Big Ten TV revenue distribution reaches an insane $51 million per school

Iceland12

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
24,348
Reaction score
2,240
Points
113
Michigan athletic director Warde Manuel presented the budget at the Michigan Board of Regents meeting Thursday afternoon.

The department projects revenues of nearly $188 million, including a significant boost from the Big Ten financial distributions. Michigan will receive $52.1 million in Big Ten conference disbursements.

The Big Ten’s new television football and basketball agreements last year gave Michigan a big chunk from the conference. Michigan received $51.1 million in conference disbursements, a significant increase from the $36.3 million in 2017. The Big Ten moved to multiple television partners in the new deal with ESPN/ABC and Fox...

consider that Big Ten teams received just $25 million per school in the 2013 fiscal year. The Big Ten has incredibly been able to double their revenue distribution for schools in just five short years. Yes, double. It’s astounding. And it shows that maybe Jim Delany wasn’t all that crazy in making sure he got BTN on cable systems on the east coast to expand the league’s footprint. Even though Rutgers and Maryland haven’t exactly fit in seamlessly with the likes of Michigan and Ohio State on the field, expansion and realignment has certainly paid off for the conference.

To put that number in further perspective, it far surpasses anything that we’ve seen so far in the conference revenue race to this point. The Big Ten is in a league of their own with the SEC, which managed to lead all conferences in distributing $40 million to schools in 2017. The other power five conferences are further behind and while the coming ACC Network should make that conference a little more competitive on the revenue front, it’ll likely still be far behind the Big Ten...

http://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/big...-reaches-an-insane-51-million-per-school.html
 


This will help keep coaches like McCutcheon and Frost. Plus maybe money will be in the budget to add men’s and women’s lacrosse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I see adding that cash cow Rutgers is starting to pay off.
 



This will help keep coaches like McCutcheon and Frost. Plus maybe money will be in the budget to add men’s and women’s lacrosse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Gophers do not have a men's soccer team. Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Purdue, and Minnesota do not have one. Does that have anything to do with Title IX balance?
 

The Gophers do not have a men's soccer team. Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Purdue, and Minnesota do not have one. Does that have anything to do with Title IX balance?

If Neb wants us to do soccer.... they have to do Hockey (screw Omaha).
 


The money is nice - but I'll sound a note of caution. Huge changes are underway in how people receive and pay for television. Cord-cutting is only going to increase as people move away from traditional cable TV and move to a myriad of streaming services.

Cable TV giants like ESPN set their advertising rates based on subscribers. Fewer traditional cable subscribers will impact ad revenue, and will impact what the networks are willing and able to pay for TV rights in the future. So this could be the high-water mark for TV revenue for schools.

Now, the ESPN's of the world will get some revenue from the streaming outlets, but a lot of that is to be determined.

I'll just note that where I live in SW MN, a local tele-comm company that serves about 8 smaller cities is dropping its cable TV service and rolling out a new streaming option. Another city in my area is strongly considering dropping cable TV service and replacing it with a streaming package - or just telling customers "We're out of the TV business. If you want TV, choose your own streaming service."

The tele-comm field is going into a very unsettled future. I just don't see any way that TV revenue keeps going up. It's far more likely that TV revenue will decline in the future.
 



This will help keep coaches like McCutcheon and Frost. Plus maybe money will be in the budget to add men’s and women’s lacrosse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Might also be used to settle a lawsuit from football players.
 

Universities need to spend money and time teaching and training people how to behave. It may be cheaper in the long run.
 

The money is nice - but I'll sound a note of caution. Huge changes are underway in how people receive and pay for television. Cord-cutting is only going to increase as people move away from traditional cable TV and move to a myriad of streaming services.

Cable TV giants like ESPN set their advertising rates based on subscribers. Fewer traditional cable subscribers will impact ad revenue, and will impact what the networks are willing and able to pay for TV rights in the future. So this could be the high-water mark for TV revenue for schools.

Now, the ESPN's of the world will get some revenue from the streaming outlets, but a lot of that is to be determined.

I'll just note that where I live in SW MN, a local tele-comm company that serves about 8 smaller cities is dropping its cable TV service and rolling out a new streaming option. Another city in my area is strongly considering dropping cable TV service and replacing it with a streaming package - or just telling customers "We're out of the TV business. If you want TV, choose your own streaming service."

The tele-comm field is going into a very unsettled future. I just don't see any way that TV revenue keeps going up. It's far more likely that TV revenue will decline in the future.

Yep, I agree. The money from TV networks has peaked. Using this revenue to pay one-time expenses like building facilities (or paying lawsuit settlements) makes a lot more sense than using it to fund recurring expenses like fielding new teams or hiking coaches salaries.
 

The Gophers do not have a men's soccer team. Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Purdue, and Minnesota do not have one. Does that have anything to do with Title IX balance?
Yes. Would have to add equal scholarships for women if we added men's soccer. Definitely don't need lacrosse either.

Sent from my RS988 using Tapatalk
 



BTN needs a streaming platform independent of a cable subscription, as some have alluded to above. They already have most of the software done, so I don't see what would be preventing the unless some of these TV contracts have stipulations against it?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

BTN needs a streaming platform independent of a cable subscription, as some have alluded to above. They already have most of the software done, so I don't see what would be preventing the unless some of these TV contracts have stipulations against it?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

The new ESPN+ also requires a cable or satellite subscription. I’m far from an expert on this issue but I agree with you the primary dispensers of the product certainly want to eliminate alternate avenues of consumption. Until a critical mass of the population is set up with WiFi/smart TVs/streaming devices the cable and satellite companies have all the negotiating power.

The current model of cord cutting seems to be involve primarily millennials living in a one bedroom apartment, without kids, and the odd tech savvy Boglehead type Gen Xer. Dealing with routers, modems and the need to power cycle these devices at time is far beyond the patience level of the average older person IMO. People just want to push a button and have things work.

I’ve looked at it but the streaming offerings aren’t (currently) as rich/diverse and streaming quality leaves a lot to be desired vs satellite in my experience (Amazon Prime). And ultimately one still needs internet from a traditional cable company and they will increase rates to maintain revenue. I have two options FIOS and cable which mitigates their monopoly power and I’m able to keep rates reasonable but many people have one option for (fast) internet.

Ultimately I’d think BTN and the ilk will get their pound of flesh one way or another going forward. I’m not sure the revenue train will stop.
 

The current model of cord cutting seems to be involve primarily millennials living in a one bedroom apartment, without kids, and the odd tech savvy Boglehead type Gen Xer. Dealing with routers, modems and the need to power cycle these devices at time is far beyond the patience level of the average older person IMO. People just want to push a button and have things work.

Since I am a millennial living in a one bedroom apartment, I guess my view of how much of the population are cord cutters is probably skewed :p, but it does make sense that BTNs demographic probably hasn't jumped enough onto the streaming bandwagon yet to make it profitable/worth it yet, especially if they'd have to renegotiate some of the contracts with cable providers.

I guess my worry is more that they'll do it as an after thought in the future and the service will be terrible. In the meantime, I'll be supporting my local sports bars that have BTN to catch any games that I can't with my current streaming subscriptions.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

The new ESPN+ also requires a cable or satellite subscription. I’m far from an expert on this issue but I agree with you the primary dispensers of the product certainly want to eliminate alternate avenues of consumption. Until a critical mass of the population is set up with WiFi/smart TVs/streaming devices the cable and satellite companies have all the negotiating power.

The current model of cord cutting seems to be involve primarily millennials living in a one bedroom apartment, without kids, and the odd tech savvy Boglehead type Gen Xer. Dealing with routers, modems and the need to power cycle these devices at time is far beyond the patience level of the average older person IMO. People just want to push a button and have things work.

I’ve looked at it but the streaming offerings aren’t (currently) as rich/diverse and streaming quality leaves a lot to be desired vs satellite in my experience (Amazon Prime). And ultimately one still needs internet from a traditional cable company and they will increase rates to maintain revenue. I have two options FIOS and cable which mitigates their monopoly power and I’m able to keep rates reasonable but many people have one option for (fast) internet.

Ultimately I’d think BTN and the ilk will get their pound of flesh one way or another going forward. I’m not sure the revenue train will stop.

Pretty wide over-generalization.

Including myself, there are at least as many BBoomers/GenXers in my social circle who have cut the cord as those who haven't. Any Smart TV bought in the last 3-4 years makes it easy to navigate the multitude of streaming options, and many in those generations also have Millennials for children...making the transition that much smoother.
 

The new ESPN+ also requires a cable or satellite subscription. I’m far from an expert on this issue but I agree with you the primary dispensers of the product certainly want to eliminate alternate avenues of consumption. Until a critical mass of the population is set up with WiFi/smart TVs/streaming devices the cable and satellite companies have all the negotiating power.

The current model of cord cutting seems to be involve primarily millennials living in a one bedroom apartment, without kids, and the odd tech savvy Boglehead type Gen Xer. Dealing with routers, modems and the need to power cycle these devices at time is far beyond the patience level of the average older person IMO. People just want to push a button and have things work.

I’ve looked at it but the streaming offerings aren’t (currently) as rich/diverse and streaming quality leaves a lot to be desired vs satellite in my experience (Amazon Prime). And ultimately one still needs internet from a traditional cable company and they will increase rates to maintain revenue. I have two options FIOS and cable which mitigates their monopoly power and I’m able to keep rates reasonable but many people have one option for (fast) internet.

Ultimately I’d think BTN and the ilk will get their pound of flesh one way or another going forward. I’m not sure the revenue train will stop.

We are in a transition. Streaming is a lot larger and broader based than you think. Cable providers are morphing into streamers, we just need the technology (fast internet access) too be more widely available and cost effective. The BTN is a content generator and they find a way for us to pay for their product no matter how we receive it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Since I am a millennial living in a one bedroom apartment, I guess my view of how much of the population are cord cutters is probably skewed :p, but it does make sense that BTNs demographic probably hasn't jumped enough onto the streaming bandwagon yet to make it profitable/worth it yet, especially if they'd have to renegotiate some of the contracts with cable providers.

