Tv Contract vs Expansion

[dabull80]

Just wondering out loud - Do the conferences have like a back door to the TV exects so if they pick a certain school how wiill/could it impact a new TV contract ?

If one team leaves a conference does that void the whole current agreement with TV ?  I mean if Miss were to leave the SEC - not a big deal but let Alabama or UF leave and it is a much bigger deal.

I know we make a big deal out of TV markets but what if no one watches ?  Yes NY is big(ie Rutgars) but I thought most of those folks were either into fashion or Pro ball

[Woogie53]

Yes, all the TV contracts are for the CURRENT lineups in the conference and state that if there's changes, the contract can be modified.

I saw this in the new ACC contract with ESPN. For instance, if they were to lose FSU, then they're allowed to revalue the contract.

[Bull94]

ESPN and the networks are concerned with how many will watch. That's why I don't think the SEC and ACC will jump to expand right away. It may not add value.

the big 10 network is more concerned with getting onto basic cable systems in their expansion markets. They are paid .85c on average(I think) for every basic cable subscriber in big ten territory. Rutgers might bring 5M basic subscribers at .85c each per month would be $4.25M per month in fees alone. That's 51M dollars a year no matter how many people watch.

[tampabull]

ESPN and the networks are concerned with how many will watch. That's why I don't think the SEC and ACC will jump to expand right away. It may not add value.

the big 10 network is more concerned with getting onto basic cable systems in their expansion markets. They are paid .85c on average(I think) for every basic cable subscriber in big ten territory. Rutgers might bring 5M basic subscribers at .85c each per month would be $4.25M per month in fees alone. That's 51M dollars a year no matter how many people watch.

just shows everyone how hard it would be for the big east to start a network.  They would probably get half that .45c per subscriber.  If you assume every team brings in 5 million subscribers (i don't know what number is realistic) it comes out to 3.3 million per school if you divide evenly between 8 schools.

[2000bull]

ESPN and the networks are concerned with how many will watch. That's why I don't think the SEC and ACC will jump to expand right away. It may not add value.

the big 10 network is more concerned with getting onto basic cable systems in their expansion markets. They are paid .85c on average(I think) for every basic cable subscriber in big ten territory. Rutgers might bring 5M basic subscribers at .85c each per month would be $4.25M per month in fees alone. That's 51M dollars a year no matter how many people watch.

just shows everyone how hard it would be for the big east to start a network.  They would probably get half that .45c per subscriber.  If you assume every team brings in 5 million subscribers (i don't know what number is realistic) it comes out to 3.3 million per school if you divide evenly between 8 schools.

I think your math is off a little...and that would be a month, wouldn't it?

[tampabull]

ESPN and the networks are concerned with how many will watch. That's why I don't think the SEC and ACC will jump to expand right away. It may not add value.

the big 10 network is more concerned with getting onto basic cable systems in their expansion markets. They are paid .85c on average(I think) for every basic cable subscriber in big ten territory. Rutgers might bring 5M basic subscribers at .85c each per month would be $4.25M per month in fees alone. That's 51M dollars a year no matter how many people watch.

just shows everyone how hard it would be for the big east to start a network.  They would probably get half that .45c per subscriber.  If you assume every team brings in 5 million subscribers (i don't know what number is realistic) it comes out to 3.3 million per school if you divide evenly between 8 schools.

I think your math is off a little...and that would be a month, wouldn't it?

That would be per month woops.

[BDYZR]

That's why when someone on another thread suggested USF to the Big 10, for the tv market only, it's not such a bad idea.

There are lots of Big 10 alumni in this area.

They would love to be able to catch a conference game at RayJay.

They would love to come down here when it's freezing cold up there and we're still in the 80's.

[Jihme]

we've been on some good tv games (ratings-wise), so hopefully that will help us

[smazza]

ESPN and the networks are concerned with how many will watch. That's why I don't think the SEC and ACC will jump to expand right away. It may not add value.

the big 10 network is more concerned with getting onto basic cable systems in their expansion markets. They are paid .85c on average(I think) for every basic cable subscriber in big ten territory. Rutgers might bring 5M basic subscribers at .85c each per month would be $4.25M per month in fees alone. That's 51M dollars a year no matter how many people watch.

if big ten expands or any bcs conference expands acc will immediately expand

[smazza]

ESPN and the networks are concerned with how many will watch. That's why I don't think the SEC and ACC will jump to expand right away. It may not add value.

the big 10 network is more concerned with getting onto basic cable systems in their expansion markets. They are paid .85c on average(I think) for every basic cable subscriber in big ten territory. Rutgers might bring 5M basic subscribers at .85c each per month would be $4.25M per month in fees alone. That's 51M dollars a year no matter how many people watch.

just shows everyone how hard it would be for the big east to start a network.  They would probably get half that .45c per subscriber.  If you assume every team brings in 5 million subscribers (i don't know what number is realistic) it comes out to 3.3 million per school if you divide evenly between 8 schools.

but what about the famed ny tv market????????