Football BIG TEN CONFERENCE ANNOUNCES GROUNDBREAKING MEDIA RIGHTS AGREEMENTS

[rutgersguy1]

I heard someone (Danny Kanell?) recently float the idea of the Big Ten and SEC combining media rights in the future - instead of competing.

Then each individual conference doesn't need to deal with logistics of such a large conference (32 teams) but still have the scale of games - similar to the NFL.

Would the sum be greater than the parts?

I've brought that up myself here multiple times. I don' know that it would happen any time soon or at all but I could envision a time where the SEC and B10 pool their rights together to chop and sale among a bunch of media partners.

I've said size and scale creates leverage for negotiation as a reason for B10 expansion but a combo between the SEC/B10 would just magnify that premise.

 

[rutgersguy1]

I would presume most people are referring to this report that generated an 11 page thread.

This was prior to USC/UCLA.
Most presumed an opportunity of 1b/14 teams.
Going to 1.2b/16 teams (and those 2.additonal teams having no buy-in for BTN) is quite different.

https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/t...-billion-in-place-around-memorial-day.240485/

Yea I think it's possible that the media and public were just getting half the story. We saw numbers ranging from 1-1.5B and assumed that was for 14 teams but in reality the numbers could have been related to fluid membership going on behind the scenes. So the numbers were correct but the uncertain composition unknown to the public, it was just assumed it was based on 14 teams.

I think the lower end must've included USC/UCLA which were in talks with the B10 since the spring and the upper end might have been if ND and others joined.

We know there are escalators for additions that could take the total from 8B to 10B. I think that hints at the idea that the range of numbers we saw earlier in the year were related to unknown conference composition behind the scenes but the media and public just assumed it meant the current 14.

 

[rutgersguy1]

But the pro sports will always be on top. All we can do is compare apples to apples (college) and with that the B1G is way on top - especially on Fall afternoons

Well with the new contract the B10 is in front of the NHL according to tweets I saw. Only MLB, NBA, NFL are in front but if the B10 grows bigger maybe they would catch the MLB as well.

I didn't verify these numbers but saw these tweets online.

 

[pmvon]

The big ten has a lot more product than each league but yes amazing.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

By whom, dumb sportswriters speculating? There were a lot of moving parts. See my post above. This deal is multiple grand slams. No reason to be unhappy, unless your name Don Quixote?

Dumb or smart, they weren't inventing those numbers out of thin air. They were hearing them from experts in the field via leaks. Those were the numbers that the experts were saying were what approximately, the deal should have been in the neighborhood of.

Today's deal is significantly below those numbers (and that $1.4 billion number was the pre-UCLA/USC floor in those discussions). I'm not saying it isn't the best deal the league could get. What I am saying is I'm not patting Warren on the back for signing a deal significantly below expectations.

 

[Knight Shift]

Dumb or smart, they weren't inventing those numbers out of thin air. They were hearing them from experts in the field via leaks. Those were the numbers that the experts were saying were what approximately, the deal should have been in the neighborhood of.

Today's deal is significantly below those numbers (and that $1.4 billion number was the pre-UCLA/USC floor in those discussions). I'm not saying it isn't the best deal the league could get. What I am saying is I'm not patting Warren on the back for signing a deal significantly below expectations.

Sorry, but you are completely wrong. Don't have time to look it all up. Show your work.

 

[theRU]

I don’t gamble so don’t understand this but here’s another angle.

View embedded media

Didn't read but cord cutting isn't what it used to be. People pay more now for Internet and apps than they did before cutting vord

 

[Sir ScarletKnight]

The big ten has a lot more product than each league but yes amazing.

This is what a lot of people forget. They focus entirely on the football, but the Big Ten is also showing Basketball, Hockey, Lacrosse, etc.

 

[RUBlackout7]

Didn't read but cord cutting isn't what it used to be. People pay more now for Internet and apps than they did before cutting vord

I don’t and it’s a way better product.

 

[theRU]

I don’t and it’s a way better product.

Would love to hear what you are doing

 

[William J. Leggett]

Agreed, but BIG will have another chance to negotiate and in turn may tie the hands of the other two leagues in terms of how high bidders can go.

