Not a cable insider here, just your average sports management degree holder who pays attention to the state of media in sports. .Which is why I agree 100% that the true sports fanatic is better off going with either DirecTV or Dish Network. The fact that cable giants still refuse to offer the (full) NFL network, ESPNU, or CSTV is a slap to your face and mine. Like affordable energy, a la carte pricing is in our future, but it will be a while.
As for referencing my work (footnotes), my first claim was quoted directly from the story itself, so I didnt figure one was needed there. As for the Director's Cup standings, check out http://nacda.cstv.com/ . Feel free to average the numbers, and you will find that some conferences use revenue sports to ensure a successful athletics program as a whole, and other conferences use revenue sports to ensure their head "bawl" coaches make 3-5 million a season.
The reason that this thread caught my eye, was that all reports pointed to the success of the BTN in landing their primary goal, which was placement on a basic cable package. When I read about the BTN losing a game of chicken, and having their butts handed to them, it was easy to understand that the spin was coming from south of the Mason Dixon. I find the dynamic of the SEC obsession with the Big Ten to be facinating, and I believe it would make a great thread for fanblogs.
Casey
· 1 year ago
What Kevin fails to mention in his bias post, is that the issue of per household fee was marginal at best. The (much) larger issue at hand, as far as BOTH the BTN and Comcast were concerned, was the placement on the basic platform. As the quote states, "The BTN completed the deal without caving on its central demand: that the channel be placed on expanded basic, rather than a sports tier, in the eight-state footprint" The extra revenue would be nice, but is icing on the cake. This channel had to be offered as a part of a basic package in order to succeed. The money made from the increase in suscribers alone more then makes up for what the BTN would make if customers were forced to purchase the expanded sports tier package (even at 2 or 3 dollars per suscriber). As for the Forbes article, it is also an incomplete picture. Net Profit is a part of this ranking, and that profit can vary due to everything from extra home games to the amount of money paid to fund female scholarships to scholarship policy. The average Directors Cup rankings of the Big Ten and the SEC (23.6 vs. 39.5) shows that some conferences have different priorities than others. Sustain your "greatness" for a century, and not just a decade, and we can talk. Holla.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Okay, Casey, hold your at-bat. You sound like a cable insider, so I'm afraid we'll need you to footnote most of your comments, otherwise we can't really take what you're saying at face value.
Is he making sense, guys, or have I had too much three-buck Chuck, tonight?
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
Let's see... I'm biased and Forbes is biased. Sure seems like a lot of bias. ;-)
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
I buy tires that are bias-ply....
Eazy
· 1 year ago
Id be bitter if I had to watch games on JP/Lincoln Financial too.
shiguy
· 1 year ago
KevinHD i completely agree with you on that. personally i don't know how there hasn't been a cable company that goes off the basis of purely paying for the channels you watch. it would make sense to me and we could then see the end of some of these worthless channels that simply pollute the television channel list. not to mention some of the channel selections are really odd. i remember i was visiting one city and they didn't have discovery channel on their listing but they had BET. nothing against the channel but it didn't really make sense why they wouldn't have certain channels. sorry but that is another thread against the major television suppliers in general.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
Some of the mindset about channel "creep" (offering large packages with some channels that you may not want) is simply a marketing tool for the providers. If you have a choice between company X with 50 channels for $20 and company Y with 15 channels for $20, more people statistically will pick the broader offering. And the same mindset that works at McDonalds (super-size) also works in cable -- hence the smaller add-on packages with one great channel for $5/month. :-)
KevinHD
· 1 year ago
shiguy, i would argue that should be the case for all channels, including the 75+ on basic cable I bet neither of us have ever watched.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
Of course you would.
