Big East math

Arkstfan · December 16, 2012

ESPN who isn't in the favor business, says a BYU football game is worth $800,000 to them. BYU has 60,000 fans per game and has fans across the country. Geography, religion, and academic politics are the only reason the Big XII and Pac-12 haven't invited them.

They are the most BCS of the non-AQ. ESPN is looking to pay $4 million year for their TV rights. That gives ESPN up to 7 games to choose from and they are expected to take 5 games a year.

Now let's consider the nBE First assume they end up with 14 teams and play an 8 game league schedule. That gives you 56 league games to telecast. Assuming each Big East school plays one non-conference road game that is another 42 games covered by the TV rights.

To reach the 6.3 million figure quoted by Boise and San Diego State when they joined and assuming a value of $0 for basketball rights. A TV package covering every single Big East football game would have to have a value of $900,000 per game or be worth 12.5% more than the best five BYU games. If the value were equal to BYU then that would produce $5.6 million per school, still pretty darn good.

But even ESPN liking BYU's large national fan base is only interested in four or five of the 7 games. So let's say that over the course of a 14 week season a large network wants three games per week, presumably one game on either Thursday or Friday and two Saturday games. A grand total of 42 games. Those games have the same value as BYU. That package is worth $2.4 million.

Still better than the MWC and CUSA numbers but not by a very big margin. The question is are 42 nBE games worth as much apiece as a BYU game given the smaller fan bases?

Edited December 16, 2012 by Arkstfan

Christopher Walker · December 16, 2012

Many on the board may disagree with me, but I think for the future longevity of college sports viewership and fan retention, streamed games like on ESPN3 is the future.

I have directed the live streams from the College of Music for the last couple of years. We've been strongly bolstered and made legitimate to the College by an NEA study that found that live streaming of arts entertainment was remarked favorably by viewers as highly encouraging them to go and attend concerts live at their next opportunity to do so.

I am under te opinion that the same holds true for sports entertainment as well.

I further think that universities should wise up and accept that though significantly cheaper, the wide coverage (or potential when blackouts aren't involved) of online streaming is much better for them than their one hope of an ESPN2 game. Significant investments should be put towards streaming to make their broadcasts of better quality and I think the rewards will be seen in the easily attainable viewing data that is captured in this medium. Much more easily attainable than tv broadcast, for sure.

Finally, a buy into streaming will help avoid the high-stakes drama that TV deals have on universities, conferences, and all the fans that go with them.

If the last fee years are any indication, the future of media consumption exists online and ADs should wise up to such.

shaft · December 16, 2012

So the $60 million dollar question isn't is the new Big East worth $60 million dollars, but is the shares from the new Big East deal worth more than a beefed upped MWC and CUSA deal split more ways.

I would love to see the Big East fold.

FSU and Miami to the Big 12.

UConn and Cincy to the ACC

BSU and SDSU to the MWC

Everyone else to mega CUSA.

On the sub-thread about audience size.

The MAC definitely seemed more prestigious when they were on ESPN very Thursday, but it never translated into better attendance and teams evolving into dominant programs.

Arkstfan · December 16, 2012

On the sub-thread about audience size.
The MAC definitely seemed more prestigious when they were on ESPN very Thursday, but it never translated into better attendance and teams evolving into dominant programs.

Except they just busted the BCS with a team that lost their opening game of the season to Iowa.

shaft · December 17, 2012

That's the conflicting point. The MAC took a low pay, high coverage tv deal and elevated it's national profile but never produced a break out team. And this year out of nowhere with an average mid-major deal the MAC has it's first breakout team.

LakeTravis · December 17, 2012

But they sacrifice home game attendance with so many week night games in the MAC.

The one Tuesday night game really helped out our program and university despite the beginning being delayed 45 because a SOCCER game.

oldguystudent · December 17, 2012

But they sacrifice home game attendance with so many week night games in the MAC.
The one Tuesday night game really helped out our program and university despite the beginning being delayed 45 because a SOCCER game.

It is highly unlikely that I will ever attend a weeknight football (or basketball or baseball or curling or even female hot oil wresting) game. Unless you're single with no kids, and have pretty lax job, I don't know how people manage to do it.

Wag Tag · December 17, 2012

Great info. I would like to see how schools would balance out the TV deals compared to greater attendance.

Has to be a point where regional competition with increase attendance will become a bigger plus than playing schools on the east or west coast .

Attendance 20,000 @ $20.00 $ 400,000 @ 6 home games $2,400,000

30,000 @ $ 20.00 $ 600,000 @ 6 home games $ 3,600,000

Coffee and TV · December 17, 2012

But they sacrifice home game attendance with so many week night games in the MAC.
The one Tuesday night game really helped out our program and university despite the beginning being delayed 45 because a SOCCER game.

You mean the game that clinched the US making the next round of qualifying for the World Cup? Yeah, so awful. :fpc:

Stan R · December 17, 2012

Many on the board may disagree with me, but I think for the future longevity of college sports viewership and fan retention, streamed games like on ESPN3 is the future.
I have directed the live streams from the College of Music for the last couple of years. We've been strongly bolstered and made legitimate to the College by an NEA study that found that live streaming of arts entertainment was remarked favorably by viewers as highly encouraging them to go and attend concerts live at their next opportunity to do so.
I am under te opinion that the same holds true for sports entertainment as well.
I further think that universities should wise up and accept that though significantly cheaper, the wide coverage (or potential when blackouts aren't involved) of online streaming is much better for them than their one hope of an ESPN2 game. Significant investments should be put towards streaming to make their broadcasts of better quality and I think the rewards will be seen in the easily attainable viewing data that is captured in this medium. Much more easily attainable than tv broadcast, for sure.
Finally, a buy into streaming will help avoid the high-stakes drama that TV deals have on universities, conferences, and all the fans that go with them.
If the last fee years are any indication, the future of media consumption exists online and ADs should wise up to such.

Don't know about the "others" on this forum (or maybe it's the "other others", man I miss LOST :thumbsu: ) but I love the ESPN3 streaming and I just think it is totally unacceptable for any D1A school to not have ALL of their games streamed in one form or another across all sports. This includes pay per streams as well. The REAALLY unacceptable games to not be streamed are the football games. No excuse whatsoever in D1A.