Iowa poised to earn $45,000,000 per year

[H8IAST8]

Sorry if this has been posted, but the B1G is going to crush it in next TV contract. Projections give Iowa $45Million in 2017-2018!! Will this be the shift to collegiate sports dominance?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...projections-college-football-playoff/8198437/

 

[thetrza]

"earn" or stumble into by luck from being in the same conference as Michigan or Ohio State.

 

[cmhawks99]

"earn" or stumble into by luck from being in the same conference as Michigan or Ohio State.

Not exactly sure what you're saying or what your point is here. But there is no Big Ten without at least eight other schools, and while Iowa is no Michigan or Ohio State theyre still a viable/valuable commodity.

 

[uihawk82]

Not exactly sure what you're saying or what your point is here. But there is no Big Ten without at least eight other schools, and while Iowa is no Michigan or Ohio State theyre still a viable/valuable commodity.

That is an awesome amount of just TV money to feed the coffers. A year or so ago the New York Times or WSJ did an article that had the hawks as a top 20 team in viewership and appeal so the hawks hold their own in earning this dough.

 

[smhawk]

Great. Maybe there will be commercials now during the game and they'll minimize the game screen to a quarter of the tv size. Also maybe the contract will be worth so much since it's on the verge of such drastic change, with possibility of players being paid and super conferences.

 

[cmhawks99]

Well who knows maybe in that new era of college football Iowa will be even more competitive. We seem to have pretty deep pockets all things considered.

 

[okeefe4prez]

Well who knows maybe in that new era of college football Iowa will be even more competitive. We seem to have pretty deep pockets all things considered.

'Sup Chad? You still up in Bourbannais?

Anyway, this deal ain't gonna make Iowa any more competitive vis a vis the big boys. It's just about further marginalizing the non-BCS schools.

But ultimately, I won't cheer for this because all it is gonna mean is higher and higher cable bills. The US is growing, but the pay TV business is shrinking, in large part because cable bills have gotten so ridiculous. Someone has to pay for the content and as was noted above, advertising pays for some of it, but I'm sure we all remember when the Hox were available just on over the air broadcasts with a few games a year on actual ESPN. Now you gotta have a cable package with ESPN and BTN to see the games and the cost of cable has exploded in the past 10 years. With Comcast and TWC under contract to merge and AT&T's and DirectTV's boards meeting today to approve a merger, the future for content providers may not look so bright. The bundling arrangements that these networks are cramming down on cable companies are an absolute joke and the only ways to stop them are either through legislative action or to have two behemoth cable companies that put their foot down. Something's gonna bust in this model because it is getting into classic bubble territory and I hope the schools ain't spending that cash just yet.

Hell, World Wrestling Federation's stock just crashed 44% on Friday when they announced the terms of their new TV deal, which was richer than the old one, but not by much because the networks know they just can't push through too much more in price hikes. I feel this may be a harbinger of things to come for all sports content.

 

[uihawk82]

'Sup Chad? You still up in Bourbannais?

Anyway, this deal ain't gonna make Iowa any more competitive vis a vis the big boys. It's just about further marginalizing the non-BCS schools.

But ultimately, I won't cheer for this because all it is gonna mean is higher and higher cable bills.
Hell, World Wrestling Federation's stock just crashed 44% on Friday when they announced the terms of their new TV deal, which was richer than the old one, but not by much because the networks know they just can't push through too much more in price hikes. I feel this may be a harbinger of things to come for all sports content.

I was listening to a serious radio discussion about some of the internet bandwidth and cable/internet content redistribution and licensing legal cases that are now in front of the Supreme Court. One lady who lives in the boston area called in to say she has dumped cable tv for netflix and hula+ type of experience. She said she was paying Comcast $200+ a month for a mid tier package and she didnt watch many channels

I think most cable channels are crap, crappy, and crappier in their offerings. BBC America used to have 20 years ago the really clever Brit comedies and edgy dramas but those shows cost more to produce so now BBC AMer is lots of crappy cheap reality shows and the same goes for A&El

I would really like to see more competition in cable/content distribution where consumers could demand a model that is cafeteria type where you pick you channels. Some people want reality TV shows and home and shopping. other people want nature shows, others want sports, others want news and finance.

That lady in Boston would not be paying that type of dough if there was more competition and she could choose her package.

Are there any experts out there who know a lot about this new company that is installing individual silver dollar size dishes in tall buildings for individual wireless/satellite hookups who can tell us what this service offers?

 

[okeefe4prez]

I was listening to a serious radio discussion about some of the internet bandwidth and cable/internet content redistribution and licensing legal cases that are now in front of the Supreme Court. One lady who lives in the boston area called in to say she has dumped cable tv for netflix and hula+ type of experience. She said she was paying Comcast $200+ a month for a mid tier package and she didnt watch many channels

I think most cable channels are crap, crappy, and crappier in their offerings. BBC America used to have 20 years ago the really clever Brit comedies and edgy dramas but those shows cost more to produce so now BBC AMer is lots of crappy cheap reality shows and the same goes for A&El

I would really like to see more competition in cable/content distribution where consumers could demand a model that is cafeteria type where you pick you channels. Some people want reality TV shows and home and shopping. other people want nature shows, others want sports, others want news and finance.