And time slots…

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Sorry, but you are completely wrong. Don't have time to look it all up. Show your work.

No thanks, im not trying to convince you so I have no interest in doing busy work.

 

[RUaMoose]

hahaha F ESPN

Big Ten is going to get the same treatment the NHL got when they were on NBC SN. I remember looking up at the TV at ESPN, shows like PTI and ATH, seeing them briefly cover an NHL topic and thinking to myself it must be close to the top or bottom of the hour. And sure enough....it never failed.

 

[krup]

Big Ten is going to get the same treatment the NHL got when they were on NBC SN. I remember looking up at the TV at ESPN, shows like PTI and ATH, seeing them briefly cover an NHL topic and thinking to myself it must be close to the top or bottom of the hour. And sure enough....it never failed.

ESPN could ignore hockey because it has a devoted. but very limited fan base and does not attract casual sports fans like the other major sports do.

They cannot ignore the B1G because that would be risking losing a huge amount of viewers and regionalizing themselves since their college rights packages are concentrated in the southeast.

In fact, I would not be surprised if the part of yesterday’s news about the B1G possibly making more than the announced figure is because of ESPN.

ESPN didn’t want to lose the B1G, the B1G didn’t want to completely cut themselves off from ESPN, but ESPN didn’t have the available time slots to remain a partner for the B1G’s premier games, and ESPN doesn’t want to pay the PAC12 anything significant.

There is one solution that fits all of the above. I would not be surprised to find out that the B1G and ESPN are already deep in discussions about a late Saturday night B1G game on ESPN after some more PAC12 school additions to the B1G, but they needed to announce the other deals and this wasn’t far enough along to announce definitively yet so it was framed as a future possibility.

It also makes sense as to why the B1G might add more PAC12 schools when none of them appear to pay for themselves. It may be that a Cal, Stanford, Oregon, etc are NOT dilutive when they can help generate a whole additional rights package with ESPN,

 

[rutgersguy1]

ESPN could ignore hockey because it has a devoted. but very limited fan base and does not attract casual sports fans like the other major sports do.

They cannot ignore the B1G because that would be risking losing a huge amount of viewers and regionalizing themselves since their college rights packages are concentrated in the southeast.

In fact, I would not be surprised if the part of yesterday’s news about the B1G possibly making more than the announced figure is because of ESPN.

ESPN didn’t want to lose the B1G, the B1G didn’t want to completely cut themselves off from ESPN, but ESPN didn’t have the available time slots to remain a partner for the B1G’s premier games, and ESPN doesn’t want to pay the PAC12 anything significant.

There is one solution that fits all of the above. I would not be surprised to find out that the B1G and ESPN are already deep in discussions about a late Saturday night B1G game on ESPN after some more PAC12 school additions to the B1G, but they needed to announce the other deals and this wasn’t far enough along to announce definitively yet so it was framed as a future possibility.

It also makes sense as to why the B1G might add more PAC12 schools when none of them appear to pay for themselves. It may be that a Cal, Stanford, Oregon, etc are NOT dilutive when they can help generate a whole additional rights package with ESPN,

I've said the same as your last couple paragraphs. Warren's quotes I posted above point to the possibility as well. It's why I don't think the numbers were low compared to what was out there like some here do. The numbers were accurate but the conference composition was fluid and the media/pubic didn't know that at the time....just half the story was known. Everyone just assumed that those numbers related to a fixed 14 teams not possibly 16 or more, including the possibility of ND. The escalator clauses with expansion and an after dark window could push it up towards that higher end of the range at 1.5B. Conference composition was fluid then and it's really still fluid now.

Also don't think ESPN can ignore the B10. It's too big a player in the sport, literally one of 2 behemoths on the landscape. They would lose credibility and a big chunk of viewership. They ignored the NHL by not covering the sport at all. They are neck deep in college sports and CFB so you can't be in a status like that and ignore one of the behemoths in the sport. There could be varying degrees of coverage depending on the sport but in CFB you can't ignore the B10. If the B10 does go for an after dark window and ESPN is back in play then all this is moot anyway.

