Miller: B1G Money, Delany's Revenge

JonDMiller said:
How has expansion failed, specifically and pursuant to what?
Click to expand...
Ratings matter, and the actual people that pay to watch the games. Forcing people to pay higher cable bills is only going to backfire and has thus far. Teams like Colorado, Nebraska, Maryland made financial moves but they sacrificed success because of it. The cable bubble has burst and the money only goes down from here.
http://www.businessinsider.com/espn-cord-cutting-losses-2015-12
 
Chips28 said:
An answer to cable cutters is to raise prices on those you still pay? That only creates more cable cutters. The ceiling of these deals has been reached, it only goes down from here.
Click to expand...

Where did I say raise prices?

I've been hearing forever that the ceiling has been reached. Guess what, this new deal will be bigger than any EVER. That is with all the cord cutting, with ESPN mandated by Disney to cut 350 Million per year in operating costs, and everything.

Why are these deals still happening? It is the same reason that people pay tons of money for a divorce.........they are worth it.
 
Chips28 said:
ESPN has already had their non-competitive offer denied by the B1G. They can't afford these major expenses anymore.
Click to expand...

Wanna make a bet on if ESPN gets the other half of this deal? I will bet whatever you want, that Delany just upped ESPN offer by giving 1/2 the deal to FOX. You obviously haven't negotiated deals ever before. When the other party won't give you want you want, then you show them you don't need them. Delany gave ESPN the middle finger. ESPN knows they absolutely can't be shut out of B1G football, and can't get the double bird from Delany (giving the other half the deal to CBS/NBC, etc.)

Delany did exactly what he had to do to FORCE ESPN to pay market rates, and that was show then what the market was willing to pay.
 
FYI The B10 owns their own studios, hires all their own staff etc. The other conferences do not if I recall correctly- maybe Pac12. But SEC and B12 don't. This means for the SEC I believe that ESPN/ABC gets 51% of revenues since they own the equipment/ hire the staff and own the studios. So when the B10 says $250 million dollar and so much per school, the schools actually get that amount. Typically the SEC will announce a big fat contract without mentioning that over 50% does not go to actual conference schools.
 
B1G commish is a smart, savvy, shrew dude. He made an insightful and educated gamble...and it's been a moonshot success.

Good on Delaney.
 
eyekwah said:
At this point what is being written and said is pure speculation. Immediately the speculation includes conference expansion. Jon did not include one other tidbit in his article, that the ACC network to be setup by ESPN/ABC has failed to materialize. There has to be some ACC colleges asking themselves if they are in the right place. I just do not see a westward expansion for the Big Ten. It would be my speculation that some ACC colleges would be folded into the Big Ten and some of the remaining ACC schools would be folded into the Big 12 or some Big 12 colleges would be folded into the remaining ACC. In any case Notre Dame would have to consider its position on remaining a football independent.
Click to expand...

Good points. Deace predicted FSU as ultimately being in the Big Ten during our podcast this week
 
Nothing really new here. Delany has done a wonderful job making money for the conference. And college athletics is all about money, so it that regard the B1G is champion.

On the field and on the court is another matter.
 
The sports bubble is getting so so big... I have a hard time comprehending it. With the landscape now being how live sports are pretty much the single most important thing for advertisers to be getting at it just puts so many eggs into that basket. Like Jon wrote with how all the other stuff that the mother ship puts out there is just about pointless and can't possibly be getting good ratings. And that's not even counting how DVR owners use them. Even people that do like a shows like PTI they probably DVR it and watch it without commercials. It's just the only way to go. I just can't see how too many shows like that work well. ESPN basically has tried to artificially create 'characters' they call the personalities but to me once they tried making their programing as much about them and less about the athletes, coaches, teams they are covering it was going to go downhill for them. I could just care less then to listen to SVP or any of the anchors opinions. I love their 30 for 30s and stuff like that though. But when it comes to their commentary opinion shows that are just so contrived that I can see why they aren't doing well.
 
Xerxes said:
Nothing really new here. Delany has done a wonderful job making money for the conference. And college athletics is all about money, so it that regard the B1G is champion.

