I likely do not have much clout as a first time poster here, but kyle is correct regarding markets.  I visited my folks in South Jersey for Thanksgiving and yes they have the BTN.  My mother has watched every Penn State Volleyball game on it this year.  The reason it is carried is because SJ is part of the Philly demographic and philly carries it due to PSU.

rocknhoops wrote:

 

that's just not factually correct.

ESPN negotiates with providers nationally, not by mkt.

all Disney games are national. ABC just decides which game it wants on ABC for that market, (which is more a regional call), and flip flops whether the game is aired on ABC or ESPN in that region. and the subject is totally irrelevant as to BTN negotiations.

broadcast networks ARE negotiated by market per FCC. many pro sports RSNs have been done by market. (RSNs where the provider has an equity stake have some of their own rules for anti competitive reasons). 

the BTN has largely been done by state, but Comcast exempted greater Philly.

and i highly doubt the south half of NJ currently gets BTN on basic at the higher basic rates. if it did, that would hurt your case even more. 

as far as what, if any, area would get on exp basic at basic rates due to adding RU,  is totally up for negotiation, and TWC and Cablevision are not going to put it on basic AT GOING BASIC RATES in NYC.

if that's what News Corp is selling the league, then the league is getting snookered. i'd tell News Corp to bring me signed contingency agreements 1st, and watch that NOT happen.

if you think your industry knowledge trumps mine, think again.

you're obviously very invested in my being wrong, but you should at least consider the real possibility that i'm not, as Delany is blowing up the B10 and the surrounding landscape on his quest to be supreme exalted ruler of all of college sports. and Murdoch and crew are glad to play along, as News Corp is the big financial winner in expansion, NYC or not.

I'm not talking about ESPN or national networks. I'm talking about RSNs. They are negotiated by market. There are no ifs, ands or buts about that. The BTN is done by market within states. As I said before... that is why Southern New Jersey already has the BTN. Because they are in the Philadelphia market.

The BTN negotiates by state, but they do it by market WITHIN state boundaries. That is because, again, cable operators deal in MARKETS. They don't deal in states. So if a network wants an entire state covered, they have to negotiate individual markets WITHIN the state. That is not a guess. Please... stop this foolishness. You're wasting everyone's time with this.

specialisthusky wrote: I likely do not have much clout as a first time poster here, but kyle is correct regarding markets.  I visited my folks in South Jersey for Thanksgiving and yes they have the BTN.  My mother has watched every Penn State Volleyball game on it this year.  The reason it is carried is because SJ is part of the Philly demographic and philly carries it due to PSU.

i much appreciate the info, thanks. who is her provider? is it Comcast or someone else?

to the best of my knowledge, BTN is pretty much universally available in all of NJ, Md, DC, and NYC, as we speak. 

i believe in Philly, Comcast carries BTN on a digital tier with The National Geo. Channel, Fox Business News, The Science Channel, Womens Movie Net, ESPNU, and a bunch of other channels.

i think that tier has a high take rate, but it's not considered expanded basic, nor do i think Comcast pays the "in state" rate there.

point being, i wonder what package she receives BTN on, and who is her provider.
Directv, Fios, UVerse, cable)?

good chance she might not even know exactly what package she has though.





.

rocknhoops wrote:

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.

that's just not factually correct.

ESPN negotiates with providers nationally, not by mkt.

all Disney games are national. ABC just decides which game it wants on ABC for that market, (which is more a regional call), and flip flops whether the game is aired on ABC or ESPN in that region. and the subject is totally irrelevant as to BTN negotiations.

broadcast networks ARE negotiated by market per FCC. many pro sports RSNs have been done by market. (RSNs where the provider has an equity stake have some of their own rules for anti competitive reasons). 

the BTN has largely been done by state, but Comcast exempted greater Philly.

and i highly doubt the south half of NJ currently gets BTN on basic at the higher basic rates. if it did, that would hurt your case even more. 

as far as what, if any, area would get on exp basic at basic rates due to adding RU,  is totally up for negotiation, and TWC and Cablevision are not going to put it on basic AT GOING BASIC RATES in NYC.

if that's what News Corp is selling the league, then the league is getting snookered. i'd tell News Corp to bring me signed contingency agreements 1st, and watch that NOT happen.

if you think your industry knowledge trumps mine, think again.

you're obviously very invested in my being wrong, but you should at least consider the real possibility that i'm not, as Delany is blowing up the B10 and the surrounding landscape on his quest to be supreme exalted ruler of all of college sports. and Murdoch and crew are glad to play along, as News Corp is the big financial winner in expansion, NYC or not.