 

[rutgersguy1]

Never heard of this outlet but thought it was a pretty good summary of things

5 Takeaways From The Big Ten’s New Media Deals

Each partner received an equitable fair share of content that will make the conference a cornerstone of each respective network for years to come.

www.barrettsportsmedia.com

 

[Knight Shift]

Never heard of this outlet but thought it was a pretty good summary of things

5 Takeaways From The Big Ten’s New Media Deals

Each partner received an equitable fair share of content that will make the conference a cornerstone of each respective network for years to come.

www.barrettsportsmedia.com

And this is another thing that separates the B1G from the SEC:

"Commitment to academics – One of the coolest parts of this deal is NBC’s commitment to promoting the academic missions of Big Ten schools. Michael Smith of Sports Business Journal reports NBC will dedicate $100,000 of its advertising budget to this initiative."

 

[Panthergrowl13]

Other thoughts and considerations.

Some members of the board may ridicule/mock ESPN/ABC because they chose not to participate in the B1G deal.

ESPN/ABC did not become one of the leaders in sports broadcasting by being stupid.

ESPN/ABC knowingly made the decision and at this point we do not know their counter strategy going forward. I am pretty confident that they have one with the their decision not to participate in the B1G deal.

As far as controlling a market area, I think the quality of the game (match up) will dictate how big the TV audience will be.

As an example, lets discuss the Nielsen results of two TV Broadcast games on Sept. 1 (Thursday night) involving Pennsylvania teams.

PITT vs West Virginia (ESPN- 7pm Sept. 1)
Penn State vs Purdue (FOX- 8 pm Sept. 1)

In any event congrats on the deal.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Occasionally, Twitter produces actual thought that is useful... in a tweet-thread about CBS's promo real putting their theme music to Big Ten action...

​

Hawkeye Country​

​

This gets me so pumped. Every single week, 6 B1G teams will be on a national broadcast guaranteed. Fox gets first dibs and will grab OSU and Michigan more often than not. That leaves the mid tier teams like Iowa to get picked for those 3:30 and 7pm games​

Tweet link..

Lots of SEC hate in that thread. But this thought about Fox getting first choice and CBS picking the best among other games... Rutgers really could end up getting the CBS treatment at some point. I do think CBS's high production values really helped the SEC become what they are.

Despite having little familiarity with those teams, I always found myself tuning in because college football looked and sounded better on CBS rather than the cheap crap that ESPN pumped out. ABC was a bit better, at times, but you could always rely on CBS. FOX/BTN does good these days, but CBS has set the mark to beat.

CANNOT WAIT... but I have to.

 

[Knight Shift]

Dumb or smart, they weren't inventing those numbers out of thin air. They were hearing them from experts in the field via leaks. Those were the numbers that the experts were saying were what approximately, the deal should have been in the neighborhood of.

Today's deal is significantly below those numbers (and that $1.4 billion number was the pre-UCLA/USC floor in those discussions). I'm not saying it isn't the best deal the league could get. What I am saying is I'm not patting Warren on the back for signing a deal significantly below expectations.

You have two problems. You have a strange fetish for putting down Warren and not giving credit when credit is due and you fail to admit when you are wrong.

Here's where you are wrong, and you will remain wrong:

The original numbers were $1 to 1.1 Billion without UCLA/USC:
May:

Big Ten aims to have new media rights deal, worth up to $1 billion, in place around Memorial Day

The Big Ten has not yet decided whether to have one, two or more partners

www.cbssports.com

Big Ten reportedly closing in on media rights deal worth $1.1 billion per year

The Big Ten Conference is reportedly closing in on a new media rights contract that could be worth up to $1.1 billion per year for the conference.

sportsnaut.com

July with the addition of USC/UCLA:

SBJ Media: New Big Ten bids coming this week

www.sportsbusinessjournal.com

 

[rutgersguy1]

Other thoughts and considerations.

Some members of the board may ridicule/mock ESPN/ABC because they chose not to participate in the B1G deal.

ESPN/ABC did not become one of the leaders in sports broadcasting by being stupid.

ESPN/ABC knowingly made the decision and at this point we do not know their counter strategy going forward. I am pretty confident that they have one with the their decision not to participate in the B1G deal.

As far as controlling a market area, I think the quality of the game (match up) will dictate how big the TV audience will be.