That lady in Boston would not be paying that type of dough if there was more competition and she could choose her package.

Are there any experts out there who know a lot about this new company that is installing individual silver dollar size dishes in tall buildings for individual wireless/satellite hookups who can tell us what this service offers?

That service is going to get killed by the SCOTUS, I suspect. The issue is whether or not capturing the satellite signal and redistributing it without paying the license fee constitutes copyright infringement. The provider says it does not because the satellite signal is beamed all over the place and they're just capturing the signal. Of course, the content owners disagree.

 

[STILLBUSTER]

Sorry if this has been posted, but the B1G is going to crush it in next TV contract. Projections give Iowa $45Million in 2017-2018!! Will this be the shift to collegiate sports dominance?

Financially, I suppose (probably already is). As far as on-field / court / diamond dominance, I suspect status quo, regardless of income. Very Cub-like, the B1G -- widespread, rabid fan base with high hopes relative to results.

 

[NCHawker]

Sorry if this has been posted, but the B1G is going to crush it in next TV contract. Projections give Iowa $45Million in 2017-2018!! Will this be the shift to collegiate sports dominance?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...projections-college-football-playoff/8198437/

I don't think it will change competitive balance, much less dominance. There remains more of the better athletes in the south. It may mean that U's can pay coaches better thus attracting more top notch coaches, which may translate somehow into better recruiting...but I'm not seeing it.

 

[Seth53]

Ahhhh.....collegiate "amateur" athletics.....love it

 

[DJL]

Maybe we could bowl in the South End zone.

 

[Chickenlounge]

I was listening to a serious radio discussion about some of the internet bandwidth and cable/internet content redistribution and licensing legal cases that are now in front of the Supreme Court. One lady who lives in the boston area called in to say she has dumped cable tv for netflix and hula+ type of experience. She said she was paying Comcast $200+ a month for a mid tier package and she didnt watch many channels

I think most cable channels are crap, crappy, and crappier in their offerings. BBC America used to have 20 years ago the really clever Brit comedies and edgy dramas but those shows cost more to produce so now BBC AMer is lots of crappy cheap reality shows and the same goes for A&El

I would really like to see more competition in cable/content distribution where consumers could demand a model that is cafeteria type where you pick you channels. Some people want reality TV shows and home and shopping. other people want nature shows, others want sports, others want news and finance.

That lady in Boston would not be paying that type of dough if there was more competition and she could choose her package.

Are there any experts out there who know a lot about this new company that is installing individual silver dollar size dishes in tall buildings for individual wireless/satellite hookups who can tell us what this service offers?

It'll never happen, because as soon as you move to the a la carte style, you will lose 90% of the channels available. The vast majority of channels aren't profitable, but since they're all owned by parent companies, those parent companies rely on the the ESPNs, ABCs, NBCs, CBSs, and Foxs of the world to fund their unprofitable channels. If you allow a la carte, and 500,000 sign up for A&E, does it make financial sense at that point to continue producing A&E, since no advertiser is going to pay just to reach 500,000 viewers? Nope, the advertisers will leave and they'll shut down A&E because even though it's probably not profitable right now, at that low viewership with no advertisers, it would just hemorrhage money. No parent company in their right mind would continue that money-losing situation.

 

[okeefe4prez]

It'll never happen, because as soon as you move to the a la carte style, you will lose 90% of the channels available. The vast majority of channels aren't profitable, but since they're all owned by parent companies, those parent companies rely on the the ESPNs, ABCs, NBCs, CBSs, and Foxs of the world to fund their unprofitable channels. If you allow a la carte, and 500,000 sign up for A&E, does it make financial sense at that point to continue producing A&E, since no advertiser is going to pay just to reach 500,000 viewers? Nope, the advertisers will leave and they'll shut down A&E because even though it's probably not profitable right now, at that low viewership with no advertisers, it would just hemorrhage money. No parent company in their right mind would continue that money-losing situation.

Correct, but 95%+ of the bundled channels cost like a dime or quarter a month. The government should set some bundled cable rate cap at like 15 cents or 25 cents a channel, and if any channel that is priced above that cap consumers can opt out. What is driving cable prices way up is sports programming. Delany and the fellas who run Disney (parent of ESPN) insist that their sports channels carry premiums that are many multiples above what the average channel costs. NBC and Fox Sports One are also trying to get on that gravy train. People should be allowed to opt out of that nonsense.