ESPN? Where did that come from? We are talking about Regional Sports Networks. You, literally, have no clue what you think you do.

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


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.

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

Another flaw in your logic... You're taking the B1G's average university payout (tier 1 rights, tier 2 and 3 rights, bowl payouts, BTN profit sharing, etc) and saying Rutgers and Maryland need to MEET or surpass this number in carriage fees in order to be revenue neutral or make a profit... But the B1G universities are only making a fraction of their ~$25 million from carriage fees or profit sharing from the BTN!

Heck, the B1G didn't even renegotiate their Tier 1 contracts after adding Nebraska, let alone Rutgers and Maryland!!! So Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland have to surpass the current average B1G university payout using their added carriage fees AND the additional money the B1G will make when their Tier 1 rights go up for auction in 2017... When ESPN, FOX and NBC will all be throwing money at the B1G.

We're also thinking near future... What happens when the B1G contract expires with Fox (is it 2032?)? If the BTN wants to go solo on the BTN after their contract with Fox expires... They INSTANTLY double all of their profits from their network without any renegotiation. The NY/NJ and DC market just became worth a TON more, and we won't have to add another teams at that point, simply watch the money roll in!

fwiw, the 'eers dude is claiming FSU and Gtech to the B1G right after the Orange Bowl. I don't know how feasible it is to have the Noles in the B1G, but judging by the responses on the FSU board, the B1G is the fan favorite.

Big East is over...

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/87452 35/seven-schools-agree-leave-big-east-debating-pro cess-source-says

Just seems like to far of a reach....unless delaney has virginia and nc in his back pocket.

---------------------------------------------
--- CalBayBuckeye wrote:

fwiw, the 'eers dude is claiming FSU and Gtech to the B1G right after the Orange Bowl. I don't know how feasible it is to have the Noles in the B1G, but judging by the responses on the FSU board, the B1G is the fan favorite.

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

KyleSLamb wrote:

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/.

Advertising isn't anywhere near those projections yet. 

The industry standard of sports cable networks is roughly 45% in advertising and 55% in operator fees. But last year, the BTN had $280 million in revenue... with a reported $50 mil in advertising. Ad revenue is important, but it's not yet a large part of what the BTN is doing.

Where did you get 45/55 as the ad revenue split?

YES earns $502.3M in subs and $68.7M in advertising. The Mets channel is $428.4M/$40.5M. BTN is $280M/$50M. ESPN's is $6.2B/$2B. None of the RSNs are close to 15%. ESPN isn't even at 25%.

BuckeyeFan1987 wrote:

KyleSLamb wrote:

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/.

Advertising isn't anywhere near those projections yet. 

The industry standard of sports cable networks is roughly 45% in advertising and 55% in operator fees. But last year, the BTN had $280 million in revenue... with a reported $50 mil in advertising. Ad revenue is important, but it's not yet a large part of what the BTN is doing.

Where did you get 45/55 as the ad revenue split?

YES earns $502.3M in subs and $68.7M in advertising. The Mets channel is $428.4M/$40.5M. BTN is $280M/$50M. ESPN's is $6.2B/$2B. None of the RSNs are close to 15%. ESPN isn't even at 25%.

I apologize but I was referring to cable networks in general as having a 45/55 split (2010: $20 billion in ad sales, $25 billion in carriage fees) -- I did not mean to have "sports" in front of cable. You're correct that RSNs pull in a lower ratio but my point was there have been years where it is closer to the cable standard. Those days might be long gone with the milking of op fees, but at one time, it was definitely a good ballpark projection even for RSNs. 

ESPN's carriage rates, though, have jumped literally over $12 per sub, per year in the last four years (from $3.65 per sub per month to $4.70). So the numbers I had been looking at for ESPN from their annual report a few years back had showed closer to 40% in ads, but they've seen carriage fees grow nearly $1.5 billion. Advertising at that time was close to $2.5 billion. 

Either way, my point was that the BTN was nowhere near those projections shown on FTT's website, so we're in agreement there.

Bump

bankone wrote: Bump

this

Not that it means anything...

Hearing that UVA to BiG is reaching critical mass and at this point it would take something huge to derail it

coopercougar wrote: Not that it means anything...

MHver3 ‏ @ MHver3

Hearing that UVA to BiG is reaching critical mass and at this point it would take something huge to derail it

I think the Big Ten is at 22 teams already based on who MHver3 has put in the league at one time or another.

KyleSLamb wrote:

coopercougar wrote: Not that it means anything...

MHver3 ‏ @ MHver3

Hearing that UVA to BiG is reaching critical mass and at this point it would take something huge to derail it

I think the Big Ten is at 22 teams already based on who MHver3 has put in the league at one time or another.

