ADVERTISEMENT

Tweets About ESPN, Big Ten

Ok no debate about what is struggling besides the typical parroting of what's out there. There's nothing nonsense about my post at all and you don't even rebut anything and say here's why that's wrong. Just write it off as nonsense and I'm suppose to take your post seriously. Is their any other network that is as valuable? Any other network that can charge the carriage fee they do or anything close? Has their distribution? Any other sports networks get the ratings they get?

Being knocked of their high perch isn't the same as struggling. They're just not the big bad ass anymore that doesn't mean they're going to oblivion. As long as they keep their content, they'll be fine and the subscriber losses etc.. will eventually trough.
The Golf Channel is growing, NBC Sports is growing, MLB Network is killing it, CBS Sports is growing. FS1 is growing, FS2 is growing, The NFL Network is huge....are you getting my point?? The competition is killing a struggling ESPN because they are no longer the only game in town....and they are awful to boot!
 
FAIL!!! All the teams you post about are not BC, Miami, Pitt, V Tech, and Cuse. Thanks for proving my point! They have failed by forcing teams to the ACC and have got nothing out of it!!!

LOL

With respect to Pitt, the ACC footprint now encompasses Pennsylvania (12.7 million population) and specifically the Greater Pittsburgh TV Market is ranked #23 in the Nation.

The Pitt football team won 8 games and went to a Bowl Game this year and Pitt basketball teams made it to the NCAA Tournament 13 times in the last 15 years.

This is meant as no disrespect to Rutgers but why was Rutgers asked to join the B1G.

We both know it was not for Rutgers Football and Basketball prowess (again no disrespect).

HAIL TO PITT!!!!
 
LOL

With respect to Pitt the ACC footprint now encompasses Pennsylvania (12.7 million population) and specifically the Greater Pittsburgh TV Market is ranked #23 in the Nation.

The Pitt football team won 8 games this year and Pitt basketball teams made it to the NCAA Tournament 13 times in the last 15 years.

This is meant as no disrespect to Rutgers but why was Rutgers asked to join the B1G.

We both know it was not for Rutgers Football and Basketball prowess (again no disrespect).

HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Oh the footprint argument!! You, your friends in Syracuse, BC, V Tech and Miami have added nothing to bring subscriptions to the so called ACC "Network" . A total waste of money. Rutgers on the other hand has delivered to the BTN subscribers more that anyone thought including the Big Ten. Look at subscribers since Rutgers has joined.
 
The Golf Channel is growing, NBC Sports is growing, MLB Network is killing it, CBS Sports is growing. FS1 is growing, FS2 is growing, The NFL Network is huge....are you getting my point?? The competition is killing a struggling ESPN because they are no longer the only game in town....and they are awful to boot!
They're all pimples on ESPN's butt. The one who has a chance is Fox because they're starting to acquire more properties. Eventually, I think they can be an equal some where down the line because they've been fairly aggressive. What are the ratings of the all of them versus ESPN. I'm not some ESPN fan either, I don't even watch the channel except for sporting events. But I'll be objective when discussing them. People act like they're on "death's door" and they're not and aren't likely to be as long as they hold on to premium sports properties. What they will be is closer to the pack.

Like I said ESPN is coming off its high perch with pretty much nowhere to go but down since they've been way out front for so long. Growing from small positions doesn't mean much. If a network that is home to many sports and events is "struggling" according to you how successful are these other niche networks going to be. There's a limit to how far they can grow. If they're growing it's because they're starting from a smaller position. It kind of reminds me of all these silly silicon valley valuations for some startups. Oh they're growing they're growing but no one likes to pay attention to how much money they actually make and only focus on growth as if that's the only thing to focus on.

ESPN will be struggling only when they lose their premium properties. Until then, they'll always be a player in the game.
 
Last edited:
LOL

With respect to Pitt, the ACC footprint now encompasses Pennsylvania (12.7 million population) and specifically the Greater Pittsburgh TV Market is ranked #23 in the Nation.

The Pitt football team won 8 games and went to a Bowl Game this year and Pitt basketball teams made it to the NCAA Tournament 13 times in the last 15 years.