Zac
· 1 year ago
K-Hue, looks like we're going to need another Open Thread. I can't even access the comments from the last one.
shiguy
· 1 year ago
i have had comcast for the last 6 years or so since they took over adelphia. personally i hate them but in this case i have to give them credit. the whole idea of the B10 network personally discusts me. the station should be a ppv station where if you want it YOU pay for it. i dont' feel i should be paying for some boilermaker or hoosier to look back on the yesteryears. i'm glad they got the b10 to step down although i would have liked it better in the sports package.
MaxB
· 1 year ago
I still think that the math is wrong. Adding 25 million homes to bump up to 55 million means that EVERY Comcast household would be paying for the channel, even outside "Big Ten Country." I doubt that this channel ends up on basic cable nationwide, so the number of households drops off pretty quickly. The B10N may not even end up with $20 million.
Kevin
· 1 year ago
The BTN was never asking for $1.14 for every household, they asked for $1.10 for those houses in the footprint and a dime nationwide. This was, again, an asking price. That offer also asked that the network be on basic in the footprint and on a sports tier in the rest of the country.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
And I contend that you may not be correct.
Tim Tebow
· 1 year ago
The Big 10 Network is pacing the way for the SEC Network, hopefully we'll get it soon.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
The stars will be in alignment for the emergence of the promised network in the fall of 2009.
The precedents of the Mountain West sports network and Big 10 Network indicate it will be on basic cable and choice satalitte in FL, GA, AL, KY, SC, MS, TN, LA and Arkansas. Everywhere else it will be bundled in a sports package. ESPN and ABC will still pay for the top games each week, but goodbye ESPN Gameplan.
Has anyone heard of a Big 12 Network, or an ACC Network? Just saying...
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
Not so fast my friend. If the SEC can outearn the Big10 (and they are and will continue to) with a national contract with CBS (as current) or Fox, then you can kiss an SEC network bye-bye. There's no point in spending the overhead if you're already clearing the revenue.
AdmVinyl
· 1 year ago
Any cite for this claim that the SEC is outearning the Big 11 on football right now? Almost everything I've ever read says the Big 11 contract is the most lucrative.
I disagree that the CBS/Fox contract value or what the Big 11 is earning on their contract even matters to whether the SEC starts their network, unless CBS/FOX demand that they not start the network and pay them for that. There's not really a ton of overhead or at least not enough that it doesn't make sense for the teams, hence why Comcast has started their own sports channels all over the place in conjunction with the local teams having ownership shares (see Philly, Bay Area, Chicago, etc). There's no way it wouldn't be a moneymaker for the SEC, the only consideration is whether they can extort more money than it would make for them out of CBS. CBS would be dumb to pay for that though -- the only companies that suffer from the creation of a SEC Network are ESPN (for gameplan subscription loss) and Raycom/JP.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Here's a claim that the SEC is out-earning the Big 10(11). It takes into account everything, not just TV revenue. From forbes.com this past November, they rank the top 20 schools as revenue-producing entities, assigning them a market value if you will.
The SEC posted 6 of the top 10, compared to the Big 10(11)'s 2, and 8 of the top 20, compared to 5.
How's that for citing it?
AdmVinyl
· 1 year ago
That's all fine and good, but it doesn't address what Kevin said, which is "the SEC is outearning the Big 10 with a national contract". Like I said, the problem is the Big 11 didn't publish the details of the last contract, and I can't seem to find it anywhere. Perhaps my Google-fu is weak.
I think Kevin's got to be right on the next contract value though, the SEC is in a historically good bargaining position for the conference, there's got to be a big jump in their rights fees as viewership of SEC on CBS I'm sure has jumped in the last few years, and it will be especially so if Fox wants to jump into the bidding. If the SEC doesn't make more than the Big 11 after this negotiation I'd be shocked.
