(05-20-2014 09:29 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 08:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh it's funny. Certain persons proclaimed that Rutgers and Maryland wouldn't be enough to get this kind of insertion into the Cable Providers. I laughed because of course the Big Ten was going to get that insertion. You don't make that big of a move without having already gotten a feel for the situation in advance.

Now folks want to attack "The Numbers". Some folks definitely have a case of something, whether it be little brother disease or they are simply Big Ten haters and have to constantly try to rip on anything having to do with the Big Ten.

Either way, I laugh again.

Keep hating folks, keep hating. Meanwhile, I am looking forward to matchups such as Rutgers and Penn State. Unfortunately I don't have The Big Ten Network anymore.

I wish I didn't have the BTN either, but I'm still forced to pay for it on basic cable. Seriously, it sucks and I hope people finally wake up and force cable networks to stop forcing consumers to pay for other conference networks.

I seriously fail to understand why so many of you guys are running around posting how awesome it is for the conference your school belongs to has the ability to fleece people out of money. What do you POSSIBLY gain from this? Do you gain any money from this personally?

I guess a few of you must sit around beating off and fantasizing about all the money conference ABC or XYZ will be making...

Once again, you fail to properly represent my perspective.

I am laughing at your anger. I am laughing at your choice of wording over this. I am laughing at your childlike antics in your attempt to attack me over....a dollar a month. I am laughing at how poor you must be to make such a big deal about a dollar a month on a forum where all of your ranting and antics and insults will have absolutely zero effect on the situation.

Yes, I am beating off to how much I love The Big Ten Network. Oh wait..I don't have it anymore. Oh yes I am yelling to the Heavens about how awesome it is. Oh wait, I have never done that. It is ok and I watched some football games on it but that's it.

It must be that I am being paid by The Big Ten and the BTN. Now that....well think what you like. Honestly I don't care and will be amused if you go off on another tangent about that.

A dollar a month....

(05-20-2014 05:28 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 03:15 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Yeah, 3/4 of that to account for full carriage in New Jersey, rates negotiated down a bit elsewhere in greater NY would be a safer guess, which would be around $36m revenue to BTN. Since BTN is already in the black on operations, all those carriage fees are incremental profit, so $18m to the Big Ten, $18m to FOX, or more than $1m per school on the NYC deal alone ~ and, of course, any ad revenue gravy on top of that.

Even if that is a reasonable guess, it in itself doesn't cover the cost of adding the extra mouth to feed, does it?

These are just residual rights, for the FB games that are left after the broadcast and cable partners have picked their weekly games, the BBall games after the same, and for Big Ten hockey, lacrosse, baseball, volleyball (The Blind Side: "It's girl's volleyball, Mom. You didn't miss anything"), etc. They don't have to cover the cost of having one more mouth to feed all on their own ~ they just have to pull their weight in the total portfolio.

(05-20-2014 09:42 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 05:28 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 03:15 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Yeah, 3/4 of that to account for full carriage in New Jersey, rates negotiated down a bit elsewhere in greater NY would be a safer guess, which would be around $36m revenue to BTN. Since BTN is already in the black on operations, all those carriage fees are incremental profit, so $18m to the Big Ten, $18m to FOX, or more than $1m per school on the NYC deal alone ~ and, of course, any ad revenue gravy on top of that.

Even if that is a reasonable guess, it in itself doesn't cover the cost of adding the extra mouth to feed, does it?

These are just residual rights, for the FB games that are left after the broadcast and cable partners have picked their weekly games, the BBall games after the same, and for Big Ten hockey, lacrosse, baseball, volleyball (The Blind Side: "It's girl's volleyball, Mom. You didn't miss anything"), etc. They don't have to cover the cost of having one more mouth to feed all on their own ~ they just have to pull their weight in the total portfolio.

Big Ten Network broadcasts for football and basketball do not just involve residual rights. They involve "tier 2" broadcast rights if you want to use that jargon.

