BTN to broker Big Ten content à la carte to networks

[Seaa Blue]

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/2016/02/05/hackett/79869742/

“Starting in 2017, all the television broadcasts of a Michigan game at home or any time we play a Big Ten team are sold by the Big Ten Network. Now, the Big Ten network doesn’t televise all of them. ESPN will televise, Fox will televise, but in 2017 this contract starts to deliver our content. For example, in 2017 we play Florida in Texas at Jerry Jones Stadium down there, (and) we wouldn’t be able to see that in the future under this agreement. We could still go down there probably if we worked something out. In ’17 you could have NBC a player in both of our camps but we don’t know because the contracts aren’t settled.”

No doubt the new contract will look a lot different then how the latest batch have been structured.

 

[whaler11]

What does this have to do with a la carte?

 

[Seaa Blue]

What does this have to do with a la carte?

BTN will be selling individual games to networks. Presumably terms in each sale could then allow BTN to stream as well.

 

[whaler11]

BTN will be selling individual games to networks. Presumably terms in each sale could then allow BTN to stream as well.

You are getting this from that quote?

 

[FDNY99]

If you want BTN ala carte you can do that already...sign up for BTN Plus online and you can watch any programming they have..you can also set it up by school.

 

[whaler11]

All that quote means is that the contracts to sell Big Ten games to networks will be with the BTN. It has nothing to do with selling games to networks a la carte and it certainly has nothing to do with retaining streaming rights on the games they sell.

They don't even have contracts for 2017 - so how could parameters apply to contracts that don't exist.

 

[Seaa Blue]

Hang with me here, I'll try to convince myself that I'm right. Hackett is talking about what B1G's intention is with the new contract.

BTN is retaining the rights to the games. Almost certainly this means that individual games will be sold to networks. This includes early season games, which the Big Ten can then use as a bargaining chip when setting game times, etc.

All the Big Ten teams have agreed to start reconfiguring schedules to allow for that. And then there are some cool surprises maybe that will come. We’re working hard on some things can’t announce yet that I’m excited about.”

"Cool suprises"

Notre Dame is complicated by a different set of challenges,” Hackett told the “Michigan Insider” show. “One is the respective teams have different television arrangements. It didn’t use to be an issue, and this has been good for Michigan and good for Notre Dame is that we sell the rights ahead of the schedule

So the problem there is that rights are packaged up ahead of time. The networks then use these rights to set game times and cross-promote their inventory to maximize their profits. What's lost is flexibility of schools to play OOC games that they want to play, and exactly when they want to play it.

“Starting in 2017, all the television broadcasts of a Michigan game at home or any time we play a Big Ten team are sold by the Big Ten Network. Now, the Big Ten network doesn’t televise all of them. ESPN will televise, Fox will televise, but in 2017 this contract starts to deliver our content

Now the Big Ten network will decide who gets a shot at what instead of the networks using their T1 contract to pick and choose as they please.

This strongly implies that the traditional T1 package deal is out the window. Just like the NFL aranged for flexibility with their Sunday and Monday night games, the new partnership with the networks will give both sides flexibility, at a price TBD.

 

[Seaa Blue]

Now, this is a bit cryptic (most likely intentionally so):

For example, in 2017 we play Florida in Texas at Jerry Jones Stadium down there, (and) we wouldn’t be able to see that in the future under this agreement. We could still go down there probably if we worked something out. In ’17 you could have NBC a player in both of our camps but we don’t know because the contracts aren’t settled.”

The underlying problem is that once the game is sold, the buying network can position that time slot as it wishes. What I think Hackett is saying is that the participants in the game would like to dictate some of that, but there's no way to do that when the game is sold years in advance.

 

[kyleslamb]

All that quote means is that the contracts to sell Big Ten games to networks will be with the BTN. It has nothing to do with selling games to networks a la carte and it certainly has nothing to do with retaining streaming rights on the games they sell.

They don't even have contracts for 2017 - so how could parameters apply to contracts that don't exist.