As for the network, Big Ten schools are getting 6 to 7 million a year each out of the BTN alone (Wisconsin, for example, has reported it got 6.1 million, and this in a year before Comcast and Time Warner were on board). The SEC payout in 2007 to each school was around 10.2 million total including everything -- football TV, basketball TV, tournaments, the championship game, and bowl revenue. Now, the realities of the market might make an SEC Network worth less even though the football product at least is worth more, just because the primary viewing area for the matchups not chosen by CBS and ESPN would be areas without too many big media markets, but I'd be surprised if their own network didn't increase their revenue per school, and probably by a substantial margin. Unless they can get an additional contract bump from CBS to also maybe add a football game or two to CBS College Sports (the old CSTV) each week to help give that network more credibility -- and I think this is a big opportunity for the SEC in negotiations, because that channel doesn't have a whole lot on it right now and SEC football would definitely bring it instant credibility -- I think they have to seriously look at their own network.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Ok, so the SEC is making more money than the BIG 10+1.
They have more teams on the radar.
They are the better network.
If the Big 10 is making anywhere near the SEC in TV contracts with their own network, imagine what the SEC could do with their own network?
What the SEC will be watching is whether the BIG 10 is doing better with their network than what the Big 10 would have done with the existing TV markets.
Remind me again how getting your network in 55 million households and on basic cable in eight states is "losing the game of chicken?".
The BTN web site has said for a while now that they are asking about $1/subscriber for all midwest homes and $0.10 for non-footprint homes. The deal being rumored is very close to that.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
First and foremost, I don't think you read the linked article from last year on the game of chicken. If you had, I could probably stop typing right now....
For clarification, The Big 10 Network doesn't *add* 55 million homes by inking Comcast, rather they bring their total to roughly 55 million. In other words, the B10N is adding 25M homes.
Again, in last year's linked post, the B10N was hell-bent on $1.14 per household. Period. No if's and's or but's accepted.
Under the B10N's WE WILL NOT BUDGE stance, the Comcast subscribers would have been valued at $28.5 million (25M * $1.14). Instead, the B10N is signing a deal -- as linked from the Chicago Tribune -- at roughly $0.70 - $0.80 cents. Even using the Tribune's most generous estimate ($0.80 per household), that's a contract worth just $20 million.
Now... I don't know about you but where I come from, having left $8.5 million dollars per year on the table isn't just losing on a deal, it's getting your sweet pale @ss handed to you by a beast.
Factor in that Comcast will be at its own discretion to provide B10N on upsell only plans (digital cable, etc), that's not a lot of "win" on the Big 10 Network side of the table.
What will be interesting now is to see how much of a ripple effect this pricing agreement will have downmarket. While Comcast certainly commands a larger discount by virtue of its marketshare footprint, I think the B10N will have some significant difficulty getting their $1+ price to hold when the DirecTV/Dish and other local provider agreements come due.
So... long story short... that's how the Big 10 Network lost their game of chicken.
Kevin
· 1 year ago
That story I didn't read quotes TPN on the $1.14, not the BTN. Besides that, you don't link the TPN story anywhere in your post so I'm not even sure what you are talking about.
TVWeek: There are obviously two sides to every argument, but from your point of view, what’s wrong with this sentence: “Sports fans will have to pay $1.10 per person to watch fifth-tier football games and women’s volleyball.” Mr. Thompson: Well, the $1.10 has been probably the most oft-quoted figure, which is just not true....It’s like the analogy that nobody pays sticker price on a car unless you’re an idiot. The part of the fifth-tier game, I don’t understand that. I mean I think we never pick fifth, there’s no scenario where we pick fifth. There’s scenarios where we pick second, third, and you know we’ve made the decision to not only pick in those days second or third, but we also take all the rest of the games because these games—there’s no such thing as a fifth-tier game if it’s your school and your team. [end quote]
By the BTN's own admission, well before any progress was made (this interview was from October 2007), the BTN came right out and said the $1.10 (not $1.14) is the "sticker price of a car" that "nobody pays...unless you’re an idiot." Where I come from it's pretty standard for you to come down from your asking price, so, again, I don't see how that happening here represents the BT leaving money on the table.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
I hate to point this out, but... the BTN representative in this quote doesn't confrim $1.10. Rather he states that it is "oft-quoted". Are you not open to the suggestion that in JUNE 2007 the B10N was asking $1.14 as the Comcast representatives stated to The Patriot News??
