Saunders
Heisman Trophy Winner
I understand that, and you sort of proved my point. Please understand, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you guys, but this is how I see it.Nebraska adds plenty of TV market value. UNL's sports are basically the only sports in Nebraska so you can bet that most people are going to pay attention to them. If they added Maryland, they may be adding fans of the Baltimore Ravens, Washington Nationals, and Washington Wizards, who care too much about the pro sports to pay attention to the Terrapins. If they added Syracuse, they may be adding fans of the New York Yankees, New York Mets, New York Knicks, New York Giants, New York Jets, Buffalo Bills, New York Islanders, New York Rangers, etc... who care too much about the pro sports to pay attention to Syracuse. If they added Rutgers, they'd be adding fans of the aforementioned teams. With Nebraska, we care about the Cornhuskers, and pay attention to only the Cornhuskers.If that is the case, then why didn't they go for Rutgers or Syracuse instead of Nebraska? We don't add any TV market value.This is not correct, Saunders. If the market is a 'local' market, then the B1G Network can increase the carrier cost to the cable provider significantly. This time last year during expansion talk, it had come out that the rates the Big 10 Network can charge (because they're a local provider) are significantly higher in their footprint than the rates for cable providers outside of the B1G footprint.The Big 10 is already broadcasting all their games nationally, so adding "markets" is near pointless. Especially if you're adding markets by getting teams that don't move the national interest needle.
Since the B1G uses the local market revenue for base operating expenses to the Big 10 Network, that ultimately means a fatter operations bottom line for the network. This is why Mizzou was in the mix--if the B1G picked Mizzou, then the cost for cable carriers to provide the B1G in MO (read: KC, St. Louis) triples (or quadruples--it's been a while) overnight. (One of the problems, mind you, with Mizzou was that the north part of Missouri (and over 25% of the population) are already considered part of the B1G footprint.)
Additionally, this expansion into major media markets would mean the Big 10 Network could charge much more for advertising space on their network. Advertising money is the actual revenue which fills the huge pot 'o money that the Big 10 splits equally.
Just the expansion of the Big 10 Network into the Atlanta and DC/Baltimore media markets would pay for onboarding two new folks in a matter of a few scant years, if not sooner (depending on quality of product).
10 or 20 years ago, Saunders, your thinking would have been sound. But the Commissioners of these athletic conferences are wearing more than one hat--they're now cable channel directors, too, so fans need to start thinking accordingly when trying to process the logic behind these decisions.
And yes, I agree that the Maryland and Ga. Tech athletic programs themselves do nothing to pique my interest. But their media markets (and the increased revenue to DoNU) do make me interested.
I've heard that Kansas City has recently lost its connection to the B1G Network, mayhaps the B1G is thinking of adding them in a couple of years to "regain" that footprint.
But I agree with matthew_m_g: saunders, your thinking would've been spot on 10-20 years ago, but the Conference commishes wear two hats now.
People aren't going to watch the BTN in those areas. It's just the way it is. Pro sports rules the New England area. So, if they add a local team, it's going to jack up the rate to that carrier. Then, the carrier has to include it with the basic package (which is what I understand) forcing them to eat the cost difference, or raise the rates. Then a few years down the road, when it becomes apparent that nobody cares about Rutgers, Syracuse, or Maryland, the cable network is stuck with paying for a channel that nobody watches. It's why carriers add and remove channels all the time. They monitor what actually gets watched. So, do they keep it in the lineup, or move it to an extra tier (which is what Comcast wanted). Remember, FOX was pretty close to this happening not that long ago with Time Warner.
I guess my thing is, I know the BTN makes money, but how does it compare to the boatloads of cash that a deal with ABC/ESPN gets you for having national brand names that people around the country want to watch, versus select markets?
Last edited by a moderator: