If it's about TV sets

[NickyNewark]

But, but, but... this has always been our argument against FranktheTank. The eastern PA and New Jersey areas are not like the B1G areas. PSU, which is very strong in Eastern PA, hasn't managed to get decent carriage fees for the BTN in those areas. How is Rutgers supposed to do it?

Eyeballs should be relevant here because eyeballs = interest = willingness to pay carriage fees.

In the state of Connecticut, we see SNY raising their carriage fee from $1.55 to $2.50 after they picked up UConn sports, and even better. SNY was picked up by new CT cable systems, AND it jumped into the first tier after they picked them up. On any given night, UConn basketball (both men's and women's) will be the highest rated show on television (both broadcast and cable) in the entire state. And not only that, but for the rest of SNY shown in the northeast, especially NY state, there have been instances of UConn basketball bumping Syracuse basketball to a tape delay game (Syracuse also had a contract with SNY). Which tells you what the eyeballs are looking at.

So, the question is, does the interest in CT (with 3.6m people) outweigh the interest in NJ (with 8.4m people)? When we know that SNY is already making .95 cents per subscriber on first tier in Connecticut, and these are for 3rd tier football, women's bball, and men's bball.

I know this, ESPN is making a killing selling those rights to SNY.

Err,NJ 8.7M people...Ha Ha

 

[IMind]

This exactly. Games in Hartford always look terrible on TV.

The thing that always amazes me about Hartford is how many no shows the lower levels have... but if you look at the upper tiers it's actually quite full. It looks awful especially for a game that really is at 85-95% capacity.

 

[upstater]

The thing that always amazes me about Hartford is how many no shows the lower levels have... but if you look at the upper tiers it's actually quite full. It looks awful especially for a game that really is at 85-95% capacity.

Gampel was jampacked the other day, and there were still 8 or 9 empty seats clustered together right behind the UConn bench.

 

[IMind]

Gampel was jampacked the other day, and there were still 8 or 9 empty seats clustered together right behind the UConn bench.

This is why you need boxes... so the corporate high donors can have their high priced seats but don't screw it up by not showing... although I HATE the way Pitt's new place looks with the boxes at court level. It's obnoxious and distracting.

 

[UConn Dan]

Gampel was jampacked the other day, and there were still 8 or 9 empty seats clustered together right behind the UConn bench.

Noticed and was thinking the same thing. Disappointing, but at least they filled in later on.

 

[uconnsouth]

Why do you keep posting this?

Jim C was a "nice thing"
Geno is a "nice thing"
Ollie is a "nice thing"
Our campus is a "nice thing"
The Rent is a "nice thing"
Our academic standing is a "nice thing"
Our football facility is a "nice thing"
Our reputation is a "nice thing"
Our soccer success is a "nice thing"
Our field hockey championship is a "nice thing"
Our room of trophies is a "nice thing"

Why do you keep insisting UCONN doesn't have nice things?

Baseball has knocked on the door for a College World Series birth recently as well

 

[upstater]

This is why you need boxes... so the corporate high donors can have their high priced seats but don't screw it up by not showing... although I HATE the way Pitt's new place looks with the boxes at court level. It's obnoxious and distracting.

I read an article a couple months ago that said this is the future of arenas. Lots of walking, milling about space, standing room, fewer seats, lounge areas where you can drink, watch TV, watch the game, etc., and lux boxes next to the action.

 

[CL82]

It's true Rutty gets on a bigger "system", more boxes. But somebody actually has to want to watch them for long term viability. But I guess it's all about demand for the B1G Network though Rutty's futility is a stain on anyone who's been associated with them. And we just keep collecting trophies.

If you watched any Hoops this year, along with this weekends football you just have to shake your head.

No they don't. As I understand it all that needs to happen is for Rutty to be a member of the B1G and have millions of people crammed into their state. Check and check.

 

[Husky25]

I read an article a couple months ago that said this is the future of arenas. Lots of walking, milling about space, standing room, fewer seats, lounge areas where you can drink, watch TV, watch the game, etc., and lux boxes next to the action.

Makes sense. Arena Mgmt. has to compete with the stay at home option, which has improved by at least a factor of 10 in the last 10 years. There is no reason to pay $9.00 for watered down ill-tasting beer from rusty pipes and sit 200 feet way from the corner of the court, when the concessions are pennies on the dollar in the best seat in the house...the living room sofa.

