KnightLight Wrote:

omnicarrier Wrote:Rough estimates then would be:

Pennsylvania - 5 million subscribers at $5 = $25 million
Illinois - just under 5 million subscribers at $5 = $24 million
Ohio - 4.5 million subscribers at $5 = $23 million
Michigan - 4.5 million subscribers at $5 = $23 million
Indiana - 2.75 million subscribers at $5 = $14 million
Wisconsin - 2.4 million subscribers at $5 = $12 million
Minnesota - 2 million subscribers at $5 = $10 million
Iowa - 1.5 million subscribers at $5 = $7.5 million

Your numbers are off...WAY off on the high side.

Sorry...clicked reply before posting link. (FYI...Cable's TV MArket Share has dropped from 89% in 2000 to just 71% in 2006...as Satellite's market share is now approaching 30%.)

http://www.ipbusinessmag.com/departments...icle_id=17

So DirectTV/Dish subscribers will get the BTN for free while actual Cable subscribers will pay $13.20 a year?

The numbers above reflect the fact that roughly 84% of the TV households in America have cable/directTV/dish - cable was used (and will continued to be used by me) for shorthand.

Cheers,
Neil

Cubanbull Wrote:Omni
Going back to the markets, if we ever did get the actual TV contracts amount for football and basketball we would be able to compare.
But if im not mistaken the difference between the football TV money/8 and the basketball tv money/16 is not great

The football is approximately $15 million a year and the bb, including the CBS contract is approximately $27 million a year.

The closest BCS football contract to the Big East's is the ACC's which is approximately $40 million. The ONLY basketball contract higher than the Big East's (even in per team amount) is the ACC's $30 million - and that is through Raycom/Lincoln Financial Sports. ESPN wasn't willing to go that high for the ACC basketball TV contract.

National TV pays way more for football than basketball.

Quote:So in effect IF basketball reach was so much better shouldnt the amount per team be a lot larger?

You partly answer your own question with the following...

Quote:If according to the report in the WV paper the TV money was 19 mill for 05-06. I think football was cut down to 7 mill at that time, so that left 12 mill for basketball.

If those numbers are correct it doesnt show the reach in basketbal markets that the BE should have.

The above is basically correct for the ESPN portions. However, keep in mind, those lower figures were the re-negotiated figures for the league as the result of expansion - in other words, taking into consideration the five new additions. It's not as though the new contract was suddenly taking into consideration the new expansion teams.

Which means that the football contract went from $8 million to $15 million for football - but only for 5 of the 6 years of this upcoming contract - since the new football deal doesn't take effect until 2008.

The basketball went from $12 million to $23 million for all 6 years.

So why the increases? Well, partly the basketball contract came about as the result of record national ratings during the 2005-06 season. Which teams delivered those record ratings? The usual suspects - Connecticut, Louisville, and Syracuse. But ESPN knew in the $12 million contract they were getting those three solid national draws. However there were two new programs in 2005-06 that hadn't been in the mix for about a decade, Villanova and Georgetown.

The other reasons why the increase was because of the sheer amount of product and the market 'reach' factor.

As for football, well the only significant event that had happened for the Big East in the 2005-06 season was West Virginia's win over the Georgia in the Sugar Bowl.

So, it isn't hard to imagine that Jurich and the others 'sold' ESPN on the fact that if the combined pull and reach of the Big East could produce great ratings for basketball, then there would be a trickle effect over in football as well. So, ESPN took a gamble - but only for 5 of the 6 years of the contract for basically $13 million a year for 6 years.

And while the contract was settled prior to these events, the ratings for Louisville vs West Virginia and Louisville vs Rutgers games prove that to be correct.

Cheers,
Neil

Cubanbull Wrote:

tigersharktwo Wrote:How does BE football get a better tv package?Thats why they tried for Army and Navy.Hopefully ,more great football seasons will help more.The movement of ND to 3 BE games per year in 2010.(the realities of their new scheduling format).The improvement in more top flight BCS games by BE football members.D'ont forget the new tv contract is better than the current tv contract.

According to those number the BE football per team take from the football contract was almost the same as our highly ranked and tv market driven basketball league. If thats the case then those markets havent done the job for BE basketball.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

The new B12 contract is for $60 million a year. There have been conflicting reports that the football is either for 45 or 48, which means that the basketball is either for 12 or 15 million.

If the B12 were to split their monies evenly, each individual team would be receiving between:

3.75 - 4 million for football
1 - 1.25 million for basketball

For the Big East, the 8 football members starting in 2008 will receive:

1.85 million for football
1.7 million for basketball

For the life of this contract (the entire 6 years)

1.65 million for football
1.7 million for basketball

The ONLY BCS league, outside of the Big East, that has ever had their basketball TV monies basically even with their football monies is the Old 9-team ACC - and even then they were in the 2.5 million range for both. And I don't think any BCS league has ever had their basketball monies actually exceed their football monies since I've been following these trends from the mid-90s onward.

Again, it's the football side of the house that was the issue at the time the last deal was negotiated. This doesn't mean that all of the bb schools are contributing equally. Nor does it mean that the football schools are entirely to blame, since one cure for the above is to add more football schools.

Unfortunately, the question facing the BE football presidents is how do they increase the value of the football contracts significantly without hurting the value of the bb contracts significantly?

