Stupidity revisited - Paging PJS
by the accomplice on Apr 26, 2010 1:09 PM CDT
Email
Print
Some time ago, PJS posted a lengthy column on the Big Ten Network and how it was quickly becoming a heavy anchor around the neck of the conference. There was talk of the SEC's super-fabulous ESPN contract and how the Big 11 would surely look back on this venture as a quality failure. Now with all the talk of expansion (due mostly to the Daddy Warbucks money coming in from the network) that argument doesn't seem to carry so much weight.
Since I'm too lazy to look up his exact argument I thought I'd ask him to review the topic and admit his short-sightedness. Or simply call me out for oversimplifying his argument. Here's your chance Jimbo. Let me have it.
Editors of The Daily Gopher retain the right to remove posts deemed excessively offensive or grossly inappropriate. Keep it clean and don't be mean.
27 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Humorous
If you bothered to look up the post that you are a year and a half later Monday morning quarterbacking, I’d find your post less humorous and more pertinent.
Here’s the link that you were too lazy to Google and find.
Here’s a summary of what I said at the time. I mentioned Tom Izzo calling the BTN a public relations nightmare, which it certainly was. As I wrote at the time, which you failed to look up before attacking, BTN was having severe difficulty striking deals with cable companies like Comcast and at the time 2/3s of views in Big Ten markets didn’t receive the channel. That didn’t leave many Big Ten fans happy, as they were missing Big Ten games.
I also noted that the SEC, by comparison, struck a deal with ESPN. It was a lucrative deal that also had ESPN working as the SEC’s branding partner. This branding continues and I think it’s a positive aspect of that relationship for the SEC, which, by the way, is also talking expansion.
And here’s how I ended the post, which you failed to go back and read.
So, the next time you hear a Big Ten coach exalting the benefits of the Big Ten Network, remember that the conference took a giant risk in going off on its own and the SEC took that leverage and got much, much more from two major television networks. Years down the line the BTN could be the boon for the conference executives expected. But for now, it looks like a giant miscalculation.
From my perspective, I still think the jury is out. But feel free to offer another comment that lacks substance.
Maroon and Gold Headquarters: The Daily Gopher
Random thoughts
At least you gotta admit it was not a “giant miscalculation”.
It would be nice if we could find a way to guarantee we NEVER end up
on ESPNU or ESPN360.
I really like the football shows they have on all week during football season.
"they're calling insane hogs???"
I’d have to do more research on the BTN as it stands now to say it either is or isn’t a “giant miscalculation.”
The network has gotten beyond the PR nightmare that was not being able to get its games on television in many markets. That was a good step.
One new concern I have about the BTN generally is that as far as expansion is concerned, it seems like its the tail (the network) wagging the dog (the conference). When we hear of Big Ten expansion, what are we hearing? We’re hearing Rutgers, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Missouri and, well, Notre Dame of course. Those are all schools in markets that have significant television markets that would assist the development and profit potential of the BTN. But while Rutgers joining the Big Ten could financially reward the conference because of the NY/NJ markets, does Rutgers joining the Big Ten make sense from a competitive standpoint?
Crow, I like some of their shows too. I live out in DC and I watch the BTN often during football and basketball season, though I did grow tired of the Oberto commercials :-)
Maroon and Gold Headquarters: The Daily Gopher
It would be a great article to see the what the BTN thought they might get from the network and what the Big Ten is actually getting.
I would not even know where to start looking for the info, it can be difficult getting ratings info on “mainstream” shows much less the 3rd tier cable networks.
"they're calling insane hogs???"
"It's all bogus. The Big Ten Network was a giant mistake." - PJS
Hahahaha! At least if I’m lazy, I admit it. You were dead wrong with some of your comments and now you claim to need to do more research. I think you should run for office.
Let’s be honest here. The BTN was a gamble. (And after a short time, it’s already paying off – right now, the bottom feeders in the Big 10 are paid considerably more in terms of TV revenue than teams like Nebraska or Missouri.) But you rushed to judgement.
I expected you to come on and say, “Yep, it looked stupid to begin with but not anymore.” You might have restored some credibility.
It’s not about PR. It’s about money.
ps My season tickets are very close to the real ‘JS.’ I consider myself a big fan of his too.
Why do you think it’s paying off? The television market driven expansion ? Is it the increased exposure big ten teams get on btn vs espn? because I seem to remember hearing tubby in Anaheim for the 76 Classic last year stating that itb was important to play on national television. Is the SEC’s deal better in terms of exposure? And after the considerable expense it took to start the btn, where is the conference from a financial standpoint when compared to the sec espn route. I honestly don’t know the answer to that question, se feel free to provide a link that shows the btn route all things considered made mere.
I’d take your comments more seriously if u backed up your points, as I did more than a year and a half ago. But instead you title posts with the word ‘stupidity’ and lose any chance at real dialogue about the issue. Because I haven’t seen you debate honestly the points that led to my conclusions in the original post. Was it a PR nightmare at the time? I think it absolutely was, and I admitted in the previous comment that thankfully the conference fan base now has access. But it was ugly for awhile, no? Or was 2/3 of the fan base wrong about that too? Or stupid?