If RU and MD were in the Big Ten this past season, and were receiving full shares, they would have needed to at least bring in a combined net of $51.4 million ($25.7m X 2) to the conference (not to the network, the conference) in order to cover themselves and not cut into everyone else's disbursements. Otherwise, everyone else would have received less than the reported $25.7 million this year. It's simple division..

If these two schools don't each add more value than what will be their own annual cut of the conference disbursement, and really that means the share of disbursement that each of the other members would receive in the hypothetical that they weren't added, then what was the financial advantage of adding them? The answer is, they weren't added for a short-term financial play, they are there for a long-term strategy, and if you carefully examine the quotes out there, that comes through.

But the actual data to examine their net impact will never be available because it will be hidden in how their disbursements are phased in, how the various media contracts are backloaded, and soon, buried in the details of the new primary media contract with EPSN/Fox, which will likely be responsible for the biggest financial gains of the conference. But specifically regarding the BTN, those who actually look at what going rates out there are...things like Fox Sports 1 with the B12, Pac, Big East, UCF, and NASCAR getting 23 cents per subscriber...and then consider the assumptions that are out there that a handful of "tier 2" or "tier 3" Rutgers football games are going to bring in 2X, 3X, or 4X that amount...if that doesn't raise some eyebrows, than I don't know what to tell you.

Unfortunately, any cable package I buy has channels included that I don't watch. So, welcome to the party.

http://www.barkingcarnival.com/2014/5/20...ot-of-gold

The above link says the Big Ten is looking at north of $40M per school in tv revenue in 2017 (BTN + New TV Deal).

I assume that is their own projections based on what they think will be the new TV deal in 2016 + BTN. By then I think the BTN will be generating a payout of $9-10M per school, with Rutgers and Maryland (current payout about $7.5M per school).

I'm not sure I understand all the talk about Rutgers being an extra mouth to feed. Without Comcast figured in, on the low end adding Rutgers generates about $24M in revenue/year. Even if you only look at half (after taxes) being distributed to the 14 schools, its about $850K per school (we haven't even touched on advertising money increasing).

Honestly, maybe someone can explain how the SEC or potental ACC network model would be different? Whatever reasons you cite for the BTN is going to apply to other conference networks.

Funny how people like to claim they are all about the facts and yet they skim over all of the facts when it suits them.

The BTN actually nets more profit from advertising than it does carriage fees. Carriage fees are made public, advertising profits aren't so obvious to find. From what little has been said, the BTN averages around a 60/40 split. That includes a conference footprint that contains quite a bit of Midwestern low to middle population density area.

That means the area added by Rutgers and Maryland's inclusion is a much higher population density area in comparison with what the Big Ten is now on average. Getting into the Beltway is more about the Advertising than it is the Carriage Fees. The listing of carriage fees is nice and they are some decent numbers but what they tell us is that The BTN will now be collecting advertising fees for showing advertising on the Network in those high population areas.

They aren't telling you the entire story folks. Landing those cable deals was already known to be happening. The Big Ten set the schedule in order to insure that it happens and they already had contacts within such organizations that made it possible to insure that agreements would be made.

Keep tryin folks.

(05-20-2014 10:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Funny how people like to claim they are all about the facts and yet they skim over all of the facts when it suits them.

The BTN actually nets more profit from advertising than it does carriage fees. Carriage fees are made public, advertising profits aren't so obvious to find. From what little has been said, the BTN averages around a 60/40 split. That includes a conference footprint that contains quite a bit of Midwestern low to middle population density area.

That means the area added by Rutgers and Maryland's inclusion is a much higher population density area in comparison with what the Big Ten is now on average. Getting into the Beltway is more about the Advertising than it is the Carriage Fees. The listing of carriage fees is nice and they are some decent numbers but what they tell us is that The BTN will now be collecting advertising fees for showing advertising on the Network in those high population areas.

They aren't telling you the entire story folks. Landing those cable deals was already known to be happening. The Big Ten set the schedule in order to insure that it happens and they already had contacts within such organizations that made it possible to insure that agreements would be made.

Keep tryin folks.

So you have the numbers of increased advertising rates they're going to get then? No, I know you don't, because you don't even have numbers of increased carriage in the deal that was just announced.

