B10 talked to other B12 teams

[TIGER-PAUL]

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/101360/big-ten-flirted-with-major-big-12-programs-in-2010

The move could have brought Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Iowa State into an intriguing West Division, one that would have enough heavy hitters to at least pull even to the East Division in competitive balance. When plans fell through, the Big Ten decided to court television markets on the eastern seaboard.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

I wish they'd been successful as that would have led Texas straight into the ACC's loving arms. We would have been forced to take on Texas Tech as well but that is the cost of doing business.

Deloss Dodds did not fly all the way to the Research Triangle to chat about North Carolina BBQ, that's for sure.

 

[JHud986]

I have to wonder what the mountain queers think of this!

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I have to wonder what the mountain queers think of this!

I know what they think. AAC! AAC!

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

Interesting in that most said they were tied to expanding east only.
Also OK isn't AAU and Iowa St added zero to network eyeballs.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/101360/big-ten-flirted-with-major-big-12-programs-in-2010

The move could have brought Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Iowa State into an intriguing West Division, one that would have enough heavy hitters to at least pull even to the East Division in competitive balance. When plans fell through, the Big Ten decided to court television markets on the eastern seaboard.

Of course all those teams would rather be in a league other than the Big 12 but the key here is they went to the Big Ten, not the other way around. Those teams would all jump at a chance to go to the Pac 12, ACC, Big Ten, or SEC tomorrow if they could.

The Big 12 and ACC are still the only 2 P5 conferences that could get poached. The ACC is the stronger of the 2 based on TV markets but they have to be careful because the Big Ten and SEC can get anybody they want outside of maybe the NC/VA schools, which also happen to be the most attractive.

If I'm Ninja Swofford, I'd be trying to work out some deal to bring in Texas (with an ND-like deal), Oklahoma, and maybe Kansas (mostly for basketball and KC TV market isnt bad). The Pac 12 could take OKST, Texas Tech, TCU, and KST. Based on TV markets, WVU, Baylor, and Iowa State would be left out.

North
BC
Syr
Pitt
Lou

Central
UVa
VT
OK
Kansas

Carolina
UNC
NCSU
Duke
Wake

South
Clemson
GT
FSU
Miami

Teams would play either ND or Texas in most years. Top 2 Divison Champions based on conference record play for ACC Title. If records are the same, head to head is tiebreaker. If no head to head, participants are voted on by a committee similar to CFP.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

The P12 would not take those schools. They bring nothing to that league.

That iteration of the ACC would be an absurd men's basketball league.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

I do not believe the Texas legislators would allow Texas to leave Texas Tech the others high and dry. Same goes for Kansas and its in-state brother, K-State.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I do not believe the Texas legislators would allow Texas to leave Texas Tech the others high and dry. Same goes for Kansas and its in-state brother, K-State.

The legislators didn't like it but in the end, a school can do what it wants. They wanted A&M to stay in the Big 12 and threatened them. But, they left.

People forget that the main priority of state legislators is NOT to have D1 college teams play in the same conference, but to have their D1 teams have equal opportunities, while continuing to play each other. Why would a state legislator care if OU is in the ACC and OKST is in the Pac 12? Or that Texas is independent (but in ACC for all other sports) while TT is in the Pac 12. The opportunities for those schools would remain the exact same. Plus, they could all continue to play each other in all the other sports. Surely, OU and OKST would continue to play football and basketball against each other.

As for the Pac 12, well, they are having problems with their networks. Adding the states of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas (with TT and TCU) could do nothing but help that network. Heck, maybe they go really big and add Baylor and Houston also. Who knows.

If these situations come to pass, just like the UNC/UVa to Big Ten, NCSU/VT to SEC scenarios I've said time and again, as long as both in-state schools end up in good positions and, maybe, come to an agreement to continue to play each other, the legislators will let them go.

Could you imagine the KS legislators denying KU (ACC) and KST (Pac 12) the right to go to those conferences? Yea, sure. Those 2 programs could easily be left out of the next realignment and if you have 2 leagues offering them a lifeline, you best believe they'd go. Now, if the ACC wanted KU and nobody wanted KST, that would be a problem.

 

[Panther Parrothead]

I wish they'd been successful as that would have led Texas straight into the ACC's loving arms. We would have been forced to take on Texas Tech as well but that is the cost of doing business.

Deloss Dodds did not fly all the way to the Research Triangle to chat about North Carolina BBQ, that's for sure.

I don't know whether this falls under the "be careful what you wish for" category, but for Pitt's well-being, I'd rather not have any changes at this time.

We're only muddling along in football right now, and basketball - once our strong suit - is at a low ebb. Our bargaining chips are few, so this is one high stakes game that I'd want to avoid.

 

[OH Pete]

I have to wonder what the mountain queers think of this!

I'm sure they are excited as it will finally give them the opportunity to leave for the SEC. The only remaining hurdle is convincing the SEC to take them.

 

[TFloss]

I don't know whether this falls under the "be careful what you wish for" category, but for Pitt's well-being, I'd rather not have any changes at this time.

We're only muddling along in football right now, and basketball - once our strong suit - is at a low ebb. Our bargaining chips are few, so this is one high stakes game that I'd want to avoid.

We can lose as much as we want. The Pittsburgh market still has TV sets. Rutgers isn't in the B1G for athletics.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I don't know whether this falls under the "be careful what you wish for" category, but for Pitt's well-being, I'd rather not have any changes at this time.

We're only muddling along in football right now, and basketball - once our strong suit - is at a low ebb. Our bargaining chips are few, so this is one high stakes game that I'd want to avoid.