This is meant as no disrespect to Rutgers but why was Rutgers asked to join the B1G.

We both know it was not for Rutgers Football and Basketball prowess (again no disrespect).

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

...you guys certainly weren't asked to join the ACC because of your football prowess either. ESPN orchestrated it IMO because your bball is good, your football had some residual name value from an era long gone and you helped add content to one if their primary TV contracts.


Joe P.
 
They're all pimples on ESPN's butt. The one who has a chance is Fox because they're starting to acquire more properties. Eventually, I think they can be an equal some where down the line because they've been fairly aggressive. What are the ratings of the all of them versus ESPN. I'm not some ESPN fan either, I don't even watch the channel except for sporting events. But I'll be objective when discussing them. People act like their on "death's door" and they're not and aren't likely to be as long as they hold on to premium sports properties. What they will be is closer to the pack.

Like I said ESPN is coming off its high perch with pretty much nowhere to go but down since they've been way out front for so long. Growing from small positions doesn't mean much. If a network that is home to many sports and events is "struggling" according to you how successful are these other nice networks going to be. There's a limit to how far they can grow. If they're growing it's because they're starting from a smaller position. It kind of reminds me of all these silly silicon valley valuations for some startups. Oh they're growing they're growing but no one likes to pay attention to how much money they actually make and only focus on growth as if that's the only thing to focus on.

ESPN will be struggling only when they lose their premium properties. Until then, they'll always be a player in the game.
Pimples?? They have taken so much content away from ESPN and now that each sport has it's own channel they are killing Sports Center!
 
Pimples?? They have taken so much content away from ESPN and now that each sport has it's own channel they are killing Sports Center!
Sportscenter's crap, I haven't watched it for years like some others above. I don't like ESPN, too many windbags but like I said I'm trying to be objective when discussing.

Those other networks are still niche networks and can only grow so much and if you think people are turning away a mainstream network like ESPN how will most feel about a niche network?

It's like Walmart or a Target in retail vs. an Amazon. Target had lousy earnings this morning. Walmart is tomorrow and you see they're struggling against online. So those guys have been doing so well for so long that with a new player like Amazon coming up recently they have almost nowhere to go but down in terms of growth and growth becomes difficult especially at their humongous sizes. BUT that doesn't mean Walmart or Target is going the way of the dodo. They still both make tons of money and will likely always be big players in retail. And that's my point about ESPN they may not be growing at the rate they use to and they may be experiencing some subscriber losses but they still likely will always be a big player in sports broadcasting as long as they keep their premium content. Right now I couldn't even say they face as much of a competitive threat as Amazon is to Walmart/Target.
 
Oh the footprint argument!! You, your friends in Syracuse, BC, V Tech and Miami have added nothing to bring subscriptions to the so called ACC "Network" . A total waste of money. Rutgers on the other hand has delivered to the BTN subscribers more that anyone thought including the Big Ten. Look at subscribers since Rutgers has joined.


Again no disrespect.

What NJ/NY viewing audience will Rutgers capture, if the football teams have losing records and fail to make bowl games and the basketball team can't even make the NIT.

You have to win to have relevance.

I know Rutgers hopes to improve in the future but at the moment your not there.

When Pitt plays Penn State this year it will be one of the highest rated games in both the B1G and ACC (on par with Penn State vs Michigan and Penn State vs Ohio state). The entire state of Pennsylvania will tune into this game. I will check the Nielsen game ratings.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!
 
Again no disrespect.

What NJ/NY viewing audience will Rutgers capture, if the football teams have losing records and fail to make bowl games and the basketball team can't even make the NIT.

You have to win to have relevance.

I know Rutgers hopes to improve in the future but at the moment your not there.

When Pitt plays Penn State this year it will be one of the highest rated games in both the B1G and ACC (on par with Penn State vs Michigan and Penn State vs Ohio state). The entire state of Pennsylvania will tune into this game. I will check the Nielsen game ratings.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!
I understand you want to say No disrespect but your past say's otherwise. And you are wrong! Rutgers has delivered millions of households. Pitt and your buddies hasn't added any to what is called the ACC Network
 
Those other networks are still niche networks and can only grow so much and if you think people are turning away a mainstream network like ESPN how will most feel about a niche network?