What? You've never heard of a negotiating stance? You can go into a negotiation and insist on certain parameters. It appears this is something the Big Ten is toying with.

Seaa Blue is right. What he Big Ten appears to be saying here is they intend to give their rights to the BTN, and then re-sell games on an individual basis to the tier-1 holders such as ESPN. I wouldn't call that a la carte but he's right they're apparently stating they are going to sell the games individually.

 

[whaler11]

What? You've never heard of a negotiating stance? You can go into a negotiation and insist on certain parameters. It appears this is something the Big Ten is toying with.

Seaa Blue is right. What he Big Ten appears to be saying here is they intend to give their rights to the BTN, and then re-sell games on an individual basis to the tier-1 holders such as ESPN. I wouldn't call that a la carte but he's right they're apparently stating they are going to sell the games individually.

You can insist until you are blue in the face. It doesn't mean anyone is going to be willing to agree.

And if you wanted to do this - you don't need to spend any time negotiating now - you just put the games up for bid when you are ready to sell them.

Since there are only two realistic suitors it shouldn't take long to let them know.

 

[Seaa Blue]

My latest and greatest theory is that Delany has early season bowl games in mind. Give a network that already has rights to a top team the opportunity to grab a big ten team 6-9 months ahead of time... Voilà, a pre-season bowl game is born.

 

[kyleslamb]

You can insist until you are blue in the face. It doesn't mean anyone is going to be willing to agree.

And if you wanted to do this - you don't need to spend any time negotiating now - you just put the games up for bid when you are ready to sell them.

Since there are only two realistic suitors it shouldn't take long to let them know.

By "anyone" you mean you. You're the only one arguing this interpretation.

 

[whaler11]

By "anyone" you mean you. You're the only one arguing this interpretation.

I'm talking about the networks being willing to agree to auctioning off single games.

Here is to the pompass leaders and fans of the Big Ten overplaying their hands and eating some crow in the end.

 

[kyleslamb]

I'm talking about the networks being willing to agree to auctioning off single games.

Here is to the pompass leaders and fans of the Big Ten overplaying their hands and eating some crow in the end.

Everyone said the 'pompass' leaders and fans of the Big Ten overplayed their hands when they started their own network. Everyone said it was a dumb idea that could never work.

I don't know if auctioning off single games would work or not. But I know ESPN is bleeding money and might prefer paying for single games than the whole lot and FOX is desperate for content. It might be a perfect solution to maximizing the value of each game. Given the Big Ten's track record and how they've gotten to where they are, I sure would have a lot more faith in them being right than those folks on the message boards who just wanna criticize everything.

 

[whaler11]

Everyone said the 'pompass' leaders and fans of the Big Ten overplayed their hands when they started their own network. Everyone said it was a dumb idea that could never work.

I don't know if auctioning off single games would work or not. But I know ESPN is bleeding money and might prefer paying for single games than the whole lot and FOX is desperate for content. It might be a perfect solution to maximizing the value of each game. Given the Big Ten's track record and how they've gotten to where they are, I sure would have a lot more faith in them being right than those folks on the message boards who just wanna criticize everything.

My apologies for mispelling a word on my phone.

Sorry to potentially disagree with Big Ten leadership or share my opinion on a message board.

We should all be on our knees for mighty Ohio State and the Big Ten. These are perfect institutions that have never done anything wrong.

It would be quite delightful if they do pull it off though - makes the league's hypocritical stances even more transparent. They wouldn't even have to give back the money when they cancel sports over paying players.

Fingers crossed!

 

[Pudge]

My problem with this discussion is just that: "there are two bidders for the product". To presume we know the future of content buyers is just that ... presumptuous. While we watch ESPN succumb to budgetary issues, the NFL is targeting going from $12b in Revenue to $25b. ISN'T THE BIG TEN A DERIVATIVE? We don't know the future of the networked football revenue. My sense is that the SEC and the B1G is so far beyond the B12 & the ACC that we will soon have "leakage", as they say, in the basic Econ classes on Cartels. I expect the two are going to continue to rise in revenue (and the Pac12 with their vision beyond just that coast) and the B1G will succeed in ways that aren't athletic. The academic consortium has Value.