True, Pitt is one of a handful of programs, whose future position depends on others: Other schools like this are WVU, ISU, KU, KST, Baylor, TCU, BC, Syr, and Wake. I would prefer that there be absolutely no changes forever because with any change that's made, the trickle down could always have Pitt playing in some watered-down league that nobody cares about. Unless we can get some ironclad ND/Texas admission into the ACC. With those 2 big dogs, nobody would ever leave.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

A league that had Notre Dame and Texas competing to some degree in all of its sports would not be a league in danger.

 

[Panther Parrothead]

A league that had Notre Dame and Texas competing to some degree in all of its sports would not be a league in danger.

Without question. Insert ND and UT into the ACC as full-time members, and the ACC's future is secure for all of our lifetimes.

 

[pittdan77]

Nooooooooo........you all don't understand.....the B1G wanted Maryland and Rutgers all along! This news is obvious evidence of a cleaver plot to divert attention away from the big fish they were after.

 

[Flaeer]

We can lose as much as we want. The Pittsburgh market still has TV sets. Rutgers isn't in the B1G for athletics.

In the next ten years, the delivery of sports content is likely to look a lot different. Cable service is trending to look a lot like land line phone service. Verizon here in Tampa market of Florida to remain competitive is advertising, pay for only the channels you watch. I believe conference money will be based on viewer subscriptions delivered via a Netflix like model. Interest in teams or conferences will supersede number of asses that possess televisions in a certain area. I'm sure the average sports fan in NYC given the ability to save a few bucks and not have to pay for the big ten network because of the vicinity to Rutgers will elect to do so. Therefore, conferences that are aligned with teams with larger followings (fan support) will be the ones rewarded with bigger monetary support. I feel ok with WVU in this scenario.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

In the next ten years, the delivery of sports content is likely to look a lot different. Cable service is trending to look a lot like land line phone service. Verizon here in Tampa market of Florida to remain competitive is advertising, pay for only the channels you watch. I believe conference money will be based on viewer subscriptions delivered via a Netflix like model. Interest in teams or conferences will supersede number of asses that possess televisions in a certain area. I'm sure the average sports fan in NYC given the ability to save a few bucks and not have to pay for the big ten network because of the vicinity to Rutgers will elect to do so. Therefore, conferences that are aligned with teams with larger followings (fan support) will be the ones rewarded with bigger monetary support. I feel ok with WVU in this scenario.

You're right. WVU should feel very comfortable because everybody will just watch sports on subscription-based apps. Everybody will watch TV this way so WVU is fine. Nobody will turn on their cable box to see what game is on ESPN that night.

Not.

The NBA just signed a $26 billion/year (for 9 years) TV deal with 2 cable networks. Believe me, cable is going to be around in its current form a long, long time. They have to get a little smarter to compete with some of the apps. They wont have a total monopoly anymore but there's over 300 million people in this country and more arriving everyday. Believe you me, there's lots and lots of money to be made off cable TV for decades to come.

FWIW, the worst fears of sports leagues would be subscription-based apps. It totally eliminates the casual fan. The casual fan isnt going to buy the NFL app or Big Ten app. But they will flip on the tube and watch Patriots-Jets or Ohio State-Wisconsin.....just because its on.

 

[Flaeer]

You're right. WVU should feel very comfortable because everybody will just watch sports on subscription-based apps. Everybody will watch TV this way so WVU is fine. Nobody will turn on their cable box to see what game is on ESPN that night.

Not.

The NBA just signed a $26 billion/year (for 9 years) TV deal with 2 cable networks. Believe me, cable is going to be around in its current form a long, long time. They have to get a little smarter to compete with some of the apps. They wont have a total monopoly anymore but there's over 300 million people in this country and more arriving everyday. Believe you me, there's lots and lots of money to be made off cable TV for decades to come.

FWIW, the worst fears of sports leagues would be subscription-based apps. It totally eliminates the casual fan. The casual fan isnt going to buy the NFL app or Big Ten app. But they will flip on the tube and watch Patriots-Jets or Ohio State-Wisconsin.....just because its on.

Let's not forget networks were in existence before cable services. The head of ABC this week hinted strongly that ESPN is likely to spin off as a separate company. Furthermore, if you bothered to read my post I started it by saying in the next TEN years, thus your example of NBA contracts with tv networks falls in those parameters. The main point I was making is many individuals are moving away from cable. Either streaming or some other future form of entertainment delivery will be ala carte. You think ESPN will not try to get viewers via this modem your NUTS! As for the fear of sports leagues you really think the networks give a rats ass about their security? The networks are looking at profit. If they can deliver content to a specific audience they'll pay fair market price (which would likely be less) to whomever can assure the most individuals in their target audience. Also if you haven't notice these newer entertainment vehicles are actually producing their own programs ie...Orange is the New Black, House of Cards etc... What's to preclude them as they get larger acquiring one of the bigger networks and/or outbidding them for the more profitable college sports programming. Then again you probably thought the horse and buggy was going to be around forever.

 

[JHud986]

Lets see the mountain queers have a following of a very weak state with a poverty stricken economy. I'll take my chances with Pittsburgh!
Good luck in the aac.

