ACC Network? Ah, no.

[Fishy]

At 90 cents a pop, the Big Ten is a relative bargain.

On the contract and your political perceptions, I just don't think you know what you're talking about. No place to go from there.

 

[Rumrunner]

Some confusion here.

First, there's a conflation of DMA and cable system.

DMA's cross state lines. Cable systems don't.

So while Fairfield County is in the nyc DMA, the cable companies that serve it operate differently from those in New York, and differently still, from those in New Jersey.

The BTN business model is predicated on footprint states. With Rutgers that will be New Jersey.

If anyone believes for a minute that the BTN, short of paying to be carried by NYC cable systems, will be welcomed in NYC on a basic package, I dunno what to say.

The focus first will be on getting coverage in NJ, and to a lesser extent eastern Penn., including philly.

When negotiations begin with New York systems, this is where the addition of UConn will become necessary.

As far as fairfield county, only silverman and delany know for sure, but I doubt they expect more than a dime a subscriber.

Finally, the potential subs for the state of Connecticut consist of five groups- men's bb, wbb, football, Big Ten alumni, and finally the least sticky casual college sports fan.

It is the first three that could command at a minimum $2 a sub. The BTN gets its footprint fees by withholding content, invariably watching as the home state fans deluge the inboxes of cable companies demanding coverage. That usually works (see iowa, minn, nebraska) and sometimes doesn't (see eastern penn).

A late fall night, no ollie and ten toes, no geno, no football. No UConn available to CT's citizenry. That is the type of demand that gets carriage. Old people, young people, women, the infirmed, rich and poor, will make those calls and write those emails. Of that I have no doubt.

For nyc, no.

For NJ and Rutgers, good luck. Doable (but 9 Rutgers' fb games, and big ten games??!), but doubtful.

 

[UConnJim]

The FCC allows cable operators to negotiate directly with cable nets, but the cable operator has the right to determine what tier the cable net will be offered. Thus, the BTN could require $0.90 per sub, but they may get put into a sports tier for example. I'm sure politicians could support the cable companies pushing back on the BTN.

 

[UConnJim]

At 90 cents a pop, the Big Ten is a relative bargain.

On the contract and your political perceptions, I just don't think you know what you're talking about. No place to go from there.

OK. If adding Rutgers to the Big 10 meant the BTN would get NJ, NYC, and Fairfield County to subscribe to the BTN at $0.90 per sub, this was the greatest move that Delaney ever could have made. Of course, it doesn't work that way as people have questioned if adding Rutgers would bring NYC. As I wrote above, the FCC requires that cable companies and cable nets negotiate prices and tiers. The cable companies are not required to put channels on a certain tier. And, politicians can influence this.

 

[whaler11]

Some confusion here.

First, there's a conflation of DMA and cable system.

DMA's cross state lines. Cable systems don't.

So while Fairfield County is in the nyc DMA, the cable companies that serve it operate differently from those in New York, and differently still, from those in New Jersey.

The BTN business model is predicated on footprint states. With Rutgers that will be New Jersey.

If anyone believes for a minute that the BTN, short of paying to be carried by NYC cable systems, will be welcomed in NYC on a basic package, I dunno what to say.

The focus first will be on getting coverage in NJ, and to a lesser extent eastern Penn., including philly.

When negotiations begin with New York systems, this is where the addition of UConn will become necessary.

As far as fairfield county, only silverman and delany know for sure, but I doubt they expect more than a dime a subscriber.

Finally, the potential subs for the state of Connecticut consist of five groups- men's bb, wbb, football, Big Ten alumni, and finally the least sticky casual college sports fan.

It is the first three that could command at a minimum $2 a sub. The BTN gets its footprint fees by withholding content, invariably watching as the home state fans deluge the inboxes of cable companies demanding coverage. That usually works (see iowa, minn, nebraska) and sometimes doesn't (see eastern penn).

A late fall night, no ollie and ten toes, no geno, no football. No UConn available to CT's citizenry. That is the type of demand that gets carriage. Old people, young people, women, the infirmed, rich and poor, will make those calls and write those emails. Of that I have no doubt.

For nyc, no.

For NJ and Rutgers, good luck. Doable (but 9 Rutgers' fb games, and big ten games??!), but doubtful.

There is a lot of confusion here about how large those five populations are. The football ratings on SNY in Hartford are laughably bad: UConn got a 3 for Louisville on SNY for a road game. Ohio State got a 36 on BTN in Columbus for a home game against Akron.

 

[Hoophound]

There is a lot of confusion here about how large those five populations are. The football ratings on SNY in Hartford are laughably bad: UConn got a 3 for Louisville on SNY for a road game. Ohio State got a 36 on BTN in Columbus for a home game against Akron.

That's what boring football does for ratings. Aside from the fact that UConn fans are spoiled rotten and won't watch average or below average teams, the style of play is killing us in terms of watchability for casual fans. I bet those ratings will go way up if we start making big plays and winning .

 

[The Funster]

This is further proof that Swofford is reactive, rather than proactive. He had a chance to get this done a few years ago and failed to move forward. Then he structured the new TV deal in such a way that it makes it difficult to get it done now. Who wants to to bet that he is discouraging ESPN from buying back rights from Raycom so his son can keep his job? If FSU is pissed, I don't blame them. If a condition of the GOR was that an ACC channel was in the offing does the GOR become null and void based on these revelations?

 

[whaler11]

That's what boring football does for ratings. Aside from the fact that UConn fans are spoiled rotten and won't watch average or below average teams, the style of play is killing us in terms of watchability for casual fans. I bet those ratings will go way up if we start making big plays and winning .

While we lack a quantity of fans we'll never lack for excuses.

 

[upstater]

Its in the contracts that if the Big Ten adds a school in the footprint, the subscriber rate escalates from $0.10/sub to $1.00/sub.

My argument has always been that what works with Johnny Hayseed cable in Iowa is never going to fly with James Dolan- but its in the contracts. This also means that Fairfield County cable subscribers are going to see higher cable bills because Rutgers got in the Big Ten.

In the contracts with whom? Cable companies don't dominate DMAs. They are zoned by municipality, by cities even.

 

[upstater]

Hmm...first, I think the increase is compulsory in terms of adding a team in a DMA. Second, I don't think your idea about regulators restricting the BTN's rates is possible or even legal.

Given that some of the RSN's like YES and SNY are between $2.60 and $3.20 a head, the Big Ten Network at .90 is probably quite appealing. The content is excellent.

We keep making the mistake of thinking that this is the Big Ten trying to sell Rutgers to New York and Maryland to the mid-Atlantic - it's not. This is about the Big Ten selling the Big Ten in New York and the mid-Atlantic. They're selling Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, etc., etc.

Just as an FYI, BTN has never been able to go above .25 in Eastern PA. Comcast says no.

And zls showed us a contract BTN had with one cable company. But cable companies don't stretch across entire DMAs. So, it has to be done geographically since the whole DMA concept comes from over-the-air network TV. Cable is another beast entirely.

 

[upstater]

Some confusion here.

First, there's a conflation of DMA and cable system.

DMA's cross state lines. Cable systems don't.

So while Fairfield County is in the nyc DMA, the cable companies that serve it operate differently from those in New York, and differently still, from those in New Jersey.

The BTN business model is predicated on footprint states. With Rutgers that will be New Jersey.

If anyone believes for a minute that the BTN, short of paying to be carried by NYC cable systems, will be welcomed in NYC on a basic package, I dunno what to say.

The focus first will be on getting coverage in NJ, and to a lesser extent eastern Penn., including philly.

When negotiations begin with New York systems, this is where the addition of UConn will become necessary.

As far as fairfield county, only silverman and delany know for sure, but I doubt they expect more than a dime a subscriber.

Finally, the potential subs for the state of Connecticut consist of five groups- men's bb, wbb, football, Big Ten alumni, and finally the least sticky casual college sports fan.

It is the first three that could command at a minimum $2 a sub. The BTN gets its footprint fees by withholding content, invariably watching as the home state fans deluge the inboxes of cable companies demanding coverage. That usually works (see iowa, minn, nebraska) and sometimes doesn't (see eastern penn).

A late fall night, no ollie and ten toes, no geno, no football. No UConn available to CT's citizenry. That is the type of demand that gets carriage. Old people, young people, women, the infirmed, rich and poor, will make those calls and write those emails. Of that I have no doubt.

For nyc, no.

For NJ and Rutgers, good luck. Doable (but 9 Rutgers' fb games, and big ten games??!), but doubtful.

You have it right here. Eastern PA and New Jersey are the key parts of the Rutgers package.

Right about cable and DMAs as well.

Also, it's hard to argue that baseball doesn't engulf college sports in the tri-state area. It certainly does.

 

[upstater]

This is further proof that Swofford is reactive, rather than proactive. He had a chance to get this done a few years ago and failed to move forward. Then he structured the new TV deal in such a way that it makes it difficult to get it done now. Who wants to to bet that he is discouraging ESPN from buying back rights from Raycom so his son can keep his job? If FSU is pissed, I don't blame them. If a condition of the GOR was that an ACC channel was in the offing does the GOR become null and void based on these revelations?

Good question at the end. Is this nepotistic relationship poison inside the ACC? Does the ACC have a little bit of Providence-inbreeding going on?