 

[Rumrunner]

Eyeballs should be relevant here because eyeballs = interest = willingness to pay carriage fees.

In the state of Connecticut, we see SNY raising their carriage fee from $1.55 to $2.50 after they picked up UConn sports, and even better...

I know this, ESPN is making a killing selling those rights to SNY .

Well said. The last line really does suck.

 

[Rumrunner]

No they don't. As I understand it all that needs to happen is for Rutty to be a member of the B1G and have millions of people crammed into their state. Check and check.

The carriage negotiations coming up will be big.

On the one hand, if cable laughs at Delany's insistence at being carried on basic in NYC, NJ and sw CT for $1 per sub, and the end result is a patchwork of carriage centered around central NJ, but no penetration in NYC or northern NJ, what then? Double down with UConn? Turn tail and pay to be on basic?

Does UConn get you CT ( yes) plus does it aid in NYC? UCONN gives you a captive/receptive/ supplicant smaller state, while Rutgers gives you a state that has shown no allegiance to its flagship school, and some would argue at times, hostility. But as upstater says, 8 million is more than 3 million.

I don't see an end game for the big ten network wholly founded on Rutgers.

 

[IMind]

I read an article a couple months ago that said this is the future of arenas. Lots of walking, milling about space, standing room, fewer seats, lounge areas where you can drink, watch TV, watch the game, etc., and lux boxes next to the action.

I know... I don't have to like it though. I like the way the did it at the Wells Fargo Center in Philly. The first 20 rows or so were traditional seating. Right above that is the club level, boxes, and a restaurant. A friend got tickets from his employer a few years back... went to a sixers game... had a nice meal... a few drinks.. then went out and sat in our seats for a while... but never once missed a second of the game... but the lower level was full... looks better on TV than what Pitt has.

 

[storrsroars]

It can't be positive news that of all the games monitored on that list, the one with the fewest eyeballs was UConn v Cincy at a mere 56,000 viewers.

To put this in perspective, Marshall v Middle Tennessee, Marshall v Ohio, Howard v NC State and Memphis v Houston all had more viewers than the UConn v Cincy game.

Additionally, Rutty v. L'Ville drew 1.68 million while UConn v. L'Ville drew only 1.08 million.

 

[Ts5034]

I read an article a couple months ago that said this is the future of arenas. Lots of walking, milling about space, standing room, fewer seats, lounge areas where you can drink, watch TV, watch the game, etc., and lux boxes next to the action.

Yes and we see how this killed the atmosphere and attendance at the new Yankee Stadium. You build an arena with all of those pointless amenities and ticket prices will go through the roof. I hope UConn does not fall for that nonsense in the future if they build an on campus arena to replace Gampel.

 

[tzznandrew]

It can't be positive news that of all the games monitored on that list, the one with the fewest eyeballs was UConn v Cincy at a mere 56,000 viewers.

To put this in perspective, Marshall v Middle Tennessee, Marshall v Ohio, Howard v NC State and Memphis v Houston all had more viewers than the UConn v Cincy game.

Additionally, Rutty v. L'Ville drew 1.68 million while UConn v. L'Ville drew only 1.08 million.

Well...keep in mind that we were winless, which, for most, meant they knew the outcome before it started. Go back and look at Louisville's ratings when they were bad (a couple of years ago). They weren't pulling that many viewers.

 

[frankthetank]

Guys - I'm not someone that has argued that adding Rutgers to the Big Ten would automatically get the BTN onto all NYC area households. In fact, I've written many times about my skepticism of that occurring. (Maryland is a different story - they have enough of a critical mass in the DC area where there's a good argument that the BTN will get carriage there.) Actual people watching a network *do* matter because you can't get basic carriage in the first place without a critical mass of people wanting/demanding that channel and are willing to switch providers over it. (To be sure, sports networks have disproportionate leverage on that front because people that want to watch certain sporting events are much more willing to switch providers compared to viewers of other types of TV shows.)

However, it's important to note that the Big Ten is NOT basing its success in the NYC market on Rutgers as a single entity. That's a grave mistake that a lot of people here are assuming. The entire theory for the Big Ten is that Rutgers is a local conduit to bring together the Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State and other Big Ten fans in that market to turn it into a Big Ten region. Contrary to popular belief, Delany isn't *that* stupid (considering how many billions that he has made for the conference up to this point, even compared to the vaunted SEC that has been much better on the football field). He knows Rutgers' limitations and the point is that this expansion really isn't about Rutgers - it's about consolidating the aggregate presence of Big Ten alums and fans at a macro level in the NYC market. At the same time, the BTN doesn't need $1-plus per subscriber in the NYC market to make Rutgers work - they can make a lot of money at a much lower threshold.