 

[topdecktiger]

Let's not forget networks were in existence before cable services. The head of ABC this week hinted strongly that ESPN is likely to spin off as a separate company. Furthermore, if you bothered to read my post I started it by saying in the next TEN years, thus your example of NBA contracts with tv networks falls in those parameters. The main point I was making is many individuals are moving away from cable. Either streaming or some other future form of entertainment delivery will be ala carte. You think ESPN will not try to get viewers via this modem your NUTS! As for the fear of sports leagues you really think the networks give a rats ass about their security? The networks are looking at profit. If they can deliver content to a specific audience they'll pay fair market price (which would likely be less) to whomever can assure the most individuals in their target audience. Also if you haven't notice these newer entertainment vehicles are actually producing their own programs ie...Orange is the New Black, House of Cards etc... What's to preclude them as they get larger acquiring one of the bigger networks and/or outbidding them for the more profitable college sports programming. Then again you probably thought the horse and buggy was going to be around forever.

Your scenario is plausible, so far as it goes. The one thing you are missing though, is that this pissing contest that goes on between conferences will be over with if your scenario ever happens. None of the conferences individually will be able to command the huge bucks they do now if TV goes strictly a la carte. The reason why is that college football is mostly a regional thing. You would probably get a decent amount of subscribers inside your conference territory, but outside it not so much. You definitely wouldn't get the $20-30 million that the current TV contracts pay out now. Under an a la carte type system, you would have to go back to the old days, where college football sold itself as a single product.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Let's not forget networks were in existence before cable services. The head of ABC this week hinted strongly that ESPN is likely to spin off as a separate company. Furthermore, if you bothered to read my post I started it by saying in the next TEN years, thus your example of NBA contracts with tv networks falls in those parameters. The main point I was making is many individuals are moving away from cable. Either streaming or some other future form of entertainment delivery will be ala carte. You think ESPN will not try to get viewers via this modem your NUTS! As for the fear of sports leagues you really think the networks give a rats ass about their security? The networks are looking at profit. If they can deliver content to a specific audience they'll pay fair market price (which would likely be less) to whomever can assure the most individuals in their target audience. Also if you haven't notice these newer entertainment vehicles are actually producing their own programs ie...Orange is the New Black, House of Cards etc... What's to preclude them as they get larger acquiring one of the bigger networks and/or outbidding them for the more profitable college sports programming. Then again you probably thought the horse and buggy was going to be around forever.

Let me explain again. The MAJORITY of people who watch live sports are "casual fans," people with no real rooting interest. Sure, you have your diehards, your home-market fans, etc but in a country of over 300 million, there's more casual fans tuning in than diehards. For example there are more non-WVU fans who watch WVU games than WVU fans, simply because they're on TV and it may be the best game on at that moment. However, once you go to a subscription based-app, you eliminate every single casual fan. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say I wouldn't spend $1 per month to watch a B12 Network, SECN, BTN either through cable or an app. But, I do watch the occassional games on those cable channels.......because its available.

You cant compare live sports to TV shows. Live sports make their money off of casual fans. Heck, we're in the ACC, largely because of casual fans. WVU has a larger fanbase than Pitt but you're either a hardcore WVU fan or not really a fan at all. At Pitt, our diehard fanbase is pretty low, but there's 2.5 million people in Western PA that can be considered "casual fans." If Pitt's on and there's nothing better to do, they watch Pitt. That's what networks look for, the amount of prospective fans, so to speak. TV shows dont have casual fans. Nobody just watches Game of Thrones every once in awhile when they're flipping through and see its on. Nobody just watches 3 episodes of House of Cards per season. You're either a diehard follower of a TV show or you dont watch. Scripted TV shows are absolutely perfect for Internet apps. The diehards will pay a few bucks per month to watch the show just like the diehard Pitt or WVU fans will........but if all sports were done based on internet apps, that's all you'd have are diehard subscribers. No casual fans watching tuning into NBA, College Football, NFL, etc.

WWE was first to do this really with their WWE Network but they have a niche market with absolutely 0 casual fans. You're either a diehard WWE fan or never watch a second. So, by going to a subscription-based network, they're just making their diehards pay up just as they did for their PPVs for all those years.

Question? Do you know why WWE, Boxing, and UFC are on PPV? Here's your answer. All have niche fanbases (UFC is outgrowing their niche fanbase however) and can make more money by making their fans pay $60 for the event than selling it to a cable channel to offer their viewers for free. There's a reason the NBA Finals aren't on PPV or College Football or whatever (I mean yea, the out of network games are but that's different.........and again caters to diehards).

So to recap: Casual fans. That's where the money is made. I hope you took notes because your scenario of mainstream live sports only being offered through a subscription-based app is not going to happen for decades, if ever. Now, niche leagues like the NHL and various world soccer leagues, OK, maybe I can see that in the not-so-distant future because those leagues get very few casual viewers. But the mainstream leagues, yea, not gonna happen. Sorry.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

None of the conferences individually will be able to command the huge bucks they do now if TV goes strictly a la carte. The reason why is that college football is mostly a regional thing. You would probably get a decent amount of subscribers inside your conference territory, but outside it not so much. You definitely wouldn't get the $20-30 million that the current TV contracts pay out now. Under an a la carte type system, you would have to go back to the old days, where college football sold itself as a single product.

And this is why this scenario is decades away. ESPN and Fox are going to milk every penny out of casual fans for the next few decades. ESPN, Comcast, NBA, College Football, etc all need each other and they are all too powerful. Everybody makes less money with a la carte. Good for consumers but there's not enough millenials or older folks who dont watch traditional TV in the marketplace to make it viable. Not yet. 20-30 years from now? OK.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

Lets see the mountain queers have a following of a very weak state with a poverty stricken economy. I'll take my chances with Pittsburgh!
Good luck in the aac.

Anytime you have to name call, you lose the argument. Just saying.......

