Throw politics into the realm of things as well. When LSU was looking at canning Les Miles, a bunch of political types really got their panties in a bunch. There were questions pointed towards LSU like, "How can you afford a $15million buyout for a FB coach and not pay to repair buildings on campus?" While we all know how that is possible, It signifies a political shift. Texas already takes funds from the AD and gives them to the General Fund to the tone of about $10 million. Politicians fired many shots across bows with the last realignment. The last thing the conferences/ADs/Presidents want are politicians stepping in a regulating.
MUST-READ: Pete Thamel on the future of the Big 12
- Thread starter ChrisMWilliams
- Start date
Does anyone know if Cyclones.TV makes money? I assume there is a spreadsheet somewhere in the athletic department that has revenues and expenses.
You're missing the point of the B1G adding Rutgers and Maryland. They get paid when people subscribe to B1G Network. They want cable networks in New York City and Washington D.C. to add the B1G Network to one of their standard tiers. College sports aren't huge in those metros, but they are big enough for the B1G to achieve their goal. That's their model.
Except it is a single school with hardly any valuable content. Maybe you are not a proponent of single school networks you are just stating a fact but single school networks are not going to be very valuable going forward IMO, there is just not enough valuable content.
You are correct and then add up the Michigan, PSU, OSU and other B1G grads in NYC on top of Rutgers and it has given them the amount of interest among subscribers to get on the cable/satellite deals. It has given the B1G access to basic cable subscriptions in NYC, DC & Baltimore and it helped them get into Philadelphia as well. The Rutgers & Maryland additions have been a success financially. It also will help them be the dominant conference in the media rich northeast as well as they have added needed recruiting grounds for football.
http://adage.com/article/media/east-young-man-expansion-a-boon-big-ten-network/300748/
Watching football this year, Rutgers and Maryland and PSU were pathetic. Maybe the Hoks can help them get some eyeballs. Yes, ther Hoks have to be one of the biggest draws on BTN by now. Just look at bball and wrestling and fball.
Your right it is a race or rather a contest who can hold out between the ACC or Big 12. The Big 12 will not be able to get FSU & Clemson to come based on our revenue difference alone between the Big 12 & ACC I don't believe unless ESPN decides to let the ACC crumble. The Big 12 based on 10 teams is doing better financially but don't forget ESPN could bump up the ACC contract if they desire because they don't start a conference network, again to what degree I'm not sure.
What may cause the ACC to crumble is the B1G's new tv deal if it nets 40-45 million a team and a continuing prosperous SEC. If you compare the difference of a B1G tv deal per team of 40-45million to any 2 or 4 out of Virginia, NC, Ga. Tech and Duke then that creates a decision by those ACC schools. You also know the SEC wants a Virginia and North Carolina school. After that happens the ACC is not sustainable for FSU & Clemson and that is when the Big 12 wins.
That is why if expansion is not needed(either for playoffs or due to OU's demands) and the Big 12 can keep their revenues high they are probably better off staying at 10 and adding the CCG even with a rematch.
Delany's vision for the B1G is to be a league all it's own (while competing with other leagues). The population centers it added are worth more to the B1G than just money...they add more prospective fans and more prospective students who come from families with average incomes higher than the other leagues that can afford higher tuition (if needed) and pad endowments.
This is where the Big XII has been totally clueless and probably doomed since the Big 8 decided it wasn't viable anymore. What is our league but a disjointed collection of schools that fit better in other leagues? While I don't think we'll end up there we belong in a league more like the B1G than with the Texas teams. And really, the Texas schools belong in a revived SWC with the OK schools.
The damage is done to the Big XII and it's on it's way out just like the Big 8.
not to mention all the Big 10 schools in the Chicago area. 3rd largest market. Having lived here not many people care about Northwestern but the majority are alums of Big 10 schools.
A Big XII network would have the same amount of valuable content to me as Cyclones.TV already does. I don't care about non-conference basketball games, second tier sports, or random features at Oklahoma State or Texas Tech, but I do care about them for ISU. I'd enjoy the likely better production values and the likely better media player. But other than that I don't see any value in a conference "netflix" type network that we don't already have. I wouldn't mind if it happened, but I don't see it as a gamechanger.