As an example, lets discuss the Nielsen results of two TV Broadcast games on Sept. 1 (Thursday night) involving Pennsylvania teams.

PITT vs West Virginia (ESPN- 7pm Sept. 1)
Penn State vs Purdue (FOX- 8 pm Sept. 1)

In any event congrats on the deal.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

ESPN strategy? Save money and no room for exclusive windows, it's simple. They'll need it in a few years for the CFP or maybe sooner if the CFP expands. It's not going to the ACC or even the SEC (outside of the GOTW deal coming up). I wouldn't rule them out completely yet anyway. If the B10 expands with more western teams, after dark comes into play and ESPN could be in the fray again.

As far as ratings, Pitt/WVU starts earlier on "big ESPN" and is a restart of an old rivalry so you'd think that should garner bigger ratings than just a regular old conference game, although PSU is a big ratings draw. I think broadcast network and PSU's brand would still win out but how close the games are will matter too. I'd be switching back and forth as long as the games are competitive but if one's a blowout I'd stay with the other whichever it is. In the end one game doesn't really matter though, because the B10 is a proven ratings grabber due to its big brands and fanbases. That's why it gets the big bucks.

 

[zeek55]

I heard someone (Danny Kanell?) recently float the idea of the Big Ten and SEC combining media rights in the future - instead of competing.

Then each individual conference doesn't need to deal with logistics of such a large conference (32 teams) but still have the scale of games - similar to the NFL.

Would the sum be greater than the parts?

You would need an anti-trust exemption to do that.

Realistically, a combined Big Ten-SEC would have monopoly power.

The reason the current system works is there's enough conferences and competition.

One combined TV contract with 95% of the high value games would be a de facto monopoly and there's no anti-trust exemption for college football.

It's important to remember that the laws related to these issues only gave the NFL an anti-trust exemption while college athletics operates under rules without that.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

You have two problems. You have a strange fetish for putting down Warren and not giving credit when credit is due and you fail to admit when you are wrong.
...

Not involved in this quibble but Warren did supply the opportunity for people to doubt his abilities. This is not happening in a vacuum. It will take a string of good moves to make people forget 2020.

I mean.. this is great and all.. USC/UCLA and the contract.. but the SEC decided this for the Big Ten just like other conferences decided there should be a season in 2020 for the Big Ten. By taking Texas and Oklahoma, Warren's hands were forced. But he does deserve credit in both cases for reacting well.

When he makes some B1G proactive moves, becomes a leader making good decisions BEFORE anyone else, then people will forget this history.

 

[rutgersguy1]

Occasionally, Twitter produces actual thought that is useful... in a tweet-thread about CBS's promo real putting their theme music to Big Ten action...

​

Hawkeye Country​

​

This gets me so pumped. Every single week, 6 B1G teams will be on a national broadcast guaranteed. Fox gets first dibs and will grab OSU and Michigan more often than not. That leaves the mid tier teams like Iowa to get picked for those 3:30 and 7pm games​

Tweet link..

View embedded media

Lots of SEC hate in that thread. But this thought about Fox getting first choice and CBS picking the best among other games... Rutgers really could end up getting the CBS treatment at some point. I do think CBS's high production values really helped the SEC become what they are.

Despite having little familiarity with those teams, I always found myself tuning in because colelge football looked and sounded better on CBS rather than the cheap crap that ESPN pumped out. ABC was a bit better, at times, but you could always rely on CBS. FOX/BTN does good these days, but CBS has set the mark to beat.

CANNOT WAIT... but I have to.

The "draft" is still sort of an unknown. I posted some tweets from the former Fox sports exec about the draft but it's still kind of guessing. He mentioned some picks might happen before the start of the year while others might be on a weekly basis. Gene Smith mentioned in the future schedules will be set in October for the upcoming year instead of years in advance and that the networks will be involved in that. So it's hard to know how that all works out. I haven't seen anything with regards to this and the B10 but I've read in other tv deals, there can be a limit to how often a network chooses a team. So there's a bunch of granularity there we don't know about.

I don't think OSU and Michigan will want to be at noon all the time. They will both want prime time games and NBC and CBS will want their shots at them and others too. I'm sure it's weighted towards Fox but I'm guessing there must be enough there for CBS and NBC to get their satisfactory share as well.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

You would need an anti-trust exemption to do that.