 

[Flaeer]

Let me explain again. The MAJORITY of people who watch live sports are "casual fans," people with no real rooting interest. Sure, you have your diehards, your home-market fans, etc but in a country of over 300 million, there's more casual fans tuning in than diehards. For example there are more non-WVU fans who watch WVU games than WVU fans, simply because they're on TV and it may be the best game on at that moment. However, once you go to a subscription based-app, you eliminate every single casual fan. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say I wouldn't spend $1 per month to watch a B12 Network, SECN, BTN either through cable or an app. But, I do watch the occassional games on those cable channels.......because its available.

You cant compare live sports to TV shows. Live sports make their money off of casual fans. Heck, we're in the ACC, largely because of casual fans. WVU has a larger fanbase than Pitt but you're either a hardcore WVU fan or not really a fan at all. At Pitt, our diehard fanbase is pretty low, but there's 2.5 million people in Western PA that can be considered "casual fans." If Pitt's on and there's nothing better to do, they watch Pitt. That's what networks look for, the amount of prospective fans, so to speak. TV shows dont have casual fans. Nobody just watches Game of Thrones every once in awhile when they're flipping through and see its on. Nobody just watches 3 episodes of House of Cards per season. You're either a diehard follower of a TV show or you dont watch. Scripted TV shows are absolutely perfect for Internet apps. The diehards will pay a few bucks per month to watch the show just like the diehard Pitt or WVU fans will........but if all sports were done based on internet apps, that's all you'd have are diehard subscribers. No casual fans watching tuning into NBA, College Football, NFL, etc.

WWE was first to do this really with their WWE Network but they have a niche market with absolutely 0 casual fans. You're either a diehard WWE fan or never watch a second. So, by going to a subscription-based network, they're just making their diehards pay up just as they did for their PPVs for all those years.

Question? Do you know why WWE, Boxing, and UFC are on PPV? Here's your answer. All have niche fanbases (UFC is outgrowing their niche fanbase however) and can make more money by making their fans pay $60 for the event than selling it to a cable channel to offer their viewers for free. There's a reason the NBA Finals aren't on PPV or College Football or whatever (I mean yea, the out of network games are but that's different.........and again caters to diehards).

So to recap: Casual fans. That's where the money is made. I hope you took notes because your scenario of mainstream live sports only being offered through a subscription-based app is not going to happen for decades, if ever. Now, niche leagues like the NHL and various world soccer leagues, OK, maybe I can see that in the not-so-distant future because those leagues get very few casual viewers. But the mainstream leagues, yea, not gonna happen. Sorry.

The problem with the casual fan argument is that channel flippers aren't going to care if sports programming is excluded. Currently, I pay my tampa based cable subscriber extra to get sports specific channels. I have to at this time buy them all or nothing. Thus if I want espnu i also pay a little extra for the sec and big10 networks. Verizon is being sued because they're offering an unbundling of these services. Now when these contracts expire in about ten years you will see a large number of cable subsc4ibers falling off to get streaming content in my opinion

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

The problem with the casual fan argument is that channel flippers aren't going to care if sports programming is excluded. Currently, I pay my tampa based cable subscriber extra to get sports specific channels. I have to at this time buy them all or nothing. Thus if I want espnu i also pay a little extra for the sec and big10 networks. Verizon is being sued because they're offering an unbundling of these services. Now when these contracts expire in about ten years you will see a large number of cable subsc4ibers falling off to get streaming content in my opinion

Sports fans will care. Sports fans need live sports. They may not care about ESPNU or BTN but they're going to need 2-3 big-time primary sports channels (ESPN, ESPN2, FS1, and a regional sports network). Those are always going to be there and so will the big dollars for the Top 4 conferences (and maybe the Big 12 also if it stays together).

 

[topdecktiger]

The problem with the casual fan argument is that channel flippers aren't going to care if sports programming is excluded. Currently, I pay my tampa based cable subscriber extra to get sports specific channels. I have to at this time buy them all or nothing. Thus if I want espnu i also pay a little extra for the sec and big10 networks. Verizon is being sued because they're offering an unbundling of these services. Now when these contracts expire in about ten years you will see a large number of cable subsc4ibers falling off to get streaming content in my opinion

Yeah, but that's the problem. A lot of people who go to streaming channels won't buy the SECN or BTN. (They may not buy ESPNU either.) These conference networks rely on the fact that they get bundled in with other channels, and a lot of the people currently paying for them don't actually watch.

If it goes to streaming, where consumers have to actively choose to buy every channel, then college football will have to go back to the old days, where everybody's rights are sold collectively.

 

[Flaeer]

Sports fans will care. Sports fans need live sports. They may not care about ESPNU or BTN but they're going to need 2-3 big-time primary sports channels (ESPN, ESPN2, FS1, and a regional sports network). Those are always going to be there and so will the big dollars for the Top 4 conferences (and maybe the Big 12 also if it stays together).

