Let's Talk TV

[cmhatter]

for the most part... our football ratings are fairly low... our only saving grace is the fact that these new sports networks need more and more content.

my guess is NBC takes the biggest swing... which would be fine with me.

[tampatony]

I can't wait to see what happens with this. We obviously would have been in a much better situation if WVU, PITT, and SYR would have stayed but we still should be able to get a good chunk of money due to demand alone... I think Marinatto has done a great job of focusing the additions in big markets or national draw and has definitely set the Big East up for success if we can have some teams win some. He has basically said hey we may not be the best teams now but if you give us time we have the potential to draw a lot of eyes from some of the biggest markets in the US...

[Skingraft]

Whatever gives us national attention

[GaUSFBull]

Whatever gives us national attention

Winning will.

[Bull-by-Marriage]

Wouldn't Comcast/NBC be able to show games on some their other networks. USA, Universal HD, NBC Sports, Telemundo to reach the spanish speaking audience. It doesn't have to be a "sports" channel to show football.

http://www.comcast.c...SCRedirect=true

[slbpsi63]

1) Fox invested billions into a failed network in the mid-00s. Turner invested billions in the late 90s-early 2000s. OLN/Versus/NBC Sports has been rebranded/relaunched 4 times now with billIons of dollars lost. NONE have even been a fly in the face of the ESPN monster. I don't think any of the new networks do anything, conferences know that ESPN is college football. It will forever be college football. Gameday is how college football starts its day, and ends it. My point is, no new network is taking down ESPN. Not now. Not in the future.

OLN and Versus did not have a major network backing them that had name recognition itself. NBC Sports is six months into its rebranding with the Olympics coming up to bolster the network.

It's not about taking down ESPN, but about eroding their marketshare. Fact is, ESPN is losing college football slowly. FOX runs the Big Ten Network, not ESPN. They've still got plenty of programming, but the SEC game of the week went to CBS. The Pac-12 and Big XII have concurrent deals with Fox. The Big Ten airs games on their own network that used to be carried by ESPN.

I don't disagree that it would be wise to keep some games on ESPN, but it all does ultimately come down to money. ESPN is highly profitable. A big part of the reason why they are is because they underpay for quite a bit of their sports programming compared to their intake from advertising and cable fees. I do prefer having NBC airing a weekly primetime game due to exposure and a couple games on their cable network in a split deal. ESPN was trying to avoid having us split the TV deal up. That's why the ACC's deal is so cheap. They just took what ESPN gave them without testing the market. That's plain dumb.

2) The Big East would be damned fools to take ALL of their product off ESPN. Let's be serious, as I stated above ESPN is college football. While the SEC, PAC-12, Big-12, and Big Ten all have TV deals with separate networks, they keep a presence on ESPN for that very reason.

The key reason is not because they need ESPN, but because ESPN needs them. The Big East is not in the same position, this is true. But the Big Ten will get viewers wherever it is. Same for the SEC. That's why ESPN had to increase their payouts to those conferences in order to keep them. How great would ESPN be for college football if the Big Ten and SEC skived off? And Fox or NBC will make a serious play for both when their contract is out.

3) "We're in big TV markets" - lets backup there. USF is a prime example. We're in a big TV market but we're at best the second most popular college football team in the market (and that is being generous). Florida and Florida State are still the big dogs, and TV execs aren't stupid to that fact. You think SMU controls Dallas/Houston? No! Texas and Texas A&M do. Temple in Philly? That's a Penn State town. Temple can't get 10,000 real bodies into their games regularly. TV markets help, because they don't completely push us into that irrelevant range, by the same token, the execs aren't stupid. They know what games are watched where.

You fail to grasp that their is no other football to bid on. And the large markets allow for the prospect of growth. True, we may not be the top draw in a market, but we're in the market. Execs are not stupid, but execs can get desperate for programming. The thing about college football is that it's advertizing rates are higher than the rates paid for comedies or dramas because those viewers have a greater tendency of responding to the ad. In a market where all conferences are up for bid, we don't do well.

This is why ESPN doesn't care as much to pay too much for content. They already have a stable. NBC has Notre Dame and some lesser games on cable. They also have a greater incentive to promote the product than ESPN does. Execs don't just look at current numbers, they also look at future potential. The large markets have an incredible potential for large growth in ratings. But the key driver is ultimately that NBC and all the others have nothing to add to their programming lineup for five years.

As I've said numerous times, NBC will be the lone network without primetime college football. I doubt they like that prospect.