A real commish would have swiped Rutgers years ago and created a GOR and started a network and threatened everyone at gunpoint. Instead, the ACC makes one boneheaded move out of the other.

We laugh at Rutgers but they were really the big kahuna in all this conference expansion. It's true they suck and can't get out of their own way (maybe it's the water in Jersey) but here we have a very good, very old state school in a really big state with a lot of money and a lot of population. And the ACC can't figure it out!!

 

[SubbaBub]

When SNY was just the Mets, it was treated like a wine soaked homeless person by the CT cable companies. Once they added UConn, it was come on in and can I get you something to drink.

If necessary, the BTN will be on all cable systems in the state at a rate of $2-3/mo or whatever it takes to cover UConn's nut with the B1G.

No about of whining will make any difference. It will happen.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[uconnfan68]

As usual, I think this is actually bad for us. I don't think the ACC will ever call our name, but I would think an ACC network would've been a glimmer of hope. These horrible networks need content. The ACC could've used UConn's good non-revenue (and women's basketball) sports to counter some of the garbage they would be airing.

Not to hijack this thread, but is anyone going to pay one dime extra for a sports network that doesn't include UConn? I get the Big 10 network currently as part of fios. It's never been on except the time my 6 year old got all excited that he found a football game to watch. It was a repeat of Wisconsin v. Nebraska on a Saturday afternoon. He was mad when I told him it was played months ago. I live in NJ and actually have an RU graduate degree and root for them second only to UConn. I will not pay a penny extra for the Big 10 Network if fios tries to change the fee.

Agree 100%. No UConn, not one dime.

 

[UPitt]

Finally, the potential subs for the state of Connecticut consist of five groups- men's bb, wbb, football, Big Ten alumni, and finally the least sticky casual college sports fan.

It is the first three that could command at a minimum $2 a sub. The BTN gets its footprint fees by withholding content, invariably watching as the home state fans deluge the inboxes of cable companies demanding coverage. That usually works (see iowa, minn, nebraska) and sometimes doesn't (see eastern penn).

Not going to work. BTN doesn't have the content to ask for $2. They probably don't show enough content for $1, but still charge it. Reason being, football, men's BB, and select women's BB is sold with the first and second tier rights. The BTN only gets to broadcast games not picked up by first and second tier. Uconn women's BB is popular enough that a few marquee games will make first and second tier, leaving the BTN to only broadcast the games against lesser opponents. Without most football and men's BB games and without the few marquee women's BB games, the BTN would be a much tougher sell in CT. I have the BTN and it's not worth $1. It's full of replay games and really poor coverage of other sports.

I think some people are putting too much stock into the importance of the BTN and how many households with be forced to purchase it. The BTN is good revenue and exposure and plays factor in B1G expansion, but first and second tier media rights are still driving any expansion. Sure the B1G would love the BTN on every TV in NYC and would collect a finacial windfall, but it is even more important that the first and second tier rights' holders find additional value in televising B1G games in NYC.

 

[Hoophound]

While we lack a quantity of fans we'll never lack for excuses.

Since when is saying we suck an excuse?

That's like saying, "I'm slow but that's just because I am obese and out of shape. If I were thin and fit I wouldn't be as slow". The fat guy doesn't sound like as much an excuse maker, he is just grounded in reality.

Playing sucky, boring football isn't an excuse, it's just a fact. People don't watch sucky, boring football. Especially, basketball fans that are used to national championships every few years.

 

[upstater]

Not going to work. BTN doesn't have the content to ask for $2. They probably don't show enough content for $1, but still charge it. Reason being, football, men's BB, and select women's BB is sold with the first and second tier rights. The BTN only gets to broadcast games not picked up by first and second tier. Uconn women's BB is popular enough that a few marquee games will make first and second tier, leaving the BTN to only broadcast the games against lesser opponents. Without most football and men's BB games and without the few marquee women's BB games, the BTN would be a much tougher sell in CT. I have the BTN and it's not worth $1. It's full of replay games and really poor coverage of other sports.

I think some people are putting too much stock into the importance of the BTN and how many households with be forced to purchase it. The BTN is good revenue and exposure and plays factor in B1G expansion, but first and second tier media rights are still driving any expansion. Sure the B1G would love the BTN on every TV in NYC and would collect a finacial windfall, but it is even more important that the first and second tier rights' holders find additional value in televising B1G games in NYC.

Women's bball rights though have been sold by UConn, not the conference. And it's the same thing in the AAC so far. Aresco said that special allowances were being made for UConn women's bball. AND, I do believe that this is a key reason why SNY gets to charge so much in the state of Connecticut.

Don't underestimate this. SNY is already showing how much people in the state are willing to pay.