Realistically, a combined Big Ten-SEC would have monopoly power.

The reason the current system works is there's enough conferences and competition.

One combined TV contract with 95% of the high value games would be a de facto monopoly and there's no anti-trust exemption for college football.

It's important to remember that the laws related to these issues only gave the NFL an anti-trust exemption while college athletics operates under rules without that.

Disagree.. not even sure why I disagree.. maybe because there are over a hundred D1 teams in football and 300 in basketball? I do not think a combined conference would be a "monopoly" technically. It would just be the dominant market-leader. And we have plenty of those in existence today.

 

[rutgersguy1]

Not involved in this quibble but Warren did supply the opportunity for people to doubt his abilities. This is not happening in a vacuum. It will take a string of good moves to make people forget 2020.

I mean.. this is great and all.. USC/UCLA and the contract.. but the SEC decided this for the Big Ten just like other conferences decided there should be a season in 2020 for the Big Ten. By taking Texas and Oklahoma, Warren's hands were forced. But he does deserve credit in both cases for reacting well.

When he makes some B1G proactive moves, becomes a leader making good decisions BEFORE anyone else, then people will forget this history.

I think leaving ESPN and getting exclusive broadcast windows and pushing for a big national conference has his fingerprints all over it cause how much it mirrors the NFL. I'd take that as proactive and something that's never been done before.

 

[zeek55]

Warren probably doesn't deserve that much credit for USC/UCLA. They were clearly looking around.

But he does deserve credit for this deal and its setup in the sense that this is a pretty bold step to go for 3 exclusive windows and to try to create an "NFL-style" Saturday of OTA broadcast.

I don't think Delany would go for this type of deal. He'd have sold ESPN a package at a discount to keep them at the table for exposure purposes.

We'll see what the future looks like. The more important questions are what future expansion looks like, especially as it pertains to schools in the ACC and Pac-12.

USC and UCLA were the most obvious "no brainers" out there: great brands, gigantic market of 20+ million/upward to 40 million in Cali, huge prestige/research, etc.

All the future decisions are a lot harder.

A lot of the other schools aren't as obvious. Oregon is very poor in research intensivity, Miami is a smaller private, UNC/UVA are smaller publics and Duke has one of the worst football brands out there.

Note the SEC will want schools like FSU and UNC so there will be competition.

The future of the Big Ten in expansion terms may be contentious and require difficult votes. Sure they'll hand out press releases about unanimous votes, but remember some Big Ten schools voted Nebraska out of the AAU.

Some presidents may oppose certain schools on academic terms or size terms or fit terms.

Getting USC and UCLA was easy and obvious.

Schools #17-20 are not easy, not obvious, and may have sharp competition from the SEC. How Warren navigates that will determine whether he's a good commissioner.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

I think leaving ESPN and getting exclusive broadcast windows and pushing for a big national conference has his fingerprints all over it cause how much it mirrors the NFL. I'd take that as proactive and something that's never been done before.

You are not entirely wrong.. but your response makes it sopund liek anyone who ebelives it is all more nuanced than the story you paint.. they are dead wrong. They are not.

The SEC is more than "regional" now. Aren't they "naional" they have northern or pacific coast teams but they have the southeast all the way to texas and oklahoma. The B1G has no southern teams eaither.. nor mountain region or southwest or northwest... or northeast if you think of NJ as midlantic... which I do.

One deal with several conferences instead of seperate deals which have gone on for a long time? Maybe he could have gotten more with seperate deals. And the NFL supplied the footprint for such a deal... and they always had NFC and AFC deals because of their history.

I don't know why you feel the need to be Warren's PR agent, spinning things in his favor like this. It is a bit weird. Didn't you realize that each of the "proactive" moves you listed had other ways in which it could be viewed? You do not have to try to sell Warren like that. Anyone reading it knows they are being "SOLD" something.

 

[zeek55]

Disagree.. not even sure why I disagree.. maybe because there are over a hundred D1 teams in football and 300 in basketball? I do not think a combined conference would be a "monopoly" technically. It would just be the dominant market-leader. And we have plenty of those in existence today.

Market share and # of competitors in the market are two separate issues that both play a role.