However, a conference TV network would not make me subscribe to cable.
First of all it is only a stupid idea if your school falls into group 2. For traditional powers like Ohio State, Oklahoma, USC, etc. it could make a lot of financial sense. For example under the current financial model, ther is about $1.2B split annually among the 64 P5 teams. Going to 32 teams, each group1 team would increase their TV revenue from $20M annually to close to $40M. You can't tell me that wouldn't be attractive to traditional powers.
Movement between groups would only be 4-8 schools every couple years. My guess is Ohio State or Texas isn't going to be to worried about being at bottom if it means 80% of the time they are making twice what they are making under the current model. The current conference structure could easily stay in place for all other sports.
Being an ISU fan I would rather see TV money split evenly like the NFL model. But over recent history we have seen consolidation and greed drive economic organizations.
I haven't read through the entire thread, but I have a few thoughts-
1. Straight from JPs mouth, we are at the height of an unsupportable and insolvent TV rights model. Given that trend, no way, no how does any network pay any conference $40M per school. The networks can't support these payouts, especially in the midst of an evolving viewership base. (ie. cord cutting = millions of viewers formerly subsidizing the cost of ESPN viewership no longer there. Cable subscription losses puts stress on ESPN ability to pass thru massive rates. Massive rate growth was underwritten and required to justify the conference payouts.) Heck, I'm an avid ESPN watcher and I'm even weighing the prospects of cutting the cord and watching ISU games at a bar instead.
2. The ESPN/Longhorn Network deal was purely a play by ESPN to stave off the Big 12 from cashing in on the next massive payout increase due. They drew a line in the sand and signaled to all conferences what the future would hold. For ESPN, the loss on the LHN is worth avoiding future long-term losses on Big12 and other future network increases continuing on the unsupportable growth trend. The Big 12 still made out well, but not as good as it "should" have.
3. I don't know what the future holds for conferences, but it will get interesting when ACC/SEC/& Big10 contracts come up.
Right now Iowa State is among the group ~(ISU, KSU, KU, WVU, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Cincy, UConn, BYU, Wake Forest, Syracuse, and maybe a few others) who will likely battle for the final spots in an overarching 4 conference super-league.
Let's hope that our combination of academics, facilities, fanbase, and product on the field supports ISU making the unavoidable future dance.
That's my two cents-
1. Straight from JPs mouth, we are at the height of an unsupportable and insolvent TV rights model. Given that trend, no way, no how does any network pay any conference $40M per school. The networks can't support these payouts, especially in the midst of an evolving viewership base. (ie. cord cutting = millions of viewers formerly subsidizing the cost of ESPN viewership no longer there. Cable subscription losses puts stress on ESPN ability to pass thru massive rates. Massive rate growth was underwritten and required to justify the conference payouts.) Heck, I'm an avid ESPN watcher and I'm even weighing the prospects of cutting the cord and watching ISU games at a bar instead.
2. The ESPN/Longhorn Network deal was purely a play by ESPN to stave off the Big 12 from cashing in on the next massive payout increase due. They drew a line in the sand and signaled to all conferences what the future would hold. For ESPN, the loss on the LHN is worth avoiding future long-term losses on Big12 and other future network increases continuing on the unsupportable growth trend. The Big 12 still made out well, but not as good as it "should" have.
3. I don't know what the future holds for conferences, but it will get interesting when ACC/SEC/& Big10 contracts come up.
Right now Iowa State is among the group ~(ISU, KSU, KU, WVU, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Cincy, UConn, BYU, Wake Forest, Syracuse, and maybe a few others) who will likely battle for the final spots in an overarching 4 conference super-league.
Let's hope that our combination of academics, facilities, fanbase, and product on the field supports ISU making the unavoidable future dance.
That's my two cents-
It works now under the current cable/satellite model. What happens when "ala carte" takes over? Schools like Rutgers and Maryland no longer are "valuable" to the Big 10 because then BTN cannot "force" (not that I'm convinced they're able to do so now) New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington television subscribers to pay for a cable channel when nobody in those areas gives two ****s about Rutgers and Maryland.
The B1G model works now - it may not work a decade from now.