But for sure its worth $Gazillions because a blogger with "back of the napkin" math said it was so!

(05-20-2014 09:41 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 09:29 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 08:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh it's funny. Certain persons proclaimed that Rutgers and Maryland wouldn't be enough to get this kind of insertion into the Cable Providers. I laughed because of course the Big Ten was going to get that insertion. You don't make that big of a move without having already gotten a feel for the situation in advance.

Now folks want to attack "The Numbers". Some folks definitely have a case of something, whether it be little brother disease or they are simply Big Ten haters and have to constantly try to rip on anything having to do with the Big Ten.

Either way, I laugh again.

Keep hating folks, keep hating. Meanwhile, I am looking forward to matchups such as Rutgers and Penn State. Unfortunately I don't have The Big Ten Network anymore.

I wish I didn't have the BTN either, but I'm still forced to pay for it on basic cable. Seriously, it sucks and I hope people finally wake up and force cable networks to stop forcing consumers to pay for other conference networks.

I seriously fail to understand why so many of you guys are running around posting how awesome it is for the conference your school belongs to has the ability to fleece people out of money. What do you POSSIBLY gain from this? Do you gain any money from this personally?

I guess a few of you must sit around beating off and fantasizing about all the money conference ABC or XYZ will be making...

Once again, you fail to properly represent my perspective.

I am laughing at your anger. I am laughing at your choice of wording over this. I am laughing at your childlike antics in your attempt to attack me over....a dollar a month. I am laughing at how poor you must be to make such a big deal about a dollar a month on a forum where all of your ranting and antics and insults will have absolutely zero effect on the situation.

Yes, I am beating off to how much I love The Big Ten Network. Oh wait..I don't have it anymore. Oh yes I am yelling to the Heavens about how awesome it is. Oh wait, I have never done that. It is ok and I watched some football games on it but that's it.

It must be that I am being paid by The Big Ten and the BTN. Now that....well think what you like. Honestly I don't care and will be amused if you go off on another tangent about that.

A dollar a month....

It's not a question about whether it's affordable or not. It's a crappy way to force consumers to pay for something that the majority of them really don't care to have. I'm bemused by how many of you get all excited over conference networks.

I pay $0.25 for something I don't want hence me going back to Time Warner

(05-20-2014 10:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Funny how people like to claim they are all about the facts and yet they skim over all of the facts when it suits them.

The BTN actually nets more profit from advertising than it does carriage fees. Carriage fees are made public, advertising profits aren't so obvious to find. From what little has been said, the BTN averages around a 60/40 split. That includes a conference footprint that contains quite a bit of Midwestern low to middle population density area.

That means the area added by Rutgers and Maryland's inclusion is a much higher population density area in comparison with what the Big Ten is now on average. Getting into the Beltway is more about the Advertising than it is the Carriage Fees. The listing of carriage fees is nice and they are some decent numbers but what they tell us is that The BTN will now be collecting advertising fees for showing advertising on the Network in those high population areas.

They aren't telling you the entire story folks. Landing those cable deals was already known to be happening. The Big Ten set the schedule in order to insure that it happens and they already had contacts within such organizations that made it possible to insure that agreements would be made.

Keep tryin folks.

Cool story...and the BTN has zero production costs too!

(05-20-2014 10:08 PM)Topkat Wrote:  Unfortunately, any cable package I buy has channels included that I don't watch. So, welcome to the party.

http://www.barkingcarnival.com/2014/5/20...ot-of-gold

The above link says the Big Ten is looking at north of $40M per school in tv revenue in 2017 (BTN + New TV Deal).

I assume that is their own projections based on what they think will be the new TV deal in 2016 + BTN. By then I think the BTN will be generating a payout of $9-10M per school, with Rutgers and Maryland (current payout about $7.5M per school).

I'm not sure I understand all the talk about Rutgers being an extra mouth to feed. Without Comcast figured in, on the low end adding Rutgers generates about $24M in revenue/year. Even if you only look at half (after taxes) being distributed to the 14 schools, its about $850K per school (we haven't even touched on advertising money increasing).