I guess he'll be right about one eventually?

Neilliam2 wrote:

KyleSLamb wrote:

coopercougar wrote: Not that it means anything...

MHver3 ‏ @ MHver3

Hearing that UVA to BiG is reaching critical mass and at this point it would take something huge to derail it

I think the Big Ten is at 22 teams already based on who MHver3 has put in the league at one time or another.

I guess he'll be right about one eventually?

Nevada is saying UVA as well today.....

WinchesterBUCK wrote:

Neilliam2 wrote:

KyleSLamb wrote:

coopercougar wrote: Not that it means anything...

MHver3 ‏ @ MHver3

Hearing that UVA to BiG is reaching critical mass and at this point it would take something huge to derail it

I think the Big Ten is at 22 teams already based on who MHver3 has put in the league at one time or another.

I guess he'll be right about one eventually?

Nevada is saying UVA as well today.....

Virginia has always been the next logical target by the Big Ten. But I think we already knew that (after all, I have been saying Virginia and Georgia Tech or Virginia and Connecticut would likely be the next round). I just don't think it's in the "critical mass" that this guy is saying. And at this point, he's put so many of these out there 'so and so is about to break,' that it's hard to take it seriously. 

I think Virginia is the next target, though. But if the rest of the ACC is not shaken immediately, the Big Ten would probably turn to Connecticut. They might even take Connecticut if to avoid a proactive move by the ACC.

Still would like to see more consistent rumors before I start expecting something to happen, but this UVa stuff is some smoke that just won't go away.

KyleSLamb wrote:

WinchesterBUCK wrote:

Neilliam2 wrote:

KyleSLamb wrote:

coopercougar wrote: Not that it means anything...

MHver3 ‏ @ MHver3

Hearing that UVA to BiG is reaching critical mass and at this point it would take something huge to derail it

I think the Big Ten is at 22 teams already based on who MHver3 has put in the league at one time or another.

I guess he'll be right about one eventually?

Nevada is saying UVA as well today.....

Virginia has always been the next logical target by the Big Ten. But I think we already knew that (after all, I have been saying Virginia and Georgia Tech or Virginia and Connecticut would likely be the next round). I just don't think it's in the "critical mass" that this guy is saying. And at this point, he's put so many of these out there 'so and so is about to break,' that it's hard to take it seriously. 

I think Virginia is the next target, though. But if the rest of the ACC is not shaken immediately, the Big Ten would probably turn to Connecticut. They might even take Connecticut if to avoid a proactive move by the ACC.

KyleSLamb wrote:

BuckeyeFan1987 wrote:

KyleSLamb wrote:

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/.

Advertising isn't anywhere near those projections yet. 

The industry standard of sports cable networks is roughly 45% in advertising and 55% in operator fees. But last year, the BTN had $280 million in revenue... with a reported $50 mil in advertising. Ad revenue is important, but it's not yet a large part of what the BTN is doing.

Where did you get 45/55 as the ad revenue split?

YES earns $502.3M in subs and $68.7M in advertising. The Mets channel is $428.4M/$40.5M. BTN is $280M/$50M. ESPN's is $6.2B/$2B. None of the RSNs are close to 15%. ESPN isn't even at 25%.

I apologize but I was referring to cable networks in general as having a 45/55 split (2010: $20 billion in ad sales, $25 billion in carriage fees) -- I did not mean to have "sports" in front of cable. You're correct that RSNs pull in a lower ratio but my point was there have been years where it is closer to the cable standard. Those days might be long gone with the milking of op fees, but at one time, it was definitely a good ballpark projection even for RSNs. 

ESPN's carriage rates, though, have jumped literally over $12 per sub, per year in the last four years (from $3.65 per sub per month to $4.70). So the numbers I had been looking at for ESPN from their annual report a few years back had showed closer to 40% in ads, but they've seen carriage fees grow nearly $1.5 billion. Advertising at that time was close to $2.5 billion. 

Either way, my point was that the BTN was nowhere near those projections shown on FTT's website, so we're in agreement there.

the reason BTN and RSNs in general will always have very low ad revenues in proportion to fee revenues, is because they have very little watched programming relative to the high fees they charge.

BTN has a few football games per week for only 3 months a yr, and a few basketball games a wk for 4 months a yrs.

and they are third or 4th tier games in each case.

the rest of the time it gets very little viewership.