A combined Big Ten and SEC contract would be a de facto monopoly in market share terms.

Yes there'd still be a lot of competitors out there, dozens of other conferences, but the market share reality is 95% of the eyeballs/value would be accounted for by the Big Ten/SEC deal.

That deal would have complete price setting market power by any definition because it'd have all the big brands and most of the country's flagships.

There's just no way such a thing would fly under current anti-trust law.

 

[krup]

Never heard of this outlet but thought it was a pretty good summary of things

5 Takeaways From The Big Ten’s New Media Deals

Each partner received an equitable fair share of content that will make the conference a cornerstone of each respective network for years to come.

www.barrettsportsmedia.com

It is a good article that addresses the biggest complaint I have since I cut the cord (having to relaunch an app every time I want to tune into a game on a streaming provider).

l loved bouncing between various games that I was watching when I had cable . My wife is happy that I am no longer constantly switching channels back and forth, but for me the viewing experience isn’t the same.

 

[krup]

Other thoughts and considerations.

Some members of the board may ridicule/mock ESPN/ABC because they chose not to participate in the B1G deal.

ESPN/ABC did not become one of the leaders in sports broadcasting by being stupid.

ESPN/ABC knowingly made the decision and at this point we do not know their counter strategy going forward. I am pretty confident that they have one with the their decision not to participate in the B1G deal.

As far as controlling a market area, I think the quality of the game (match up) will dictate how big the TV audience will be.

As an example, lets discuss the Nielsen results of two TV Broadcast games on Sept. 1 (Thursday night) involving Pennsylvania teams.

PITT vs West Virginia (ESPN- 7pm Sept. 1)
Penn State vs Purdue (FOX- 8 pm Sept. 1)

In any event congrats on the deal.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

ESPN didn’t have the time slots to be a part of what the B1G is doing on their new deals, so I think it is a lot less ESPN or the B1G choosing to not remain partners than it was the logistics being impossible. They both know the other is too big to be ignored.

That is why I think the rumored “escalator” in the amount of the B1G revenue mentioned yesterday will end up be a late night B1G package with ESPN after enough B1G teams are added to guarantee the amount of content needed.

 

[rutgersguy1]

You are not entirely wrong.. but your response makes it sopund liek anyone who ebelives it is all more nuanced than the story you paint.. they are dead wrong. They are not.

The SEC is more than "regional" now. Aren't they "naional" they have northern or pacific coast teams but they have the southeast all the way to texas and oklahoma. The B1G has no southern teams eaither.. nor mountain region or southwest or northwest... or northeast if you think of NJ as midlantic... which I do.

One deal with several conferences instead of seperate deals which have gone on for a long time? Maybe he could have gotten more with seperate deals. And the NFL supplied the footprint for such a deal... and they always had NFC and AFC deals because of their history.

I don't know why you feel the need to be Warren's PR agent, spinning things in his favor like this. It is a bit weird. Didn't you realize that each of the "proactive" moves you listed had other ways in which it could be viewed? You do not have to try to sell Warren like that. Anyone reading it knows they are being "SOLD" something.

Umm I'm not being Warren's agent and I'm not spinning anything in his favor. @Knight Shift has been more vocal about him than me but I will call things as I see them.

He's done something that hasn't been done before in college athletics and you can see the NFL background shining through in how it's been set up. He deserves credit for that. I don't know that someone else without his background would've taken that step.

I think @RUTGERS95 said Delany wouldn't have gone after USC/UCLA. I kind of agree with him. It was an "easy" move but I can't be sure that he would've done it and really don't think Delany would've used it as a first step to push to 20-24 teams which is where I think this is going. He was visionary with the BTN, 6 year deal and things like that but he was quite a traditonalist too imo. I don't know that he would've wanted to "wreck" a sister conference like the PAC or take the really bold step towards a NFL style national conference.

The SEC is national in the sense that they have teams that have national appeal but it's locked in a somewhat regional box. The B10 is national both in brands and geography spanning across the country. Eventually, it will likely have teams across most parts of the country that matter from the west, midwest, east and south. It doesn't need to touch in areas that don't make enough business sense to be considered national. It's coast to coast across multiple time zones with big markets and satisfactory interest or better in the areas it encompasses.