What is UConn? We have a right to be angry. We got deliberately abused by BC and other former BE partners; further, we know that Swofford regularly did not have the vision to really transition to the coming era. But, we continue to grow and prosper (ahem ... Mr. Blaudschun) towards something. The best argument is the 11 million eyeballs within 2 hours of us; totally unaddressed (IMO) by the BC and the Syracuse and the Rutgers poles in the ground. UConn marketing must be better. Our next AD has to up to a big challenge.

 

[Seaa Blue]

NBC could be a player. They hold the rights to Notre Dame.

BTN could be a player and come up with something innovative to extend the reach of a game to outside of the BTN network.

This could get interesting.

 

[Seaa Blue]

We should all be on our knees for mighty Ohio State and the Big Ten. These are perfect institutions that have never done anything wrong!

You've lost me.

 

[kyleslamb]

My apologies for mispelling a word on my phone.

Sorry to potentially disagree with Big Ten leadership or share my opinion on a message board.

We should all be on our knees for mighty Ohio State and the Big Ten. These are perfect institutions that have never done anything wrong.

It would be quite delightful if they do pull it off though - makes the league's hypocritical stances even more transparent. They wouldn't even have to give back the money when they cancel sports over paying players.

Fingers crossed!

You're welcome to share your opinion. However, if you share an opinion so matter of factly as you've done here, especially when it goes against a group of people who have been extremely successful at what they do, then it should be pointed out their opinion has proven rather insightful on these matters in the past and doubting them so ferociously is a fool's errand.

Not sure what you're getting at with these institutions never doing anything wrong. No one is arguing they're perfect and your strawman makes you sound like you're just bitter and resentful. Neither that nor the college sports hypocrisy on finances have anything to do with this discussion. Their thinking outside the box and putting plans into action is what made them financially successful. That is what you seem to be mocking despite their track record. All the rest is just hate.

 

[Pudge]

as long as we are playing grammar police ...

watch your their versus they are (they're)

 

[kyleslamb]

as long as we are playing grammar police ...

watch your their versus they are (they're)

You need to re-read that sentence. The usage of "their" rather than 'they are' was correct. It was a possessive. "Their thinking outside the box" as in the thinking outside the box that they did in the past.

 

[Pudge]

tweaking ...

 

[CallMeBruce]

tweaking ...

He's right, though. "Thinking" is a gerund in that sentence, meaning it can follow a possessive. However, the sentence should be "Their thinking outside the box and putting plans into action are what made them financially successful." It's a compound subject connected with and, making it plural.

 

[billybud]

as long as we are playing grammar police ...

watch your their versus they are (they're)

A pat on the back and a murmured "they're, there, their".

 

[whaler11]

You're welcome to share your opinion. However, if you share an opinion so matter of factly as you've done here, especially when it goes against a group of people who have been extremely successful at what they do, then it should be pointed out their opinion has proven rather insightful on these matters in the past and doubting them so ferociously is a fool's errand.

Not sure what you're getting at with these institutions never doing anything wrong. No one is arguing they're perfect and your strawman makes you sound like you're just bitter and resentful. Neither that nor the college sports hypocrisy on finances have anything to do with this discussion. Their thinking outside the box and putting plans into action is what made them financially successful. That is what you seem to be mocking despite their track record. All the rest is just hate.

I have no beef with the Big Ten. I like their network just fine and watch it often.

I apologize that I would ever disagree with a potential negotiating stance that the Big Ten might have. Certainly if I end up being wrong - the repercussions will be swift and painful.

I disagree on the hypocracy. If you start auctioning off single games to the highest bidder.... makes it a bit more difficult to claim it's not individual athletes who are generating specific revenue. I look forward to the day when all their nonsense about dropping sports is stripped naked and shown as the ridiculous lies it's been all along.