BTN to broker Big Ten content à la carte to networks

[Ldandy]

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.

I think it is easy to spin the argument that the real value to TV Networks is the name on the front of the jersey as opposed to the one on the back. Programs like Michigan, OSU, PSU, and UNL will always carry more intrinsic value than Purdue, Northwestern, Rutgers, or Minnesota to TV Networks. Regardless of the level of athletes that fill those jerseys.

JMO but I think a program like UCONN is even more valuable under this revenue structure. The B1G might be able to better monetize things like the women's basketball game from last week, or games of regional interest like UCONN v. BC Football. They could potentially sell off overflow content like women's basketball, non conference men's basketball, and Olympic Sports like baseball or soccer that doesn't make it to BTN. A regional entity like MSG or SNY would probably pay a solid rate for content that might otherwise not be televised.

 

[SubbaBub]

All this is saying is that the BTN will be the pass through for all B1G content and not the B1G Conference itself.

Interesting since they only own half the network with Fox.

There are advantages to this provided they get paid by Fox for half the equity. By having the league control what I will assume are mostly Tier 3 rights in today's parlance, they would be able to veto Thursday night games by not selling them or decide to charge a premium for prime time or midweek games. This arrangement probably affects the others sports more than football. After watching ESPN dump AAC content to 9 pm starts of MBB on the CBSSN channel, I can see the appeal.

 

[whaler11]

I think it is easy to spin the argument that the real value to TV Networks is the name on the front of the jersey as opposed to the one on the back. Programs like Michigan, OSU, PSU, and UNL will always carry more intrinsic value than Purdue, Northwestern, Rutgers, or Minnesota to TV Networks. Regardless of the level of athletes that fill those jerseys.

JMO but I think a program like UCONN is even more valuable under this revenue structure. The B1G might be able to better monetize things like the women's basketball game from last week, or games of regional interest like UCONN v. BC Football. They could potentially sell off overflow content like women's basketball, non conference men's basketball, and Olympic Sports like baseball or soccer that doesn't make it to BTN. A regional entity like MSG or SNY would probably pay a solid rate for content that might otherwise not be televised.

If you auction the games off individually, it would be very easy to prove that the quality of the team would drive much of the value. Any high schooler who can run a regression could prove it.

I hope it happens and the players seize their power. Oh you paid $5 million for this Michigan/Maryland basketball game? Well we'll be inclined to play it when you start listening to us.

Football is even crazier. $15 million for Bama at OSU. The Alabama players are risking their health and long term earning potential in the game... and their school and league don't see the money - nevermind the players.

You start making it this blatently transactional and it's going to look even more ridiculous that it does today. If you think it's only the names on the front of the jersey that matter.... you will see how wildly incorrect that is the second the level of play drops.

Selling off bit games that wouldn't have a home even on BTN is a lot different than putting your tier 1 games up for auction. For one you want your tier 1 partners to be invested in your branding - so that is going to limit the amount of people you want to work with - which hinders auction prices. Secondly, you add a lot of risk by not locking in long term - since no one has built a better mousetrap than ESPN to monetize games, if their model sputters some more and no one has replaced it = risk.

The Big Ten Network has the exact same long term risks as ESPN and Fox - so getting some diversity in how they deliver the games makes sense - I just don't see anywhere else they can turn right now for the scale and the audience.

 

[kyleslamb]

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.

Correct. I actually had "is" instead of "are" because initially I did not have "and putting plans into action" written. That was added after a once over and I forgot to change it to the plural form.

 

[Ldandy]

If you auction the games off individually, it would be very easy to prove that the quality of the team would drive much of the value. Any high schooler who can run a regression could prove it.

I hope it happens and the players seize their power. Oh you paid $5 million for this Michigan/Maryland basketball game? Well we'll be inclined to play it when you start listening to us.

Football is even crazier. $15 million for Bama at OSU. The Alabama players are risking their health and long term earning potential in the game... and their school and league don't see the money - nevermind the players.

You start making it this blatently transactional and it's going to look even more ridiculous that it does today. If you think it's only the names on the front of the jersey that matter.... you will see how wildly incorrect that is the second the level of play drops.

Selling off bit games that wouldn't have a home even on BTN is a lot different than putting your tier 1 games up for auction. For one you want your tier 1 partners to be invested in your branding - so that is going to limit the amount of people you want to work with - which hinders auction prices. Secondly, you add a lot of risk by not locking in long term - since no one has built a better mousetrap than ESPN to monetize games, if their model sputters some more and no one has replaced it = risk.

The Big Ten Network has the exact same long term risks as ESPN and Fox - so getting some diversity in how they deliver the games makes sense - I just don't see anywhere else they can turn right now for the scale and the audience.

Sadly when it comes to college sports I feel like the haves will always be the haves and the have nots will always be at their mercy. Some like Cain Coulter at NU may mount legal arguments, but I never see a grand organized movement that turns college sports into a for pay entity. Unless The NFL starts some sort of D League, where are these high end kids going to ply their trade if not at Bama or OSU?

As for your second point I don't disagree. I don't think it is realistic to completely unbundle content with the idea of selling it to a multitude of bidders. They still need to maintain relationships with two or three networks as their primary delivery outlets. If the conference can maintain a little more control over pricing for what they deem as premium content I think they will be satisfied. I do believe that they could benefit from selling 3rd tier content currently not aired on BTN to regional outlets that need sports content. Can you make more money selling UCONN Women's Basketball Games to SNY than y0u can make only streaming them on BTN Online? I don't have that answer but it is worth exploring.

 

[Ldandy]

Correct. I actually had "is" instead of "are" because initially I did not have "and putting plans into action" written. That was added after a once over and I forgot to change it to the plural form.

Did I just wake up in my freshman year English 15 Class?

 

[MattMang23]

Did I just wake up in my freshman year English 15 Class?

No. You woke up in fourth grade.