nothing I've said disagrees with sports fans needing to view sports. Unfortunately "casual fan" the majority are not sports fans or more specifically college sports fans. I'm simply stating the delivery of content is headed in a different direction, with more choices for the consumer to pay for what they want to see. The millennials are replacing sports viewing and many including my twenty something son does not have cable. ESPN the magazine had an entire issue dedicated to video game tourneys and how one had more viewers than the Masters. I find myself now watching more old tv shows and movies over Netflix than cable programming especially since my favorite shows are reruns. The networks who make the deals with conferences to have the right to broadcast the games don't care how the consumer views the games, its the ability to produce revenue via advertising that they are most concerned about. Companies that advertise are looking for certain markets and want to target an audience that most likely has the means and desire to acquire the good or service in which they are paying for their advertising dollar. A subscriber base of football fans with a specific number would be more appealing to a sporting goods store than say an ad on a cable channel that no one knows the type of audience that may or may not be viewing. Every football game I watch on cable now are mostly beer, snacks and ED commercials. These entities and others are likely if presented with a means to target market the consumers for their service in a more cost effective manner will take advantage of it.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

nothing I've said disagrees with sports fans needing to view sports. Unfortunately "casual fan" the majority are not sports fans or more specifically college sports fans. I'm simply stating the delivery of content is headed in a different direction, with more choices for the consumer to pay for what they want to see. The millennials are replacing sports viewing and many including my twenty something son does not have cable. ESPN the magazine had an entire issue dedicated to video game tourneys and how one had more viewers than the Masters. I find myself now watching more old tv shows and movies over Netflix than cable programming especially since my favorite shows are reruns. The networks who make the deals with conferences to have the right to broadcast the games don't care how the consumer views the games, its the ability to produce revenue via advertising that they are most concerned about. Companies that advertise are looking for certain markets and want to target an audience that most likely has the means and desire to acquire the good or service in which they are paying for their advertising dollar. A subscriber base of football fans with a specific number would be more appealing to a sporting goods store than say an ad on a cable channel that no one knows the type of audience that may or may not be viewing. Every football game I watch on cable now are mostly beer, snacks and ED commercials. These entities and others are likely if presented with a means to target market the consumers for their service in a more cost effective manner will take advantage of it.

A high-level exec at Comcast said recently that they estimate that 30% of their customers are sports fans. The other 70% of people dont care to watch sports but their cable bills are high mostly because of sports channels they dont watch. So, what are these people doing? Cutting the cord and watching Netflix and Hulu. However, sports fans still need their live sports. So, even if the non-sports fans all end up leaving, the only networks in danger are the non-sports channels. There may not be a need for A&E or USA or FX because these people can watch their shows via other means and more importantly, dont have to watch them live. Sports fans need to watch live sports. And ESPN, FS1, Comcast, Time Warner, the NBA, NFL, MLB, ACC, SEC, Big Ten all need each other. They all need that 30%, that casual sports fan who will flip on OKC vs Golden State because nothing better is on. So while all the millenials are playing video games and watching Netflix, that 30% will still be watching live sports, probably paying $50/month for 20-30 networks with a lot of the general entertainment fringe networks eliminated. And probably $40 of the $50 will be carriage fees for the sports networks.

Sports are pretty much immune Internet-app based viewing because they desperately need casual fans to watch. No matter what The Dude tells you, just know that WVU is screwed and the Millenials aren't going to save you by eliminating live cable sports channels. You can hope for that though.

Maybe WVU should apply for the WWE and their internet-based network. Seems like a good fit.

 

[BlueBand]

I think what most likely happens is Tier 1 rights remain on broadcast networks to capture both the casual and die hard fan. But BTN, SEC Network, etc. go to a streaming or pay model. They're on less cable companies, but you make the revenue up via subscriptions. It's a no brainer for me to pay $5 - $10 per month to see Tier 2 games and Olympic sports, which is a lot more than the network gets from me now. They could also charge a per event fee for those who don't want a monthly subscription. I think BTN get about $1 per cable household in states with B1G schools, significantly less in other states. If BTN charges $10/month, they can lose 90% of households in a B1G state and the revenue is neutral.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I think what most likely happens is Tier 1 rights remain on broadcast networks to capture both the casual and die hard fan. But BTN, SEC Network, etc. go to a streaming or pay model. They're on less cable companies, but you make the revenue up via subscriptions. It's a no brainer for me to pay $5 - $10 per month to see Tier 2 games and Olympic sports, which is a lot more than the network gets from me now. They could also charge a per event fee for those who don't want a monthly subscription. I think BTN get about $1 per cable household in states with B1G schools, significantly less in other states. If BTN charges $10/month, they can lose 90% of households in a B1G state and the revenue is neutral.

This is a possibility but is many years, probably decades away. I mean, the SEC Network was the most successful start-up cable network of ALL TIME and this after, everybody says that everyone is cutting the cord.

You're right that "Tier 1" games will always be on some form of cable outlet. I could envision a BTN or SECN going to an internet-app based model and instead of charging ALL cable customers $1 per month, they charge the diehard fans who are willing to pay more, $10-$20/month for access to the app. But, I repeat, this is an absolute last resort for these networks. They are thriving beyond all belief right now. So, we're talking decades in the future here. Live mainstream American sports will be in their current form on TV for a long, long time. The niche sports, if any, like the NHL, EPL, etc will be the first to try an internet-only subscription format.

 

[topdecktiger]

I think what most likely happens is Tier 1 rights remain on broadcast networks to capture both the casual and die hard fan. But BTN, SEC Network, etc. go to a streaming or pay model. They're on less cable companies, but you make the revenue up via subscriptions. It's a no brainer for me to pay $5 - $10 per month to see Tier 2 games and Olympic sports, which is a lot more than the network gets from me now. They could also charge a per event fee for those who don't want a monthly subscription. I think BTN get about $1 per cable household in states with B1G schools, significantly less in other states. If BTN charges $10/month, they can lose 90% of households in a B1G state and the revenue is neutral.

You're not going to make up that revenue. Your theory that BTN can lose 90% of its households and make up the revenue simply won't happen. You won't get enough subscribers. The only thing anybody watches on BTN is football games. People aren't going to pay $120 a year to watch 2 or 3 football games. At best, people would subscriber for 2 or 3 months during football season, and then cancel. That would still leave you way short of the current revenue.