Maroon and Gold Headquarters: The Daily Gopher
finding the actual numbers is tough
but in all of this expansion talk the reason many of the teams want to come is because of the revenue coming from BTN. That and the fact that the Big Ten shares the TV and bowl money more equally than the rest of the conferences. I know I’ve read that MIzz, Tex, Neb would get an additional 15 million by joining the Big Ten. A big chunk of that is BTN.
what you say here can, and will, be used against you The Daily Gopher
by GopherNation on Apr 29, 2010 9:39 AM CDT up reply actions
It's a bonus
that the coverage of sports is good, they were the only place we could watch Gopher Hockey in Hi-Def, finally FSN will broadcast them in Hi-Def this next season.
GN do you have any useful links that show the actual numbers?
"they're calling insane hogs???"
nope
I’m sure I could find them, but if I were going to take the time to look them up, I’d use that time to write a post.
what you say here can, and will, be used against you The Daily Gopher
by GopherNation on Apr 29, 2010 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions
What TV contract is South Dakota State in?
If the Gophers dont start putting some better teams on the field in Football they may be in that lot and no worries about TV contracts and revenue….
sigh...
Please don’t tell me this comment is “Gophers could get kicked out of the Big Ten” nonsense.
You're right. I should do more substantive "research."
Here is a substantive made up fact – “2/3 of the fanbase is wrong.” Do you have a link for that?
A la Stewart Mandel –
“The Big Ten already has the most lucrative television deal in the country, doling out an estimated $20 million-plus per team in 2008. (The conference does not release official numbers.) The SEC, under its new CBS and ESPN deals that began last year, isn’t far behind at $15-$17 million, but those two are significantly ahead of everyone else. (The next-highest, the Big 12, pays out $7-$12 million.) The Big Ten can command those dollar figures because its schools’ home markets (Chicago, Detroit, Pittsburgh, etc.) comprise an estimated 25 percent of the nation’s television households.
Currently, the Big Ten Network (with an estimated 40 million subscribers) garners a reported 70 cents per subscriber in its eight home states but only 10 cents in the rest of the country. As CBSSports.com’s Dennis Dodd recently illustrated, adding a team like Missouri, with 2.2 million households statewide, could reap the network an extra $1.3 million per month. And that doesn’t even take into account extra ad dollars from additional game broadcasts. Depending on how many teams it adds, the Big Ten could enter a whole other stratosphere financially.”
Damn it. I swore I wasn’t gonna do any research.
The team that makes the most sense
from both an academic and financial standpoint is Texas, which will NEVER HAPPEN due to legislative hurdles. The media market is huge and they would love to get in on the higher level academic research happening in the Big Ten. That media market would really benefit every big ten team and Texas would make a financial killing.
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on Apr 30, 2010 10:27 AM CDT up reply actions
?
How could the fanbase have been wrong when it complained about not getting the BTN when the network was fighting with providers to carry the channel? Was it just some bad dream?
http://www.sportingnews.com/college-basketball/article/2008-02-26/izzo-big-ten-network-pr-nightmare
Tom Izzo has had enough.
Michigan State’s basketball coach has tried to spout the company line about the newly formed Big TenNetwork even as it struggles to reach agreements with cable companies such as Comcast, effectively forcing fans to bars and restaurants to watch some games.
But the flood of letters and calls to Izzo from frustrated fans led to him speaking out.
“I think it has been a PR nightmare,” Izzo said Monday. “And, I think it has hurt all of us.”
The Big Ten Network and Comcast each tried to be upbeat Tuesday in their responses to Izzo’s comments.
“We clearly know it’s been a difficult situation for fans and we are working very hard to reach agreements with other cable companies so that they can have access to the network,” said Elizabeth Conlisk, Big Ten Network vice president of communications. “Coach Izzo has been enormously supportive of the network. For him to express his frustration, it only makes us say we’re not happy with the situation, either.”
Maroon and Gold Headquarters: The Daily Gopher
What are we arguing about?
It is pretty clear that the BTN has given the B10 a HUGE advantage financially and it is an undoubted success.
The network provides each team over $10MM dollars annually. That alone is bigger than any school outside of Texas gets in the Big 12 in total. Additionally, the Big Ten is still on ESPN and they get an extra $100MM per year to split up among the 11 conference teams.
I agree that it was a complete fiasco at the beginning with the war between the Big Ten and Comcast and other cable companies. But that has been long forgotten. The end result is that it DOUBLED the revenue per team in the conference. This is the whole reason why the Big 10 holds ALL the leverage in expansion talks—they can offer any school much more money than they are getting now.
I think syracuse
will be one of the teams. Although they don’t have a real good football team, their basketball team is great, and will cause a lot of their NY alums to subscribe to the BTN, which would be some serious coin every year.
