B1G TV Negotiations | Page 8 | The Boneyard

B1G TV Negotiations

NYUConn said:
Are you being sarcastic right now? I really can't tell.

Because, you know, there are entire bars that exist for the sole purpose of watching sports, especially college football.
Expand ...

Not sarcastic at all. It will definitely make a difference at sports bars. But in my city, there is only one of those, while every restaurant and bar seems to tune into ESPN, with not many people really watching.

The exception is going to be Monday Night Football and regional networks for things like baseball and hockey.
 
upstater said:
Not sarcastic at all. It will definitely make a difference at sports bars. But in my city, there is only one of those, while every restaurant and bar seems to tune into ESPN, with not many people really watching.

The exception is going to be Monday Night Football and regional networks for things like baseball and hockey.
Expand ...

Ok, well in my city, there are dozens of bars that are owned and operated for the benefit of alums from various Universities around the country. They do the most of their business during 12-15 Saturday's during the fall and and another 15-20 days during the winter for basketball.

So, yes, people most definitely do go to bars to watch college sports and if networks can now assign viewership numbers to bars and other non-homes, that will make it easier to assign a more fixed dollar value to that particular network.

Meaning that I could see a scenario in an unbundled future where bars will be paying PPV-sized fees to televise live sports on ESPN.
 
NYUConn said:
Ok, well in my city, there are dozens of bars that are owned and operated for the benefit of alums from various Universities around the country. They do the most of their business during 12-15 Saturday's during the fall and and another 15-20 days during the winter for basketball.

So, yes, people most definitely do go to bars to watch college sports and if networks can now assign viewership numbers to bars and other non-homes, that will make it easier to assign a more fixed dollar value to that particular network.

Meaning that I could see a scenario in an unbundled future where bars will be paying PPV-sized fees to televise live sports on ESPN.
Expand ...

This already happens with the NFL Package. A family member that owns a bar and did a recent expansion found out that since he now has more than 50 seats in his bar area his fee for the package for 2016 is doubling to something like $2200.

I'm sure that with this new viewership calculation in place ESPN and others will figure out a way to monetize that headcount
 
bobbyinaz said:
This already happens with the NFL Package. A family member that owns a bar and did a recent expansion found out that since he now has more than 50 seats in his bar area his fee for the package for 2016 is doubling to something like $2200.

I'm sure that with this new viewership calculation in place ESPN and others will figure out a way to monetize that headcount
Expand ...

Exactly. It's going to be bad news for business owners who rely on live sports to drive revenue.
 
NYUConn said:
Ok, well in my city, there are dozens of bars that are owned and operated for the benefit of alums from various Universities around the country. They do the most of their business during 12-15 Saturday's during the fall and and another 15-20 days during the winter for basketball.

So, yes, people most definitely do go to bars to watch college sports and if networks can now assign viewership numbers to bars and other non-homes, that will make it easier to assign a more fixed dollar value to that particular network.

Meaning that I could see a scenario in an unbundled future where bars will be paying PPV-sized fees to televise live sports on ESPN.
Expand ...

I do not live in a college city. Pro sports around here.
 
upstater said:
I do not live in a college city. Pro sports around here.
Expand ...

I live in a pro city too, albeit the largest in the country, but the larger point to the discussion is that if you are a sports bar or other business that relies on live, cable sports to drive revenue, this is bad news for you.
 
.-.
NYUConn said:
I live in a pro city too, albeit the largest in the country, but the larger point to the discussion is that if you are a sports bar or other business that relies on live, cable sports to drive revenue, this is bad news for you.
Expand ...

Yes, I'm sure that is true if you rely on it. I am just looking around my sports town, and there are TVs tuned to ESPN everywhere. All over the place. It is pretty mindless. But in my town, unless you're showing MSG, or hockey, or the NFL, it doesn't matter if the TV is showing bull riding or apple picking (obligatory BCU joke).
 
upstater said:
Yes, I'm sure that is true if you rely on it. I am just looking around my sports town, and there are TVs tuned to ESPN everywhere. All over the place. It is pretty mindless. But in my town, unless you're showing MSG, or hockey, or the NFL, it doesn't matter if the TV is showing bull riding or apple picking (obligatory BCU joke).
Expand ...

Does your town have a post office and a stop sign? ;)
 
.-.
CallMeBruce said:
There's something you got from this that I didn't. How would this increase prices for bar owners?
Expand ...

If you can figure out a way to actually count bar viewership you're assigning new monetary value to those bar eyeballs.

Just like how PPV for boxing charges increased rates per bar TV for marquee fights and how the NFL package charges based on the number of seats you have in your bar, it's not inconceivable for ESPN to charge a higher carrying fee for commercial ownership of the channel than for residential, especially in a world where su if networks are unbundled from your basic cable package (where it seems these things are moving).

That's all I was referring to. Purely speculative at this point, but definitely not great news for bar owners or advertisers.
 
NYUConn said:
If you can figure out a way to actually count bar viewership you're assigning new monetary value to those bar eyeballs.