TNT or USA or MTV get watched 24/7/365.

ad revenue is based on eyeballs, and BTN will never get a lot of viewers on a yearly basis, because it has very very few programs per yr that get watched much.

same for RSNs that pretty much only get watched when the pro team that anchors said RSN is playing.

and expansion won't help ad revenue that much, since in any mkt there will still be very few programs per yr with much viewership, and many to most of the added games will be played concurrently with the other B10 games the B10 is already showing on BTN and Disney. (they'll just cannibalize each others audience, for those few hours a yrs they do get watched).

one of the promoted benefits of BTN when it launched, was that relocated fans around the country would be able to see their teams' games, even when not on ESPN, ABC, or CBS.

while maybe it won't affect OSU as much, for most of the other schools, expansion is probably going to wipe out a lot of that benefit. 

and during non conference season, there won't even be enough overflow channels to show everyone.

KyleSLamb wrote:

rocknhoops wrote:

 

that's just not factually correct.

ESPN negotiates with providers nationally, not by mkt.

all Disney games are national. ABC just decides which game it wants on ABC for that market, (which is more a regional call), and flip flops whether the game is aired on ABC or ESPN in that region. and the subject is totally irrelevant as to BTN negotiations.

broadcast networks ARE negotiated by market per FCC. many pro sports RSNs have been done by market. (RSNs where the provider has an equity stake have some of their own rules for anti competitive reasons). 

the BTN has largely been done by state, but Comcast exempted greater Philly.

and i highly doubt the south half of NJ currently gets BTN on basic at the higher basic rates. if it did, that would hurt your case even more. 

as far as what, if any, area would get on exp basic at basic rates due to adding RU,  is totally up for negotiation, and TWC and Cablevision are not going to put it on basic AT GOING BASIC RATES in NYC.

if that's what News Corp is selling the league, then the league is getting snookered. i'd tell News Corp to bring me signed contingency agreements 1st, and watch that NOT happen.

if you think your industry knowledge trumps mine, think again.

you're obviously very invested in my being wrong, but you should at least consider the real possibility that i'm not, as Delany is blowing up the B10 and the surrounding landscape on his quest to be supreme exalted ruler of all of college sports. and Murdoch and crew are glad to play along, as News Corp is the big financial winner in expansion, NYC or not.

I'm not talking about ESPN or national networks. I'm talking about RSNs. They are negotiated by market. There are no ifs, ands or buts about that. The BTN is done by market within states. As I said before... that is why Southern New Jersey already has the BTN. Because they are in the Philadelphia market.

The BTN negotiates by state, but they do it by market WITHIN state boundaries. That is because, again, cable operators deal in MARKETS. They don't deal in states. So if a network wants an entire state covered, they have to negotiate individual markets WITHIN the state. That is not a guess. Please... stop this foolishness. You're wasting everyone's time with this.

we've gotten off on a tangent on the RSN thing.

you could say they were done by mkt, but if you looked at the end result, the end result is they filled the state boundaries, and did not cross the state boundaries. (except with Comcast and Philly, where they didn't even fill the state boundaries).

most of Philly gets BTN, as well as the NJ areas you mentioned i'm guessing, but they don't get it on Comcast's "digital starter" package, but instead on "digital plus" or some such named package.

digital starter is what Comcast considers the expanded basic tier, so i highly doubt Comcast pays "in state" fees in Philly and the areas of NJ you mentioned.

still, most in Philly and the areas of NJ still get BTN because most people get the plus package, since Comcast usually throws it in with most promotions for 6 months or whatever, and few drop it when the extra charge for it eventually kicks in. (cable companies aren't exactly big on itemizing bills so people know what the heck they're being charged for).

point being, don't count on BTN being able to negotiate their way onto basic at basic rates in NYC.

if you think News Corp has some regulatory trick up their sleeve where they'll try to force it onto basic in NYC, good luck with that.

TWC and Cablevision would fight tooth and nail in the courts, and they'll appeal everything all the way to the supremes if they have to.

and any long fought victory, if any, would be short lived.

RSN regs are an evolving thing as we speak, and carriage battles in NYC get city, national, and DC attention.

if BTN ever found a regulatory portal to force it onto basic in NYC, which is very unlikely, it wouldn't last long, as the FCC would most likely close that door on the next go round.

and like i said, the legal fight in the mean time would be long and drawn out, and even with a court order, you'd need a gun to the head of the providers to get it onto basic in the 1st place, and another gun to their heads to get them to pay up, even if you did force it on. 

these guys take anything and everything to the higher and highest courts, as everyday policy. 


on a side note, BTN is on Comcast digital starter in the rest of the B10 midwest, but not Philly and the adjacent NJ area, which is what makes me pretty sure that's where they draw the line on paying "in state" fees.