2017 B1G Tournament to DC

DFaceHawkeye said:
There will still be some apparatus to carry the live sporting events to the world, be that more ESPN3 or BTN2Go or a Hulu-type site for live sports. Anyway you slice this, the conferences with the biggest cable contracts now (eyeballs) will also be the conferences that have the best pay-per-view (or however it works over the interwebs) contracts then. Even if the current model dies within the decade, you're not changing who has the most viewership. If live sports aren't bundled with crap programming, then it'll be all about having proof your conference has enough eyeballs watching to get your channel onto another distribution apparatus.
Click to expand...


You're right...to a point...basically what the bundled cable model does...is taxes EVERYONE in the city of new york because Rutgers is near there. I would bet quite a large sum of money...that a VAST majority of new york subscribers couldn't care less about the Big Ten Network. Rutgers and Maryland were brought on board for the TV markets they can hold hostage...simple as that.

What I'm saying is...when that model dies...the old Big Ten would have been one of the wealthiest conferences anyways due to it's incredibly large alumni base. Not to mention all the "tavern Hoks (bucks, Wolverines, badgers, gophers etc.)"

What will replace bundled cable will probably be some sort of "pay as you wish" or bucket. Where you pick 25 channels or whatever. Capitalism and the gosh darned FREE MARKETS (Red, White and Blue...yay 'Murica) win the day and the only revenue you get is what consumers are willing to pay for your channel.

The days of taxing an entire city of 8 million and change $1-5 (or whatever BTN is in that market) are going to be over...
 
SonofaSailor said:
You're right...to a point...basically what the bundled cable model does...is taxes EVERYONE in the city of new york because Rutgers is near there. I would bet quite a large sum of money...that a VAST majority of new york subscribers couldn't care less about the Big Ten Network. Rutgers and Maryland were brought on board for the TV markets they can hold hostage...simple as that.

What I'm saying is...when that model dies...the old Big Ten would have been one of the wealthiest conferences anyways due to it's incredibly large alumni base. Not to mention all the "tavern Hoks (bucks, Wolverines, badgers, gophers etc.)"

What will replace bundled cable will probably be some sort of "pay as you wish" or bucket. Where you pick 25 channels or whatever. Capitalism and the gosh darned FREE MARKETS (Red, White and Blue...yay 'Murica) win the day and the only revenue you get is what consumers are willing to pay for your channel.

The days of taxing an entire city of 8 million and change $1-5 (or whatever BTN is in that market) are going to be over...
Click to expand...

True, the broad spectrum "tax" on everyone in the area will be over soon. It's a matter of still proving you have enough quality programming to put out there for people to pay for. I'm going to assume the BTN will do nothing short of a year-long subscription to its channel. Otherwise, there would be no reason to film women's field hockey and put it on the tube.
 
DFaceHawkeye said:
True, the broad spectrum "tax" on everyone in the area will be over soon. It's a matter of still proving you have enough quality programming to put out there for people to pay for. I'm going to assume the BTN will do nothing short of a year-long subscription to its channel. Otherwise, there would be no reason to film women's field hockey and put it on the tube.
Click to expand...

Well I think they have to film non-rev sports...I could be wrong but I thought I remembered reading there were commitments made to the "non-revenue" sports when the channel was founded (I'm probably wrong though, just vaguely remember something about that.
 
My kids are already bailing on cable. My son watches TV shows when he wants to. He only shows up at our house to watch live sports events on the big screen.
 
SonofaSailor said:
Well I think they have to film non-rev sports...I could be wrong but I thought I remembered reading there were commitments made to the "non-revenue" sports when the channel was founded (I'm probably wrong though, just vaguely remember something about that.
Click to expand...

That's right and that's exactly why the BTN's deal will be a year's subscription (or monthly I guess). No way they go to a strict pay per view live event type broadcast. I'm sure ESPN will do the same, otherwise no one will ever have to listen to their endless SEC knob-slobbing 10 months out of the year.
 
okeefe4prez said:
Ugh. I don't want to think about it. But if forced to go into it, I would say just among idiotic things I have bought:

33.6k modem (whoa, this thing cruises, there is no way anything can ever get faster than this 486 with a 33.6 modem)
Crystal Pepsi
Red Dog beer
HD-DVD player when StorminSpank insisted those would become the standard over Blu-ray
Click to expand...

My world changed when I discovered that Labatt's Blue was ON TAP in Michigan...then the trip to MSU and MI for away football became an instant tradition!
 
I just read an article in the Gazette that said there were 91,000 BT alumni in the Beltway. How many are in the Chicago metro area? (I do not know the answer to this question)

I think Delaney is a lot more interested in his short term legacy (this is not an oxymoron that follows) as a commissioner than the long term success of the BT as a premier conference. Our society is all about the "short term" along with the Dow, coaches' win/loss records, and politicians' approval ratings.

I have read a couple of comments on this thread that are critical of the BT network televising "minor" sports. One of the ongoing strengths of the BT is their support of non-revenue producing sports which provide opportunities for true amateur student athletes to gain scholarships and compete at a major college level.

