WinchesterBUCK wrote: Good news, Rutgers and Maryland fans, your schools will be joining the Big Ten in 2014, bringing a nice influx of that cold hard cash into your athletic departments. It's just too bad you might not be able to watch all of their games once they've joined the Big Ten.

Yes, that's right, according to the Sports Business Journal, the Big Ten is considering keeping Maryland and Rutgers games -- both football and basketball -- off of its own Big Ten Network in an effort to get local cable companies to place the network on their basic tiers.

Just another reminder that conferene realignment is about nothing more than eyeballs staring at televisions, which produces money whether those eyeballs know it or not.

At the moment the Big Ten Network is available in the home markets of both Maryland and Rutgers, but it's located on sports tiers that are optional to cable subscribers. However, at the moment cable subscribers outside the Big Ten market are paying about 15 cents a month for the network. Once the network hits the basic package and the markets are in the Big Ten's market, that jumps up to 80 cents a month.

So that means for every million cable subscribers in those markets -- subscribers, not people actually watching the Big Ten Network, just those with cable -- the Big Ten will make an additional $650,000 a month, or $7.8 million a year.

Between New York City, New Jersey, Baltimore and Washington D.C. there are roughly 18.1 million people. If only 50% of those people have cable that's nearly $5.9 million a month for the Big Ten Network.

So if you still had any questions about why the Big Ten would choose Rutgers and Maryland, it's probably a bit clearer now.

Also, this is not the first time the Big Ten has used such tactics, as it threatened to do the same thing with Nebraska before it joined the conference as well. Of course, there wasn't much resistance from the cable companies in Nebraska as their customer base would not have been happy without their Cornhusker games available on television.

However, it will be pretty interesting to see whether or not New York cable companies even bat an eye when threatened with the possibility of losing Rutgers games.

lowiq wrote: does anyone else sort of get the feeling that delany chasing after notre dame has almost gotten to the point of captain ahab chasing moby dick?

i understand the points made about the btn and potential profits ect, ect, ect. but what happens if notre dame DOESNT come and texas or north carolina dont come?

you may have changed the big tens history forever for maryland, rutgers, uconn and boston college?

i could have loaned you some money till the first of the month.

he may pull a rabbit out of his hat before the final curtain but right now things look awfully iffy for such a big change.

I don't think Delany is chasing ND, I think he is herding them.  As much as people might question the addition of Maryland and Rutgers I do think they have longer term potential that will exceed their current history and will provide a positive financial impact.  I like others are guessing but I think it will happen, any moves going forward have to do the same obviously.  Delany is an extremely smart guy, ESPiN and every major conference are using his actions as a standard with regional networks and I have no doubt that of those, the BTN will be the most profitable.  I don't know how all of this will turn out but as the richest conference in athletics, Delany has a pretty good track record of making sound financial decisions.  People who are looking for on the field results in football alone right away aren't going to appreciate what he is trying to do and it is a gamble.  The funny thing about ND is the B10 has probably rejected them more than they have us and some of their recent decisions seem more spiteful than wise. 

WinchesterBUCK wrote: Your calculations are way off. Where is the guaranteed BTN payout to each B1G school and then the profit is split? Where is the revenue from commercial ad time?

---------------------------------------------
--- rocknhoops wrote:

WinchesterBUCK wrote: Good news, Rutgers and Maryland fans, your schools will be joining the Big Ten in 2014, bringing a nice influx of that cold hard cash into your athletic departments. It's just too bad you might not be able to watch all of their games once they've joined the Big Ten.

Yes, that's right, according to the Sports Business Journal, the Big Ten is considering keeping Maryland and Rutgers games -- both football and basketball -- off of its own Big Ten Network in an effort to get local cable companies to place the network on their basic tiers.

Just another reminder that conferene realignment is about nothing more than eyeballs staring at televisions, which produces money whether those eyeballs know it or not.

At the moment the Big Ten Network is available in the home markets of both Maryland and Rutgers, but it's located on sports tiers that are optional to cable subscribers. However, at the moment cable subscribers outside the Big Ten market are paying about 15 cents a month for the network. Once the network hits the basic package and the markets are in the Big Ten's market, that jumps up to 80 cents a month.