Honestly, maybe someone can explain how the SEC or potental ACC network model would be different? Whatever reasons you cite for the BTN is going to apply to other conference networks.

Please list your calculations how Rutgers will add $24 million with Comcast figured in. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but there is no data in that blog that can determine that, and likely, there will be nothing forthcoming to determine that.

BTW, that over $40 million number in 2017 (actually $44.5 million) was from an article in the Lafayette Journal & Courier and included projections for the entirety of the per team conference disbursement that is expected in the first year of their primary media deal with ESPN and/or Fox. That number included everything, not just media rights, including College Football Playoff payouts, NCAA tournament, bowls, etc, as well as Big Ten Network profit shares that they are distributing for the first time this year. That projection also makes a lot of assumptions about a contract that isn't yet negotiated, and is also during a time when MD and RU have not yet been fully integrated financially.

To address this, consider that the Big Ten isn't getting a dime more from the College Football Playoff because it has MD and Rutgers, it likely isn't getting anything significantly more from bowls because of those two, it isn't going to generate more revenue from its football championship, and well, we'll see how well those two do in the NCAA Tournament. There is no way to know how much those two would add to the future ESPN/Fox contract over and above the increases the Big Ten would have received anyway, and the only thing you can consider is to ask yourself how much value those two schools brought to their prior Big East/ACC contracts, which didn't seem like a whole lot, especially for Rutgers. How much will they contribute to Big Ten Network earnings?...that's only one piece of that $44.5m projection ..there is no way to tell without making a ton of assumptions unless you have the actual numbers about increased carriage, subscriber rates, advertising rates in the new markets, profit share increases due to just those two teams, everything. No one has these numbers.

This is the danger of lazy bloggers just throwing numbers together without consideration of context. People's eyes get wide and they get all lathered up over big numbers. We can diverge from the Big Ten and also look at the ridiculous projections that were made about the Pac-12 and SEC networks being instant cash machines; but the reality is far from that. The point isn't that these networks may not eventually make money, because they will, but how the blog-o-sphere is more about splashy headlines than examining information in detail and context.

(05-20-2014 10:29 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 09:41 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 09:29 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 08:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh it's funny. Certain persons proclaimed that Rutgers and Maryland wouldn't be enough to get this kind of insertion into the Cable Providers. I laughed because of course the Big Ten was going to get that insertion. You don't make that big of a move without having already gotten a feel for the situation in advance.

Now folks want to attack "The Numbers". Some folks definitely have a case of something, whether it be little brother disease or they are simply Big Ten haters and have to constantly try to rip on anything having to do with the Big Ten.

Either way, I laugh again.

Keep hating folks, keep hating. Meanwhile, I am looking forward to matchups such as Rutgers and Penn State. Unfortunately I don't have The Big Ten Network anymore.

I wish I didn't have the BTN either, but I'm still forced to pay for it on basic cable. Seriously, it sucks and I hope people finally wake up and force cable networks to stop forcing consumers to pay for other conference networks.

I seriously fail to understand why so many of you guys are running around posting how awesome it is for the conference your school belongs to has the ability to fleece people out of money. What do you POSSIBLY gain from this? Do you gain any money from this personally?

I guess a few of you must sit around beating off and fantasizing about all the money conference ABC or XYZ will be making...

Once again, you fail to properly represent my perspective.

I am laughing at your anger. I am laughing at your choice of wording over this. I am laughing at your childlike antics in your attempt to attack me over....a dollar a month. I am laughing at how poor you must be to make such a big deal about a dollar a month on a forum where all of your ranting and antics and insults will have absolutely zero effect on the situation.

Yes, I am beating off to how much I love The Big Ten Network. Oh wait..I don't have it anymore. Oh yes I am yelling to the Heavens about how awesome it is. Oh wait, I have never done that. It is ok and I watched some football games on it but that's it.

It must be that I am being paid by The Big Ten and the BTN. Now that....well think what you like. Honestly I don't care and will be amused if you go off on another tangent about that.

A dollar a month....

