Non-Key Tweets

[FDNY99]

The only Big Ten reporter that matters is Teddy Greenstein from the Chicago Tribune. He is wired directly into the B1G offices and has been accurate with his articles about Nebraska, Rutgers & Maryland being targets in advance of it becoming public info.

When he writes an article that says the Big Ten should consider or is considering adding UConn then we can believe that our ticket will be punched. Until then, the rest of these guys have no more info than Scott Gray

Tom Dienhart from BTN also has said UCONN to the B1G was a good fit..after we beat MSU in NYC to advance to the final 4. Dienhart doesn't say or write anything that isn't approved by the BTN/Delany

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Because our hockey program isn't ready for prime time. We start finishing in the top 5 in HE and that changes everything.

Having a top Hockey team would be nice; but, I cannot imagine it is a requirement for the B1G. The B1G already has top hockey teams in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan St and Michigan. What they need are more games to fill TV spots and that is something that UConn can do now while others cannot.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Correct. Same with the Big 12 and the Big Ten. That pesky little Grant of Rights thing, huh? I guess that gives some hope for the pro-B1G UConn fans. And, yet, Gene Smith in a video said that people shouldn't be surprised if they expand again. Unless their final goal is 15 I would like to know how they plan on doing that.

But we all know that odd numbers after 10 are awkward for football. Heck, I just posted a video of Delany saying it. Maybe they want no more than one, so what are they waiting for?

Missouri? Nope. Kentucky? Nope. Vandy? Get outta here! Kansas? Stuck in the B12. Oklahoma? See Kansas. Texas? Don't you see it now? So is Gene Smith blowing smoke? They could offer UConn and only UConn RIGHT NOW! They haven't.

I think that one of the Big 12 or ACC will survive the next culling out process. Which will depend on who is best able to adapt to the next reality. I want the ACC to not only survive but thrive but if it doesn't it would be because the vast majority of schools would find homes elsewhere. UConn, being in the G5, is at a distinct disadvantage in this scenario.

Where I stand from, the Big Ten can go three ways: 1) Stay put and compete with the number they have now. That's perfectly reasonable. But then why go through the runaround of AD's and other people intimating that they're not finished yet? 2) Go and rework their alliance with the PAC-12. Go through the issues that broke up that agreement and go it right next time. They already have a relationship through the Rose Bowl so that shouldn't be a huge issue. 3) Go really BIG and establish a massive presence in the East to counteract the demographic advantages of the SEC and ACC. This is the scenario the pro-B1G UConn people haven't taken into consideration. How do you break up a conference where you want schools from? Two other conferences get to share the spoils. And how do you get the schools you want from the area? From that same conference.

Or you could let bygones be bygones and support UConn to the ACC in order to ensure a place in the Power 5 where you belong.

Really? You don't think we'd all support an invite to the ACC? Just ask them to send it to Susan and see what happens. Everyone here would be thrilled.

Is there some ill will? Sure, the first time, BC helped ensure we were dropped in favor of Pitt, and they've been pretty hostile towards UConn. Then, not long ago, UConn, the realignment equivalent of a prom queen, with a 3.8 GPA and nice manners, was jilted in favor of a tramp stamped stripper with fake , and an IQ of 80 (Louisville). Guess we weren't sexy enough, but it also means the ACC wasn't classy enough.

 

[bobbyinaz]

Yes, indeed Greenstein said UConn is a prime B1G candidate should there be an expansion.

Where was this said?

 

[bobbyinaz]

Tom Dienhart from BTN also has said UCONN to the B1G was a good fit..after we beat MSU in NYC to advance to the final 4. Dienhart doesn't say or write anything that isn't approved by the BTN/Delany

I know you are the BY bully but stop making up

http://csnbbs.com/thread-676676.html

 

[Adios]

I know you are the BY bully but stop making up

http://csnbbs.com/thread-676676.html

The Midwest exists because of New England. Fools.

 

[jostar1]

Tom Dienhart from BTN also has said UCONN to the B1G was a good fit..after we beat MSU in NYC to advance to the final 4. Dienhart doesn't say or write anything that isn't approved by the BTN/Delany

Dienhart has always spoken favorably of Uconn.

1. Tom Dienhart ‏@BTNTomDienhart Apr 5
   Still surprised UConn got locked out of conference expansion. No ACC. No Big East. Great hoops; decent football w/nice facilities/market.
2. 
   Tom Dienhart ‏@BTNTomDienhart Apr 5
   @dwbalsinger Well, @RandyEdsall won big as UConn coach, going to Fiesta Bowl. UConn has been and can be as good as most BCS league schools.