So that means for every million cable subscribers in those markets -- subscribers, not people actually watching the Big Ten Network, just those with cable -- the Big Ten will make an additional $650,000 a month, or $7.8 million a year.

Between New York City, New Jersey, Baltimore and Washington D.C. there are roughly 18.1 million people. If only 50% of those people have cable that's nearly $5.9 million a month for the Big Ten Network.

So if you still had any questions about why the Big Ten would choose Rutgers and Maryland, it's probably a bit clearer now.

Also, this is not the first time the Big Ten has used such tactics, as it threatened to do the same thing with Nebraska before it joined the conference as well. Of course, there wasn't much resistance from the cable companies in Nebraska as their customer base would not have been happy without their Cornhusker games available on television.

However, it will be pretty interesting to see whether or not New York cable companies even bat an eye when threatened with the possibility of losing Rutgers games.

so lets do the math, using the numbers in the article. .

NJ has 3,180,854 households (US census)

figure 85% take at least an expanded basic or equal level of cable or satellite. (some still get tv off air, some subscribe to only limited basic, which is mostly local channels for about $12 mo.).

3,180,854 X .85 = 2,703,726 households subscribing to at least an expanded basic or equivalent level of pay tv.

2,703,726 X $0.80 = $2,162,980 per mo X 12 = $25,955,760 per yr from NJ for BTN after adding RU. 

before expansion (per the article) BTN got about $.15 per mo per sub.

2,703,726 X $0.15 = $405,559 per mo X 12= $4,866,708 for BTN from NJ before adding RU 

$25,955,760 minus $4,866,708 = $21,089,052 per yr net gain for BTN by adding RU.

the league gets 49% of that, (News Corp/Fox gets 51%).

$21,089,052 X 0.49 = $10,333,635 per yr gain for the league by adding RU

with 13 schools, thats an extra $794,895 per school per yr. from adding RU.


most recent numbers available show each B10 school got $24.6 mil from B10 revenue sharing, so the worth of a share is $24.6 mil.

by going from 12 to 13 shares, each school loses about 7.692% of the pot from giving out an extra share.  

$24,600,000 (worth of a share) X 0.07692 = $1,892,232 per school per yr loss from going from 12 to 13 cuts of the pie.

$1,892,232 (loss from expanding the number of shares) minus $794,895 (per school BTN gain from adding RU) = $1,097,337 the net per school per yr loss from adding RU.

so adding RU means a $1,097,337 per yr per school net loss.


WHAT ABOUT Md?

Md has fewer households than NJ, so the loss from Md is even greater. (you're welcome to do the math).

WHAT ABOUT NYC?

NYC ain't putting BTN on basic at going basic rates. NOT HAPPENING! (and YES network won't help, so don't even go there).

if BTN gets on Time Warner and Cablevision in NYC, it will be because BTN gave it to them for free, or paid them to put it on expanded basic. 

it's not getting on in DC either, and even if you added DC households to Md households, you still have less households than NJ. (check the census if you don't believe me).


WELL, WE'LL JUST RENEGOTIATE EVERYTHING AND HOPE TO FIX IT THAT WAY.

so now we're destroying a 100 plus yr old conference with established rivalries in hopes we can salvage things through wishful thinking renegotiations with entities that are declaring war on sports rights fees. (looked at your cable bill lately?)


"DELANY KNOWS WHAT HE'S DOING. HE'S A GENIUS"!

ya, he's making himself even more powerful than he was.

and all CEO types are geniuses, til they're not!



don't shoot the messenger please.