Now, I'll reiterate again that I'm not saying that this will work. Frankly, the TV ratings for college sports in the Northeast compared to the rest of the country (even for basketball, so it's not just a football issue) indicate that even if you were to have a conference with Notre Dame, Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, Rutgers, Syracuse and UConn all together, you'd still be hardpressed to gain traction in the NYC area because it's such a dispersed college sports market. So, I understand the theory that the Big Ten is using here, but there's no might not be any expansion combo of schools (whether you're talking about Rutgers, UConn, Syracuse, Notre Dame, etc.) that makes NYC into slam dunk (whereas there's a lot of confidence that this will work in DC with just Maryland). That's either good for UConn (i.e. the Big Ten will realize that they need UConn on top of Rutgers to gain further traction in the NYC area) or bad for UConn (i.e. the Big Ten won't see any realistic path to further NYC success and end up concentrating on more western and southern expansion) depending on how you look at it.

 

[upstater]

Guys - I'm not someone that has argued that adding Rutgers to the Big Ten would automatically get the BTN onto all NYC area households. In fact, I've written many times about my skepticism of that occurring. (Maryland is a different story - they have enough of a critical mass in the DC area where there's a good argument that the BTN will get carriage there.) Actual people watching a network *do* matter because you can't get basic carriage in the first place without a critical mass of people wanting/demanding that channel and are willing to switch providers over it. (To be sure, sports networks have disproportionate leverage on that front because people that want to watch certain sporting events are much more willing to switch providers compared to viewers of other types of TV shows.)

However, it's important to note that the Big Ten is NOT basing its success in the NYC market on Rutgers as a single entity. That's a grave mistake that a lot of people here are assuming. The entire theory for the Big Ten is that Rutgers is a local conduit to bring together the Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State and other Big Ten fans in that market to turn it into a Big Ten region. Contrary to popular belief, Delany isn't *that* stupid (considering how many billions that he has made for the conference up to this point, even compared to the vaunted SEC that has been much better on the football field). He knows Rutgers' limitations and the point is that this expansion really isn't about Rutgers - it's about consolidating the aggregate presence of Big Ten alums and fans at a macro level in the NYC market. At the same time, the BTN doesn't need $1-plus per subscriber in the NYC market to make Rutgers work - they can make a lot of money at a much lower threshold.

Now, I'll reiterate again that I'm not saying that this will work. Frankly, the TV ratings for college sports in the Northeast compared to the rest of the country (even for basketball, so it's not just a football issue) indicate that even if you were to have a conference with Notre Dame, Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, Rutgers, Syracuse and UConn all together, you'd still be hardpressed to gain traction in the NYC area because it's such a dispersed college sports market. So, I understand the theory that the Big Ten is using here, but there's no might not be any expansion combo of schools (whether you're talking about Rutgers, UConn, Syracuse, Notre Dame, etc.) that makes NYC into slam dunk (whereas there's a lot of confidence that this will work in DC with just Maryland). That's either good for UConn (i.e. the Big Ten will realize that they need UConn on top of Rutgers to gain further traction in the NYC area) or bad for UConn (i.e. the Big Ten won't see any realistic path to further NYC success and end up concentrating on more western and southern expansion) depending on how you look at it.

I would agree with all of this, but I would just add that even with all the traditional B1G fans in that market, the level of interest there does not come close to the level of interest in Eastern PA for PSU. I doubt it's 1/3rd of the interest.

Maybe Eastern PA is an anomaly. Not sure why the B1G isn't playing hardball with those people (i.e. withholding BTN from them because of the low carriage fee). I still say that the level of intense TV interest in Conn.'s home viewing area compares favorably to NJ's 8 million. And that's according to the money SNY is charging for carriage and their high ratings, tier3 games as well.

 

[billybud]

The BTN might be watching the LHN...where the AD of the program couldn't see his own team because of lack of LHN carriage even in Texas.