4) This is probably the most devasting fact. The BCS is getting rid of auto-bids. We don't stand a chance to survive as a "big boy" in that scenario. ESPECIALLY if we go running off the network that has the Multi-Billion dollar rights to the games. We'll officially take our spot next to the Mountain West and Conference-USA. Network execs know that. (I'll wait for someone to scream for a merited as antitrust claim)

ESPN does not have the rights to the games. They will have to bid on whatever the BCS successor is. They have no rights beyond the bowl games played in January of 2014. Fox, ESPN, CBS, and NBC will all enter a bidding war for the +1 format. There is no guarantee that ESPN will win that war.

And if someone else wins it, they might pull an ESPN and disallow anyone else from using highlights of the game for a set period of time. ESPN did that on the current BCS deal. Imagine Sportscenter talking about the BCS title game but unable to show you any clips from it. That's what they did to everyone else.

ESPN isn't going to just die soon, but they can be dented and a strong revenue stream can be had for another alternative sports network. It takes time and capital, but it can be done. But execs need programming to do it and we're the only game in town.

5) We will get a nice TV deal. Somewhere in the 10-12 range. We'll probably split it up.

I hate ESPN, but it's a harsh reality that you aren't looking at in your analysis. No ESPN = No chance for the Big East. We have zero leverage as a power broker in college football without that auto-bid

We have plenty of leverage because there's no one else on the market. We also have a team going forward in Boise State that will have qualified for one of those big bowls on several occasions in the recent past. But the key is the bidding market. We'll do substantially better than 10-12. We'll do better than the ACC deal that averages 13. If you look at our football and basketball ratings, we tend to outperform the ACC, especially in larger markets. We'll do better than 13. I think we'll get around 18 a year.

Both of you make valid points. The Big East needs to be careful here. If we end up going to a network becuase we are the only show available, will we be strong enough to bring viewers with us? Really? this may hurt our ratings for future negotiations. How long has NBC carried Notre Dame? Does it coincide with their gradual decline in being able to compete on a regular basis? I remember Notre Dame used to be a huge game week in week out when I was a kid, now... not so much. I am just concerned that we are looking short term here. I think a multi network deal is a must!!!

[Rizman]

Fox stadium?

[macphisto]

Both of you make valid points. The Big East needs to be careful here. If we end up going to a network becuase we are the only show available, will we be strong enough to bring viewers with us? Really? this may hurt our ratings for future negotiations. How long has NBC carried Notre Dame? Does it coincide with their gradual decline in being able to compete on a regular basis? I remember Notre Dame used to be a huge game week in week out when I was a kid, now... not so much. I am just concerned that we are looking short term here. I think a multi network deal is a must!!!

I don't think NBC has much to do with Notre Dame's decline. It's a combination of poor coaching and a decision not to lower their academic standards even slightly. I believe that one reason Lou Holtz ended up leaving was that he saw the writing on the wall. There may have also been signs on an NCAA investigation. I tend to believe it was a combination of both. I think Holtz was finding it harder to recruit in a world where more student athletes were far more focused on the athlete portion of the gig.

NBC would probably like to strengthen their football offerings. And, yes, they could conceivably air games not just on NBC Sports Network but also on USA, etc. Funny thing is that USA was originally launched as the Madison Square Garden Network and is still based in NYC. USA has aired dog shows, the US Open (tennis), hockey, MLB, the Masters, and, IIRC, aired the old World League of American Football in the early 90s. USA is the #1 basic cable network and has the highest primetime ratings among basic cable networks. USA could decide to air a primetime game on Saturday to run alongside NBC's.

I do agree that our best bet is to split our coverage up, but I do think our top tier should be sold to someone who is more of a partner with us. To ESPN, we're just another horse in the stable. To NBC, we'd be partners. They'd have an incentive to help promote and build our brand.

Fact is, recruiting becomes easier for the whole league when you can point to a weekly primetime game on a major network - one that could be promoted by NBC on their Sunday night NFL broadcast.

Think about how few well slotted prime time games the ACC has seen over the past several years and how weak they have become. They get pushed in the corner by ESPN just like we do. The SEC, Big Ten, and Big XII dominate the prime time network slots (or main ESPN slot) on Saturday night. You get seen by more scouts then.

A primetime Saturday night game on NBC is a recruiting tool for the whole league. It could make the whole league better.

[Joe]

The problem is that much like all your other predictions (no one will raid the Big East because the 27 month rule is sticky, that was followed by WVU will be forced to play In the BE) its very speculative.

