Further proof...we're now FBS in name only

[Flipper]

Michigan has offered Jim Harbaugh a six year, $48 million dollar contract. If he takes it, they will be spending about half of our total athletics budget to pay one guy. It truly bottles the mind

[Rightupinthere]

It truly bottles the mind

Here! Here!

[transfer2BGSU]

That's what...one season of their BTN split?

[mscarn]

The money is truly grotesque, but even more amazing is that in spite of such a disparity there are schools in the MAC (including us) that could have fielded competitive teams against them over the past few years.

I continue to be floored with the revenue gained from the Big 10 network. Their ratings are miniscule and half of their programming (at least) consists of game repeats. What exactly is their value to cable companies?

[Globetrotter]

The money is truly grotesque, but even more amazing is that in spite of such a disparity there are schools in the MAC (including us) that could have fielded competitive teams against them over the past few years.

I continue to be floored with the revenue gained from the Big 10 network. Their ratings are miniscule and half of their programming (at least) consists of game repeats. What exactly is their value to cable companies?

Will be interesting to see what happens. Cable is dieing.

[hammb]

The money is truly grotesque, but even more amazing is that in spite of such a disparity there are schools in the MAC (including us) that could have fielded competitive teams against them over the past few years.

I continue to be floored with the revenue gained from the Big 10 network. Their ratings are miniscule and half of their programming (at least) consists of game repeats. What exactly is their value to cable companies?

Will be interesting to see what happens. Cable is dieing.

I don't see cable going away anytime soon. Not with the sports contracts being what they are and how difficult it is to get streamed games (legally) for so many people.

As for the question at hand, the value of the Big 10 network is how badly they raped cable providers on false pretenses. They insisted that they were going to be putting all of these football and basketball games on their network and people would ditch their providers if they didn't add Big 10 network to their lineup. Knowing how it would go over for TWC, etc if they didn't have OSU/UM/MSU for their big games they succumbed to the insane demands of the Big 10 network. I don't know what the exact figures are but I bet every subscriber to TWC or similar pays a buck or two a month to the Big 10 network...and other than the off BG game, I know I've never even watched it.

Of course then, what comes as no surprise, any game worth actually watching for any of those big schools is still on ESPN or the networks anyhow. The result is that we're all paying for Big 10 channel so that the OSU honks can watch them destroy SDSU or some other patsy once or twice a year. Because nobody gives a crap about any of the meaningless Big10 hoops games, and certainly nobody cares about the lesser sports.

In the end we put a ton of money into the pockets of those schools because cable providers are afraid to be the one that tells OSU fans they cannot watch the meaningless crap games a couple weeks a year. I think they were sold a bill of goods that the better games were going to hit Big10 network, but that hasn't happened. I hope that in the not too distant future, when those contracts run out, the providers think better of bending backwards for the Big 10 and tell 'em to shove it.

[jpfalcon09]

Offering a college coach $8 million is ridiculous. There's coaches in the NBA, NHL and MLB who make 75% of that. Goes to show you how filthy rich some of these schools really are and how autonomous they'll end up making college sports. The key for the G5 at this point is simply pulling a Dwayne Johnson and knowing your role in all this, which is being a minor league breeding ground for coaches. Then you do what Colorado State did and cash in big whenever a school comes calling to help pay some bills for a couple years. Only way they're going to survive and get a slice of these insane contracts.

[Flipper]

$8million is chump change compared the $45 million the BTN will generate.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... ew-tv-deal" target="_blank

Get it while you can because while hammb is right in the near term...over the long haul GT is right. Cable TV and the bubble of pointless, barely watched "networks" will burst as more and more people stream and figure out ways to get content by whatever means they can. Cablecasters would be wise to look at what happened in the music industry because they're next...

[transfer2BGSU]

I don't know what the exact figures are but I bet every subscriber to TWC or similar pays a buck or two a month to the Big 10 network...

I believe the numbers are -

$1 for every cable customer in a Big Ten state
$.10 for every cable customer in a non-Big Ten state.

Why are Maryland and Rutgers in the Big Ten?
$$$ Pure and Simple

CIncinnati to the Big Ten - not going to happen; already getting $1 a home in Ohio

Oklahoma to the Big Ten - they would love to consider this one

[MacGuy]

WMU's Fleck To Make $800K.

http://www.mlive.com/broncos/index.ssf/ ... ck_be.html

[Lord_Byron]

On the sport-on-cable issue, here's an interesting look from SI.Com.

http://www.si.com/more-sports/2014/12/1 ... -sports-tv" target="_blank

[hammb]

That was a pretty good article that really sums it up nicely. While I agree all consumers prefer globes future of consuming sports content online on demand, I'm just not sure we're on our way there anytime soon. Not when the current model makes everyone tons o money...so much money that they would never be able to recoup the revenue by going to a pay to stream model.

I'm afraid the only way we get to where we want to be is if it goes the route of music...people stop buying and start stealing. If people drop cable in droves and go to illegal free streams then maybe the leagues will adopt that model, but I don't see it happening right now.

As is all of the leagues have blackout rules. Even the ones like mlb that offer an online streaming subscription black out your local team forcing you back to cable. ESPN has bought tons of content so they can bend isps over the way have always done to cable providers.

The problem is cable companies, sports networks, and sports leagues are getting fatter and fatter off this revenue as they have eoliferated the cable model, and even moved it to streaming content. They've gotten so fat off it that the revenue cannot be duplicated on a pay o use model...they're making too much off people that would never consume in that model. Until they start to take some real hits in the pocketbook from people dropping suacriptions they're under no motivation to change.

[transfer2BGSU]

On the sport-on-cable issue, here's an interesting look from SI.Com.

http://www.si.com/more-sports/2014/12/1 ... -sports-tv" target="_blank

From the article -

For instance, each eligible Big Ten school will reportedly make $30.9 million this year, thanks mostly to proceeds from the Big Ten Network, which is in 60 million households nationally. (That figure is projected to rise to $44.5 million in 2017–18.) Yet based on ratings, only a small fraction of cable subscribers would pay to order the network

[Flipper]

Yes, the current system pays very well...but it's the end user's money and the user ultimately dictates the market. As streaming technology advances and becomes dummy proof and more or less automatic via smart TV's..the market will demand change. Why am I paying for CNN and Lifetime and a gazillion other channels? Why can't I pick and choose? Because it isn't profitable for Time Waner or Buckeye cable? F**k them... I want what I want and because of the newer technology...I don't need really need them. The UFC estimates that 40-50% of their PPV viewers are stealing the content. That's a huge pool of people that you could monetize if you approached them correctly. Why else would the WWE essentially abandon the PPV model to create an over the top network...they have a huge audience of thieves that they need to monetize. (that and cable companies are notoriously slow payers on PPV revenue) Would I pay $30 for ESPN? Probably not....but that figure is built on the assumption that I'm interested in keeping the proposition revenue neutral. I'm not interested in that. Would I pay a pirate in the Netherlands or some other far away land with lax copyright protections 15 per month for an ESPN roku channel? Possibly... and if there's enough people like me out there ESPN would be forced to pick between $15 and nothing...that may not force ESPN to come down to $15,...but it might get them to $20. And that may be more palatable. Hockeystreams.com is the model for that type of arrangement...you pay for content..but the NHL doesn't see a dime of it.

That doesn't even consider the notion that at some point, the NCAA may decide that there's enough people that can stream content that they don't need CBS or ESPN to pay them for the tournament...they can sell it directly and sell ads and keep 100% of the take and make the same money or more. When that happens...the whole model collapses and we just pay the teams or leagues for the content we want.

Using the recording industry as a model...record companies made a s**t ton of money selling CD's for roughly $15-17 a throw. The technology to essentiall steal...or to be charitable..share that product became so widespread that it killed that method of distribution. You don't buy CD's...if you have a conscience and want the artist you appreciate to actually eat and have a roof over their head...you pay Apple or Amazon or even the artist directly about $10 for the same content. If you don't care about the artists you just steal it. The end result is the same..costs came down.

[Rollo83]

Yes, the current system pays very well...but it's the end user's money and the user ultimately dictates the market. As streaming technology advances and becomes dummy proof and more or less automatic via smart TV's..the market will demand change. Why am I paying for CNN and Lifetime and a gazillion other channels? Why can't I pick and choose? Because it isn't profitable for Time Waner or Buckeye cable? F**k them... I want what I want and because of the newer technology...I don't need really need them. The UFC estimates that 40-50% of their PPV buyers are stealing the content. That's a huge pool of people that you could monetize if you approached them correctly. Why else would the WWE essentially abandon the PPV model to create an over the top network...they have a huge audience of thieves that they need to monetize. (that and cable companies are notoriously slow payers on PPV revenue) Would I pay $30 for ESPN? Probably not....but that figure is built on the assumption that I'm interested in keeping the proposition revenue neutral. I'm not interested in that. Would I pay a pirate in the Netherlands or some other far away land with lax copyright protections 15 per month for an ESPN roku channel? Possibly... and if there's enough people like me out there ESPN would be forced to pick between $15 and nothing...that may not force ESPN to come down to $15,...but it might get them to $20. And that may be more palatable. Hockeystreams.com is the model for that type of arrangement...you pay for content..but the NHL doesn't see a dime of it.

That doesn't even consider the notion that at some point, the NCAA may decide that there's enough people that can stream content that they don't need CBS or ESPN to pay them for the tournament...they can sell it directly and sell ads and keep 100% of the take and make the same money or more. When that happens...the whole model collapses and we just pay the teams or leagues for the content we want.

Using the recording industry as a model...record companies made a s**t ton of money selling CD's for roughly $15-17 a throw. The technology to essentiall steal...or to be charitable..share that product became so widespread that it killed that method of distribution. You don't buy CD's...if you have a conscience and want the artist you appreciate to actually eat and have a roof over their head...you pay Apple or Amazon or even the artist directly about $10 for the same content. If you don't care about the artists you just steal it. The end result is the same..costs came down.

I agree that change is coming to the way we view television/video. Hell it already has changed dramatically. Not sure anyone under age of 35 in my office has cable. They use Netflix and other streaming services. Plus, they watch most of their TV/video on their smart phone. Still can't imagine watching something consistently on a 5 inch screen.

You will always have packaged channels much like cable, but you'll get to make the choice versus your cable provider choosing. You'll be able to pick a dozen streaming channels for one bundled price. You will still be able to put together the sports package you choose. Not sure where local broadcast stations will fit in all this? I am seeing a lot of people going to the old basic antenna to catch local stations.

But current system of paying $200 per month for 500 channels is coming to an end soon.