 

[Knight Shift]

Not involved in this quibble but Warren did supply the opportunity for people to doubt his abilities. This is not happening in a vacuum. It will take a string of good moves to make people forget 2020.

I mean.. this is great and all.. USC/UCLA and the contract.. but the SEC decided this for the Big Ten just like other conferences decided there should be a season in 2020 for the Big Ten. By taking Texas and Oklahoma, Warren's hands were forced. But he does deserve credit in both cases for reacting well.

When he makes some B1G proactive moves, becomes a leader making good decisions BEFORE anyone else, then people will forget this history.

Agreed, to a degree, but we are talking about something totally discrete here. What was reported pre USC/UCLA, and what it is now.

 

[rutgersguy1]

Another bit of sports rights news.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Umm I'm not being Warren's agent I'm not spinning anything in his favor. @Knight Shift has been more vocal about him than me but I will call things as I see them.

He's done something that hasn't been done before in college athletics and you can see the NFL background shining through in how it's been set up. He deserves credit for that. I don't know that someone else without his background would've taken that step.

I think @RUTGERS95 said Delany wouldn't have gone after USC/UCLA. I kind of agree with him. It was an "easy" move but I can't be sure that he would've done it and really don't think Delany would've used it as a first step to push to 20-24 teams which is where I think this is going. He was visionary with the BTN, 6 year deal and things like that but he was quite a traditonalist too imo. I don't know that he would've wanted to "wreck" a sister conference like the PAC or take the really bold step towards a NFL style national conference.

The SEC is national in the sense that they have teams that have national appeal but it's locked in a somewhat regional box. The B10 is national both in brands and geography spanning across the country. Eventually, it will likely have teams across most parts of the country that matter from the west, midwest, east and south. It doesn't need to touch in areas that don't make enough business sense to be considered national. It's coast to coast across multiple time zones with big markets and satisfactory interest or better in the areas it encompasses.

Yeah.. I know there was a story saying its never been done before.. blah blah blah. I'm saying what does that matter? Selling media rights has been done before. What does it matter if it is individually in several different deals or a bunch of networks combine to make a single offer in order to compete with ESPN/ABC? That coudl be viewed as 2 networks, owned by the same corporate entity... so a multi-network deal HAD been done before, right?

And, again, this "national" conference thing is just a selling point.. a talking point. Prior to this point the Pacific coast teams were rarely thought of east of the Mississippi. The bulk of the nation did not watch those games. So they were of little interest until bowl game time rolled aorund, nationally, before this deal but now The Big Ten is the first national conference? Please.

And you want to give him credit fo rhtings he has not done yet.. "Eventually, it will likely have teams across most parts of the country".. really? You mention this in order to support your claims about proactive moves by Warren? Moves he has not made yet?

As for Delany.. yes.. when he added Rutgers and Maryland he would not have added USC/UCLA.. most likely. Did not even have then evaluated by the consulting firm. BUT.. once the SEC added Texas and Oklahoma.. would Jim Delany have reconsidered?

Remember, Delany wanted to add Georgia Tech.. but they backed off. If they said yes, I think it would have been GTech and.. maybe someone else.. not Rutgers and Maryland. Or maybe Delany would have added 4. But GTech was his first choice among those who would entertain an offer (ND would have been first in any scenario).

So, yeah, I think Delany would have made similar moves to Warren. Delany adding Penn State and then Nebraska was proactive.. but then again the SEC grabbed South Carolina and Arkansas earlier than that, iirc. And after the ACC grabbed Florida State and the Big East teams.. then Delany reacted with another expansion effort.

It has all been done before.. one way or the other. What you guys should be arguing is if Warren manages it well.. and he does. But he is not a pioneer blazing new trails. No one is.

 

[rutgersguy1]

How times have changed lol.

 

[Knight Shift]

Umm I'm not being Warren's agent and I'm not spinning anything in his favor. @Knight Shift has been more vocal about him than me but I will call things as I see them.

He's done something that hasn't been done before in college athletics and you can see the NFL background shining through in how it's been set up. He deserves credit for that. I don't know that someone else without his background would've taken that step.