It's not a question about whether it's affordable or not. It's a crappy way to force consumers to pay for something that the majority of them really don't care to have. I'm bemused by how many of you get all excited over conference networks.

I'm sure I will be bemused by how happy you are for the ACC and Pitt should the ACC get one of their own.

(05-20-2014 10:20 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 10:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Funny how people like to claim they are all about the facts and yet they skim over all of the facts when it suits them.

The BTN actually nets more profit from advertising than it does carriage fees. Carriage fees are made public, advertising profits aren't so obvious to find. From what little has been said, the BTN averages around a 60/40 split. That includes a conference footprint that contains quite a bit of Midwestern low to middle population density area.

That means the area added by Rutgers and Maryland's inclusion is a much higher population density area in comparison with what the Big Ten is now on average. Getting into the Beltway is more about the Advertising than it is the Carriage Fees. The listing of carriage fees is nice and they are some decent numbers but what they tell us is that The BTN will now be collecting advertising fees for showing advertising on the Network in those high population areas.

They aren't telling you the entire story folks. Landing those cable deals was already known to be happening. The Big Ten set the schedule in order to insure that it happens and they already had contacts within such organizations that made it possible to insure that agreements would be made.

Keep tryin folks.

So you have the numbers of increased advertising rates they're going to get then? No, I know you don't, because you don't even have numbers of increased carriage in the deal that was just announced.

But for sure its worth $Gazillions because a blogger with "back of the napkin" math said it was so!

I don't have to have the numbers. I have the business model. Gazillions? Really? What is with you Pitt guys? You get so bent out of shape over the Big Ten and what it has going on. So amusing.

(05-20-2014 10:45 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 10:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Funny how people like to claim they are all about the facts and yet they skim over all of the facts when it suits them.

The BTN actually nets more profit from advertising than it does carriage fees. Carriage fees are made public, advertising profits aren't so obvious to find. From what little has been said, the BTN averages around a 60/40 split. That includes a conference footprint that contains quite a bit of Midwestern low to middle population density area.

That means the area added by Rutgers and Maryland's inclusion is a much higher population density area in comparison with what the Big Ten is now on average. Getting into the Beltway is more about the Advertising than it is the Carriage Fees. The listing of carriage fees is nice and they are some decent numbers but what they tell us is that The BTN will now be collecting advertising fees for showing advertising on the Network in those high population areas.

They aren't telling you the entire story folks. Landing those cable deals was already known to be happening. The Big Ten set the schedule in order to insure that it happens and they already had contacts within such organizations that made it possible to insure that agreements would be made.

Keep tryin folks.

Cool story...and the BTN has zero production costs too!

You do realize that has nothing to do with my point. Of course it has production costs. Seriously, did you think this little one liner was witty when you slapped it together?

Iowa buddy...no one knows what the net is going to be. For all we know the B1G is netting 25 cents a script....let's wait.

(05-21-2014 12:26 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Iowa buddy...no one knows what the net is going to be. For all we know the B1G is netting 25 cents a script....let's wait.

You're right, but we are not saying we know it. What we are saying is that folks like you and the "Pitt Posse" and the rest of the ACC Gang on this forum swore up and down that Maryland and Rutgers would not be enough to get the BTN shown in the Beltway.

What We are saying is that you were wrong. Now you guys want to try and reformulate the debate because you are having to slide from the original debate because you lost it.

What I said is that the BTN revenue stream is not JUST carriage fee's and I said that because it seemed like some of you are trying to base your entire argument off of the carriage fees and whether or not a school like Rutgers is a positive or negative. Well then one also has to add in all the advertising gained from that Beltway area, not just carriage fee numbers. Yet when that point, which is valid, is made...all I get are personal attacks upon me.

It isn't surprising at all. You guys all have serious issues and should really just ignore any threads that bring up the Big Ten.

(05-20-2014 09:37 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  I just like BTN so I can watch college hockey and baseball...

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I watch home ND hockey games on NBC Sports. The rest of the college hockey world? No interest.

I watch ND home baseball games on WatchND, ESPNU and I personally attend games in Louisiana and Texas.

