rocknhoops wrote:

sorry to be blunt, but you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

the broadcasters still get a good chunk of their revenue from ad sales, but even they are transitioning over to a more fee based model.

regional sports nets get the huge bulk of their revenue from fees. (for reasons detailed above).

that's a fact.

it's not open to subjective interpretation.

illinoisportsfan wrote:

rocknhoops wrote:

sorry to be blunt, but you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

the broadcasters still get a good chunk of their revenue from ad sales, but even they are transitioning over to a more fee based model.

regional sports nets get the huge bulk of their revenue from fees. (for reasons detailed above).

that's a fact.

it's not open to subjective interpretation.

According to this (non-subjective) article, you're wrong:

http://www.stltoday.com/sports...1a4bcf6878.html

In 2011, the Big Ten Network made a profit of $79 million. Of that, $30 million came from advertising. That is not as high of a percentage as I quoted earlier (60%), but it's still almost half.

And, also according to the article, the net ad revenue increased 23% from 2010, which means that you're wrong again about the trend for the network.

Let this be a lesson to you about the difference between a fact and an opinion.

"The network generated $242 million in revenue for 2011, according to SNL Kagan, which does analysis on the media and communcations industry".

"Net advertising revenue also increased last year to $30.1 million, a 23 percent increase over 2010".





depending on if ad revenue was included in total revenues or not, 

advertising generated either 12% or 14% of revenues.

rocknhoops wrote:

illinoisportsfan wrote:

rocknhoops wrote:

sorry to be blunt, but you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

the broadcasters still get a good chunk of their revenue from ad sales, but even they are transitioning over to a more fee based model.

regional sports nets get the huge bulk of their revenue from fees. (for reasons detailed above).

that's a fact.

it's not open to subjective interpretation.

According to this (non-subjective) article, you're wrong:

http://www.stltoday.com/sports...1a4bcf6878.html

In 2011, the Big Ten Network made a profit of $79 million. Of that, $30 million came from advertising. That is not as high of a percentage as I quoted earlier (60%), but it's still almost half.

And, also according to the article, the net ad revenue increased 23% from 2010, which means that you're wrong again about the trend for the network.

Let this be a lesson to you about the difference between a fact and an opinion.

per the article,

"The network generated $242 million in revenue for 2011, according to SNL Kagan, which does analysis on the media and communcations industry".

"Net advertising revenue also increased last year to $30.1 million, a 23 percent increase over 2010".


depending on if ad revenue was included in total revenues or not, 

advertising generated either 12% or 14% of revenues.

illinoisportsfan wrote:

rocknhoops wrote:

illinoisportsfan wrote:

rocknhoops wrote:

sorry to be blunt, but you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

the broadcasters still get a good chunk of their revenue from ad sales, but even they are transitioning over to a more fee based model.

regional sports nets get the huge bulk of their revenue from fees. (for reasons detailed above).

that's a fact.

it's not open to subjective interpretation.

According to this (non-subjective) article, you're wrong:

http://www.stltoday.com/sports...1a4bcf6878.html

In 2011, the Big Ten Network made a profit of $79 million. Of that, $30 million came from advertising. That is not as high of a percentage as I quoted earlier (60%), but it's still almost half.

And, also according to the article, the net ad revenue increased 23% from 2010, which means that you're wrong again about the trend for the network.

Let this be a lesson to you about the difference between a fact and an opinion.

per the article,

"The network generated $242 million in revenue for 2011, according to SNL Kagan, which does analysis on the media and communcations industry".

"Net advertising revenue also increased last year to $30.1 million, a 23 percent increase over 2010".


depending on if ad revenue was included in total revenues or not, 

advertising generated either 12% or 14% of revenues.

Notice that the $242 million is revenue, while the $30.1 million is net revenue.

Here's another article that mentions ad revenue for the BTN up 30%:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com...s-coverage-push

Dude, just admit that you're wrong. While carriage fees are huge for BTN, ad revenue is a significant and growing portion of their revenue stream.

I think the problem here is that you are using a paradigm for regular cable networks that are seeing decreases in ad revenue because of tivo and dvr, but live sports are at a premium because of that. That is what is driving these ridiculous tv deals for sports leagues and events.

rocknhoops wrote:

A) your link, while a nice fluff piece, said nothing to further any argument for expansion.

B) you're miss interpreting the author's use of the terms "profit" and "net".
 of which he probably takes some blame.


remember also that BTN forked over to the league almost half that $242 mil in revenues, (with News Corp keeping the other 50 plus % of the $242 mil), that the league then distributed their cut 12 ways.

"profit" is some accounting function of what News Corp's accounting says it is.

as for the $30 mil in ad revenues, my guess is that is total ad revenues, with "net" being a misleading term.

if you think ad sales generates more that the 12%-14% of total revenues, you're just wrong.

all that said, being that BTN is already being viewed in all 50 states, including NJ and Md, there is nothing to indicate that adding any one school, thus theoretically incrementally increasing all revenues, including ad sales, some percent in one small area, but not anywhere else, can offset a full share of the 50 state revenue model. 

quit thinking small. think national.

the B10 operates on a 50 state revenue model now, whether we're talking tier 1 or BTN or digital rights, or advertising, whatever.

it's all national.

were the B10's revenue model confined to the 9 current footprint states, then one could argue adding a school could justify a full share of revenues.

but that's not the case. not even close.

it's a 50 state revenue model now.

that's why adding a school can't ever generate enough added revenue to offset a full share of the already 50 state model.