ESPN was the ultimate "niche" network when it began in 1979. Why can't these networks grow like that did?

These networks have ESPN to learn from..and they definitely are. FOX sports and NBC Sports are gaining subscribers, while ESPN is losing them. That's very telling.

ESPN is losing talent to these other networks. Very telling.

Yes, ESPN is still the leader, but they're struggling as the others are growing.
 
I understand you want to say No disrespect but your past say's otherwise. And you are wrong! Rutgers has delivered millions of households. Pitt and your buddies hasn't added any to what is called the ACC Network


I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!
 
When Pitt plays Penn State this year it will be one of the highest rated games in both the B1G and ACC (on par with Penn State vs Michigan and Penn State vs Ohio state). The entire state of Pennsylvania will tune into this game. I will check the Nielsen game ratings.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Picking an example of a rivalry that dates back 96 games and hasn't been played in 16 yrs. is hardly a relative example of Pitt's value in determining viewership. I'm sure it will be highly viewed for the simple fact that it's occurrence like stated, hasn't happened in 16 yrs. The Nielsen ratings for this game will prove nothing.

Your example is like Haley's comet. Sure there's lots of comets out there around 4,000 in our solar system, but this one only comes around once every 75 years. Thus it's the most popular comet because of it's rare occurrence. It's a must see when it comes around.
 
Last edited:
Again no disrespect.

What NJ/NY viewing audience will Rutgers capture, if the football teams have losing records and fail to make bowl games and the basketball team can't even make the NIT.

You have to win to have relevance.

I know Rutgers hopes to improve in the future but at the moment your not there.

When Pitt plays Penn State this year it will be one of the highest rated games in both the B1G and ACC (on par with Penn State vs Michigan and Penn State vs Ohio state). The entire state of Pennsylvania will tune into this game. I will check the Nielsen game ratings.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

Fair point about needing to win (and it's 1000X tougher to win in the B1G East than either ACC division) but we've been competitive for 10+ years. It's not like it's 1997 in Piscataway/ New Brunswick...and Pitt went 8-4 and ended up in the Military Bowl. All due respect to Navy and that bowl game but it doesn't seem like the ACC really went out of their way to express gratitude for your 'value' there.


Joe P.
 
ESPN was the ultimate "niche" network when it began in 1979. Why can't these networks grow like that did?

These networks have ESPN to learn from..and they definitely are. FOX sports and NBC Sports are gaining subscribers, while ESPN is losing them. That's very telling.

ESPN is losing talent to these other networks. Very telling.

Yes, ESPN is still the leader, but they're struggling as the others are growing.
The talent is exactly what they should lose like I said above. They need to get their cost structure in line and talent is a very good place to do it. I'm not tuning in to ESPN for Skip Bayless, Chris Berman or whomever no matter how good they are or bad in the case of those 2. Losing talent isn't telling of much other than they can't be as profligate as they once were and they have to be more spendthrift.

It's the content (the premium sports properties) that matter and that to me is where they better be careful in how much they cut costs. Without that, that's when they actually struggle and will die. But as long as they have that, they'll be fine.

The other sports networks can grow but there's always the first mover advantage of ESPN plus some of the one mentioned above are single sport networks, that in itself limits it's growth. If you think ESPN was a niche network just for sports back then these single sport network are like a niche network of a niche network. As to the ESPN "clones" like NBC, Fox etc.. well growing when you're nascent and small is generally easier versus growing when you're mature and large. To me it's all about who has the premium content. Right now that's ESPN. If that ever changes that's when they're in danger. Until then they will always be a player. IMO Fox is the main challenger because they've been the most aggressive to date in acquiring other premium content. Even then though right now their ratings don't come close to ESPN last I looked.

To use my retail analogy, I don't see ESPN as struggling like I don't see a Walmart/Target struggling despite their poor earnings lately and slow growth. They have issues to deal with but will always likely be players in retail. A JC Penney is someone that I see as struggling, a company with lots of debt and still incurring losses and barely keeping its neck above water. And then you have a Sears that is a walking zombie that's been at death's door for years. That's my point about ESPN, just because they're not growing like they once were doesn't mean they're struggling and eventually the issues will trough and level out. But like I said that's provided they keep their hands on the content.