The rest of college baseball? No interest. I don't even avail myself of my Firm's free tickets to go watch LSU baseball.

If ND were in the Big Ten, I would never watch a non-ND Big Ten athletic contest on televsion.

If the ACC ever gets a network, I won't watch a non-ND ACC game, either.

(05-20-2014 09:41 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 09:29 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 08:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh it's funny. Certain persons proclaimed that Rutgers and Maryland wouldn't be enough to get this kind of insertion into the Cable Providers. I laughed because of course the Big Ten was going to get that insertion. You don't make that big of a move without having already gotten a feel for the situation in advance.

Now folks want to attack "The Numbers". Some folks definitely have a case of something, whether it be little brother disease or they are simply Big Ten haters and have to constantly try to rip on anything having to do with the Big Ten.

Either way, I laugh again.

Keep hating folks, keep hating. Meanwhile, I am looking forward to matchups such as Rutgers and Penn State. Unfortunately I don't have The Big Ten Network anymore.

I wish I didn't have the BTN either, but I'm still forced to pay for it on basic cable. Seriously, it sucks and I hope people finally wake up and force cable networks to stop forcing consumers to pay for other conference networks.

I seriously fail to understand why so many of you guys are running around posting how awesome it is for the conference your school belongs to has the ability to fleece people out of money. What do you POSSIBLY gain from this? Do you gain any money from this personally?

I guess a few of you must sit around beating off and fantasizing about all the money conference ABC or XYZ will be making...

Once again, you fail to properly represent my perspective.

I am laughing at your anger. I am laughing at your choice of wording over this. I am laughing at your childlike antics in your attempt to attack me over....a dollar a month. I am laughing at how poor you must be to make such a big deal about a dollar a month on a forum where all of your ranting and antics and insults will have absolutely zero effect on the situation.

Yes, I am beating off to how much I love The Big Ten Network. Oh wait..I don't have it anymore. Oh yes I am yelling to the Heavens about how awesome it is. Oh wait, I have never done that. It is ok and I watched some football games on it but that's it.

It must be that I am being paid by The Big Ten and the BTN. Now that....well think what you like. Honestly I don't care and will be amused if you go off on another tangent about that.

A dollar a month....

I wouldn't like it if one dollar a month was extorted from me and paid to Al Qaeda, either. It is only ten cents a month from me and I don't like it. I would pay twenty bucks a month to remove that channel I never watch (if I had that option).

So, here in Baton Rouge, my issue is over ten cents a month, not a buck.

It is not the money, it is the recipient. :)

People in Indiana may end up feeling the same way about having to pay a buck a month for an ACC network because they are in the "ACC footprint".

I wouldn't blame them.

(05-20-2014 08:50 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Welcome to party Yanks...
I been paying for this crappy station for a few years now. Have never watched it once. Until a majority of people complain we are all stuck paying for this crap. Same with The SEC Network, Longhorn Network and the planned ACC Network.

I don't give a crap about SEC Football anymore than I do boring Big Ten Football or ACC Volleyball for that matter. I am a Louisville fan. If a game doesn't involve Louisville I don't want to pay for it.

I would guess I am not the only one who feels this way. I don't want fans in other areas in the country to have to pay to watch my team.
CJ

I second the motion.

(05-21-2014 06:39 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 08:50 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Welcome to party Yanks...
I been paying for this crappy station for a few years now. Have never watched it once. Until a majority of people complain we are all stuck paying for this crap. Same with The SEC Network, Longhorn Network and the planned ACC Network.

I don't give a crap about SEC Football anymore than I do boring Big Ten Football or ACC Volleyball for that matter. I am a Louisville fan. If a game doesn't involve Louisville I don't want to pay for it.

I would guess I am not the only one who feels this way. I don't want fans in other areas in the country to have to pay to watch my team.
CJ

I second the motion.

Third. No conference network (including an ACC one) should be able to get away with this.

These networks should all stand or fail on a subscription basis, paid for by people who actually want them.

So the Pitt and Syracuse guys are the naysayers.

I AM SHOCKED.