B1G just broke the bank....New TV Deal...
- Thread starter The Public Enemy
- Start date
ONLY Big Ten and ACC:
Big Ten:
$30.7m (per team per year) Fox/ESPN contract from july 2017-june 2023 Football only
$0.7m (per team per year) CBS contract over same period Basketball only
$8.0m -$12.0m (per team per year) BTN contract over same period (the higher figure is used if cord-cutting starts)
$6.5m (per team per year average) Bowl Contracts including CFP Bowl Contracts
Total: $45.9 -49.9 per year per team (without NCAA BB unit distributions)
ACC:
$22.3m (per team per year) ESPN contract for FB/BB during same 6 year period.
$3.0m (per team per year) (est contribution of ESPN not starting ACC Network)
$3.5m (per team per year average) Bowl Contracts including CFP Bowl Contracts
Total: $28.8m per year per team (without NCAA BB unit distributions)
Difference: $17.1m - $21.1m per year per team
NOTE: Big Ten contract then renegotiates anew to start July 2023, 7 years before the existing ESPN/ACC contract renegotiates. Thus the Big Ten will get another bite of the apple before the ACC has taken its first. It can be reasonably assumed that the difference cited above will grow even greater
With all due respect to everyone but the turd polisher, I want to see the math done in a comprehensive way in a single reference. You can't say it doesn't exist because I just linked one. I understand if you're looking at this year or a future year, those links could be more limited. And there should be more scrutiny on anyone trying to predict the future.
My issue with one of us--including me--doing the math is what we're double accounting, leaving out, or simply not comparing on an apples-to-apples basis. Does a journalist have more ability to sidestep those landmines? Probably not. But when that person's credibility is on the line with the math, I'm a little more comfortable that his/her work gets critically reviewed.
I'm also suspicious of agendas in this regard. Analogous to a slapd!ck coming here reporting how much money the SEC is reeling in. I'm not bothering to read that kinda analysis, much less study it intently or accepting it. Most third-party references are absent those agendas, and if they're not, they should be summarily dismissed as well...
My issue with one of us--including me--doing the math is what we're double accounting, leaving out, or simply not comparing on an apples-to-apples basis. Does a journalist have more ability to sidestep those landmines? Probably not. But when that person's credibility is on the line with the math, I'm a little more comfortable that his/her work gets critically reviewed.
I'm also suspicious of agendas in this regard. Analogous to a slapd!ck coming here reporting how much money the SEC is reeling in. I'm not bothering to read that kinda analysis, much less study it intently or accepting it. Most third-party references are absent those agendas, and if they're not, they should be summarily dismissed as well...
Well that was a better and more accurate breakdown than you will find anywhere else on websites, unless you want to pay someone with your own money to run an analysis, or you get someone to send you the ACC's own study results, which may be biased themselves. The ACC has a mess on its hands, and the only way they can change the calculus is to get ESPN to reopen negotiations mid-contract by offering significantly more/different content.
Well, I'll say this in response... Something has gone to hell in the last 12 months if that (a "mess") is the case.
As recently as the last fiscal year, the ACC was reportedly $55 million behind the conference that is the subject of this thread. And that's not including the benefit of an ACC Network revenue stream of at least $45 million--again reportedly--which closes most of that gap.
If that's evidence of a mess, gimme more of it...
As recently as the last fiscal year, the ACC was reportedly $55 million behind the conference that is the subject of this thread. And that's not including the benefit of an ACC Network revenue stream of at least $45 million--again reportedly--which closes most of that gap.
If that's evidence of a mess, gimme more of it...
In God We Trust (others provide data...)
And BTW, we must have some of the most enlightened people and deepest thinkers on the planet in our humble fanbase. Because I haven't read the first word from ANY published source--biased or otherwise--on what a disaster is looming for the ACC financially.
Bring me those references as well, please.
And BTW, we must have some of the most enlightened people and deepest thinkers on the planet in our humble fanbase. Because I haven't read the first word from ANY published source--biased or otherwise--on what a disaster is looming for the ACC financially.
Bring me those references as well, please.
Last edited:
Data, Data, I don't need no Stinkin' Data.