 

[BlueBand]

This is a possibility but is many years, probably decades away. I mean, the SEC Network was the most successful start-up cable network of ALL TIME and this after, everybody says that everyone is cutting the cord.

You're right that "Tier 1" games will always be on some form of cable outlet. I could envision a BTN or SECN going to an internet-app based model and instead of charging ALL cable customers $1 per month, they charge the diehard fans who are willing to pay more, $10-$20/month for access to the app. But, I repeat, this is an absolute last resort for these networks. They are thriving beyond all belief right now. So, we're talking decades in the future here. Live mainstream American sports will be in their current form on TV for a long, long time. The niche sports, if any, like the NHL, EPL, etc will be the first to try an internet-only subscription format.

Technology is moving too quickly to say it's decades away. But one decade sounds about right.

I think the metrics in conference expansion have changed, on a related topic. Up until now, it's been about cable markets, given the current model of putting the channel on basic cable and charging $x per household. Hence, Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten. Maryland at least brings a good basketball team, occasional football relevance, and some good Olympic sports. Rutgers... not so much. But lots of TV sets in the area. And they opened up major east coast media markets to the B1G, as a side benefit. And a geographic wedge in the ACC.

That serves the B1G well for the upcoming round of TV contract negotiations. However, I strongly suspect the next round of expansion will be more about strong brands with loyal following and nationwide appeal. It will be about the contract AFTER the upcoming contract negotiations. They need to position themselves for a new world of content delivery. The Tier 1 live sports will, I think, continue on widely available networks. But everything else may be delivered (live or otherwise) differently. 10 years is an eternity in tech time. Facebook is now 11 years old, YouTube 10 years, Twitter 9 years. Who knows what else will come out of nowhere between now and the next contract? But it all points to more niche, a la carte approach. So, bigger "brands" in terms of football and basketball programs makes the most sense to maximize revenue opportunities.

 

[BlueBand]

You're not going to make up that revenue. Your theory that BTN can lose 90% of its households and make up the revenue simply won't happen. You won't get enough subscribers. The only thing anybody watches on BTN is football games. People aren't going to pay $120 a year to watch 2 or 3 football games. At best, people would subscriber for 2 or 3 months during football season, and then cancel. That would still leave you way short of the current revenue.

Tier pricing. $25/month to subscribe month to month, or $10/month for a one year contract. And don't forget basketball, so you have major sports from September through February generating interest. At a certain point, it's cost effective to get the one year contract. And, unlike a cable bill, you charge them upfront. One time charge, $120 and you get unlimited access for a year. Or autobill at $25/month. Goes on your credit card, you don't even notice it because there no bill to pay every month, the network makes more money if you keep it 5 months or longer.

But let's take it a step further. Since you're streaming, you can call up programs on demand. So, subscribers could have access to years/decades worth of games. Want to watch 48-14 again (doh!)? OK, or 12-0. As part of your subscription, you can. I know plenty of people who like to go back and watch older games, especially in the off season. Watch the full game, or watch a special 1 hour version, like they show on BTN now.

How about instant replay of the game that was just on? Missed it because you were at a wedding, or just want to replay the game you were at, to see it better? Go home and start it up as soon as you want. You can stream it on your big TV in full HD (or 3D goggles or whatever we're using in 10 years). Start and stop the game, re watch plays from different camera angles you control, not the angles the network chooses to show. Pull up stats on the game as you watch--customize what you are shown on screen. Switch cameras, do a picture in picture. Have a band cam. Have a cheerleader cam. Have a sideline cam. Alternate audio--don't like the BTN announcers? Watch with a synced audio stream with home team radio announcers. Or ditch the commentators, and watch with just the stadium miked, as if you were there. Would you pay for that, even if it's just second tier games? Or... what if the first tier game rights are soley for live broadcast, but the rights revert back to BTN as soon as the game is over for streaming?

Olympic sports-- instead of a couple of events shown on the network, all could be available live or streaming later. Keep costs down by ditching commentators and just stream the event with the PA announcer feed and ambient event noise. Students could intern to do the camera work. Fans of these sports can follow all events from anywhere in the world.

The possibilities are endless, and not much of a stretch with current technology. 10 years from now-- good chance we can do this stuff and more.

 

[HailtoPitt]

A high-level exec at Comcast said recently that they estimate that 30% of their customers are sports fans. The other 70% of people dont care to watch sports but their cable bills are high mostly because of sports channels they dont watch. So, what are these people doing? Cutting the cord and watching Netflix and Hulu. However, sports fans still need their live sports. So, even if the non-sports fans all end up leaving, the only networks in danger are the non-sports channels. There may not be a need for A&E or USA or FX because these people can watch their shows via other means and more importantly, dont have to watch them live. Sports fans need to watch live sports. And ESPN, FS1, Comcast, Time Warner, the NBA, NFL, MLB, ACC, SEC, Big Ten all need each other. They all need that 30%, that casual sports fan who will flip on OKC vs Golden State because nothing better is on. So while all the millenials are playing video games and watching Netflix, that 30% will still be watching live sports, probably paying $50/month for 20-30 networks with a lot of the general entertainment fringe networks eliminated. And probably $40 of the $50 will be carriage fees for the sports networks.

Sports are pretty much immune Internet-app based viewing because they desperately need casual fans to watch. No matter what The Dude tells you, just know that WVU is screwed and the Millenials aren't going to save you by eliminating live cable sports channels. You can hope for that though.