It certainly doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the price might be falling (from $1.14 to roughly $1.10) from pre-season June to mid-season October.
If the Big 10 Network was expecting someone to dicker, as you seem inclined to believe, why exactly would they reduce the price by 20-30% (using your estimates) or 35+% (using the numbers from the Patriot News and Chicago Tribune)????????
I still hold that dropping your price 35+% (and by such leaving $8.5 million on the table) is **losing** at the table.
KevinHD
· 1 year ago
You were the one who insisted that the BTN had a (your words) "WE WILL NOT BUDGE...Period. No if's and's or but's accepted" stance, and if that is true then how can you later suggest that they actually did drop their prices in just a couple of months during the summer of 2007? Besides that, the story YOU LINKED above states that the initial asking price was in fact $1.10.
Secondly, I'm not sure that you can apply a basic percentage to all negotiations, regardless of the industry, and say "20-30% is a FAIL", that seems a little foolish. And to think that they would stay near the offer price when the BTN spokesman went right out and said only "idiots" would pay the sticker leads me to believe they were ok with falling significantly from $1.10.
Finally, saying that the price dropped 20-30% is incredibly misleading, that drop only represents that being charged to Big Ten Country residents, not the additional amount being charged to every other Comcast customer nationwide, which is a totally different number. To give you some perspective: of the 55 million households that will have the BTN through this deal, only 13 million of them are in the 8-states...just 24%. So even if they do give on that number, it doesn't actually affect the final dollar figure by nearly as much as the percentages you are listing.
Your number that $8.5 million was left on the table simply isn't accurate.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
You either cannot read or you have such a blind agenda that you choose not to. Please don't get yourself banned for being a dolt.
My statement was a snapshot of the B10N - the $1.14 price quoted in the TPN article. I have never suggested that the BTN dropped the asking price to $1.10. That was *your* suggestion.
In my follow up I essentially defended your price point ($1.10) by stating that it was reasonable to me that the B10N -- by virtue of the time that had passed -- would be more inclined to lower the price. You seem intent on arguing what the price wasn't, despite the newspaper article to the contrary.
Secondly... I will continue to disagree with you, so I think at some point it would be in everyone's best interest for you to concede that we have a disagreement. I am willing to concede that you feel it is acceptable to drop your price 35+%.
You seem to have an awful lot of insight on a deal that hasn't been publicly agreed upon. Perhaps you would like to disclose where that background is coming from.
Finally... and I think this might be the most important point... h.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Seriously, I'd like to have access to the Big 10(11) network way down here in the land of cotton. Lord knows you never see a Big 10(11) game on ESPN in the prime time...
Announcing the new Big Ten network. Now showing on Comcast channel eleven...
1Tomcat
· 1 year ago
Ya we have it and I actually dont recall watching a single game on there last year. Heck with all the B-12 games,C-USA games and a ACC, Mt West or SEC game on occasion who the heck wants to watch Minn vs Ind or Northwestern vs Mich st. The only time I really enjoy B-10 games are during the bowls and the ones I recall, the B-10 teams got beat. I'd rather watch a Rice vs S. Miss or SMU vs TTech etc. etc.
All Comments
As for referencing my work (footnotes), my first claim was quoted directly from the story itself, so I didnt figure one was needed there. As for the Director's Cup standings, check out http://nacda.cstv.com/ . Feel free to average the numbers, and you will find that some conferences use revenue sports to ensure a successful athletics program as a whole, and other conferences use revenue sports to ensure their head "bawl" coaches make 3-5 million a season.
The reason that this thread caught my eye, was that all reports pointed to the success of the BTN in landing their primary goal, which was placement on a basic cable package. When I read about the BTN losing a game of chicken, and having their butts handed to them, it was easy to understand that the spin was coming from south of the Mason Dixon. I find the dynamic of the SEC obsession with the Big Ten to be facinating, and I believe it would make a great thread for fanblogs.
Is he making sense, guys, or have I had too much three-buck Chuck, tonight?
The precedents of the Mountain West sports network and Big 10 Network indicate it will be on basic cable and choice satalitte in FL, GA, AL, KY, SC, MS, TN, LA and Arkansas. Everywhere else it will be bundled in a sports package. ESPN and ABC will still pay for the top games each week, but goodbye ESPN Gameplan.
Has anyone heard of a Big 12 Network, or an ACC Network? Just saying...
I disagree that the CBS/Fox contract value or what the Big 11 is earning on their contract even matters to whether the SEC starts their network, unless CBS/FOX demand that they not start the network and pay them for that. There's not really a ton of overhead or at least not enough that it doesn't make sense for the teams, hence why Comcast has started their own sports channels all over the place in conjunction with the local teams having ownership shares (see Philly, Bay Area, Chicago, etc). There's no way it wouldn't be a moneymaker for the SEC, the only consideration is whether they can extort more money than it would make for them out of CBS. CBS would be dumb to pay for that though -- the only companies that suffer from the creation of a SEC Network are ESPN (for gameplan subscription loss) and Raycom/JP.
http://www.forbes.com/sportsbusiness/2007/11/20...
The SEC posted 6 of the top 10, compared to the Big 10(11)'s 2, and 8 of the top 20, compared to 5.
How's that for citing it?
I think Kevin's got to be right on the next contract value though, the SEC is in a historically good bargaining position for the conference, there's got to be a big jump in their rights fees as viewership of SEC on CBS I'm sure has jumped in the last few years, and it will be especially so if Fox wants to jump into the bidding. If the SEC doesn't make more than the Big 11 after this negotiation I'd be shocked.
As for the network, Big Ten schools are getting 6 to 7 million a year each out of the BTN alone (Wisconsin, for example, has reported it got 6.1 million, and this in a year before Comcast and Time Warner were on board). The SEC payout in 2007 to each school was around 10.2 million total including everything -- football TV, basketball TV, tournaments, the championship game, and bowl revenue. Now, the realities of the market might make an SEC Network worth less even though the football product at least is worth more, just because the primary viewing area for the matchups not chosen by CBS and ESPN would be areas without too many big media markets, but I'd be surprised if their own network didn't increase their revenue per school, and probably by a substantial margin. Unless they can get an additional contract bump from CBS to also maybe add a football game or two to CBS College Sports (the old CSTV) each week to help give that network more credibility -- and I think this is a big opportunity for the SEC in negotiations, because that channel doesn't have a whole lot on it right now and SEC football would definitely bring it instant credibility -- I think they have to seriously look at their own network.
They have more teams on the radar.
They are the better network.
If the Big 10 is making anywhere near the SEC in TV contracts with their own network, imagine what the SEC could do with their own network?
What the SEC will be watching is whether the BIG 10 is doing better with their network than what the Big 10 would have done with the existing TV markets.
The BTN web site has said for a while now that they are asking about $1/subscriber for all midwest homes and $0.10 for non-footprint homes. The deal being rumored is very close to that.
For clarification, The Big 10 Network doesn't *add* 55 million homes by inking Comcast, rather they bring their total to roughly 55 million. In other words, the B10N is adding 25M homes.
Again, in last year's linked post, the B10N was hell-bent on $1.14 per household. Period. No if's and's or but's accepted.
Under the B10N's WE WILL NOT BUDGE stance, the Comcast subscribers would have been valued at $28.5 million (25M * $1.14). Instead, the B10N is signing a deal -- as linked from the Chicago Tribune -- at roughly $0.70 - $0.80 cents. Even using the Tribune's most generous estimate ($0.80 per household), that's a contract worth just $20 million.