---------------------------------------------

lowiq wrote: dc i think both maryland and rutgers have untapped potential. nothing "wrong" with either addition.

as far as the big ten/notre dame story who knows?? it all depends on who is talking which story you hear.

not detracting from the main points but if you look at last years numbers you will see that the sec actually had the most revenue of any conference. just add the 12 schools in each conference together and you will see the total.

for decades the big ten was the richest sports conference but over the last several years the sec was catching them and last year passed them. will it be a one year blip or a longer term deal. the two latest additions--texas a&m and missouri for the sec and maryland and rutgers for the big ten--shift the needle a little farther for the sec.

my question was how will long time big ten fans think IF the big fish they are hoping for dont get in the net and you end up with basically a rent to own plan on the old big east?

of course the chance remains they do pull in some combination of the main targets and things work out well. im sure folks a lot smarter than me have done a lot more research and thinking about this than i have. just seems like taking a pretty big risk.

firejayp wrote: Advertising is a large contributor to BTN revenue. Here is a link to an interesting breakdown about the value of advertising and teams frankthetank.wordpress.com/201...g-ten-network/.

lowiq wrote: dc i think both maryland and rutgers have untapped potential. nothing "wrong" with either addition.

as far as the big ten/notre dame story who knows?? it all depends on who is talking which story you hear.

not detracting from the main points but if you look at last years numbers you will see that the sec actually had the most revenue of any conference. just add the 12 schools in each conference together and you will see the total.

for decades the big ten was the richest sports conference but over the last several years the sec was catching them and last year passed them. will it be a one year blip or a longer term deal. the two latest additions--texas a&m and missouri for the sec and maryland and rutgers for the big ten--shift the needle a little farther for the sec.

my question was how will long time big ten fans think IF the big fish they are hoping for dont get in the net and you end up with basically a rent to own plan on the old big east?

of course the chance remains they do pull in some combination of the main targets and things work out well. im sure folks a lot smarter than me have done a lot more research and thinking about this than i have. just seems like taking a pretty big risk.

I think someone else mentioned it, our Tier 1 rights are much older than the deal the SEC signed recently so it's natural that for now the SEC might make more for football.  I don't know about basketball revenue but I guaranty you when the B10 does renegotiate our Tier 1 rights you will see more parties involved and a significant increase in those numbers.  I can't speak for all B10 fans but the only attraction ND has is increasing TV revenue, aside from this year they haven't been relevant since Holtz was the coach.  Sure people will grumble if UConn or BC are the next teams added because most would agree that they don't believe they have the potential of Maryland or Rutgers in terms of developing the football program.  Expansion isn't over so who knows where we will end up but there are obviously some good candidates out there both the SEC and B10 are chasing. 

Also, it is a fact that historically ND approached the B10 multiple times to gain entrance and were turned down.  Now ND is willing to move away from the majority of their fans to do anything to avoid joining the B10.  I hope they stay independent forever personally, they don't deserve a seat at the playoff table until they do. 

WinchesterBUCK wrote: Sounding like UConn and Cincy may end up in the ACC now that the BE is deasd. Then FSU will use this as the excuse to bolt.

WinchesterBUCK wrote: Your calculations are way off. Where is the guaranteed BTN payout to each B1G school and then the profit is split? Where is the revenue from commercial ad time?

---------------------------------------------
--- rocknhoops wrote:

WinchesterBUCK wrote: Good news, Rutgers and Maryland fans, your schools will be joining the Big Ten in 2014, bringing a nice influx of that cold hard cash into your athletic departments. It's just too bad you might not be able to watch all of their games once they've joined the Big Ten.

Yes, that's right, according to the Sports Business Journal, the Big Ten is considering keeping Maryland and Rutgers games -- both football and basketball -- off of its own Big Ten Network in an effort to get local cable companies to place the network on their basic tiers.

Just another reminder that conferene realignment is about nothing more than eyeballs staring at televisions, which produces money whether those eyeballs know it or not.

At the moment the Big Ten Network is available in the home markets of both Maryland and Rutgers, but it's located on sports tiers that are optional to cable subscribers. However, at the moment cable subscribers outside the Big Ten market are paying about 15 cents a month for the network. Once the network hits the basic package and the markets are in the Big Ten's market, that jumps up to 80 cents a month.

So that means for every million cable subscribers in those markets -- subscribers, not people actually watching the Big Ten Network, just those with cable -- the Big Ten will make an additional $650,000 a month, or $7.8 million a year.