Illinibat wrote: Anyone mention the adding of Johns Hopkins yet?

DerrickRose wrote:

Illinibat wrote: Anyone mention the adding of Johns Hopkins yet?

IrishTerryConklin wrote: Maybe I'm missing something but what bat is talking about is the rumor that we'll be adding Johns Hopkins for lacrosse only.  Sounds good to me as it will help Maryland and could entice other targets.

rocknhoops wrote:

illinoisportsfan wrote:

rocknhoops wrote:

illinoisportsfan wrote:

rocknhoops wrote:

sorry to be blunt, but you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

the broadcasters still get a good chunk of their revenue from ad sales, but even they are transitioning over to a more fee based model.

regional sports nets get the huge bulk of their revenue from fees. (for reasons detailed above).

that's a fact.

it's not open to subjective interpretation.

According to this (non-subjective) article, you're wrong:

http://www.stltoday.com/sports...1a4bcf6878.html

In 2011, the Big Ten Network made a profit of $79 million. Of that, $30 million came from advertising. That is not as high of a percentage as I quoted earlier (60%), but it's still almost half.

And, also according to the article, the net ad revenue increased 23% from 2010, which means that you're wrong again about the trend for the network.

Let this be a lesson to you about the difference between a fact and an opinion.

per the article,

"The network generated $242 million in revenue for 2011, according to SNL Kagan, which does analysis on the media and communcations industry".

"Net advertising revenue also increased last year to $30.1 million, a 23 percent increase over 2010".


depending on if ad revenue was included in total revenues or not, 

advertising generated either 12% or 14% of revenues.

Notice that the $242 million is revenue, while the $30.1 million is net revenue.

Here's another article that mentions ad revenue for the BTN up 30%:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com...s-coverage-push

Dude, just admit that you're wrong. While carriage fees are huge for BTN, ad revenue is a significant and growing portion of their revenue stream.

I think the problem here is that you are using a paradigm for regular cable networks that are seeing decreases in ad revenue because of tivo and dvr, but live sports are at a premium because of that. That is what is driving these ridiculous tv deals for sports leagues and events.

A) your link, while a nice fluff piece, said nothing to further any argument for expansion.

B) you're miss interpreting the author's use of the terms "profit" and "net".
 of which he probably takes some blame.


remember also that BTN forked over to the league almost half that $242 mil in revenues, (with News Corp keeping the other 50 plus % of the $242 mil), that the league then distributed their cut 12 ways.

"profit" is some accounting function of what News Corp's accounting says it is.


as for the $30 mil in ad revenues, my guess is that is total ad revenues, with "net" being a misleading term.

if you think ad sales generates more that the 12%-14% of total revenues, you're just wrong.



all that said, being that BTN is already being viewed in all 50 states, including NJ and Md, there is nothing to indicate that adding any one school, thus theoretically incrementally increasing all revenues, including ad sales, some percent in one small area, but not anywhere else, can offset a full share of the 50 state revenue model. 

quit thinking small. think national.

the B10 operates on a 50 state revenue model now, whether we're talking tier 1 or BTN or digital rights, or advertising, whatever.

it's all national.

were the B10's revenue model confined to the 9 current footprint states, then one could argue adding a school could justify a full share of revenues.

but that's not the case. not even close.

it's a 50 state revenue model now.

that's why adding a school can't ever generate enough added revenue to offset a full share of the already 50 state model.

slim02 wrote:
Revenue or Total Revenue is the top line gross sales.  Net Revenue is NOT profit or net income.  Profits or Net Income removes expenses from the revenue figures. 

The difference between Total Revenues and Net Revenues is typically things that shouldn't have been recorded as revenues or things that distorts the revenues figures.  It's usually stuff like rebates or returns.

I think the 12-14% is more accurate.

IrishTerryConklin wrote: Maybe I'm missing something but what bat is talking about is the rumor that we'll be adding Johns Hopkins for lacrosse only.  Sounds good to me as it will help Maryland and could entice other targets.

UIEightyThree wrote: http://www.mrsec.com/2013/02/n...ainst-maryland/

accoring to this site,  multiple sources say  UVa and GaTech have talked with B1G league offices, and one source says  UNC & Duke have as well.   

they are all in a holding pattern until the lawsuit between Md & ACC is settled.

looks like UVa is pretty much a safe bet as our 15th at some point in time

jms397 wrote:

UIEightyThree wrote: http://www.mrsec.com/2013/02/n...ainst-maryland/

accoring to this site,  multiple sources say  UVa and GaTech have talked with B1G league offices, and one source says  UNC & Duke have as well.   

they are all in a holding pattern until the lawsuit between Md & ACC is settled.

looks like UVa is pretty much a safe bet as our 15th at some point in time

Football drives the bus, so I don't see Duke getting an offer.  GT is not in a state that is contiguous to the Big Ten, so I don't see them in either.Personally, I like the idea of UNC and Virginia.  Decent enough in football and strong academically.