My prediction for the future is that these properties will become fragmented and ESPN is going to come back to the pack to a degree but will likely always be a main player on the stage.
 
Fair point about needing to win (and it's 1000X tougher to win in the B1G East than either ACC division) but we've been competitive for 10+ years. It's not like it's 1997 in Piscataway/ New Brunswick...and Pitt went 8-4 and ended up in the Military Bowl. All due respect to Navy and that bowl game but it doesn't seem like the ACC really went out of their way to express gratitude for your 'value' there.


Joe P.

To be fair every ACC Team received an additional $5.0 million when Pitt Syracuse and ND were added to the ACC Conference I believe.


Since Rutgers and Pitt were financially handicapped so to speak being a member of the BIG East Conference, it will be interesting to see who improves quicker now with greater financial resources going into facility improvements, coaching salaries etc.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!
 
With respect to Pitt, the ACC footprint now encompasses Pennsylvania (12.7 million population) and specifically the Greater Pittsburgh TV Market is ranked #23 in the Nation.

What NJ/NY viewing audience will Rutgers capture, if the football teams have losing records and fail to make bowl games and the basketball team can't even make the NIT.

You have to win to have relevance.

I know Rutgers hopes to improve in the future but at the moment your not there.
That's cute but we brought the NYC TV DMA & increased BTN's carriage fees from Cablevision alone by $27.8M (& don't forget that NJ is also in the Philly TV DMA):
http://adage.com/article/media/east-young-man-expansion-a-boon-big-ten-network/300748/

"In expanding its scholastic footprint, the Big Ten also increased the value of the BTN's New York and D.C. subscribers. According to SNL Kagan data, cable operators pay an estimated "in-market" rate of $1 per sub per month, more than double the $0.44 fees charged outside the conference's home markets. Cablevision alone serves 2.64 million video customers in New York, New Jersey and southwestern Connecticut; with the upgraded fee in place, BTN sees its annual payout from the operator rise to around $31.7 million from $13.9 million."
And that's just Cablevision. Once you add in Comcast & TWC, we've basically doubled that increase. And then add Maryland delivering DC & Maryland. We're printing our own $. It's all about increased carriage fees & subscriptions & we killed it. BTN subscriptions are up 10M to 62M since we joined.
 
The talent is exactly what they should lose like I said above. They need to get their cost structure in line and talent is a very good place to do it. I'm not tuning in to ESPN for Skip Bayless, Chris Berman or whomever no matter how good they are or bad in the case of those 2. Losing talent isn't telling of much other than they can't be as profligate as they once were and they have to be more spendthrift.

It's the content (the premium sports properties) that matter and that to me is where they better be careful in how much they cut costs. Without that, that's when they actually struggle and will die. But as long as they have that, they'll be fine.

The other sports networks can grow but there's always the first mover advantage of ESPN plus some of the one mentioned above are single sport networks, that in itself limits it's growth. If you think ESPN was a niche network just for sports back then these single sport network are like a niche network of a niche network. As to the ESPN "clones" like NBC, Fox etc.. well growing when you're nascent and small is generally easier versus growing when you're mature and large. To me it's all about who has the premium content. Right now that's ESPN. If that ever changes that's when they're in danger. Until then they will always be a player. IMO Fox is the main challenger because they've been the most aggressive to date in acquiring other premium content. Even then though right now their ratings don't come close to ESPN last I looked.

To use my retail analogy, I don't see ESPN as struggling like I don't see a Walmart/Target struggling despite their poor earnings lately and slow growth. They have issues to deal with but will always likely be players in retail. A JC Penney is someone that I see as struggling, a company with lots of debt and still incurring losses and barely keeping its neck above water. And then you have a Sears that is a walking zombie that's been at death's door for years. That's my point about ESPN, just because they're not growing like they once were doesn't mean they're struggling and eventually the issues will trough and level out. But like I said that's provided they keep their hands on the content.