If I had to put money on it, for a 16 team league, we would likely nab Missouri, Nebraska, Syracuse, Conneticut and Notre Dame (after losing two BEAST teams, it likely becomes put up or shut up time for them). Dark horse is BC.
I just can’t see Texas being allowed to leave.
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on May 2, 2010 9:39 AM CDT up reply actions
Why wouldn't they be "allowed"?
The legislative issues were when Texas Tech, Baylor, A&M, and Texas were all without a conference. If Texas leaves the Big 12, those other three schools still have a home. There is nothing that legally binds Texas to the Big 12 or those other schools to the University of Texas.
The one that could become an issue is Texas A&M since splitting up A&M and UT would be like splitting up Minnesota and Wisconsin (Oklahoma has only been a rival since the creation of the Big 12). So I think those two are probably a package deal—which wouldn’t be a bad thing. So add UT and A&M along with one of Syracuse, Rutgers, or Missouri (I would think Missouri is the front runner out of those three). If it is Mizzou, UT, and A&M, I see the Big 12 responding by inviting Utah, BYU, and TCU.
The most recent reports over the weekend state that:
Nebraska, Missouri, Rutgers, Syracuse and Pitt
would be the five added.
This makes sense – the first two expand the Big Ten further west, add a lot of football rivalries that exist or could be huge (Illinois – Missouri, Nebraska versus everyone).
The eastern schools would make New York, New Jersey and all of Pennsylvania Big Ten Country, would re-establish the Pitt-PSU rivalry, and also would expand the conference’s imprint in college basketball, lacrosse, etc.
And, perhaps with getting these additional schools they could find a way to create a Big Ten hockey conference.
I like those schools
If we move to 16 those are great schools to add. Notre Dame would really be awesome and the closer the Big Ten gets to being a mega-conference (especially with Nebraska joining) the closer that reality is to happening.
Also, if we only add three, I could do without Rutgers or Syracuse.
what you say here can, and will, be used against you The Daily Gopher
I like 3 of those schools
I don’t even understand why Nebraska is under consideration. It isn’t like Nebraska is some blossoming metropolis. How much are they really going to accomplish the goals of expansion? I really don’t think Nebraska football is as much of a national brand as it was in the 80s. I don’t see how it makes sense.
What makes even less sense is Pitt. They add nothing that Penn State already gives the conference. PSU is THE school in that state and there is already a sizable population in Pittsburgh that is Big Ten country because of the Nittany Lions. This does not expand the footprint whatsoever.
Missouri makes sense because it gives the Big 10 two metropolises in Kansas City and St. Louis. Sure, there are some Illinois fans already in Missouri, but it isn’t the same as the Pitt/PSU argument above—not even close. Plus it means there will be yet another school that has a gold block M logo in the conference. The drawback is that either Missouri or Nebraska would be the worst academic school in the Big 10 immediately upon inception.
The impact that Syracuse/Rutgers has on the NYC market is debatable, but still gives the conference much more of a footprint there than it has now. I’m not sure Syracuse’s football program is up to snuff right now, though. And Rutgers doesn’t have the sustained success over their history.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see the conference opt to not expand since there doesn’t seem to be a crown jewel like Texas or Notre Dame available.
could you imagine what would happen
if Texas and A&M jumped to the Big ten? They would have to be a pair. I would guess that in order to get Notre Dame, the Big ten would have to nab 2 Big East teams. No real great targets, but two of Pitt, Syracuse, and Conneticut would be my guess. God that would be awesome.
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on May 3, 2010 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions
they make sense if you are looking at advertising revenue
At least, that’s the theory. It looks like perhaps the BTN gets the conference more money via ad revenue then subscriber fees. This is where Nebraska fits in. They don’t add much in terms of physical subscriber fees, but their games draw eyeballs and would contribute to the ad revenue the conference would draw in. See Frank The Tank (who everyone should be reading – comments too – if they aren’t already…great analysis of expansion talk) for a better breakdown.
Again, that’s the theory. Who knows how much they’d improve things?
I am highly skeptical of Nebraska
I don’t think they add much in terms of value. Their brand is significantly diminished from what it once was. I would put Texas, Notre Dame, Mizzou, Syracuse, and Rutgers ahead of them—in that order. Yes, Texas would be a better add than Notre Dame—financially, athletically and academically (in particular graduate studies for academics). Notre Dame has geography in its favor and that is about it when comparing it to Texas.
That being said, I don’t think Texas or Notre Dame have interest in joining. Texas might be persuaded if we invite A&M and convince them of the demise of the Big 12 (academically the Big Ten is a MUCH better fit) should we take Mizzou and Nebraska and Pac Ten takes Colorado (as rumored).
I think the Big ten would be better off
simply trying to implode the Big 12. Take Texas, Texas A&M, Nebraka, Missouri and Kansas. Anyway you cut it, you will need 2+ schools to get the NYC market.
A Darko Fan since 2010!
by TheEvilProfessor on May 3, 2010 6:04 PM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