On the field and on the court is another matter.
Click to expand...

Ohio State won the football title about 16 months ago. About 13 months ago 2 big ten teams made the final four. Can any other conference say that? Don't get me wrong, this was a bad year for the Big Ten in the major bowl games (outside of Michigan destroying Florida) and not a great year in the NCAA tournament for basketball, but can any other conference throw up those credentials in the two major sports? No. The B1G isn't as terrible as everyone wants to believe it is.

One of the reasons Delany wants to expand south is not only the tv market but the recruiting. The facts are most of the football talent is down south, which gives the SEC a huge advantage, which is why they're doing so well. I don't really think its the B1G commissioners fault that his member institutions are located in the midwest and northeast. He's doing what he can to keep them competitive.
 
hawkdrummer1 said:
They don't get a full ride education? (I know, you cleverly minimalized that under the word "fees" like it's something minor) It costs an out of state kid roughly $40,000 yr (total) to attend Iowa You don't think $160,000 is pretty generous? I do

Nothing wrong with a small stipend each semester, say $1000-$2000, under the premise that they can't get a part time job for spending money. Only problem there...is it can't come from the school or conference as every team has different resources...some simply can't afford it. It would have to be an NCAA thing.
Click to expand...

But the schools and NCAA should be able to sell your jersey with your name on it for $129.99, right?
 
Fryowa said:
But the schools and NCAA should be able to sell your jersey with your name on it for $129.99, right?
Click to expand...


I have no problem with that. that means that particular student athlete is succeeding and will probably have a great chance or payday at the next level. It's a win win for the institution and for the athlete, IMO.
 
MelroseHawkins said:
I have no problem with that. that means that particular student athlete is succeeding and will probably have a great chance or payday at the next level. It's a win win for the institution and for the athlete, IMO.
Click to expand...

I agree with the vast majority of your posts but there's so much wrong with that. There is zero win in it for athletes. The NCAA is the sole pipeline to the NFL and that's why kids signing their life away to the NCAA is coercion, not a choice. There are many legitimate cases of kids playing ball living on ramen while Emmert makes millions because said kids are good at football. Those millions come from income generated by student athletes alone and the majority of those athletes don't end up making a sliver of what the NCAA Assistant Regional Liaison to the Upper Midwest Developmental Executive Director Of Blah Blah Blahs does.

In what twisted world of yours does it make sense for a kid to live in forced poverty, yet use his elite talent to make schools and fat suit NCAA execs millionaires? You have completely, 100% jumped the shark with that weak *** argument. I like you, but you're in left field on this one.
 
Fryowa said:
I agree with the vast majority of your posts but there's so much wrong with that. There is zero win in it for athletes. The NCAA is the sole pipeline to the NFL and that's why kids signing their life away to the NCAA is coercion, not a choice. There are many legitimate cases of kids playing ball living on ramen while Emmert makes millions because said kids are good at football. Those millions come from income generated by student athletes alone and the majority of those athletes don't end up making a sliver of what the NCAA Assistant Regional Liaison to the Upper Midwest Developmental Executive Director Of Blah Blah Blahs does.

In what twisted world of yours does it make sense for a kid to live in forced poverty, yet use his elite talent to make schools and fat suit NCAA execs millionaires? You have completely, 100% jumped the shark with that weak *** argument. I like you, but you're in left field on this one.
Click to expand...


I don't know. I have two 9 y old boys who luv athletics. As a parent, I'm saving for their college. It would be great if they got an athletic scholarship in something but the odds are against that. If they happen to get an athletic scholarship, that would be a bonus. Since saving for their college fund, I would have $$ to give them to comfortably live on. How much do you put on the parents instead of putting everything on a university who is giving your child an opportunity and free education. Some people have to help themselves, IMO. If my son was playing for a university and succeeding so much that they used his jersey, etc., wouldn't bother me a bit. If the kid's are living in "forced poverty", that is on the parents. These young men and women are getting a free education.

Now I will agree with you on a certain point and that is if they are not allowed to work secondary to NCAA rules or that their schedule just would not allow it during their sports season, perhaps they could deserve a small stipend to get by.

Again, in the end, where are the parents to save a little $$ for living expenses.
 
MelroseHawkins said:
I don't know. I have two 9 y old boys who luv athletics. As a parent, I'm saving for their college. It would be great if they got an athletic scholarship in something but the odds are against that. If they happen to get an athletic scholarship, that would be a bonus. Since saving for their college fund, I would have $$ to give them to comfortably live on. How much do you put on the parents instead of putting everything on a university who is giving your child an opportunity and free education. Some people have to help themselves, IMO. If my son was playing for a university and succeeding so much that they used his jersey, etc., wouldn't bother me a bit. If the kid's are living in "forced poverty", that is on the parents. These young men and women are getting a free education.

Now I will agree with you on a certain point and that is if they are not allowed to work secondary to NCAA rules or that their schedule just would not allow it during their sports season, perhaps they could deserve a small stipend to get by.

Again, in the end, where are the parents to save a little $$ for living expenses.
Click to expand...

I'm not feeling sorry for the Johnny Manziel types (although you can't discern between poor and rich kids if you want to be fair), if he sold a jersey or autograph it wouldn't do anything to his bottom line. What irks me is that...

1) some kids have crappy folks and come from crappy backgrounds where the parents don't or can't pay their expenses (do the sins of the father carry over to us?).

2) NCAA execs, schools, and broadcasters are raking in millions solely because of the athletic talent on the field/court. There's no argument that it comes from anywhere else, it doesn't exist without the players.

3) Athletes are forced into the system and have no choice if they want to play pro ball. Tell me the last NFL roster player that didn't go through the NCAA. Kids don't have an option to go somewhere else and get compensated.

What about the star athlete who puts butts in the seat for 3 years, sells jerseys, and gets Lou Holtz all mush mouthed, then blows a knee out and now he's looking for a job? Is Emmert going to cut him a check for all the money he generated? Nope.
 
yes we are seeing cord cutting but it will be replaced by cafeteria type pay for view web servicing contracts. I cut Directv and tried Sling during late Feb-March. It did not work well on my laptop but that might be other issues. I would love to just buy the channels I want to watch, Golf, NBCSN, BTN, ESPNs, and buy on a per event basis also. I dropped Sling and now go out an spend $15 in beer to watch a contest so I aint getting ahead money wise. But I just love that Directv is not getting my dough for a crappy lineup of channels.
 
This is all interesting. ESPN is already losing subscribers while paying out record amounts of money for licensing TV rights to college football. Than this deal where FOX Sports outbids them for half of Big Ten licensing, at a price that may well far exceed any possible payout from advertising. I have to ask the question. Is this Big Ten contract really worth this kind of money or does FOX Sports have some other larger motive? My question would be, is FOX Sports using college football to leverage its position with cable operators. The larger presence FOX Sports has, the more likely it makes it into mainstream cable bundles offered by the cable operators. FOX Sports may be making a play for higher priority among cable bundles.
 
Last edited:
AreWeThereYet said:
This is all interesting. ESPN is already losing subscribers while paying out record amounts of money for licensing TV rights to college football. Than this deal where FOX Sports outbids them for half of Big Ten licensing, at a price that may well far exceed any possible payout from advertising. I have to ask the question. Is this Big Ten contract really worth this kind of money or does FOX Sports have some other larger motive? My question would be, is FOX Sports using college football to leverage its position with cable operators. The larger presence FOX Sports has, the more likely it makes it into mainstream cable bundles offered by the cable operators. FOX Sports may be making a play for higher priority among cable bundles.
Click to expand...
I think the problem with ESPN is that they not only pay all of this money for College Football but they have to be involved with everything everywhere. How much do they lose on the NBA? Or MLB? Or all of the other random sports they broadcast? Fox can focus mostly on creating a model to make money off of college football, with a few smaller ventures on the side. With that said, there has to come a point when, no matter what model you use, you can't possibly make money. I hope the deal works out well for Fox. Only means more money for The University of Iowa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top