Search
Log in
Register
Teams
Teams
Fan Sites
Forums
Shows
College
College Football News
College Football Player Rankings
College Football Rankings
College Football Playoff
Field of 68
College Basketball News
Women's Sports
NIL
NIL News
NIL Valuation
NIL Deals
NIL Deal Tracker
Sports Business
Transfer Portal
Transfer Portal News
NCAA Transfer Portal
Transfer Portal Rankings
Transfer Portal Team Rankings
Recruiting
Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Database
Team Rankings
Player Rankings
Industry Comparison
Commitments
Recruiting Prediction Machine
High School
High School News
Schools
Rankings
Scores
Draft
NFL Draft
NFL Draft News
Draft By Stars
College Draft History
College Draft Totals
NBA Draft
NBA Draft News
Pro
NFL
NASCAR
NBA
Culture
Sports Betting
About
About
On3 App
Advertise
Press
FAQ
Contact
Get a profile. Be recruited.
New posts
Menu
Install the app
Install
Breaking
Michigan FIRES Sherrone Moore
New
Michigan Hot Board
Trending
All-America Team
MegaBoard
Message Boards
Michigan Head Coach Hot Board: Top candidates to replace Sherrone Moore
2025 On3 College Football All-America Team
Marcus Freeman's elite 2026 recruiting class is a reminder Notre Dame's pain is merely temporary
College Football Playoff: Predicting who will win the national title?
Dave Portnoy on Sherrone Moore detainment: 'At Michigan, it's nattys or jail'
Reply to thread
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
Expansion
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Buckaineer" data-source="post: 129504778" data-attributes="member: 1428007"><p>"topdecktiger, post: 825118, member: 4608"]Deflection on your part. </p><p></p><p><em><strong>What I stated is straightforward and clear to anyone with comprehension abilities. The "deflection" is only coming from your side as you make up b.s. to create your false image of the BIG 12.</strong></em></p><p></p><p>You said:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Boren actually said:</p><p></p><p><em>He (Boren) said Big 12 schools are losing $4 million to $6 million per year because of the lack of a conference network.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p>He didn't make any specification about Tier 3 rights, like you claimed. His point is clear. The conference is losing $4-6 million a year because they don't have a network. Well, if they are losing $4-6 million, then the payout can't be $8 million, because then they would be losing MORE than $4-6 million.</p><p></p><p><strong><em>What you are stating here makes 0 sense. Again you lack comprehension. When Boren states that without a network BIG 12 schools are losing $4 to $6 million per year, he unequivocally means that if the BIG 12 expanded and had a conference network, each BIG 12 school would gain $4 to $6 million more than they make now in media rights. Answer this question--what do BIG 12 schools make now? They make what the conference pays out and make what they get from their tier 3 deals.</em></strong></p><p><strong><em>You want what they make to ONLY be what they get from the conference payout, but that is not the case. What do BIG 12 schools get from their tier 3 deals for television? From $2 million to $4 million or so per school (outside of the LHN deal) So when Boren states they are losing $4 to $6 million he is stating that if a BIG 12 school right now makes i.e. $30 million for all of its media rights (including their tier 3 deals) and a network were added, they would gain an additional $4 to $6 million per school per year on top of that $30 million. NOT they would subtract $2 to $4 million off of the $30 million, and then add $4 to $6 million to that $28 million or $26 million respectively. That is absurd on its face, and more importantly it is NOT what OU's president stated.</em></strong></p><p></p><p>The problem is not with your arithmetic. The problem is with your formula. You are assuming all the revenue goes to the schools. It doesn't. The Big 12 will not get $8 million from a network after expenses are factored in. That's illustrated by the payouts from both the Big Ten and SEC. And yes, it is perfectly reasonable to compare those two conferences. Your formula does not accurately predict what the Big Ten and SEC make BECAUSE YOU DON'T FACTOR IN FOR EXPENSES. The payouts in the Big Ten are known. The payouts in the SEC are known. They don't pay out as much as your formula predicts. Therefore, your formula is wrong. It's pretty simple.</p><p></p><p><em><strong>In the model I presented as I stated the revenue goes to the school. You claim the BIG 12 won't get that sort of number not because they won't, but because you don't want them to. Texas doesn't get $15 million in PROFIT for the LHN, they pay expenses out of that. Oklahoma is clearing a couple million in profit, but they are being paid closer to $7 million for the Sooner network. That is just like Ohio State and Michigan and other Big Ten schools--they didn't get $7.6 million PROFIT--they got $7.6 million in REVENUE for the BTN and then they spend some of that on expenses for various things. Bottom line is you don't know if the BIG 12 creates a network they'll pay everything to the schools or not and then have them pay expenses. It could be done either way. You also don't know if the network will split expenses with the conference, or how any of that will be done. You just don't WANT the BIG 12 to pay that to schools directly. The numbers however do not lie.