I think @RUTGERS95 said Delany wouldn't have gone after USC/UCLA. I kind of agree with him. It was an "easy" move but I can't be sure that he would've done it and really don't think Delany would've used it as a first step to push to 20-24 teams which is where I think this is going. He was visionary with the BTN, 6 year deal and things like that but he was quite a traditonalist too imo. I don't know that he would've wanted to "wreck" a sister conference like the PAC or take the really bold step towards a NFL style national conference.

The SEC is national in the sense that they have teams that have national appeal but it's locked in a somewhat regional box. The B10 is national both in brands and geography spanning across the country. Eventually, it will likely have teams across most parts of the country that matter from the west, midwest, east and south. It doesn't need to touch in areas that don't make enough business sense to be considered national. It's coast to coast across multiple time zones with big markets and satisfactory interest or better in the areas it encompasses.

My side jobs are to be Warren's PR agent. And Jim McCann's PR agent in the Mets thread--just ask @cubuffsdoug

As to the substance of your post, I totally agree. Especially: "He [Delaney] was visionary with the BTN, 6 year deal and things like that but he was quite a traditonalist too imo."

The traditionalist part may have held the B1G back if Delaney stayed in charge. The modern era would have passed him by. Delaney built the B1G and did a fantastic job, but Warren is making it B1GGER (and perhaps, better, but traditionalists may disagree).

I also think many SEC teams would be a poor fit for the B1G on academics. Texas, Vanderbilt and the Gators may be the only teams that would fit. So, Warren should trade the SEC Nebraska for Texas straight up and be done with it.

 

[Ty Webb]

And this is another thing that separates the B1G from the SEC:

"Commitment to academics – One of the coolest parts of this deal is NBC’s commitment to promoting the academic missions of Big Ten schools. Michael Smith of Sports Business Journal reports NBC will dedicate $100,000 of its advertising budget to this initiative."

They do this for ND games. Typically during or after halftime, they run a ND "commercial" that dives into some project or endeavor ND professors/students have taken on. It's typically a nice segment promoting the academic side and its application to real world events/problems.

 

[Knight Shift]

How times have changed lol.

View embedded media

😜 😜 😜

 

[rutgersguy1]

Yeah.. I know there was a story saying its never been done before.. blah blah blah. I'm saying what does that matter? Selling media rights has been done before. What does it matter if it is individually in several different deals or a bunch of networks combine to make a single offer in order to compete with ESPN/ABC? That coudl be viewed as 2 networks, owned by the same corporate entity... so a multi-network deal HAD been done before, right?

And, again, this "national" conference thing is just a selling point.. a talking point. Prior to this point the Pacific coast teams were rarely thought of east of the Mississippi. The bulk of the nation did not watch those games. So they were of little interest until bowl game time rolled aorund, nationally, before this deal but now The Big Ten is the first national conference? Please.

And you want to give him credit fo rhtings he has not done yet.. "Eventually, it will likely have teams across most parts of the country".. really? You mention this in order to support your claims about proactive moves by Warren? Moves he has not made yet?

As for Delany.. yes.. when he added Rutgers and Maryland he would not have added USC/UCLA.. most likely. Did not even have then evaluated by the consulting firm. BUT.. once the SEC added Texas and Oklahoma.. would Jim Delany have reconsidered?

Remember, Delany wanted to add Georgia Tech.. but they backed off. If they said yes, I think it would have been GTech and.. maybe someone else.. not Rutgers and Maryland. Or maybe Delany would have added 4. But GTech was his first choice among those who would entertain an offer (ND would have been first in any scenario).

So, yeah, I think Delany would have made similar moves to Warren. Delany adding Penn State and then Nebraska was proactive.. but then again the SEC grabbed South Carolina and Arkansas earlier than that, iirc. And after the ACC grabbed Florida State and the Big East teams.. then Delany reacted with another expansion effort.

It has all been done before.. one way or the other. What you guys should be arguing is if Warren manages it well.. and he does. But he is not a pioneer blazing new trails. No one is.

By your standards then nothing is proactive or new because it's been done before. BTN big deal, networks have been created before. Mike Leach Air Raid big deal, forward pass has been thrown before. PSU/Nebraska what's proactive about that...teams have been added to conferences before too big deal etc.. etc..