Maybe WVU should apply for the WWE and their internet-based network. Seems like a good fit.

I think there is going to be a very defined tipping point. With fewer people paying for cable, ESPN has fewer people to fleece each month (the 70%). This means that ESPN will have less money to spend on sports, which will make the bidding process more competitive for other networks. As a result, the individual sports, league and players will bring in less money. Where does the lost revenue go? Our pockets.

 

[topdecktiger]

Tier pricing. $25/month to subscribe month to month, or $10/month for a one year contract. And don't forget basketball, so you have major sports from September through February generating interest. At a certain point, it's cost effective to get the one year contract. And, unlike a cable bill, you charge them upfront. One time charge, $120 and you get unlimited access for a year. Or autobill at $25/month. Goes on your credit card, you don't even notice it because there no bill to pay every month, the network makes more money if you keep it 5 months or longer.

But let's take it a step further. Since you're streaming, you can call up programs on demand. So, subscribers could have access to years/decades worth of games. Want to watch 48-14 again (doh!)? OK, or 12-0. As part of your subscription, you can. I know plenty of people who like to go back and watch older games, especially in the off season. Watch the full game, or watch a special 1 hour version, like they show on BTN now.

How about instant replay of the game that was just on? Missed it because you were at a wedding, or just want to replay the game you were at, to see it better? Go home and start it up as soon as you want. You can stream it on your big TV in full HD (or 3D goggles or whatever we're using in 10 years). Start and stop the game, re watch plays from different camera angles you control, not the angles the network chooses to show. Pull up stats on the game as you watch--customize what you are shown on screen. Switch cameras, do a picture in picture. Have a band cam. Have a cheerleader cam. Have a sideline cam. Alternate audio--don't like the BTN announcers? Watch with a synced audio stream with home team radio announcers. Or ditch the commentators, and watch with just the stadium miked, as if you were there. Would you pay for that, even if it's just second tier games? Or... what if the first tier game rights are soley for live broadcast, but the rights revert back to BTN as soon as the game is over for streaming?

Olympic sports-- instead of a couple of events shown on the network, all could be available live or streaming later. Keep costs down by ditching commentators and just stream the event with the PA announcer feed and ambient event noise. Students could intern to do the camera work. Fans of these sports can follow all events from anywhere in the world.

The possibilities are endless, and not much of a stretch with current technology. 10 years from now-- good chance we can do this stuff and more.

What you say sounds nice in theory.......until you look at reality. Here's the problem. You don't have that many people watching the BTN now. Again, now people don't actively sign up for BTN (or the other conference networks). It's just included in their cable package. It costs ~$1.00 per month to the provider. How much difference the actual customers see in their monthly bill is questionable. For example, one Florida ST poster on Warchant said that when he got the SECN in Boston, he called his cable provider, and they told him his bill would not go up as a result of the SECN.

The point is, when customers start having to fork out $10-25 a month for one specific channel, they simply won't do it. The only thing they want to watch is a couple of football games, usually involving their favorite teams. Most people won't pay that. They certainly won't pay that to watch reruns or classic games. Your friends watch it now because they don't have to pay for it. It's a lot different when they have to actually pay the fee every month.

Now when you bring up the other sports, we already have proof people won't pay to watch that. Hell, people don't watch the other sports when they're on for free. The ratings prove that. No way in hell people will pay $10-15 a month to watch women's volleyball & or soccer. Again, they won't even watch it now when it's free, so they sure as hell won't pay money for it. Even with basketball, people won't pay for that. Men's basketball is the only other sport besides football that generates any revenue (i.e ratings) and even it doesn't draw all that much. If it did, then the Big East would not have gotten obliterated during expansion.

The bottom line is, there simply isn't that much national interest to sustain these conference networks (and really not even these lower-tier ball games as it is). They depend on being part of bundling package, or being on a sports network that makes money off of other leagues and programming.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Rutgers... not so much. But lots of TV sets in the area. And they opened up major east coast media markets to the B1G, as a side benefit. And a geographic wedge in the ACC.

Rutgers didn't open up anything to the Big Ten. They are completely irrelevant in New Jersey, let alone New York. That Facebook fan map shows Penn State is the #1 team in New Jersey and Rutgers isnt even listed as one of the top 3 fanbases in NYC but, actually, Syracuse is #1.

The Big Ten could have done whatever they wanted to do in NYC and NJ without Rutgers. They were added with Maryland to keep Penn State from going to the ACC and as an eff you to the ACC for taking Notre Dame. Nothing more than that. The "TV" angle that RU brought was a lie.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

What you say sounds nice in theory.......until you look at reality. Here's the problem. You don't have that many people watching the BTN now. Again, now people don't actively sign up for BTN (or the other conference networks). It's just included in their cable package. It costs ~$1.00 per month to the provider. How much difference the actual customers see in their monthly bill is questionable. For example, one Florida ST poster on Warchant said that when he got the SECN in Boston, he called his cable provider, and they told him his bill would not go up as a result of the SECN.

The point is, when customers start having to fork out $10-25 a month for one specific channel, they simply won't do it. The only thing they want to watch is a couple of football games, usually involving their favorite teams. Most people won't pay that. They certainly won't pay that to watch reruns or classic games. Your friends watch it now because they don't have to pay for it. It's a lot different when they have to actually pay the fee every month.