It also derives in part from an antiquated notion of the overlap between antitrust law and copyright law. There is a judicially created exemption from antitrust laws for bundling copyrighted materials because it makes no sense to require the sale of individual chapters of a book, individual scenes from a 2 hour movie or individual songs from an album. This exemption is used by content sellers to say "if you want to Comedy Central and Nickelodeon, you have to buy these 16 other channels, too." It makes no sense, but such is DC. http://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/comp...s/single-firm-conduct/tying-sale-two-products

Of course, the network TV segment of Disney drove over 60% of its profits last year, the vast majority of that from ESPN. Given that Disney was able to buy off Congress/Sonny Bono when the copyright on Mickey Mouse was nearing its end of copyright protection, I'm probably wrong to expect any legislative change to the cable business model.

 

[cmhawks99]

That service is going to get killed by the SCOTUS, I suspect. The issue is whether or not capturing the satellite signal and redistributing it without paying the license fee constitutes copyright infringement. The provider says it does not because the satellite signal is beamed all over the place and they're just capturing the signal. Of course, the content owners disagree.

Howdy Pres. O'Keeffe,

yep still down in Bourbonais. As far as this cable stuff yeah it burns me. I call and cancel about every six months just to get my rate dropped. They are criminals and in fact I do drop it for real every now and then just to take a break from it. I honestly only have it for high school and college football season otherwise we don't watch that much TV. It's mostly poisonous crap and I can't stand reality television.

 

[uihawk82]

Howdy Pres. O'Keeffe,

yep still down in Bourbonais. As far as this cable stuff yeah it burns me. I call and cancel about every six months just to get my rate dropped. They are criminals and in fact I do drop it for real every now and then just to take a break from it. I honestly only have it for high school and college football season otherwise we don't watch that much TV. It's mostly poisonous crap and I can't stand reality television.

^^agree. College football and bball, hockey and golf are about all I need it for sportswise. I can get the rest of my viewing on PBS and local stations (an not much from local stations except sports) I like having the Golf Channel for the odd hour PGA and Ryder Cup action.

 

[uihawk82]

It'll never happen, because as soon as you move to the a la carte style, you will lose 90% of the channels available. The vast majority of channels aren't profitable, but since they're all owned by parent companies, those parent companies rely on the the ESPNs, ABCs, NBCs, CBSs, and Foxs of the world to fund their unprofitable channels. If you allow a la carte, and 500,000 sign up for A&E, does it make financial sense at that point to continue producing A&E, since no advertiser is going to pay just to reach 500,000 viewers? Nope, the advertisers will leave and they'll shut down A&E because even though it's probably not profitable right now, at that low viewership with no advertisers, it would just hemorrhage money. No parent company in their right mind would continue that money-losing situation.

Chicken, it is called free enterprise and the free market, something that really hasnt existed in this country since about 1880.

You might say it will never happen but I say it needs to happen. Look how AMC has reinvented itself, and USA Network with some good long running series, etc, like TNT.

If you go the cafeteria model and a channels viewership declines then they better reprogram because that is a signal their offerings are crap.

You never hear about contract issues with low priced, low volume channels which makes sense. The heavyweight networks and channels subsidize everything.

I think cafeteria style would open up networks and startups to test the waters with new channels to see what works.

 

[Chickenlounge]

Chicken, it is called free enterprise and the free market, something that really hasnt existed in this country since about 1880.

You might say it will never happen but I say it needs to happen. Look how AMC has reinvented itself, and USA Network with some good long running series, etc, like TNT.

If you go the cafeteria model and a channels viewership declines then they better reprogram because that is a signal their offerings are crap.

You never hear about contract issues with low priced, low volume channels which makes sense. The heavyweight networks and channels subsidize everything.

I think cafeteria style would open up networks and startups to test the waters with new channels to see what works.

I'm all for free enterprise. What I'm saying, is that if it goes that way, you'll have about 10 channels to choose from. If that's what the market wants and supports, so be it. Doesn't bother me either way. The barriers to entering the market are pretty high. I don't think you'll see many new channels or startups creating their own channels. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. Nobody knows at this point...

 

[okeefe4prez]

I'm all for free enterprise. What I'm saying, is that if it goes that way, you'll have about 10 channels to choose from. If that's what the market wants and supports, so be it. Doesn't bother me either way. The barriers to entering the market are pretty high. I don't think you'll see many new channels or startups creating their own channels. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. Nobody knows at this point...

In 20 years, the notion of a TV channel as we know them today will likely be as antiquated of a concept as a rotary dial telephone or an 8 track player. New content that is viable has avenues other than through a network to be distributed, and give it another 20 years and those avenues will expand. Think back to the level of technology in 1994. There is no way any of us could have imagined the stuff that is around today back in 1994. Hell, watch this 1993 AT&T ad - we have blown away even the most aspirational items the engineers there imagined. "Have you ever tucked your baby in from a phone booth?" What's a phone booth?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PJcABbtvtA