</strong></em></p><p></p><p><em><strong>Yes, one can apply the BIG 12 models number to the Big Ten or SEC and come up with expected revenues, but that doesn't mean those hypothetical numbers are the numbers they are getting in reality and they have 0 bearing again, on the actual revenue they receive, because the REAL numbers the Big Ten or SEC get are DIFFERENT than the hypothetical #s in the BIG 12 model. </strong></em></p><p></p><p>Oh by the way. Show me some evidence the Big Ten only got $.10 per subscriber in Philadelphia. I'm still waiting for that one.</p><p></p><p><strong>Here is a reference to different BTN rates outside of footprint illustrating that they got only $.10 per subscriber outside the footprint:</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><a href="http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/21030684/delanys-long-term-play-for-big-ten-network-riches-maryland-rutgers-to-big-ten"><strong><em>Suddenly, we're talking some serious BTN dollars with the conference in states with at least 35 percent of the U.S. population. The per-subscriber rate could go from 10 cents – that was the rate outside the Big Ten footprint when BTN launched in 2007 – to maybe 50 cents. Maybe a dollar.</em></strong></a></p><p></p><p><strong><em>as to Philadelphia, Comcast and the BIg Ten agreed to a fee lower than in other footprint regions--$.70 rather than $.10, but still lower than other Big Ten areas</em></strong></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2008/06/Issue-189/Sports-Media/Comcast-Big-Ten-Network-Complete-Long-Term-Carriage-Deal.aspx"><strong><em>In Philadelphia, Bob Fernandez reports Comcast will pay about $0.70 per month per sub to carry BTN, and sources said that the deal is for seven to 10 years.</em></strong></a></p><p></p><p><em><strong>both of these illustrate my point however, that the numbers are NOT identical to the model I presented. You are comparing unrelated things and pretending that real numbers for one should equal hypothetical numbers for another, when nothing about the two are identical. Not number of subscribers, not dispersal of revenues, not expenses (i.e the BTN has offices and studios in Chicago ILL. That COSTS MONEY--Money the BIG 12 will not have to spend) nothing is identical. But you want to pretend they are to disparage potential BIG 12 revenues.</strong></em></p><p></p><p>Oh another point. You are criticizing me for not knowing the distribution model for the Big Ten (which isn't true). Well, you have absolutely no idea what distribution mode the Big 12 will have. You don't even know what kind of network model the Big 12 will have. Even Boren's plan includes extra compensation to Texas, which would further skew the numbers for the rest of the league.</p><p><em><strong></strong></em></p><p><em><strong>You don't have information on how the Big Ten is distributing revenues. You provided guestimates. Various articles have stated various different things but we know for certain the Big Ten did not rework its tv deals yet after adding three schools that ARE being paid by the Big Ten and they have to be getting the millions they receive from somewhere --and that somewhere is in part the BTN if not in whole, which then affects the payout per school estimates that you are presenting as gospel. </strong></em></p><p><em><strong>In your desperation to pretend the BIG 12 can't do this or that you are ignoring facts and common sense.</strong></em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Buckaineer, post: 129504778, member: 1428007"] "topdecktiger, post: 825118, member: 4608"]Deflection on your part. [I][B]What I stated is straightforward and clear to anyone with comprehension abilities. The "deflection" is only coming from your side as you make up b.s. to create your false image of the BIG 12.[/B][/I] You said: Boren actually said: [I]He (Boren) said Big 12 schools are losing $4 million to $6 million per year because of the lack of a conference network. [/I] He didn't make any specification about Tier 3 rights, like you claimed. His point is clear. The conference is losing $4-6 million a year because they don't have a network. Well, if they are losing $4-6 million, then the payout can't be $8 million, because then they would be losing MORE than $4-6 million. [B][I]What you are stating here makes 0 sense. Again you lack comprehension. When Boren states that without a network BIG 12 schools are losing $4 to $6 million per year, he unequivocally means that if the BIG 12 expanded and had a conference network, each BIG 12 school would gain $4 to $6 million more than they make now in media rights. Answer this question--what do BIG 12 schools make now? They make what the conference pays out and make what they get from their tier 3 deals. You want what they make to ONLY be what they get from the conference payout, but that is not the case. What do BIG 12 schools get from their tier 3 deals for television? From $2 million to $4 million or so per school (outside of the LHN deal) So when Boren states they are losing $4 to $6 million he is stating that if a BIG 12 school right now makes i.e. $30 million for all of its media rights (including their tier 3 deals) and a network were added, they would gain an additional $4 to $6 million per school per year on top of that $30 million. NOT they would subtract $2 to $4 million off of the $30 million, and then add $4 to $6 million to that $28 million or $26 million respectively. That is absurd on its face, and more importantly it is NOT what OU's president stated.