Just like how PPV for boxing charges increased rates per bar TV for marquee fights and how the NFL package charges based on the number of seats you have in your bar, it's not inconceivable for ESPN to charge a higher carrying fee for commercial ownership of the channel than for residential, especially in a world where su if networks are unbundled from your basic cable package (where it seems these things are moving).

That's all I was referring to. Purely speculative at this point, but definitely not great news for bar owners or advertisers.
Expand ...

They are going to have a heck of a time raising the prices for bars. Their mechanism for delivery would be the same cable systems they would have to negotiate new deals with.

I don't think advertisers would have a tough time saying those 'viewers' are already baked into the rates.

The more I think about the measurement the more it seems silly. They are going to need people to carry the device - and the device measures a frequency from the TV... well if I'm in a bar - there are potentially dozens of TV's - so how the heck does it know which TV to capture?

Of course I learned today that Buffalo only has one sports bar - so who knows. Yelp might have a ranking for the top 30 sports bars in Buffalo -and the top 10 downtown... but what do they know?
 
The little tiny sports bar (never more than 11-12 folks in there) in Murphy NC paid $5800 for the commercial NFL package according to the owner.
 
whaler11 said:
They are going to have a heck of a time raising the prices for bars. Their mechanism for delivery would be the same cable systems they would have to negotiate new deals with.

I don't think advertisers would have a tough time saying those 'viewers' are already baked into the rates.

The more I think about the measurement the more it seems silly. They are going to need people to carry the device - and the device measures a frequency from the TV... well if I'm in a bar - there are potentially dozens of TV's - so how the heck does it know which TV to capture?

Of course I learned today that Buffalo only has one sports bar - so who knows. Yelp might have a ranking for the top 30 sports bars in Buffalo -and the top 10 downtown... but what do they know?
Expand ...

I agree with the way cable is currently structured it probably doesn't mean much.

However, in 5-10 years when cable is unbundled and people are picking their networks a la carte I could see ESPN or FS1 using these new metrics as a justification for raising their rates among consumers and even setting a new pay grade for businesses.
 
SpartyCyclone said:
There may not be a 2017 ACC/B1G Challenge if it was a made-for-ESPN event!?
Expand ...


Maybe that is a special contract that has nothing to do with the upcoming contract ?

The Women's Basketball Challenge has been released as well.....



10th Annual ACC/Big Ten Challenge Matchups Announced Big Ten Conference Official Site


10th Annual ACC/Big Ten Challenge Matchups Announced

The Big Ten and Atlantic Coast Conferences announced on Wednesday the matchups for the 10th annual ACC/Big Ten Women's Basketball Challenge.

May 25, 2016


ROSEMONT, Ill. – The Big Ten and Atlantic Coast Conferences announced on Wednesday the matchups for the 10th annual ACC/Big Ten Women's Basketball Challenge. The annual challenge is extended through the 2020 season and will feature 14 matchups for the third consecutive season.

Challenge games are set for a two-day format, beginning Wednesday, Nov. 30 with Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota hosting home games, and Michigan State, Penn State and Purdue playing on the road. On Thursday, Dec. 1, Northwestern, Ohio State, Rutgers and Wisconsin will serve as host teams, while Indiana, Maryland, Michigan and Nebraska will play road games.

In each of the last two seasons, the Big Ten and ACC closed out the two-day event in a 7-7 tie. In the last Challenge, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, Northwestern and Wisconsin recorded wins for the Big Ten.

The Big Ten and ACC Conference offices collaborate to determine the schedule each season. In addition, the official title of the Challenge rotates each year. The 2016 event will be referred to as the ACC/Big Ten Women's Basketball Challenge and will continue to mirror the official title of the two conferences' Challenge agreement for men's basketball.

The Big Ten and the ACC have long been among the most competitive conferences on the women's basketball scene. The Big Ten sent five teams to the NCAA Tournament in 2016, as Indiana, Maryland, Michigan State, Ohio State and Purdue all advanced to the national tournament. In addition, six conference squads were selected to the WNIT. Last season, the ACC saw five women's basketball teams selected to the NCAA Tournament, while four advanced to the WNIT.

Game times, as well as television and broadband coverage, will be announced at a later date. The complete schedule of home/away matchups can be found below.

Wednesday, Nov. 30
Penn State at Boston College
Wake Forest at Illinois
Notre Dame at Iowa
Florida State at Minnesota
Purdue at Pittsburgh
Michigan State at Syracuse

Thursday, Dec. 1
Michigan at Georgia Tech
Maryland at Louisville
Indiana at NC State
Virginia at Northwestern
Miami at Ohio State
Duke at Rutgers
Nebraska at Virginia Tech
North Carolina at Wisconsin

No Game: Clemson
 
B1GOSU said:
Maybe that is a special contract that has nothing to do with the upcoming contract ?

The Women's Basketball Challenge has been released as well.....



10th Annual ACC/Big Ten Challenge Matchups Announced Big Ten Conference Official Site


10th Annual ACC/Big Ten Challenge Matchups Announced

The Big Ten and Atlantic Coast Conferences announced on Wednesday the matchups for the 10th annual ACC/Big Ten Women's Basketball Challenge.