Between New York City, New Jersey, Baltimore and Washington D.C. there are roughly 18.1 million people. If only 50% of those people have cable that's nearly $5.9 million a month for the Big Ten Network.

So if you still had any questions about why the Big Ten would choose Rutgers and Maryland, it's probably a bit clearer now.

Also, this is not the first time the Big Ten has used such tactics, as it threatened to do the same thing with Nebraska before it joined the conference as well. Of course, there wasn't much resistance from the cable companies in Nebraska as their customer base would not have been happy without their Cornhusker games available on television.

However, it will be pretty interesting to see whether or not New York cable companies even bat an eye when threatened with the possibility of losing Rutgers games.

so lets do the math, using the numbers in the article. .

NJ has 3,180,854 households (US census)

figure 85% take at least an expanded basic or equal level of cable or satellite. (some still get tv off air, some subscribe to only limited basic, which is mostly local channels for about $12 mo.).

3,180,854 X .85 = 2,703,726 households subscribing to at least an expanded basic or equivalent level of pay tv.

2,703,726 X $0.80 = $2,162,980 per mo X 12 = $25,955,760 per yr from NJ for BTN after adding RU. 

before expansion (per the article) BTN got about $.15 per mo per sub.

2,703,726 X $0.15 = $405,559 per mo X 12= $4,866,708 for BTN from NJ before adding RU 

$25,955,760 minus $4,866,708 = $21,089,052 per yr net gain for BTN by adding RU.

the league gets 49% of that, (News Corp/Fox gets 51%).

$21,089,052 X 0.49 = $10,333,635 per yr gain for the league by adding RU

with 13 schools, thats an extra $794,895 per school per yr. from adding RU.


most recent numbers available show each B10 school got $24.6 mil from B10 revenue sharing, so the worth of a share is $24.6 mil.

by going from 12 to 13 shares, each school loses about 7.692% of the pot from giving out an extra share.  

$24,600,000 (worth of a share) X 0.07692 = $1,892,232 per school per yr loss from going from 12 to 13 cuts of the pie.

$1,892,232 (loss from expanding the number of shares) minus $794,895 (per school BTN gain from adding RU) = $1,097,337 the net per school per yr loss from adding RU.

so adding RU means a $1,097,337 per yr per school net loss.


WHAT ABOUT Md?

Md has fewer households than NJ, so the loss from Md is even greater. (you're welcome to do the math).

WHAT ABOUT NYC?

NYC ain't putting BTN on basic at going basic rates. NOT HAPPENING! (and YES network won't help, so don't even go there).

if BTN gets on Time Warner and Cablevision in NYC, it will be because BTN gave it to them for free, or paid them to put it on expanded basic. 

it's not getting on in DC either, and even if you added DC households to Md households, you still have less households than NJ. (check the census if you don't believe me).


WELL, WE'LL JUST RENEGOTIATE EVERYTHING AND HOPE TO FIX IT THAT WAY.

so now we're destroying a 100 plus yr old conference with established rivalries in hopes we can salvage things through wishful thinking renegotiations with entities that are declaring war on sports rights fees. (looked at your cable bill lately?)


"DELANY KNOWS WHAT HE'S DOING. HE'S A GENIUS"!

ya, he's making himself even more powerful than he was.

and all CEO types are geniuses, til they're not!



don't shoot the messenger please.

---------------------------------------------

rocknhoops wrote: don't let the facts get in your way.

the math is what it is.

as for ad revenue, ad revenue accounts for only a small percentage of revenue.

if the math showed adding RU as near break even, you could argue ad revenue would put you over the top.

but it isn't even close to a break even situation, and the Md numbers are even worse.

a lot more dominoes in the multichannel industry landscape would need to topple, than just converting states to "in state" sub fees by adding schools, for expansion to be profitable for the legacy schools

Delany is WAY out of control, and we're talking OFF THE RESERVATION OUT OF CONTROL, (how are people not seeing this), and destroying conferences over a very low percentage gamble, and his own power trip.

if you want to argue expansion on the grounds the new additions make the conference better, regardless of the finances, then argue that. that should be the litmus test anyway.

the numbers AREN'T there. deal with it.

and there's an inherent fundamental reason you can't change, rooted in the current economic revenue model of the conference, as to why the numbers aren't there. which is extremely difficult for Delany to overcome just by adding more schools and more shares.

sorry i'm not telling you what you want to hear, but truth is, there aren't enough facts in the world to convince someone of something they don't want hear. 