My prediction for the future is that these properties will become fragmented and ESPN is going to come back to the pack to a degree but will likely always be a main player on the stage.

Fair points. I guess we will see..
 
Fair point about needing to win (and it's 1000X tougher to win in the B1G East than either ACC division) but we've been competitive for 10+ years. It's not like it's 1997 in Piscataway/ New Brunswick...and Pitt went 8-4 and ended up in the Military Bowl. All due respect to Navy and that bowl game but it doesn't seem like the ACC really went out of their way to express gratitude for your 'value' there.


Joe P.

That;s because no one cares about Pitt
 
That;s because no one cares about Pitt

Reminded me a bit of the ACC's 'BC Rule' with bowl games (teams with a certain record can't fall below a certain game). Bowls don't 'invite' BC, they 'catch' BC like you catch a cold.


Joe P.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeR0102
Rutgers and Maryland added $50-$60MM in rights fees last year. Rutgers has been an incredible addition to the B1G. And will be an even greater asset moving forward.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...-pay-salary-compensation-television/84553752/

I think PG made a fair point with Pitt, cuse and ND adding $5 mil per team for the ACC but let's be honest, one of those teams is not like the others...that's sort if like saying me, my friend Chris and Brock Lesnar just won a big fight and signed a TV deal.


Joe P.
 
  • Like
Reactions: satnom
Anyone who says Rutgers and Maryland has not brought the big ten footprint east is delusional

The impact of this will have a huge increase on what Jim Delaney would have got without Rutgers and Maryland

Jim Delaney is one, if not the best,
Long term chess players in all of sports.

There is not one athetic director or big ten hire up who has question both the Direct and indirect impact that adding Rutgers and Maryland has made to the big ten media rights value

Rutgers and Maryland have financially earned their right to be in the big ten

And will be competitive players to be

Now.../please compare what financial impact Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Boston college and Miami have had on the ACCs bottom line by expanding their footprint north and south

I don't think the footprint has increase the per school dollar layout one dollar more than what the ACC would have had in their original format without the big east additions

As ACC shill dick vitals would say...its a NC baby....no contest
 
The last time the B1G and ESPN got into a staring contest, the BTN was formed. That was not a good development for ESPN. Are they willing to test the resolve of Delany again?
ESPN brought a knife to a gun fight on that one.
 
I think PG made a fair point with Pitt, cuse and ND adding $5 mil per team for the ACC but let's be honest, one of those teams is not like the others...that's sort if like saying me, my friend Chris and Brock Lesnar just won a big fight and signed a TV deal.


Joe P.
You can't mention the additional revenue the ACC got for expansion without mentioning they had to extend their ESPN contract as part of that deal, thereby increasing their second class status for an additional 3 years.
 
ESPN brought a knife to a gun fight on that one.
I think they just did a bad job of forecasting the real viability of conference networks and what it would lead to in the future. Like I said above, forecasting the future with certainty isn't always so easy. Plus I think the executives back then were too busy on the high horses staring down their noses at Delany thinking they were god's gift.

I don't know that the same dynamic exists now. I think they've been knocked down a few pegs lately. This time around I think it's more negotiating tactics/fiscal constraints/business decision. I don't know that their egos will be as inflated as they were the last time around.

I missed the Tribune article posted in the thread yesterday but just read it and some suggestions in it just give a taste of that fragmenting of properties I talked about. Rotating the B10 champ game and the OSU/Michigan game among tv partners is an example of that. To me a fragmenting of the sports property market is inevitable and ESPN coming back towards the pack to a degree is as well. But how quickly it happens and how far back they're reeled in is up in the air and losing the B10 completely is a big part of that calculus IMO.
 
NBC makes sense for alot of reasons.

1. One it makes us a TV partner with Notre Dame (future expansion?)
2. Anyone who thinks that NBC can't do this need to only look at what they have done with English Premiere League Coverage.

It is so easy to watch NBC Sports and their Live Extra app is excellent.

NBC, like Fox, has really gotten its act together in sports and the Big Ten would be the perfect piece to the puzzle.
 
ESPN is making a business decision.