 

[NickyNewark]

Guys - I'm not someone that has argued that adding Rutgers to the Big Ten would automatically get the BTN onto all NYC area households. In fact, I've written many times about my skepticism of that occurring. (Maryland is a different story - they have enough of a critical mass in the DC area where there's a good argument that the BTN will get carriage there.) Actual people watching a network *do* matter because you can't get basic carriage in the first place without a critical mass of people wanting/demanding that channel and are willing to switch providers over it. (To be sure, sports networks have disproportionate leverage on that front because people that want to watch certain sporting events are much more willing to switch providers compared to viewers of other types of TV shows.)

However, it's important to note that the Big Ten is NOT basing its success in the NYC market on Rutgers as a single entity. That's a grave mistake that a lot of people here are assuming. The entire theory for the Big Ten is that Rutgers is a local conduit to bring together the Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State and other Big Ten fans in that market to turn it into a Big Ten region. Contrary to popular belief, Delany isn't *that* stupid (considering how many billions that he has made for the conference up to this point, even compared to the vaunted SEC that has been much better on the football field). He knows Rutgers' limitations and the point is that this expansion really isn't about Rutgers - it's about consolidating the aggregate presence of Big Ten alums and fans at a macro level in the NYC market. At the same time, the BTN doesn't need $1-plus per subscriber in the NYC market to make Rutgers work - they can make a lot of money at a much lower threshold.

Now, I'll reiterate again that I'm not saying that this will work. Frankly, the TV ratings for college sports in the Northeast compared to the rest of the country (even for basketball, so it's not just a football issue) indicate that even if you were to have a conference with Notre Dame, Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, Rutgers, Syracuse and UConn all together, you'd still be hardpressed to gain traction in the NYC area because it's such a dispersed college sports market. So, I understand the theory that the Big Ten is using here, but there's no might not be any expansion combo of schools (whether you're talking about Rutgers, UConn, Syracuse, Notre Dame, etc.) that makes NYC into slam dunk (whereas there's a lot of confidence that this will work in DC with just Maryland). That's either good for UConn (i.e. the Big Ten will realize that they need UConn on top of Rutgers to gain further traction in the NYC area) or bad for UConn (i.e. the Big Ten won't see any realistic path to further NYC success and end up concentrating on more western and southern expansion) depending on how you look at it.

Thank's Frank,every time you come you endear yourself here. I alway's like an "outsider's" viewpoint on eastern/NE college sport's metric's. Thank's for your comforting words of "wisdom"(something I won't claim)!

 

[NickyNewark]

The carriage negotiations coming up will be big.

On the one hand, if cable laughs at Delany's insistence at being carried on basic in NYC, NJ and sw CT for $1 per sub, and the end result is a patchwork of carriage centered around central NJ, but no penetration in NYC or northern NJ, what then? Double down with UConn? Turn tail and pay to be on basic?

Does UConn get you CT ( yes) plus does it aid in NYC? UCONN gives you a captive/receptive/ supplicant smaller state, while Rutgers gives you a state that has shown no allegiance to its flagship school, and some would argue at times, hostility. But as upstater says, 8 million is more than 3 million.

I don't see an end game for the big ten network wholly founded on Rutgers.

Same goes for anyone losing that ain't Mich,OSU,Bama,FSU or ND !! Thankfully UConn sports outside of FB are mostly all BIG winner's. I wish I could say(at least in FB/BB) the same for RU? I'm not a happy fan right now ! What bother's me more is success in the B1G for RU would bode well for UConn IMO?

 

[Rumrunner]

Frank, lay off the crack pipe.

Delany chose Rutgers (and MD) for tv subs. Period.

Now he has to sell those schools to cable. This isn't about the Big Ten playing 6 more conference games in NJ or MD. It is about tv.

As Mr. Delany negotiates new subscription rates for the Big Ten Network, Ms. Hermann, the athletic director at Rutgers, knows her objective. “We have to make our contribution to the Big Ten,” she said, “and get cable companies to pay for the Big Ten Network out here.”

Now does Delany think that the alumni in the northeast will clamor for the BTN to be carried on basic? I guess. But the rabidity and the volume of those clamoring aren't going to cut it. You need a dominant home state team. Maryland, close. Rutgers? Not even in New Jersey, never mind NYC. This a region that kept the freaking Knicks off.

But Delany has gone down this road.

 

[huskypantz]

Guys -That's good for UConn (i.e. the Big Ten will realize that they need UConn on top of Rutgers to gain further traction in the NYC area).

Cliff notes version of FTT post.