I mean this is the nicest possible way... but you don't know what you're talking about.

Television negotiations are done by market, not by state. So using "New Jersey" households to calculate the Rutgers value is a wholly inaccurate method. You need to do the calculations for the NYC DMA, not New Jersey. 

Same with Maryland... do it for the District of Columbia, not the state of Maryland. 

Bad math is no better than no math at all. Your math is bad math because it's based on completely irrelevant circumstances. Number of households in a state are only relevant inasmuch as how many are included in the markets contained within. 

There are 210 television markets and regional channels, such as a sports network, are negotiated by market. Again... not by state, but rather by market. The Big Ten has wisely negotiated that markets within a state that contains a team must be on basic/expanded basic cable. But the negotiations themselves are still done by individual market. For Rutgers, this is New York City as a whole.

rocknhoops wrote: A) BTN negotiations and contracts HAVE NOT been by market, but by state.

B) YOU"RE NOT GETTING NYC TO FLIP IT'S CONTRACTS BY BRINGING ON RU.

if you had any industry knowledge at all, you'd know getting NYC to flip would be a VERY low percentage play.

and no, YES won't be able to flip it either, unless YES wants to take it out of their pocket instead of Time Warner's and Cablevision's.

and don't look for that to happen, as News Corp will soon have an 80% stake in YES, and bundling the 2 or other NC properties with YES negotiations would a PR nightmare for NC.

could it happen? yes, anything is possible. but it's far too improbable to make huge decisions on the faint hopes it will. (and the math on Md is, it has less households than NJ even with DC).

i've been a B10 fan for far longer than most of you guys.

i'm not pointing out the reality of this to be a jerk, but because it needs to see daylight, when all we are getting is one sided hype and spin.

lowiq wrote: kyle in the case of the btn which method is more beneficial?

would they make more money if it was by state or by market or does it really even matter?

it seems to me--with ZERO knowledge of the tv industry at all--that getting an entire state would be the most profitable BUT if some parts of the state might balk then at least being able to get as many markets as possible beats nothing.

KyleSLamb wrote:

rocknhoops wrote: A) BTN negotiations and contracts HAVE NOT been by market, but by state.

B) YOU"RE NOT GETTING NYC TO FLIP IT'S CONTRACTS BY BRINGING ON RU.

if you had any industry knowledge at all, you'd know getting NYC to flip would be a VERY low percentage play.

and no, YES won't be able to flip it either, unless YES wants to take it out of their pocket instead of Time Warner's and Cablevision's.

and don't look for that to happen, as News Corp will soon have an 80% stake in YES, and bundling the 2 or other NC properties with YES negotiations would a PR nightmare for NC.

could it happen? yes, anything is possible. but it's far too improbable to make huge decisions on the faint hopes it will. (and the math on Md is, it has less households than NJ even with DC).

i've been a B10 fan for far longer than most of you guys.

i'm not pointing out the reality of this to be a jerk, but because it needs to see daylight, when all we are getting is one sided hype and spin.

Negotiations are by television market. Not by state. My 'industry knowledge' comes from an actual education and job experience in this field, for your information.

If you want evidence, go to any cable provider and look at a channel lineup. Many of them will show you channel lineups by the 210 markets. Why would they do that if it's by state? Because it's not by state. They negotiate with networks based on market. When ESPN does a reverse mirror with ABC or blacks out certain games, how do you think that works? What about when you see local adds on your cable stations? Did you consider it's because they run feeds based on market? Hmmm....

You're barking up the wrong tree here.