I make no apologies for my stance as an elder statesman. Maybe you young folks should reinvent a tradition in the native American culture and begin to listen to your elders.
 
doclee said:
I just read an article in the Gazette that said there were 91,000 BT alumni in the Beltway. How many are in the Chicago metro area? (I do not know the answer to this question)

I think Delaney is a lot more interested in his short term legacy (this is not an oxymoron that follows) as a commissioner than the long term success of the BT as a premier conference. Our society is all about the "short term" along with the Dow, coaches' win/loss records, and politicians' approval ratings.

I have read a couple of comments on this thread that are critical of the BT network televising "minor" sports. One of the ongoing strengths of the BT is their support of non-revenue producing sports which provide opportunities for true amateur student athletes to gain scholarships and compete at a major college level.

I make no apologies for my stance as an elder statesman. Maybe you young folks should reinvent a tradition in the native American culture and begin to listen to your elders.
Click to expand...

I may be mistaken, but I thought I heard a few years ago that Iowa had over 40,000 alumni in Chicago. There's got to be 250,000 Big Ten alums in Chicagoland at a minimum. I'd bet Iowa and Illinois combined account for over 125,000.
 
doclee said:
I just read an article in the Gazette that said there were 91,000 BT alumni in the Beltway. How many are in the Chicago metro area? (I do not know the answer to this question)

I think Delaney is a lot more interested in his short term legacy (this is not an oxymoron that follows) as a commissioner than the long term success of the BT as a premier conference. Our society is all about the "short term" along with the Dow, coaches' win/loss records, and politicians' approval ratings.

I have read a couple of comments on this thread that are critical of the BT network televising "minor" sports. One of the ongoing strengths of the BT is their support of non-revenue producing sports which provide opportunities for true amateur student athletes to gain scholarships and compete at a major college level.

I make no apologies for my stance as an elder statesman. Maybe you young folks should reinvent a tradition in the native American culture and begin to listen to your elders.
Click to expand...

Critical of "minor" sports? Not in the least. A discussion about the future of the BTN? Yessir. Don't go pointing fingers elder statesmen. This is all posturing for the best revenue situation for the B1G. Nothing more nothing less. If you don't believe that Delaney has a team of experts that work on this then you're out of your mind.
 
okeefe4prez said:
Ugh. I don't want to think about it. But if forced to go into it, I would say just among idiotic things I have bought:

33.6k modem (whoa, this thing cruises, there is no way anything can ever get faster than this 486 with a 33.6 modem)
Crystal Pepsi
Red Dog beer
HD-DVD player when StorminSpank insisted those would become the standard over Blu-ray
Click to expand...

Hey, that HD-DVD was a good deal on your BetaMax trade-in...
 
Delany was not raised in the BigTen area, so he does not have the parochial attitude about what it means to be a Big Ten school. It's about market share, not traditions. So far, it's worked, as more money than ever has flowed into the schools' coffers. That's fine, but it's not the Big Ten any longer. It used to bug me, but like most things, over time you stop paying attention and just benignly accept it.

This issue about television viewers paying for individual programming, and cutting out mandated programming by cable or satellite, is interesting. It may become a serious stick in the spokes of Delany's plans. But 5, certainly 10, years from now, I won't be surprised if the Big Ten is 16-18 teams, or even if the Big Ten still exists in any form, for that matter.
 
homes said:
Delany was not raised in the BigTen area, so he does not have the parochial attitude about what it means to be a Big Ten school. It's about market share, not traditions. So far, it's worked, as more money than ever has flowed into the schools' coffers. That's fine, but it's not the Big Ten any longer. It used to bug me, but like most things, over time you stop paying attention and just benignly accept it.

This issue about television viewers paying for individual programming, and cutting out mandated programming by cable or satellite, is interesting. It may become a serious stick in the spokes of Delany's plans. But 5, certainly 10, years from now, I won't be surprised if the Big Ten is 16-18 teams, or even if the Big Ten still exists in any form, for that matter.
Click to expand...

Exactly right on it is not the "Big Ten" any more.

And sometimes I do wonder if we are headed towards a tipping point where college athletics as we know them will disappear. Everyone thought Delany was joking when he said he didn't believe school presidents would pay players and he could see Big Ten schools de-emphasizing athletics if it came to that...I think he could be right...It is a lot of money...but there are still academics in these schools who think (and probably rightfully so) that football/athletics is out of control.
 
DFaceHawkeye said:
Critical of "minor" sports? Not in the least. A discussion about the future of the BTN? Yessir. Don't go pointing fingers elder statesmen. This is all posturing for the best revenue situation for the B1G. Nothing more nothing less. If you don't believe that Delaney has a team of experts that work on this then you're out of your mind.
Click to expand...

Geez, DFace, you may want to check out your sense of humor meter. But, in all seriousness, the goal of working for the best revenue situation for the BT is best done carefully and with vision. Unfortunately, as I pointed out in an earlier post, and echoed by a few on this thread, Delaney and his experts may or may not be on the right track. Furthermore, take a look at the comments that have been made about "minor" sports over time on this message board...that may explain my need to comment on the importance of non revenue producing programs. The argument that all sports programs at the BT level should be self funding has in fact been made. "Best revenue situation" may not always be defined as "more."
 
