Here are the subscriber fees for all of the cable networks.

.25 cents seems more realistic then 1.10, based on what every other network is getting.

(04-22-2010 06:23 PM)ECMAN79 Wrote:  Here are the subscriber fees for all of the cable networks.

.25 cents seems more realistic then 1.10, based on what every other network is getting.

You The Man ECMan79. Where did you find this info?

I was wondering the same thing myself, cuse. So I went looking. Here ya go...

(04-22-2010 07:31 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I was wondering the same thing myself, cuse. So I went looking. Here ya go...

Thanks, but I dont know how reliable anything on wiki would be. I have received wrong info from there on more than one occasion.

It gave the same numbers as the previous list...

(04-22-2010 08:14 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-22-2010 07:31 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I was wondering the same thing myself, cuse. So I went looking. Here ya go...

Thanks, but I dont know how reliable anything on wiki would be. I have received wrong info from there on more than one occasion.

I found it in 2 places:

http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100308...eason-why/
http://consumerist.com/2010/03/list-of-s...-hate.html

Apparently, it came out during the Cablevision/ABC dispute last month:

"After the spat between Cablevision and Disney invaded the Oscar telecast last Sunday, the fees channels charge cable companies (who then pass them along to you) have come into the spotlight. All Things Digital posted a list from industry analyst SNL Kagan that shows the wholesale prices each channel charges cable companies for their product.

The list is making the rounds as fodder for a la carte cable activists. It makes it very apparent how much of your bill goes to sports programming -- which tends to irritate people who hate sports. Alternatively, you can study the list and count how many stupid makeover shows you are unwillingly paying for.

Keep in mind these are wholesale prices, cable companies obviously mark-up the prices, profit, etc. Meanwhile, it seems that the whole ABC/Cablevision was just a dress rehearsal for the real showdown: Time Warner Cable VS ABC. Look for that to get crazy in August as TWC's deal expires."

(03-03-2010 09:53 AM)KnightChris Wrote:  Put simply, we don't have enough programming.

Ding!

With just 8 football members...and sometimes left with just 1 or 2 conf games on SATURDAY (ESPN gobbles up one or both of those games), there is very little football programming left to choose from...especially since Football is KING in regards to TV $$$.

Having 8 members while playing the fewest conf games of any major conf...that hurts programming options...especially if one is going to spend millions of $$$ starting a NEW one.

PS. Paul Tagliabue might finally be able to teach the Hoop Mafia in Providence a thing or two about FOOTBALL TV Revenue/Contract Negotiations and conference make-up.

(04-22-2010 02:40 PM)MU88 Wrote:  

(04-22-2010 02:14 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  considering the thread on the BE Network, I thought it would cool to bump Buckaineer's thread to read his proposal a few months ago.

A few flaws in his post. The Big Ten averages about 36 cents per subscriber, not the $1.10. So, using his number, even if the BE received a $.25 per month for its network, it would generate about $4 million per month in fees. Split it with the corporate partner and you get $2 million per month or $24 million per year year. Nice change, but not a huge amount. Ad revenue would increase that amount. That said, I think 28 million homes is low. Plus, you have Directv, Dish, etc.

Next, football is not the reason for a conference network. It supplies very little content on the Big 10 network and the value of those games are minimal. Its the bottom of the barrel games, e.g. Northwestern vs. Indiana football. They may throw the network a bone once in a while, but all of the good Big 10 games are on ABC or ESPN.

Consequently, football is not the driver for a conference sports network. No, basketball is the major supplier for content on the Big 10 network. You have the vast majority of men's and women's games on the network and it is the main programming from late November to March. With this in mind, one has to remember that the BE is the best basketball conference. The conference would have a bigger stable of games, more quality games and more live content than the Big 10. Also, the BE has lacrosse. Plus, baseball, soccer and all of the other olympic sports. A BE network could be very successful and, for once, its hybred arrangement would be a positive for the conference since it add significantly to the volume of live content the network could offer.

I think you are confusing programming options with REVENUE.

Go ask the Big Ten Network what they get for FOOTBALL Advertising (even their Coaches Shows) vs the Ad $$$ they get from Basketball, Lacrosse, Baseball, etc...

Follow the $$$$$$$...that is why football is KING!

ECU averaged over 43,000 last year and that's with CUSA schools coming to town. VT was the biggest attraction last year. ECU easily draw 50 plus with a Rutgers,Pitt, WV, CUSE, L'ville, Cincy, UCONN coming to town on a regular basis. It wouldn't be long before we would be expanding again on the south side.

In all of the scenarios posted and suggested by buckaineer and others--I don't think anyone has actually assumed the very real costs of putting 'BE-T' on the air. You've got labor costs to consider--on-air talent, in-studio production staff, live event production staff, sales, management, maintenance, etc. You've got to have equipment, which would have to include the network's online presence. Also, consider facilities; where will the network be located?

What might be most importantly forgotten is that Big Ten didn't go into this venture alone. The Big Ten network is a joint venture between that conference and Fox Cable Networks, part of the News Corporation media behemoth. The mtn is a joint venture between Comcast Sports Group (its regional sports outlets) and CBS College Sports (nee CSTV).
Who can the Big East partner with to get this sports channel off the ground? They'd have to be okay with losing money--I don't think BTN has operated in the black until the last year or two.

Launching a new TV venture is a long haul venture. There are more pressing issues than how much subscriber money could be theoretically made.