If all this comes to fruition, this is how we want our facilities to look like.
I think you mean more ridiculous speculation:
"If this deal ends up going through, and if the other half of the deal is worth the same as this one..."
I think you mean more ridiculous speculation:
"If this deal ends up going through, and if the other half of the deal is worth the same as this one..."
Right, assuming the other half is equal is a very bad assumption. Fox almost assuredly bought first pick of games.
I'd say almost assuredly not. If you're going to split the bidding into 2 lots, putting all of the best games into the first round would be pretty dumb. And Jim Delany isn't dumb.
Yet they also assumed no increase in the BTN profits, which is unlikely. Even if the second deal is less than the first, the sum total is clearly far ahead of earlier projections.
I'd say almost assuredly not. If you're going to split the bidding into 2 lots, putting all of the best games into the first round would be pretty dumb. And Jim Delany isn't dumb.
It's very smart if someone will give you an awesome number for that lot, which it sure looks like Fox did.
No idea if Fox gets premium half or not, but there is no way to spin this that it isn't going to be a lot more money. Also puts ESPN a bit on the spot, I'm sure ESPN doesn't want to whiff on entire B1G for next 6 years. If you are #1 & want to remain number 1 you need a piece of the pie. I think B1G needs/wants ESPN for maximum coverage as well, but with B1G Network, potential to sell off some more bits to other players or more to Fox I think ESPN is in a worst spot negotiating...the language also leaves some "up to sort of stuff" that may mean the premium games are still in play. So I will throw it out there that I bet Delaney is still shooting for every bit as much money or more from ESPN. Maybe ESPN can't go there or wasn't willing to...but this has to be a shot across the bow for ESPN. Just not betting against Delaney at this point.
Almost as laughable as the suggestions made that the B1G would be getting less money because of bursting bubbles.
Almost as laughable as the suggestions made that the B1G would be getting less money because of bursting bubbles.
Meh. I raised that as a possibility.
The other shoe is coming eventually.
This idea that an initial projection of $45 million per team per year which was later revised downward based on how the negotiating was going is suddenly going to turn into $60 million because of some underpants gnome theory about what a genius Jim Delany is is absolutely laughable.
You seem to follow this more closely than I, so where do you think Illinois split will be?
I have seen a lot of scuttlebutt online that this indicates that the Big Ten might be leaving ESPN entirely, but personally don’t believe that for a second.
...
By the same token, let’s not pretend that the Big Ten wants to get away from ESPN. I have seen some Big Ten fans profess a desire to leave ESPN entirely, but that would be as short-sighted for the conference as it would be short-sighted for ESPN to let the Big Ten go completely.
...
In looking at the imminent Fox deal with the Big Ten, this seems to be set up to put a weekly football game on both Big Fox and FS1. This will end up being quite a boon for Fox’s college football game inventory quality. From a personal standpoint, I just hope that it improves that actual college football game production quality, which I have found lacking compared to ABC/ESPN and CBS.
...
The reported 6-year timeframe of the Fox deal is unusual compared to the much longer-term deals that the other power conferences have signed. In fact, the Big Ten will end up back at the negotiating table before any of the other power conferences once again. On the one hand, this presents some risk to the Big Ten since they are not locking in today’s high rights fees into the late-2020s or even 2030s. On the other hand, every time that the Big Ten has bet on itself, it has ended up succeeding, whether it was with the formation of the BTN or taking its rights to the open market in a period of uncertainty for sports programming values with decreasing cable subscriptions.
Like a Fox
Ooh, from a link within a link there, how this affects the ACC/Big Ten Challenge is a very good question. It would be a shame to see that tradition pass away.
Probably not too far off from where their initial projections were.
The money isn't likely to be shocking in either direction. The six-year term is a bit of an eye-opener though.
Just speculation, but with the "up to" in front of the Fox numbers I'm guessing the Fox number quoted is indeed for a premium 1/2, but B1G left themselves some room to make the 2nd half at least as attractive as the Fox portion, in which case Fox number goes down, but ESPN number will need to be in range of revised Fox number.
Frank the Tank weighs in, he's a pretty good read on this stuff.
Highlighting his thoughts:
Just speculation, but with the "up to" in front of the Fox numbers I'm guessing the Fox number quoted is indeed for a premium 1/2, but B1G left themselves some room to make the 2nd half at least as attractive as the Fox portion, in which case Fox number goes down, but ESPN number will need to be in range of revised Fox number.
What is the speculation on the 6 yr deal? Sure it is different/significant, but why? I'm wondering if this is a play to open up ESPN: Will ESPN pay more without the long term risk? Do they see the the situation at ESPN changing in this time frame? Do you want to send a message to ESPN, but not lock them out for too long? Is it as someone else speculated to time next conference expansion. Maybe all of this.
While the vast majority of the attention from the report by John Ourand of SportsBusiness Daily on the looming deal between the Big Ten and FOX went to the gargantuan money involved, a much smaller number in the story might be even more important: six, as in the number of years in the contract.
Signing on for such a short duration not only grants the conference flexibility to re-evaluate its options in a rapidly changing industry. It also all but assures more realignment among the power conferences in the not-too-distant future.
The forthcoming B1G deal will run out right around the same time as the current ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12 agreements. That means the grant-of-rights pacts currently holding those conferences together will be sunsetting, too.
If they so desire – and nothing in their history suggests that they wouldn’t – the B1G schools could again start the process of vetting potential expansion candidates. The league should have no problem poaching at least a couple schools from the ACC and/or the Big 12. (To quote Jim Cutler, “It’s a lot of money!”)
Next round of conference realignment?
What is the speculation on the 6 yr deal? Sure it is different/significant, but why? I'm wondering if this is a play to open up ESPN: Will ESPN pay more without the long term risk?
Anyone would pay more without the long-term risk.
If everyone was sure the impending bust was going to hurt the content value, then prices would start going down, that hasn't really happened yet for a Power 5 conference.