I've read that NBC Sports might be interested in the Big East, but it all suggests that they want them for their sports network, and not network TV. Realistically, NBC probably won't air much, if any, Big East games. By the same token Fox doesn't air PAC -10 games outside of the championship.

My stance has changed. With the BCS getting rid of auto bids in 2014, we've got to stay with ESPN in some form.

(and don't try and tell me some other network is taking the BCS from ESPN, not happening. Fox tried to sell their last contract back to ESPN a year before it was over.)

[macphisto]

The problem is that much like all your other predictions (no one will raid the Big East because the 27 month rule is sticky, that was followed by WVU will be forced to play In the BE) its very speculative.

I've read that NBC Sports might be interested in the Big East, but it all suggests that they want them for their sports network, and not network TV. Realistically, NBC probably won't air much, if any, Big East games. By the same token Fox doesn't air PAC -10 games outside of the championship.

My stance has changed. With the BCS getting rid of auto bids in 2014, we've got to stay with ESPN in some form.

(and don't try and tell me some other network is taking the BCS from ESPN, not happening. Fox tried to sell their last contract back to ESPN a year before it was over.)

Things have changed since the last BCS contract was awarded. ESPN's great advantage is the cable subscriber fees they get. Fox has gotten retransmission fees since that time, upping their income significantly. NBC is going to be leveraging their cable entities (USA, SyFy, MSNBC, Telemundo, A&E, Weather Channel, Bravo, etc) to exact a retransmission fee that will mean a couple hundred million more in revenue every year from cable subscribers. Comcast's cable holdings will automatically sign up. They likely will work out something on the cable side of things to allow for more local advertizing from cable providers to help increase their revenue, but this will give NBC a lot more money to play with every year.

ESPN was able to build its empire because of its cable fees. That advantage will be gone in another year. They will no longer have the extra cash that their competitors do not have. The playing field will be even, with an aggressive Fox and NBC willing to overpay to take away things from ESPN in order to gain the upper hand and cripple their programming.

Rupert Murdoch wants to put a big dent in ESPN - and he's got some cash to spend. Everyone laughed when he said he was going to put a dent in CNN, but Fox News kills the other news channels on ratings, regardless of whether you like their bent or not. Fox was a network everyone laughed at when they started, now it has found a way to surpass the original three in many time slots.

People would have said that CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC were untouchable in TV, but Fox beat them all. Now people want to say that Fox can't beat ESPN. Don't count Fox out. And with Comcast at the head now, don't count out NBC either. They don't have the same luster they once had, especially with sports. They want to rebuild that.

As for them not airing primetime games - doubtful. CBS will have them. ABC will have them. Fox will have them (either Pac12 or Big XII). Why would NBC want to be the one network without football? What could they counterprogram? Sure, they could do a drama, but for a network that can cost $4M per hour of programming and even if it can draw as much as a football game, the advertizing rates are set lower due to the audience. You could set aside 13 weeks of primetime programming at $10M per 3-4 hour slot (13 includes a BE championship game), make a good profit on the advertizing, have lower production costs, and save money compared to any comedy or drama programming you would do counter to football.

A primetime slot like that alone is worth about $150M for 13 games, actually, because a championship game is worth much more than the regular games. And, realistically, there would probably be about 14 weeks of coverage due to bye weeks. For those keeping score at home, a sustained setup of primetime games is worth about $12M per team in a 12 team league. Additional cable coverage can generate $8-10M more for all other games and result in a contract that pays $20-22M per team on the football side.

The money really swings on if NBC wants primetime network games. Having a game on the network and on cable during primetime sets them up to directly compete against ESPN/ABC and also gives us more money.

I don't disagree that we should give ESPN something, but I think that the best thing to leave there is the Thursday and Friday night games. I'd be inclined for day games to be on NBC Sports, NBC, USA, or even CBS' cable outlet coupled with a Big East Network that can be bid out to be run by Fox, ESPN, or Comcast.

Basketball should be split off and split up, offered to ESPN and NBC to increase revenue from that sport as well. It won't get the football money, but it will likely generate more than it has in the past.

Just remember that this November Fox and NBC will not only be looking for programming, they will be looking at hundreds of millions in added cable subscription fees to spend per year that, right now, is icing on the cake for them. Both can afford to overpay and both have an interest in promoting the conference. The challenge is turning around the perception of the conference in football. As I said elsewhere, primetime weekly programming on a network will win over recruits. Good games on those nights will win over fans. And some of those games will be out of conference games where we have the homefield. FSU vs. USF would be an example for this season. Since we're at home, we'd get the TV rights.