Now when you bring up the other sports, we already have proof people won't pay to watch that. Hell, people don't watch the other sports when they're on for free. The ratings prove that. No way in hell people will pay $10-15 a month to watch women's volleyball & or soccer. Again, they won't even watch it now when it's free, so they sure as hell won't pay money for it. Even with basketball, people won't pay for that. Men's basketball is the only other sport besides football that generates any revenue (i.e ratings) and even it doesn't draw all that much. If it did, then the Big East would not have gotten obliterated during expansion.

The bottom line is, there simply isn't that much national interest to sustain these conference networks (and really not even these lower-tier ball games as it is). They depend on being part of bundling package, or being on a sports network that makes money off of other leagues and programming.

Good post. What "blue bland" is describing and what WVU fans are hoping for may never happen and if it does, its so far out in the future, we may all be flying to games on hovercrafts by then. BTN and SECN are making a lot of money (understatement of the year). Does anybody realize what has to happen for those networks to from "crazy successful" to "failed cable channels." As I said, it would be an absolute last resort for conferences like the BT and SEC to pull their networks off and making them subscription based apps. There's simply way too many people age 30 and up who are going to watch these games on cable for the rest of their lives. It probably wont be until the Millenials' kids are contributing to the GDP that we can even think about any big change in the way we watch MAINSTREAM American sports. You need to replace a few generations first for any of that to happen.

I mean there's a reason that leagues like the NFL, NBA, MLB, SEC, Big Ten, etc arent subscription based. Think of the NFL. As popular as that league is, it cant make as much money selling all its fans a $200/season package as it can selling its games to CBS and FOX. We think Stiller fans would have no choice but to cough up the big bucks to watch their team on Sunday. Well, believe me, when you start telling them they need to pay $200/season to watch the Stillers on an app, they would find other ways to do so (people hosting 20 people Stiller parties to share the cost, illegal streaming, going to bars/restaurants, etc). People dont like paying for stuff. One of the reasons that cable has been so successful (besides the fact that its a monopoly) is because most people dont know what they're paying for. If you told a sports fan that you would reduce his cable bill by $30 but charge him $30 per month if he wanted access to the sports channels, he'd more than likely decline out of principle. "I dont want to pay for that." Well, he was paying for it anyway but never thought about it in that way.

 

[BlueBand]

Rutgers didn't open up anything to the Big Ten. They are completely irrelevant in New Jersey, let alone New York. That Facebook fan map shows Penn State is the #1 team in New Jersey and Rutgers isnt even listed as one of the top 3 fanbases in NYC but, actually, Syracuse is #1.

The Big Ten could have done whatever they wanted to do in NYC and NJ without Rutgers. They were added with Maryland to keep Penn State from going to the ACC and as an eff you to the ACC for taking Notre Dame. Nothing more than that. The "TV" angle that RU brought was a lie.

Here's the difference... I fully agree Rutgers doesn't have as big a following in NJ/NYC as some other teams, including some that were already in the B1G. However, Rutgers does get coverage in the local media. And the local media is now talking about the B1G, NOT the AAC or whatever their conference name of the week was. Preseason coverage is about the B1G, conference games against B1G opponents, programs like Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Michigan State coming into Piscataway get coverage. And that coverage makes them more visible to the major media in the area.

The B1G also opened a satellite office in NYC as a result. So they have a presence in Chicago and NYC.

Most importantly, BTN now gets much higher carriage rates for all of the NJ cable subscribers. Even if no one cares or watches Rutgers, BTN gets a little over $1 per cable household in a state with millions of cable households. That's the way the deals with the cable systems work. If a B1G school is in your state, you pay around $1.10 per household per month. If no B1G team is in your state, you only pay, I believe, around .20 per subscriber per month. I don't think it's been confirmed, but the talk was that the higher carriage rate was extended to NYC as well. So, no, the "TV angle" was not a lie. Trying to keep Penn State from leaving might have been a side consideration, but if the $$ didn't add up, the deal wouldn't have happened.

 

[BlueBand]

What you say sounds nice in theory.......until you look at reality. Here's the problem. You don't have that many people watching the BTN now. Again, now people don't actively sign up for BTN (or the other conference networks). It's just included in their cable package. It costs ~$1.00 per month to the provider. How much difference the actual customers see in their monthly bill is questionable. For example, one Florida ST poster on Warchant said that when he got the SECN in Boston, he called his cable provider, and they told him his bill would not go up as a result of the SECN.

The point is, when customers start having to fork out $10-25 a month for one specific channel, they simply won't do it. The only thing they want to watch is a couple of football games, usually involving their favorite teams. Most people won't pay that. They certainly won't pay that to watch reruns or classic games. Your friends watch it now because they don't have to pay for it. It's a lot different when they have to actually pay the fee every month.

Now when you bring up the other sports, we already have proof people won't pay to watch that. Hell, people don't watch the other sports when they're on for free. The ratings prove that. No way in hell people will pay $10-15 a month to watch women's volleyball & or soccer. Again, they won't even watch it now when it's free, so they sure as hell won't pay money for it. Even with basketball, people won't pay for that. Men's basketball is the only other sport besides football that generates any revenue (i.e ratings) and even it doesn't draw all that much. If it did, then the Big East would not have gotten obliterated during expansion.

The bottom line is, there simply isn't that much national interest to sustain these conference networks (and really not even these lower-tier ball games as it is). They depend on being part of bundling package, or being on a sports network that makes money off of other leagues and programming.

LOL it's not going to happen overnight. Sheesh. My guess is they will slowly add bonus and interactive content to the web, and start charging for it when the value proposition is there. Then they are positioning themselves to some day go a la carte when the market fully moves in that direction. They even would have the ability to let each school create their own online channel if they wanted, or keep it all under the BTN online.