 

[upstater]

Since when is saying we suck an excuse?

That's like saying, "I'm slow but that's just because I am obese and out of shape. If I were thin and fit I wouldn't be as slow". The fat guy doesn't sound like as much an excuse maker, he is just grounded in reality.

Playing sucky, boring football isn't an excuse, it's just a fact. People don't watch sucky, boring football. Especially, basketball fans that are used to national championships every few years.

You know, the most defensive league in the whole country is the SEC. Most football fans like to watch quality football.

How many of you would prefer to watch a 14-10 LSU v. Alabama game versus a 45-38 Texas v. Oklahoma game?

Count me as someone much more interested in the LSU v. Alabama game.

I lose interest quickly with the B12. It's just boring watching no hits.

 

[UConnJim]

Not going to work. BTN doesn't have the content to ask for $2. They probably don't show enough content for $1, but still charge it. Reason being, football, men's BB, and select women's BB is sold with the first and second tier rights. The BTN only gets to broadcast games not picked up by first and second tier. Uconn women's BB is popular enough that a few marquee games will make first and second tier, leaving the BTN to only broadcast the games against lesser opponents. Without most football and men's BB games and without the few marquee women's BB games, the BTN would be a much tougher sell in CT. I have the BTN and it's not worth $1. It's full of replay games and really poor coverage of other sports.

I think some people are putting too much stock into the importance of the BTN and how many households with be forced to purchase it. The BTN is good revenue and exposure and plays factor in B1G expansion, but first and second tier media rights are still driving any expansion. Sure the B1G would love the BTN on every TV in NYC and would collect a finacial windfall, but it is even more important that the first and second tier rights' holders find additional value in televising B1G games in NYC.

This is not correct. Rutgers and Maryland are not being brought to the Big 10 for Tier 1 content. Conferences will continue to get good tier 1 and tier 2 fees, but the incremental revenue growth comes from monetizing tier 3 content which is where the conference networks come in. This monetization of mostly tier 3 content through conference networks is a windfall and surprised many. Swofford would not have sold the ACC's tier 3 content if he had understood the conference network model. Although he has kept the ACC together, he hobbled the financial potential for the conference for years to come.

 

[Hoophound]

You know, the most defensive league in the whole country is the SEC. Most football fans like to watch quality football.

How many of you would prefer to watch a 14-10 LSU v. Alabama game versus a 45-38 Texas v. Oklahoma game?

Count me as someone much more interested in the LSU v. Alabama game.

I lose interest quickly with the B12. It's just boring watching no hits.

I watch a lot of SEC football. You and I both know that UConn football only looked like SEC for a few games when Zach Frazer caught fire. Otherwise, not even close.

 

[UPitt]

Women's bball rights though have been sold by UConn, not the conference. And it's the same thing in the AAC so far. Aresco said that special allowances were being made for UConn women's bball. AND, I do believe that this is a key reason why SNY gets to charge so much in the state of Connecticut.

Don't underestimate this. SNY is already showing how much people in the state are willing to pay.

Big East and AAC are not the B1G. What makes you think the B1G will give Uconn special allowances for women's BB when it can use it to make additional revenue via first, second, and third tier rights?

 

[whaler11]

Since when is saying we suck an excuse?

That's like saying, "I'm slow but that's just because I am obese and out of shape. If I were thin and fit I wouldn't be as slow". The fat guy doesn't sound like as much an excuse maker, he is just grounded in reality.

Playing sucky, boring football isn't an excuse, it's just a fact. People don't watch sucky, boring football. Especially, basketball fans that are used to national championships every few years.

Good fan bases don't abandon their team after two tough seasons. UConn can barely get 30k homes in Hartford to watch a game against a Top 20 opponent. Yet, people want to throw around the term no-brainer when it comes to conference realignment.

 

[upstater]

I watch a lot of SEC football. You and I both know that UConn football only looked like SEC for a few games when Zach Frazer caught fire. Otherwise, not even close.

Not comparing it to the SEC. Just making a point about the sheer travesty that is B12 football.

 

[upstater]

Big East and AAC are not the B1G. What makes you think the B1G will give Uconn special allowances for women's BB when it can use it to make additional revenue via first, second, and third tier rights?

You're jumping to conclusions. UConn wouldn't ask for special allowances. It would be fine with $25 million up front. What I am saying is that women's bball is one of the big reasons why SNY charges $2.50 in the state per household. And yes, that's $30 million a year not including advertising revenue. I'm assuming that ESPN would take the same number of games.

 

[zls44]

In the contracts with whom? Cable companies don't dominate DMAs. They are zoned by municipality, by cities even.

BTN contracts with the individual cable providers.

If you think cable doesn't use DMAs, you are incorrect.