I guess my worry is more that they'll do it as an after thought in the future and the service will be terrible. In the meantime, I'll be supporting my local sports bars that have BTN to catch any games that I can't with my current streaming subscriptions.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Agreed. I'm not going to pay $100 a month for a cable package that includes all of the Gopher away games, but I would certainly pay $10 a month to watch all of the Gopher away games.

Seems like they're doing better on this model for now though.
 

So, like I said there will eventually be a critical mass and BTN will simply charge for their package in the amount the market will bear. If NFL on Directv is a good comparison they may be able to charge quite a lot. There are a lot of very smart people that do nothing but dream up ways to separate us from our money and live football games are definitely a rare and valuable product. This isn’t seasons 1-6 of GOT.
 

We are in a transition. Streaming is a lot larger and broader based than you think. Cable providers are morphing into streamers, we just need the technology (fast internet access) too be more widely available and cost effective. The BTN is a content generator and they find a way for us to pay for their product no matter how we receive it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Broadband prices are rising and will continue to rise if enough people go the cord cutting route. Those areas with a scarce supply of broadband providers and high demand of a this product - what happens to price. Perhaps cities, counties, states will build their own broadband networks as reasonable internet access cost could be considered a utility for the public interest but I won’t hold my breath as the lobbying machine kicks in.
 

BTN needs a streaming platform independent of a cable subscription, as some have alluded to above. They already have most of the software done, so I don't see what would be preventing the unless some of these TV contracts have stipulations against it?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

That 51 mil is TV contracts that prevent just streaming everything.

No way would cable companies pay for BTN if they didn't have some level of exclusivity.

Getting to where TV will be in the future is going to take careful planning.
 

That 51 mil is TV contracts that prevent just streaming everything.

No way would cable companies pay for BTN if they didn't have some level of exclusivity.

Getting to where TV will be in the future is going to take careful planning.

It certainly will be interesting as the current contracts get closer to expiring to see where this goes. The transition/adoption from tube to flat screen TVs, tapes to CDs, CDs to download to streaming, all have happened relatively quickly. Those in turn are rapidly changing the delivery speed and bandwidth expectations of consumers.
 

It certainly will be interesting as the current contracts get closer to expiring to see where this goes. The transition/adoption from tube to flat screen TVs, tapes to CDs, CDs to download to streaming, all have happened relatively quickly. Those in turn are rapidly changing the delivery speed and bandwidth expectations of consumers.

It will be interesting where / if the money sticks around.

On the other hand Comcast just has to institute a "sports internet package" and you'll have to pay them ... so there is the money.
 

We have to keep in mind cord cutters are paying less but they are generally receiving an inferior product as far as selection, picture quality, live tv, and local station availability; and if you have a house of kids streaming HD....

Then again sometimes products are “good enough”. For example, plasma TVs had much superior picture quality vs LED (now narrowed but not totally eliminated, eg viewing angle) but cost slightly more and ran hotter with more wattage. One now has to shell out thousands for an OLED to get those deep blacks one could get for $800 10 years ago with plasma. Another example is streaming music. The quality simply isn’t very good vs CDs (and the really annoying snobs prefer vinyl). However the convenience of streaming vastly outweighs buying, storing, and changing CDs. Lossless media options aren’t widely available AFAIK and certainly will take more memory/bandwidth.

Time will tell if the virtues of cord cutting appeal broadly to the general public, and how the fees will shake out.
 

That 51 mil is TV contracts that prevent just streaming everything.

No way would cable companies pay for BTN if they didn't have some level of exclusivity.

Getting to where TV will be in the future is going to take careful planning.

The cable companies will also be the streaming companies. AT&T with their Direct TV and Time Warner mergers has become a streaming company. They've already got a large customer base of cellular users, now they've also got content to stream/sell to those users. But yes, it'll evolve over time, some folks still actually have land lines in their homes...
 

The cable companies will also be the streaming companies. AT&T with their Direct TV and Time Warner mergers has become a streaming company. They've already got a large customer base of cellular users, now they've also got content to stream/sell to those users. But yes, it'll evolve over time, some folks still actually have land lines in their homes...

Hey, I still have a land line in my house. My local tele-comm company basically gives it to you for free if you bundle telephone with cable TV and internet.
 


Same here with the land line. Why not if it's "free"? Streaming or not they will still find ways to charge people. When push comes to shove and the networks need more money they will charge more to the streaming services.
Hey, I still have a land line in my house. My local tele-comm company basically gives it to you for free if you bundle telephone with cable TV and internet.

Sent from my RS988 using Tapatalk
 

Hey, I still have a land line in my house. My local tele-comm company basically gives it to you for free if you bundle telephone with cable TV and internet.

I always like that sales pitch, "free with purchase", you hear it a lot along with the deal where you "Save Even More" by spending more to buy a larger quantity of something.
 




Top Bottom