"The line was popularized by John Huston's 1948 film adaptation of the novel Treasure of the Sierra Madre, which was altered from its content in the novel to meet the Motion Picture Production Code regulations severely limiting profanity in film.In one scene, a Mexican bandit leader named "Gold Hat"(portrayed by Alfonso Bedoya) tries to convince Fred C. Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart) that he and his company are Federales:
Dobbs: "If you're the police, then where are your badges?"
Gold Hat: "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!"
"The line was popularized by John Huston's 1948 film adaptation of the novel Treasure of the Sierra Madre, which was altered from its content in the novel to meet the Motion Picture Production Code regulations severely limiting profanity in film.In one scene, a Mexican bandit leader named "Gold Hat"(portrayed by Alfonso Bedoya) tries to convince Fred C. Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart) that he and his company are Federales:
Dobbs: "If you're the police, then where are your badges?"
Gold Hat: "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!"
Last edited:
You are just sticking your head in the sand. You don't see the difference simply because you don't want to. They are staring you right in the face. For example, this a link which has a estimate calculated 2 years ago. Keep in mind, this is BEFORE the Big Ten signed either of these new TV deals. It projected the Big Ten to distribute $44.5 million dollars per team. That's in contrast to the $22 million the ACC distributed to each school in 2014-2015, the year you referenced.
http://www.jconline.com/story/sport...hools-expecting-big-payouts-continue/8187133/
This is what you don't understand (again, because you are being so obstinate). Here is a link to the Big Ten's old TV contract, with ESPN and CBS
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/49883/college-tv-rights-deals-undergo-makeovers
Here is the link to the new contract with Fox, ESPN, and CBS.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-big-ten-but-biggest-games-will-shift-to-fox/
Now that you see where the numbers are coming from, they can be easily compared.
Old Contract
ESPN - 10 years, $1 billion = $100 million per year, $7.1 million per team.
Fox - 6 years, $145 million = 24.1 million per year, $1.7 million per team.
CBS - 6 years, $72 million = $12 million per year, $0.85 million per team.
Total = $136.1 million per year, $9.65 million per team.
New Contract
ESPN - 6 years, $1.14 billion = $190 million per year, $13.5 million per team.
Fox - 6 years, $1.44 billion = $240 million per year, $ 17.1 million per team.
CBS - 6 years, $60 million = $10 million per year, $0.7 million per team.
Total = $440 million per year, $31.3 million per team.
You see that? The Big Ten's average TV revenue has grown from $136 million a year to $440 million a year. That's an increase of $303.9 million.
Let's put that into perspective. You quoted the Big Ten as receiving $386 million in the 2014-2015 fiscal years. Well, what you fail to understand is that fiscal year 2014-2015 was under the OLD TV contract. That means, now the Big Ten will add roughly $300 million to that $386 million total.
Last edited:
Uh, yeah, something has gone to hell in the last 12 months. It's the Big Ten's new TV contract. That's the point everyone's been making to you all along.
Just link me that reference to the same analysis by conference--historical or forward looking--and I'll be glad to swallow it whole. But if it continues to taste like a turd...
I did. Here is Big Ten's old TV contract:
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/49883/college-tv-rights-deals-undergo-makeovers
Here is the Big Ten' new TV contract:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-big-ten-but-biggest-games-will-shift-to-fox/
The new TV contract went up by an average of $300 million a year. That's cold, hard, 100% fact. Sorry, but you are just full of shit. The numbers are 100% correct. They come from reputable, documented sources. You simply cannot dispute the numbers. Those are the two contracts, and they say what they say.
Here's something else that's funny. You keep demanding a link from me, yet you didn't post a link for you numbers. I'm not disputing them, it's just funny that you didn't post the link yourself.
Last edited:
Tiger, Zipp might well dispute that the Pope is Catholic. Just in order to debate. He enjoys attention. And Zipp demands the last post, so wait for it! But we all love our resident curmudgeon. Zipp reminds me of Audrey (Feed Me! Feed Me! Seymour in The Little Shop of Horrors).
Your second link--the first one was from a lifetime ago--did not mention ONE conference besides the Big Ten. Not a single one. As I said, a number in isolation is generally useless.
And I have to chuckle when the last guy to post is critical of the other last guys to post. Good one, G...
Your second link--the first one was from a lifetime ago--did not mention ONE conference besides the Big Ten. Not a single one. As I said, a number in isolation is generally useless.
And I have to chuckle when the last guy to post is critical of the other last guys to post. Good one, G...
That response is flat out stupid.
-The second link is the one the OP posted. That's the link that started this whole discussion. The reason only the Big Ten is listed is because the Big Ten is the only conference getting a new contract. Everybody else's number is staying the same. The Big Ten's number is the only one changing, due to the new TV contract.
-The first link is old for a reason. That's because it is the old TV contract. You are really thick. The point is, we know exactly what the old TV contract paid, and we know exactly what the new contract will pay. Therefore, we can calculate exactly what the increase will be to the Big Ten's total payout when the new contract is added in.
-The number isn't isolated, and it isn't useless. Again, you are so thick, you don't get it. You posted the revenue from each conference for fiscal year 2014-2015. What you don't understand is, all the other conferences had their new TV contracts for that year. The Big Ten was still under its old TV contract. Only the Big Ten will get a big boost for the next fiscal year, because they are the only ones moving to a new TV contract next year. Because we know the value of the Big Ten's old TV contract and new TV contract, we can figure out exactly how much the Big Ten's total payout will increase by simply adding the increase of the new contract.
Anyone that can't see the B1G is going to leave everyone-(including the SEC) in the dust just doesn't want to admit it...it is what it is...
No, WE calculate nothing. We don't have all of the information, and we don't know what's baked into various numbers. Some of us may TRY to do the math, but most of us don't have that ability, and we don't universally recognize who does. That's why you need to bring the calculations and comparisons (other conferences) along with the news and raw info.
And bring that in a single reference so I know the math was done consistently.
This harkens back to one of my favorite adages... You don't get credibility and respect because you have a username and a password. Translated: Your ability to post information doesn't grant you the credibility to analyze it and draw conclusions. You'll have to bring that analysis as well. And since you keep failing in that regard, you must be unable to find it, i.e, it doesn't exist...
I've learned over the years that we have a lotta hand wringers in this space.
"We'll never get in a better conference."
"We should have signed with Nike."
"This investigation will kill us."
Etc. etc...
The same well intending folks who wanna worry about how much money we're (not) making in a great conference. I'm a numbers guy, but I simply refuse to worry about things that don't exist or won't materialize. At least for the most part. Just relax and be grateful...
"We'll never get in a better conference."
"We should have signed with Nike."
"This investigation will kill us."
Etc. etc...
The same well intending folks who wanna worry about how much money we're (not) making in a great conference. I'm a numbers guy, but I simply refuse to worry about things that don't exist or won't materialize. At least for the most part. Just relax and be grateful...
No, you are just being stubborn to try to save face. You are wrong, and the numbers prove it. I showed you exactly where the calculations are coming from. It doesn't all have to come from a single source. It doesn't have to show other conferences. You just keep saying that so you don't have to admit the numbers are correct.
Big Ten total payout, 2014-2015 = $386 million
Old Big Ten Tier 1 TV contract = $136 million
New Big Ten Tier 1 TV contract = $440 million
increase of new TV contract = 440-136 = $304 million
Total payout plus TV contract increase = $386 + $304 million = $690 million
That's 100% correct. Everybody else but you realizes it.
Some teams may wish to consider leaving the ACC (and the Big 12) even while their Grants of Rights are still in force, very late in their respective GoR contract term, when they will only need to forfeit 'minimal' amounts. For ACC teams this may end up being about 2022 - 2023.
Your second link--the first one was from a lifetime ago--did not mention ONE conference besides the Big Ten. Not a single one. As I said, a number in isolation is generally useless.
And I have to chuckle when the last guy to post is critical of the other last guys to post. Good one, G...
That made me laugh as well.
With no corroborating source, you have zero credibility here to perform that analysis independently. I'm not even sure who does.
And I noticed your $800 million is now down to 690. But what's a $100 mil to the Big Ten, eh??
With no corroborating source, you have zero credibility here to perform that analysis independently. I'm not even sure who does.
And I noticed your $800 million is now down to 690. But what's a $100 mil to the Big Ten, eh??
No, I have 100% credibility. You aren't the judge of credibility.
The analysis is simple. That's probably the problem. Simple is over your head.
All you have to do is take the increase of the Big Ten's TV contract, and add that to what they already get. Just because some journalist hasn't printed that in an article doesn't discount the accuracy of the calculation. You just argue for the sake of arguing. It's blatantly obvious to everyone else, (including the schools in the Big Ten) that this is an accurate calculation.
Actually, no, you are wrong about the 690 figure. I simply didn't include the Rose Bowl in that particular post, because I was only demonstrating to you the increase from the TV contract. When the Rose Bowl is add in, that's 730, which is what I said in my previous post.
I've posted sources. You just don't read them because you don't want to be proven wrong.
Here is a single source. It estimates the Big Ten's payouts will increase to around $57 million per team, up from $31 million per team.
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/big...ia-revenues-skyrocket-thanks-new-tv-deal.html
I came up with the number $52 million per team, so my number was actually conservative. Point being, you asked for one source, well, there's one source. Now make up some more excuses.
I knew there was going to be an excuse. You asked for one single source, and I posted one single source. I also DID post the source all the way back on Saturday. You just acted like a stubborn ass and didn't read it. It was right there the whole time.
I asked for a single source that presented a comprehensive analysis, not just the part you wanted to present. And you still haven't posted it, just picking up one turd and polishing it...
"And I will always believe that news about escalating media rights fees, apparel contracts, etc. regarding other conferences and teams will end up being good news for us. A rising tide floats all boats..."
here's a deep thought for you.....it's called trickle up economics and it's my original idea. this is horrible for all of us in general. where does all this money come from, advertising. TV contracts are making life more expensive to live while a simple few get enormously rich. every time a new tv contract is signed, college, nfl, nba, nhl, golf, etc etc etc those contracts are what tv paid to the teams. in turn tv doubles or triples what they paid in charging advertising during those games. advertising is paid by companies selling you something. they in turn have to make their ad budget back with interest so they raise the prices on what they are selling,. in turn when all of us go to the store everything across the board costs more so we can watch sports on tv. every single person who shops will pay more for everyday products so espn, nbc, abc, fox etc can get richer and richer. and the some 5000 pro athletes in this country make more money for doing nothing than basically the rest of america combined and it's all because of these tv contracts. trickle up economics works. the rich make themselves more rich off the backs off everyone of us. so zipp, it's not good for any of us. it makes life harder for everyone, especially those who don't care about sports at all. just look at what the new nba contract is paying average athletes. where is all that money coming from? from higher prices at the grocery to pay to advertise during these games. that's why there is such a economic divide in this country. tv and advertising screw us all and your paycheck goes much less farther than it did before this humongous contracts started
here's a deep thought for you.....it's called trickle up economics and it's my original idea. this is horrible for all of us in general. where does all this money come from, advertising. TV contracts are making life more expensive to live while a simple few get enormously rich. every time a new tv contract is signed, college, nfl, nba, nhl, golf, etc etc etc those contracts are what tv paid to the teams. in turn tv doubles or triples what they paid in charging advertising during those games. advertising is paid by companies selling you something. they in turn have to make their ad budget back with interest so they raise the prices on what they are selling,. in turn when all of us go to the store everything across the board costs more so we can watch sports on tv. every single person who shops will pay more for everyday products so espn, nbc, abc, fox etc can get richer and richer. and the some 5000 pro athletes in this country make more money for doing nothing than basically the rest of america combined and it's all because of these tv contracts. trickle up economics works. the rich make themselves more rich off the backs off everyone of us. so zipp, it's not good for any of us. it makes life harder for everyone, especially those who don't care about sports at all. just look at what the new nba contract is paying average athletes. where is all that money coming from? from higher prices at the grocery to pay to advertise during these games. that's why there is such a economic divide in this country. tv and advertising screw us all and your paycheck goes much less farther than it did before this humongous contracts started
That's changing the discourse. I never said this was good for mankind. "Us" is U of L. And the bigger business that college athletics becomes, the more money U of L ends up making.
And I don't care about one contract or one conference. One data point means almost nothing when you're charting a trend. This is a long term issue...