Now... I don't know about you but where I come from, having left $8.5 million dollars per year on the table isn't just losing on a deal, it's getting your sweet pale @ss handed to you by a beast.
Factor in that Comcast will be at its own discretion to provide B10N on upsell only plans (digital cable, etc), that's not a lot of "win" on the Big 10 Network side of the table.
What will be interesting now is to see how much of a ripple effect this pricing agreement will have downmarket. While Comcast certainly commands a larger discount by virtue of its marketshare footprint, I think the B10N will have some significant difficulty getting their $1+ price to hold when the DirecTV/Dish and other local provider agreements come due.
So... long story short... that's how the Big 10 Network lost their game of chicken.
But regardless, this is part of an interview with the BTN: (link: http://www.tvweek.com/news/2007/10/big_ten_netw... )
TVWeek: There are obviously two sides to every argument, but from your point of view, what’s wrong with this sentence: “Sports fans will have to pay $1.10 per person to watch fifth-tier football games and women’s volleyball.”
Mr. Thompson: Well, the $1.10 has been probably the most oft-quoted figure, which is just not true....It’s like the analogy that nobody pays sticker price on a car unless you’re an idiot.
The part of the fifth-tier game, I don’t understand that. I mean I think we never pick fifth, there’s no scenario where we pick fifth. There’s scenarios where we pick second, third, and you know we’ve made the decision to not only pick in those days second or third, but we also take all the rest of the games because these games—there’s no such thing as a fifth-tier game if it’s your school and your team. [end quote]
By the BTN's own admission, well before any progress was made (this interview was from October 2007), the BTN came right out and said the $1.10 (not $1.14) is the "sticker price of a car" that "nobody pays...unless you’re an idiot." Where I come from it's pretty standard for you to come down from your asking price, so, again, I don't see how that happening here represents the BT leaving money on the table.
It certainly doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the price might be falling (from $1.14 to roughly $1.10) from pre-season June to mid-season October.
If the Big 10 Network was expecting someone to dicker, as you seem inclined to believe, why exactly would they reduce the price by 20-30% (using your estimates) or 35+% (using the numbers from the Patriot News and Chicago Tribune)????????
I still hold that dropping your price 35+% (and by such leaving $8.5 million on the table) is **losing** at the table.
Secondly, I'm not sure that you can apply a basic percentage to all negotiations, regardless of the industry, and say "20-30% is a FAIL", that seems a little foolish. And to think that they would stay near the offer price when the BTN spokesman went right out and said only "idiots" would pay the sticker leads me to believe they were ok with falling significantly from $1.10.
Finally, saying that the price dropped 20-30% is incredibly misleading, that drop only represents that being charged to Big Ten Country residents, not the additional amount being charged to every other Comcast customer nationwide, which is a totally different number. To give you some perspective: of the 55 million households that will have the BTN through this deal, only 13 million of them are in the 8-states...just 24%. So even if they do give on that number, it doesn't actually affect the final dollar figure by nearly as much as the percentages you are listing.
Your number that $8.5 million was left on the table simply isn't accurate.
My statement was a snapshot of the B10N - the $1.14 price quoted in the TPN article. I have never suggested that the BTN dropped the asking price to $1.10. That was *your* suggestion.
In my follow up I essentially defended your price point ($1.10) by stating that it was reasonable to me that the B10N -- by virtue of the time that had passed -- would be more inclined to lower the price. You seem intent on arguing what the price wasn't, despite the newspaper article to the contrary.
Secondly... I will continue to disagree with you, so I think at some point it would be in everyone's best interest for you to concede that we have a disagreement. I am willing to concede that you feel it is acceptable to drop your price 35+%.
You seem to have an awful lot of insight on a deal that hasn't been publicly agreed upon. Perhaps you would like to disclose where that background is coming from.
Finally... and I think this might be the most important point... h.
Announcing the new Big Ten network. Now showing on Comcast channel eleven...
I'd rather watch a Rice vs S. Miss or SMU vs TTech etc. etc.