It is almost certain, the BT will have 16-20 teams down the road. I don't know if there will 4 or 5 Super Conferences . But 64-80 Schools are going to be doing their own thing. I still say Delaney want G Tech. Atlanta is a huge market. These Big Schools are tired of creating the $ and sharing it with the smaller schools. The whole player compensation thing is a wild card issue
homes said:
Delany was not raised in the BigTen area, so he does not have the parochial attitude about what it means to be a Big Ten school. It's about market share, not traditions. So far, it's worked, as more money than ever has flowed into the schools' coffers. That's fine, but it's not the Big Ten any longer. It used to bug me, but like most things, over time you stop paying attention and just benignly accept it.

This issue about television viewers paying for individual programming, and cutting out mandated programming by cable or satellite, is interesting. It may become a serious stick in the spokes of Delany's plans. But 5, certainly 10, years from now, I won't be surprised if the Big Ten is 16-18 teams, or even if the Big Ten still exists in any form, for that matter.
Click to expand...
 
doclee said:
Geez, DFace, you may want to check out your sense of humor meter. But, in all seriousness, the goal of working for the best revenue situation for the BT is best done carefully and with vision. Unfortunately, as I pointed out in an earlier post, and echoed by a few on this thread, Delaney and his experts may or may not be on the right track. Furthermore, take a look at the comments that have been made about "minor" sports over time on this message board...that may explain my need to comment on the importance of non revenue producing programs. The argument that all sports programs at the BT level should be self funding has in fact been made. "Best revenue situation" may not always be defined as "more."
Click to expand...

I haven't looked through past comments about "minor" sports or self-supporting sports from past comments on this board, I really haven't been in too many of the threads about these topics. I feel that these other sports still need to exist. They are very good for the students and the university. I was only making the argument that the BTN will never go to strictly pay per view, because that would completely deteriorate those "minor" sports by not having the viewership to put them on the tube. The BTN will try to protect it's channel's current set-up and keep all of the non-revenue sports on the channel.
 
DFaceHawkeye said:
I haven't looked through past comments about "minor" sports or self-supporting sports from past comments on this board, I really haven't been in too many of the threads about these topics. I feel that these other sports still need to exist. They are very good for the students and the university. I was only making the argument that the BTN will never go to strictly pay per view, because that would completely deteriorate those "minor" sports by not having the viewership to put them on the tube. The BTN will try to protect it's channel's current set-up and keep all of the non-revenue sports on the channel.
Click to expand...

"Non-revenue" sports exist primarily due to Title IX. I guess they would still exist, but they probably wouldn't have scholarships and great facilities absent football revenue, though. My buddy has a 9 year old daughter and he is getting her into lacrosse, field hockey and rowing because she'll then have liek a 50% chance of going to a BCS caliber school for free because there are so many of these programs and so few high schools that offer them. He figures a few grand now could save 200 grand down the road.

One forgotten factor of conference expansion, though, is that now Iowa has to fly its field hockey team and rowing team out to Maryland for conference play. Add in motels and stuff and it gets expensive. I got a buddy close to NU athletics and he thinks their non-revenue sports direct expenses (not including scholarships) are going to increase by almost 10% to accommodate more rigorous travel schedules. They probably need to bifurcate realignment so that there are power conferences for FB and men's BB and then split the non-revenue sports up into smaller geographic conferences to mitigate these travel cost issues. It really doesn't make sense for Nebraska to fly the softball team to Rutgers, Maryland and Penn State when Kansas, KSU, ISU, Iowa, Mizzou, Wichitall, etc. are all so relatively close.
 
I for one am happy to see any decision that moves us away from Indianapolis being the de facto location for Big Ten events. That place is a second-rate city that only confirms the rest of the country's suspicions that all midwesterners are bumpkins. The east coast additions give us some opportunities to put together a great rotation for championship games. It should be heavy on the center of the country as the bulk of the fan base is here but I would welcome DC and NYC over another trip to the urban Sominex that is Indianapolis.
 
I wouldn't get too worked up about this move to DC. Delany said when Notre Dame joins the conference, the BTT football game will have a permanent home @ Notre Dame Stadium and the BT basketball tourney would move to either Chicago or Indy until Notre Dame built a bigger arena. This is the what the "New Big 10" is all about....don't ya just love it?
 
DFaceHawkeye said:
I haven't looked through past comments about "minor" sports or self-supporting sports from past comments on this board, I really haven't been in too many of the threads about these topics. I feel that these other sports still need to exist. They are very good for the students and the university. I was only making the argument that the BTN will never go to strictly pay per view, because that would completely deteriorate those "minor" sports by not having the viewership to put them on the tube. The BTN will try to protect it's channel's current set-up and keep all of the non-revenue sports on the channel.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification...I misunderstood your point. Sorry about that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top