 

[jostar1]

I know you are the BY bully but stop making up

http://csnbbs.com/thread-676676.html

All he said there was that he wasn't sure if UConn was a target.

Dienhart has always spoken favorably of Uconn.

1. Tom Dienhart ‏@BTNTomDienhart Apr 5
   Still surprised UConn got locked out of conference expansion. No ACC. No Big East. Great hoops; decent football w/nice facilities/market.
2. 
   Tom Dienhart ‏@BTNTomDienhart Apr 5
   @dwbalsinger Well, @RandyEdsall won big as UConn coach, going to Fiesta Bowl. UConn has been and can be as good as most BCS league schools.

 

[B1GALUM]

Where was this said?

Big Ten expansion Q&A
Teddy Greenstein answers reader questions about which teams might join the conference and how that would look
May 06, 2010|By Teddy Greenstein

After it's all said and done, what is your best guess at how the Big Ten will look like regarding teams and divisions? Bob, Bolingbrook
I figured we might as well start with THE question. If you'd asked me 24 hours ago, I would have said the Big Ten would add three teams: Rutgers, Missouri and Nebraska. Then I spoke to someone involved in the expansion talks, and he told me: 16 is more likely than 14 and 14 is more likely than 12.
We know that Delany wants to make a huge splash. And we know that TV revenue is driving expansion. If the Big Ten really wants to make an impact on the New York market, it will add Syracuse and UConn to go along with Rutgers. So I'll go with 16 teams. More on divisions later.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...nsion-big-east-powerful-basketball-conference

 

[auggie22]

I know you are the BY bully but stop making up

http://csnbbs.com/thread-676676.html

Finally, at the centennial page, we see perhaps the final piece of the puzzle fall into place.

A message board interpretation of an old non-key tweet called into question by a link to commentary of another old, non-key tweet posted on a different message board.

 

[CL82]

Finally, at the centennial page, we see perhaps the final piece of the puzzle fall into place.

A message board interpretation of an old non-key tweet called into question by a link to commentary of another old, non-key tweet posted on a different message board.

You have to admit there's a certain beauty to it.

 

[whaler11]

So it's a 5 year old article that predicts Syracuse and Missouri to the Big 10 while ignoring Maryland. Yeah, it's a done deal.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

So it's a 5 year old article that predicts Syracuse and Missouri to the Big 10 while ignoring Maryland. Yeah, it's a done deal.

I think it highlights that 1) Rutgers has been pushing for the b1G for decades (since Penn St. joined), 2) the B1G was interested in Maryland though did not expect them to move from the ACC; but, their financial issues gift wrapped Maryland for the B1G, 3) the B1G may regret being too snobbish and grabbing Missouri, which would solidify their St. Louis market hold and give them a solid spot in Kansas City.

Ideally, the B1G should have jumped to 16 (likely not possible due to internal politics) right off the bat once Nebraska was in the fold by grabbing 1) Rutgers, 2) Maryland, 3) Missouri, and 4) UConn. That would have given the B1G NYC and St. Louis and given them a strong spot in the Boston, DC, and Kansas City markets. That would have left 4 more slots open in the future once the survivor of the ACC/XII emerged, likely 4 from the following 2 groups - A) UVA, UNC, Duke, G Tech, Florida St, Miami & ND or B) Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and ND. Ah, to dream a little dream...

 

[Seaa Blue]

3) the B1G may regret being too snobbish and grabbing Missouri, which would solidify their St. Louis market hold and give them a solid spot in Kansas City.

Despite their success last year I think passing on (or snobbing) Missouri wasn't a total miss. If St. Louis isn't in the Series, the Royals are, and that tends to fragment the audience in October (even without factoring in the pro football teams). And given that those population centers are on opposite borders and the northern and southern parts of the state are geographically diverse, I think it's hard to hold a solid following there.

On the other hand there are lots of things to like about Missouri, it's just not as "flagship-centric" as it might appear.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Someday people will understand it doesn't matter if people watch.

Does this 'list' exist outside the Boneyard?

really? how does that work?

 

[itgoeslike]

Where did you see that 25% number for ESPN? That would be 2 billion in advertising for ESPN....

The following link from a couple of years ago quotes ad revenue at $2B with carriage at $5.13 a month. While ad revenue has climbed, the growth in carriage has outpaced it and may be over $6.00 by now. So, the percentage of ad revenue could be closer to 20% today, but it's still a sizable percentage. If you believe some projections, ESPN may secure more than $8.00 per subscriber per month before the end of the decade.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-30/espn-everywhere-sports-profit-network

 

[whaler11]

really? how does that work?

It works pretty simply: Cable and satellite providers pay networks a monthy fee for the ability to include the station on their system.

Relatively speaking almost no one watches networks like FS1 or CBS Sports or BTN or ESPNU.

"In 2013, BTN is projected to bring in $270 million in total net revenue, of which $234 million is from license fees charged to cable and satellite distributors to carry the network, according to SNL Kagan."

"Football is the network's driver, with 60 percent of BTN's advertising revenue tied to 14 Saturdays in the fall. "

So on the 348 days a year without live football they generate a whopping $14.4 million in advertising revenue.

For the price of 90 seconds of Super Bowl ad time you could buy all the advertising time on the BTN for every non-football day of the year.

 

[Marty Jackson]

It works pretty simply: Cable and satellite providers pay networks a monthy fee for the ability to include the station on their system.

Relatively speaking almost no one watches networks like FS1 or CBS Sports or BTN or ESPNU.

"In 2013, BTN is projected to bring in $270 million in total net revenue, of which $234 million is from license fees charged to cable and satellite distributors to carry the network, according to SNL Kagan."

"Football is the network's driver, with 60 percent of BTN's advertising revenue tied to 14 Saturdays in the fall. "

So on the 348 days a year without live football they generate a whopping $14.4 million in advertising revenue.

For the price of 90 seconds of Super Bowl ad time you could buy all the advertising time on the BTN for every non-football day of the year.

explain it however you want. It's a supply/demand model where the eyeballs measure demand. The content, in this case the sporting events are the supply. the value in these models is still tied to viewership. it's the viewership that allows the BTN to generate those carriage fees. the BIG doesn't exist because there was a network that needed a supply of content. The BTN exists because the BIG realized there was enough demand to warrant licensing or carriage fees to cable providers in return of airing BIG football games (along with some other content as well).

its also viewership as to why someone will spend for 90 seconds of ad space on the superbowl rather than buying all the advertising on BTN outside of football.

 

[whaler11]

explain it however you want. It's a supply/demand model where the eyeballs measure demand. The content, in this case the sporting events are the supply. the value in these models is still tied to viewership. it's the viewership that allows the BTN to generate those carriage fees. the BIG doesn't exist because there was a network that needed a supply of content. The BTN exists because the BIG realized there was enough demand to warrant licensing or carriage fees to cable providers in return of airing BIG football games (along with some other content as well).

its also viewership as to why someone will spend for 90 seconds of ad space on the superbowl rather than buying all the advertising on BTN outside of football.

Right but when they are making
decisions a network like the BTN does it to increase the number of homes they are in not to average more viewers.

No one watches Rutgers right? Yet they got on every system in NYC.

It's pretty clear that when you get so little viewership you generate almost no advertising revenue that your value isn't tied up in ratings - but around here numerical evidence is treated as though it can give you Ebola.

With the addition of Rutgers and Maryland their revenue will be even more lopsided towards affiliate fees and away from advertising.

 

[businesslawyer]

Someday people will understand it doesn't matter if people watch.

Does this 'list' exist outside the Boneyard?

Of course it matters if people watch. Not for contracts in place at the moment but for future contracts. Whatever NYC cable companies are paying for the BTN, you really don't think the price when the contracts come up for renewal will depend on how whether the viewing audiences are more or less than was expected when the current contracts were signed?

Come on. You are much smarter than that.

 

[jostar1]

Another older article, this one about the BIG's contract negotiation in 2004:

ESPN's 'lowball' offer triggered Big Ten expansion
Failed negotiation also led to Big Ten Network

An amiable session in which the Big Ten and ESPN cleaned up "housekeeping matters" — schedules and announcers — took a nasty turn at the one-hour mark. That's when talk turned to a contract extension, a negotiating session that went nowhere. Fast.

"The shortest one I ever had," Delany told the Tribune. "He lowballed us and said: 'Take it or leave it. If you don't take our offer, you are rolling the dice.' I said: 'Consider them rolled.' "

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ioner-jim-delany-john-wildhack-espn-officials

 

[whaler11]

Of course it matters if people watch. Not for contracts in place at the moment but for future contracts. Whatever NYC cable companies are paying for the BTN, you really don't think the price when the contracts come up for renewal will depend on how whether the viewing audiences are more or less than was expected when the current contracts were signed?

