First, let me say Welcome to this board. Thoughtful posts are always welcomed.

Frank the Tank Wrote:Yeah - as soon as I posted I realized that I hadn't taken into account Rutgers. That being said, Rutgers is located in the NYC market but doesn't really "deliver" it, where they draw a critical mass of viewers year-in and year-out (I'm not just talking about the last couple of years with the front-running New York media). I think that you can argue that Louisville, Pitt, UConn (with Hartford), West Virginia and Syracuse (upstate New York) "deliver" their respective local markets out of the football schools, but the others are pretty tenuous. This is the Big East's biggest obstacle to a successful TV network: its base of schools don't really deliver the largest markets in the same manner as the other BCS conferences do.

I think we should make clear here that we are talking football (clarification not for you, but for others reading the post who may not realize the mental caveat you are working from - that football "drives" this engine). Obviously I think you would recognize that in terms of basketball, the Big East "delivers" its market better than any other conference.

Now with that clarification in place, there is an obvious reason why the Big East doesn't deliver its market the way that other regional conferences do for football. And the reason for this is that the northeast region has never had a conference with all of its major football programs (and adopted programs) in it. If it had such a conference it could root for, it would likely deliver its market for football as well as, if not better than, the two leaders in this area - the SEC and the Big Ten.

As a matter of fact, I would argue that if the sport of college football truly wishes to expand its overall market and increase its ratings it is in the sports best interest that such a league come about.

But certain conferences and individual programs, in their own best interests, will always seek to ensure that such a conference does not come to fruition.

Cheers,
Neil

omnicarrier Wrote:

Hoquista Wrote:

Frank the Tank Wrote:

animus Wrote:

TheLurker Wrote:With the cash that the Big Ten and [albiet relative cash] the MWC are raking in from thier TV networks, I think the Big East should at least consider it. We could always have NBC/ABC/ESPN barter for the rights to some of the bigger games. I'm sure we could get some coverage in New England [namely New York, New Jersey and Conn.] and maybe in some of the seconday markets as well, such as Louisville or Tampa.

Welcome to the board Lurker.

I'll agree to disagree with you Lurker. See the more conferences that get their own networks the more spots on ABC, CBS, Fox and ESPN the Big East will get. I know the Big East don't have a contract with CBS and FOX but who knows what will be available come time for new contracts.

I think it's extremely important to point out that the Big Ten actually increased the number of football games on ABC/ESPN (including national carriage of all football games where an ABC game that isn't shown in a particular market will still be shown on ESPN in such market as opposed to being kicked to the pay-per-view GamePlan) and basketball games on CBS/ESPN in its last contract. The football and basketball games that the BTN took over were the ones that used to be on the syndicated ESPN Plus package. So, the point is that each Big Ten school is making over $6 million per year a piece from the BTN for its second-tier sports events while pulling even more in increased national rights fees and coverage for its premium games (i.e. Michigan-Ohio State). As a result, it's wrong to assume that other conferences creating their own networks will create any more slots on the major networks. The SEC, for example, would likely use the games that have been on Jefferson Pilot/Raycom as the basis for their network (if and when it is created) while keeping the same contracts in place with CBS and ESPN. Once again, we're talking about creating huge sums of cash and exposure for second-tier games that weren't nationally televised before while still retaining the wide exposure on the major networks. It's a massive misnomer to state that there are currenly fewer Big Ten games on ABC/ESPN/CBS as a result of the BTN - it's actually the opposite.

You are correct in that in the beginning the BTN is essentially only taking games that were going to be on ESPN+. However, the ultimate goal of the network and other conference networks is that once they reach the point of cable % as ESPN2 or eventuallly ESPN is to essentially cut out the middleman (ESPN) and just have everything or almost everything broadcast on the BTN. That may take a while and I think that ABC/ESPN has first choice but the Big 10/ABC contract runs to 2016. In that way (and it may take a while) ESPN will have slots open up.

Agreed, Hoquista. But that is still ten years away.

What isn't factored into this equation yet is that a lot of the games that ESPN used to show on ESPN+ are being pushed over to ESPNU.

But, because of the BTN, I don't believe any of their games are going to ESPNU. For the SEC and ACC, Raycom is their regional rights owner or the equivalent of ESPN+.

So ESPNU would only have a shot of getting the ACC games that ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/Raycom chose not to televise. And for the SEC, it would be CBS, ESPN Saturday Night, and Raycom. If they get their own network, what games are going to be shown on CBS's new CSN (formerly CSTV)? Not to mention FOX and all of their Regional FOX Sports Networks.

Is there an opportunity for those conferences not strong enough to command their own networks now and for the foreseeable future to partner with ABC/ESPN for ESPNU or with CBS for CSN or with FOX and their Regional Sports affiliates for let's say 20-25% of the profits?

And I believe that carriage of those networks, particularly ESPNU, will increase over the next five years to reach between 50%-60% of all TVHHs. So if a partnership could be worked out, the carriage fees might be raised for TVHHs in the states that "belong" to those conferences, increasing the profit for the network involved as well.

It's not the same as having the BTN, but it's better than nothing. Anyway, I think it's worth at least considering.

Cheers,
Neil

Good point!