May 25, 2016


ROSEMONT, Ill. – The Big Ten and Atlantic Coast Conferences announced on Wednesday the matchups for the 10th annual ACC/Big Ten Women's Basketball Challenge. The annual challenge is extended through the 2020 season and will feature 14 matchups for the third consecutive season.

Challenge games are set for a two-day format, beginning Wednesday, Nov. 30 with Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota hosting home games, and Michigan State, Penn State and Purdue playing on the road. On Thursday, Dec. 1, Northwestern, Ohio State, Rutgers and Wisconsin will serve as host teams, while Indiana, Maryland, Michigan and Nebraska will play road games.

In each of the last two seasons, the Big Ten and ACC closed out the two-day event in a 7-7 tie. In the last Challenge, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, Northwestern and Wisconsin recorded wins for the Big Ten.

The Big Ten and ACC Conference offices collaborate to determine the schedule each season. In addition, the official title of the Challenge rotates each year. The 2016 event will be referred to as the ACC/Big Ten Women's Basketball Challenge and will continue to mirror the official title of the two conferences' Challenge agreement for men's basketball.

The Big Ten and the ACC have long been among the most competitive conferences on the women's basketball scene. The Big Ten sent five teams to the NCAA Tournament in 2016, as Indiana, Maryland, Michigan State, Ohio State and Purdue all advanced to the national tournament. In addition, six conference squads were selected to the WNIT. Last season, the ACC saw five women's basketball teams selected to the NCAA Tournament, while four advanced to the WNIT.

Game times, as well as television and broadband coverage, will be announced at a later date. The complete schedule of home/away matchups can be found below.

Wednesday, Nov. 30
Penn State at Boston College
Wake Forest at Illinois
Notre Dame at Iowa
Florida State at Minnesota
Purdue at Pittsburgh
Michigan State at Syracuse

Thursday, Dec. 1
Michigan at Georgia Tech
Maryland at Louisville
Indiana at NC State
Virginia at Northwestern
Miami at Ohio State
Duke at Rutgers
Nebraska at Virginia Tech
North Carolina at Wisconsin

No Game: Clemson
Expand ...


I think you took a wrong turn and ended up on the Boneyard. If and until we belong to either of the aforementioned conferences, how does this help or apply to us?
 
.-.
whaler11 said:
Of course I learned today that Buffalo only has one sports bar - so who knows. Yelp might have a ranking for the top 30 sports bars in Buffalo -and the top 10 downtown... but what do they know?
Expand ...

Easy to see why you're so confused in life, since you're informed by Yelp. Which I just looked at, and it didn't have 30, it had 2, which is one more than I thought. 716 and Sidelines. All the others are outside Buffalo. Unless you are talking about restaurants. I assure you, the places they list, like Anchor Bar, Century Grill, Thirsty, Electric Avenue, Pearl Street Brewery, these are NOT sports bars. Having a TV doesn't mean you're a sports bar. I made it pretty clear in my post that there are many restaurants and bars in town with TVs. In my view, a place with the sound turned down on sports is not a sports bar.

Here's an article on Sidelines by someone who sums up the sports bar scene this way: "Seeing that there is a surprising dearth of sports-centric restaurants in the city of Buffalo, I was happy to sit down with two of the owners, Adam and Hillary Collura, who filled me in on all of the details of the operation."

The Skinny on Sidelines

The problem with Sports bars in Buffalo is that 716 sucks out all the interest because they can't compete with this:

716-food-sports-bar-buffalo-new-york-800x531.jpg
 
Last edited:
upstater said:
Easy to see why you're so confused in life, since you're informed by Yelp. Which I just looked at, and it didn't have 30, it had 2, which is one more than I thought. 716 and Sidelines. All the others are outside Buffalo. Unless you are talking about restaurants. I assure you, the places they list, like Anchor Bar, Century Grill, Thirsty, Electric Avenue, Pearl Street Brewery, these are NOT sports bars. Having a TV doesn't mean you're a sports bar. I made it pretty clear in my post that there are many restaurants and bars in town with TVs. In my view, a place with the sound turned down on sports is not a sports bar.

Here's an article on Sidelines by someone who sums up the sports bar scene this way: "Seeing that there is a surprising dearth of sports-centric restaurants in the city of Buffalo, I was happy to sit down with two of the owners, Adam and Hillary Collura, who filled me in on all of the details of the operation."

The Skinny on Sidelines

The problem with Sports bars in Buffalo is that 716 sucks out all the interest because they can't compete with this:

716-food-sports-bar-buffalo-new-york-800x531.jpg
Expand ...

I guess all the places with 'sports bar' on their name in Google are tbe confused ones.
 
.-.
I saw a place called SportZ Bar. With that spelling do they still consider themselves a sports bar? Would they have to pay extra for an ESPN package?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,676
Messages
4,534,343
Members
10,407
Latest member
Paladins


Top Bottom