Come on. You are much smarter than that.

Almost all sports networks get a disproportionate affiliate fee against what their ratings are. The BTN is already a perfect example of that.

USA gets higher ratings than ESPN - one of them gets 6-7 times more in their fee - guess which one.

While I'm being somewhat over the top - you can google affiliate fees and you can google ratings.

If ratings drove affiliate fees the BTN wouldn't cost more within the footprint than networks that get 10 times the audience for Family Guy and Modern Family reruns.

The BTN is going to get about $12 per household per year in NYC for a grand total of about 4 football games that unless Rutgers gets a lot better will be viewed in NYC by
1-2% of the market. The rest of the year you can measure the audience in 5 figures.

The BTN's affiliate fee is already long disconnected from their ratings.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Right but when they are making
decisions a network like the BTN does it to increase the number of homes they are in not to average more viewers.

No one watches Rutgers right? Yet they got on every system in NYC.

It's pretty clear that when you get so little viewership you generate almost no advertising revenue that your value isn't tied up in ratings - but around here numerical evidence is treated as though it can give you Ebola.

With the addition of Rutgers and Maryland their revenue will be even more lopsided towards affiliate fees and away from advertising.

you're making a very big assumption regarding the revenue model. yes, it's predicated on the number of households that are in the footprint. but there also needs to be a market for the product. that, regardless of what you say, is driven by viewership.

for startups, the financial model is often very different from what is considered a viable go-forward entity. sometimes you need time to build the content and viewership.

ESPN which seems to be your model of proof generates a large portion of their revenue from carriage fees. According to Forbes, roughly 40% of their revenue is advertising ($3.9M). That's up 63% from a year ago. For comparison, the carriage fees grow roughly 5%. I agree, numerical evidence is much maligned.

 

[whaler11]

you're making a very big assumption regarding the revenue model. yes, it's predicated on the number of households that are in the footprint. but there also needs to be a market for the product. that, regardless of what you say, is driven by viewership.

for startups, the financial model is often very different from what is considered a viable go-forward entity. sometimes you need time to build the content and viewership.

ESPN which seems to be your model of proof generates a large portion of their revenue from carriage fees. According to Forbes, roughly 40% of their revenue is advertising ($3.9M). That's up 63% from a year ago. For comparison, the carriage fees grow roughly 5%. I agree, numerical evidence is much maligned.

ESPN has the NBA, MLB and NFL. They aren't working in niche products like conference networks are.

The conference networks don't even get the best conference programming. They all still sell off their best inventory to ESPN/ABC, CBS, Fox.

If the BTN model wasn't based on affiliate fees then Rutgers would still be in the AAC.

Is it nice if the viewership grows and they can sell more expensive ads and get some leverage in neogotiations? Sure - but the post you originally quoted was a response to the marginal value of UConn to the BTN in NYC. They already got the revenue without UConn being in the league. That some more people would watch if UConn was included in the Big Ten doesn't come anywhere near generating the revenue that would lift the take for all the schools - which is clearly what the barrier for entry is.

You've got to generate enough revenue for Nebraska or Minnesota or Iowa to sign off on your membership - and they will be giving things up so they aren't including you unless they get paid.

 

[pj]

Of course it matters if people watch. Not for contracts in place at the moment but for future contracts. Whatever NYC cable companies are paying for the BTN, you really don't think the price when the contracts come up for renewal will depend on how whether the viewing audiences are more or less than was expected when the current contracts were signed?

Come on. You are much smarter than that.

Bizlaw, it does matter how much people watch, but not nearly as much as it does for advertising. More important is whether people, at the time of their cable subscription decision, think they may want to watch later. They buy cable in order to have the OPTION to watch in the future, not because they are necessarily committed to watching. People (and businesses) often pay for options they end up not using. Especially when it comes to TV, which is commonly used as a backup entertainment option.

On the cable company side, they know people will pay $50/month for their bundle, so the question is more about the marginal subscribers -- channels get paid according to how many additional subscribers they bring in. BTN may bring in a number of male sports fan who otherwise would skip cable, but who then neglect to watch; while the Weather Channel may get lots of viewers but not bring in many subscribers.

So it's possible to be a poorly watched channel yet worth a lot of money in subscriber fees.