And keeping in mind the original intent of this thread, what carrot can they use to possible entice some of those who might bring significantly increased value to the football contracts?

Cheers,
Neil

Neil
But my point is that having those "markets" from the basketball schools really dont seem to make that much of a difference. The BIG money is in the football side, Im just saying that if there is a split the TV basketball money difference will be pretty small.

Cubanbull Wrote:Neil
But my point is that having those "markets" from the basketball schools really dont seem to make that much of a difference. The BIG money is in the football side, Im just saying that if there is a split the TV basketball money difference will be pretty small.

Yep, down to about 1 million instead of 1.7 million.

But the question becomes, does adding Memphis, ECU, or UCF increase the football contract significantly enough to offset the additional mouth to feed?

I don't have the answer to that question.

One of the reasons why the football contract jumped was because of the potential reach - the Big East getting regional showings in Chicago, Milwaukee, Baltimore, and DC. The assumption being that the regional games will lead to interest in the league (even if it is only a small % in Big Ten and ACC lands - three of those are huge markets so even a 1% increase is a lot) to the point where the overall 'pull' of the league increases.

Does the Big East keep those 4 markets with a true split? Perhaps Baltimore and DC (thanks to MASN needing program), but perhaps not (should MASN go belly up - which is a distinct possibility)?

Now, if the league adds ECU to try and keep Baltimore and DC, and add Raleigh and Charlotte markets to replace Chicago and Milwaukee that seems to be a fair exchange.

But to feed the additional mouth, ECU needs to increase the football package by 1.85 per year plus 500K for the loss in bb TV revenue plus another 500K in terms of BCS/Bowl revenue. That totals to 2.85 million ECU would need to generate for the league just to stay even.

Keep in mind, when Louisville, Cincinnati, South Florida, Marquette, and DePaul were first added to the league they brought in initially approximately another $4 million combined, 1 million for each football school and 500K for each bb school. I think that is your base starting platform.

Cheers,
Neil

Bearcat 1984 Wrote:1. The Plus One Playoff (semifinals) are limited to NO MORE THAN ONE representative of each conference.

I like this thinking

omnicarrier Wrote:But the question becomes, does adding Memphis, ECU, or UCF increase the football contract significantly enough to offset the additional mouth to feed?

I don't have the answer to that question.

Perhaps, but I think we can define the factors that will form the basis for the answer.

By accounts it appears the big difference between the BE contract and those of other conferences is the time and value alloted for national exposure. While the BE has done well with it's mid-week games, it hasn't landed enough of the coveted prime Saturday slots that are assigned to the perennial powers. Thus, on the surface it can be assumed that adding programs from CUSA, programs that currently do not garner that prime Saturday attention nor appear on the same doorsteps as Louisville 3 years ago, won't help the BE make headway in that area.

A lot will depend on the market value of those teams still on the fringe of the national radar. Should UConn or USF progress or if Cuse and Pitt return to past successful form, then there is a larger pool of attractive games for ESPN and ABC to show, without the need to add new teams. Should the conference fluster in gaining national appeal beyond 2-3 prime contenders, however, adding new teams in more football friendly regions could at least increase the # of regionally promoted contests and increase the opportunity for other programs to rise up. But this comes with a risk: If the BE cannot develop attractive programs within the northeastern footprint then the value of the conferences market reach (as defined by Neil) is rendered sterile, per se.

Bottom line: Only when the additions equate to increased exposure on prime Saturday slots will the BE see significant increases in revenue via conference expansion.

GunnerFan Wrote:Bottom line: Only when the additions equate to increased exposure on prime Saturday slots will the BE see significant increases in revenue via conference expansion.

Correct. Or should the current crop of BE teams reach that level themselves, then the next crop needs to be "near Louisville" status to see significant increases in revenue.

Can current Big East teams 'blow-up' enough to warrant Saturday slots, particularly capturing/increasing northeastern markets?

I believe northeastern fans will adopt Louisville the way they adopted Nebraska, FSU, and Miami in the past, probably moreso if they continue to win.

West Virginia was adopted long ago. And of course there is always Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, and UConn.

The real issue are the two-ton gorillas in the room no one wants to mention - Penn State and Notre Dame.

Northeastern sports fans love winners and they especially love winners with tradition.

Cheers,
Neil

mattsarz Wrote:The population growth is both in the SE and in the rockies on west. Does that mean the mtn. will eventually have a larger market of folks? Over a long period of time, maybe.

I don't think the Mountain West Conference will grow all that much, since the major growth out west is in Big 12 and Pac 10 country. If the demographic shifts, perhaps. But for now, the growth pattern tends to suggest that the BCS conferences out west will be the ones to benefit.

Could be, I can tell you first hand from visiting Colorado Springs around Memorial Day that housing has grown by leaps and bounds and they have room to spare. Brand new hospitals & infrastructure, along with a climate that can be great to live in. Its just a matter of whether they want to preserve some of the open-ness.

I know. Colorado Springs is a nice town. My cousin is a programmer at NORAD, and he's been out there for over 25 years now. It has grown considerably since he first moved out there.

But the Air Force Academy doesn't really count. There the military will determine the population growth more than any other factor. The majority of the growth in Colorado that isn't around the resorts or NORAD is the Denver area, which includes Boulder. The other areas of high growth are in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon, Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington (thanks to Bill Gates).