[/I][/B] The problem is not with your arithmetic. The problem is with your formula. You are assuming all the revenue goes to the schools. It doesn't. The Big 12 will not get $8 million from a network after expenses are factored in. That's illustrated by the payouts from both the Big Ten and SEC. And yes, it is perfectly reasonable to compare those two conferences. Your formula does not accurately predict what the Big Ten and SEC make BECAUSE YOU DON'T FACTOR IN FOR EXPENSES. The payouts in the Big Ten are known. The payouts in the SEC are known. They don't pay out as much as your formula predicts. Therefore, your formula is wrong. It's pretty simple. [I][B]In the model I presented as I stated the revenue goes to the school. You claim the BIG 12 won't get that sort of number not because they won't, but because you don't want them to. Texas doesn't get $15 million in PROFIT for the LHN, they pay expenses out of that. Oklahoma is clearing a couple million in profit, but they are being paid closer to $7 million for the Sooner network. That is just like Ohio State and Michigan and other Big Ten schools--they didn't get $7.6 million PROFIT--they got $7.6 million in REVENUE for the BTN and then they spend some of that on expenses for various things. Bottom line is you don't know if the BIG 12 creates a network they'll pay everything to the schools or not and then have them pay expenses. It could be done either way. You also don't know if the network will split expenses with the conference, or how any of that will be done. You just don't WANT the BIG 12 to pay that to schools directly. The numbers however do not lie.[/B][/I] [I][B]Yes, one can apply the BIG 12 models number to the Big Ten or SEC and come up with expected revenues, but that doesn't mean those hypothetical numbers are the numbers they are getting in reality and they have 0 bearing again, on the actual revenue they receive, because the REAL numbers the Big Ten or SEC get are DIFFERENT than the hypothetical #s in the BIG 12 model. [/B][/I] Oh by the way. Show me some evidence the Big Ten only got $.10 per subscriber in Philadelphia. I'm still waiting for that one. [B]Here is a reference to different BTN rates outside of footprint illustrating that they got only $.10 per subscriber outside the footprint: [/B] [URL='http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/21030684/delanys-long-term-play-for-big-ten-network-riches-maryland-rutgers-to-big-ten'][B][I]Suddenly, we're talking some serious BTN dollars with the conference in states with at least 35 percent of the U.S. population. The per-subscriber rate could go from 10 cents – that was the rate outside the Big Ten footprint when BTN launched in 2007 – to maybe 50 cents. Maybe a dollar.[/I][/B][/URL] [B][I]as to Philadelphia, Comcast and the BIg Ten agreed to a fee lower than in other footprint regions--$.70 rather than $.10, but still lower than other Big Ten areas[/I][/B] [URL='http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2008/06/Issue-189/Sports-Media/Comcast-Big-Ten-Network-Complete-Long-Term-Carriage-Deal.aspx'][B][I]In Philadelphia, Bob Fernandez reports Comcast will pay about $0.70 per month per sub to carry BTN, and sources said that the deal is for seven to 10 years.[/I][/B][/URL] [I][B]both of these illustrate my point however, that the numbers are NOT identical to the model I presented. You are comparing unrelated things and pretending that real numbers for one should equal hypothetical numbers for another, when nothing about the two are identical. Not number of subscribers, not dispersal of revenues, not expenses (i.e the BTN has offices and studios in Chicago ILL. That COSTS MONEY--Money the BIG 12 will not have to spend) nothing is identical. But you want to pretend they are to disparage potential BIG 12 revenues.[/B][/I] Oh another point. You are criticizing me for not knowing the distribution model for the Big Ten (which isn't true). Well, you have absolutely no idea what distribution mode the Big 12 will have. You don't even know what kind of network model the Big 12 will have. Even Boren's plan includes extra compensation to Texas, which would further skew the numbers for the rest of the league. [I][B] You don't have information on how the Big Ten is distributing revenues. You provided guestimates. Various articles have stated various different things but we know for certain the Big Ten did not rework its tv deals yet after adding three schools that ARE being paid by the Big Ten and they have to be getting the millions they receive from somewhere --and that somewhere is in part the BTN if not in whole, which then affects the payout per school estimates that you are presenting as gospel. In your desperation to pretend the BIG 12 can't do this or that you are ignoring facts and common sense.[/B][/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Post reply
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
Expansion
Top
Bottom