They will only be losing 1/2 of the B1G which is worth so much to them.

Maybe they know Fox overpaid and they are not going to make the same mistake.

Happens in business.

Toshiba paid $5.4 Billion for Westinghouse Nuclear.

Then they admitted they overpaid and had to write down $2.3 Billion.

Have to wait and see how it plays out.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!


Fox paying 250 million puts pressure on ESPN, because the B1G can walk.

To me this is a bargaining strategy for the Big Ten. There is NO way that you can negotiate the best deal with ESPN, if you are NOT willing to walk away. Same with ESPN, they can't negotiate their best deal if ESPN is unwilling to go without the Big Ten.

The issue is I think ESPN needs the Big Ten a lot more than it used to. I doubt that ESPN wants to be absent in the midwest. Why have ESPN in so many midwest states that have no real pro sports, if they aren't going to have ESPN Big Ten Football? You do not want to give a major portion of the country a very good reason to cut the cord. Sport fans are basically the only people who can be relied on to watch advertising.

So very smart threatening ESPN, without doing it official with Delaney. Delaney has said nothing but nice things about ESPN, without say yes to ESPN or no to ESPN.


Consider this, the hottest coaches in the NCAA are Saban, Meyer and Harbaugh. Are you really going to let two of the hottest big time head coaches go? I think not.
 
Fox paying 250 million puts pressure on ESPN, because the B1G can walk.

To me this is a bargaining strategy for the Big Ten. There is NO way that you can negotiate the best deal with ESPN, if you are NOT willing to walk away. Same with ESPN, they can't negotiate their best deal if ESPN is unwilling to go without the Big Ten.

The issue is I think ESPN needs the Big Ten a lot more than it used to. I doubt that ESPN wants to be absent in the midwest. Why have ESPN in so many midwest states that have no real pro sports, if they aren't going to have ESPN Big Ten Football? You do not want to give a major portion of the country a very good reason to cut the cord. Sport fans are basically the only people who can be relied on to watch advertising.

So very smart threatening ESPN, without doing it official with Delaney. Delaney has said nothing but nice things about ESPN, without say yes to ESPN or no to ESPN.


Consider this, the hottest coaches in the NCAA are Saban, Meyer and Harbaugh. Are you really going to let two of the hottest big time head coaches go? I think not.

All of that plus, the Big Ten isn't just the Mid West anymore, they will also lose the most popular schools in PA, MD, DC, NJ, NYC.

I don't think the ACC and the SEC can make up for that lost, and that is before factoring in schools like OSU and Michigan with their MASSIVE fan following and huge ratings.
 
I keep having to pinch myself. We are in the best conference across the board and the wealthiest, soon to be by far.

And we have the right guy in charge who is about to have the ammunition to do the things needed to be done to go next level. Or maybe it's the level after that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoogieKnight
Fox paying 250 million puts pressure on ESPN, because the B1G can walk.

To me this is a bargaining strategy for the Big Ten. There is NO way that you can negotiate the best deal with ESPN, if you are NOT willing to walk away. Same with ESPN, they can't negotiate their best deal if ESPN is unwilling to go without the Big Ten.

The issue is I think ESPN needs the Big Ten a lot more than it used to. I doubt that ESPN wants to be absent in the midwest. Why have ESPN in so many midwest states that have no real pro sports, if they aren't going to have ESPN Big Ten Football? You do not want to give a major portion of the country a very good reason to cut the cord. Sport fans are basically the only people who can be relied on to watch advertising.

Agree with your comment that both ESPN and the Big Ten need to be willing to walk away in order to negotiate their best deals. And I agree that ESPN probably needs the Big Ten more than the Big Ten needs ESPN. But I don't agree that the midwest states in the Big Ten footprint have no real pro sports. Last time I checked, Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, Milwaukee/Green Bay, and Minneapolis were all pretty big pro towns. In fact the only Big Ten midwestern states without any major pro teams are Iowa and Nebraska. And the only other ones without all 4 of MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL teams are Wisconsin (missing NHL) and Indiana (missing MLB and NHL). Probably more so than any other college conference, the Big Ten competes with pro sports.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT