. you wouldn't need a cable subscription with this model. Just like you don't need a cable subscription to get HBO.


Huh.

That wasn't my point. My point was that the target market - households that include a diehard sports fan who will pay, is nowhere near as big as 20 million. Hell, an ala carte ESPN subscription would probably kill to get 20 million subs. Remember you aren't talking about number of fans, you're talking about number of subscriptions. And also remember that the whole business model behind sports channels like the Big Ten Network is to get forced on to basic cable whether people want it or not.

To use your HBO example. If your whole family of five watches HBO, they don't get five sets of subscription fees. They get one.