|
Post by professorhoya on Dec 8, 2014 13:35:36 GMT -5
There was no reason why they needed Rutgers to be a regular network in New York. That's kind of the point. There are a ton more Michigan, Penn State and Ohio State fans in New York than Rutgers. They are splitting their revenue there for no real reason. They will never notice the mistake -- too much money is rolling in right now -- but it is one. Real schools are giving 1/14th of essentially the same revenue away to Rutgers for no good reason. It's turned out that way, SF, but it was not clear at the time, based on what I know from people directly involved in those TV negotiations. For example, right now, B10 is part of the standard package at my relative's house in Western Massachusetts (not the basic, basic package, but you don't need the special sports tier for it). So, they're getting significant carriage presumably around the country including in markets in which they have no team. I suspect the SEC Network is the same way. But at the time expansion occurred, the NYC-area media companies were taking a hard line against adding additional sports-specific programming, particularly since NY already had three sports-specific cable channels that they felt they had to carry (YES, MSG, and SNY). I don't know about the DC area, but at least in NY, the people negotiating with the cable companies were given very specific targets to reach and the addition of Rutgers allowed them to meet them. It may not have been rational negotiating by the cable companies, but that was the card they played. Now, as it turned out, there has been significant subsequent pressure on cable companies to add sports channels and they've largely caved (though not for Fox Sports 2!!!), and the Big 10 likely didn't have to do it in retrospect. And that may well impact what leagues do in the future in terms of adding teams. (There'd be no need for the B10 to add UConn when they're already on in Connecticut, for example). So basically the Big10 leadership caved in vs the cable companies and let an inferior school like Rutgers into their conference when it wasn't necessary at all. Now they are stuck with Rutgers forever. Seems to me like Delaney doesn't know what he is dong.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 8, 2014 13:55:33 GMT -5
It's turned out that way, SF, but it was not clear at the time, based on what I know from people directly involved in those TV negotiations. For example, right now, B10 is part of the standard package at my relative's house in Western Massachusetts (not the basic, basic package, but you don't need the special sports tier for it). So, they're getting significant carriage presumably around the country including in markets in which they have no team. I suspect the SEC Network is the same way. But at the time expansion occurred, the NYC-area media companies were taking a hard line against adding additional sports-specific programming, particularly since NY already had three sports-specific cable channels that they felt they had to carry (YES, MSG, and SNY). I don't know about the DC area, but at least in NY, the people negotiating with the cable companies were given very specific targets to reach and the addition of Rutgers allowed them to meet them. It may not have been rational negotiating by the cable companies, but that was the card they played. Now, as it turned out, there has been significant subsequent pressure on cable companies to add sports channels and they've largely caved (though not for Fox Sports 2!!!), and the Big 10 likely didn't have to do it in retrospect. And that may well impact what leagues do in the future in terms of adding teams. (There'd be no need for the B10 to add UConn when they're already on in Connecticut, for example). So basically the Big10 leadership caved in vs the cable companies and let an inferior school like Rutgers into their conference when it wasn't necessary at all. Now they are stuck with Rutgers forever. Seems to me like Delaney doesn't know what he is dong. I would agree, although I think to be fair it remains to be seen. Clearly, the initial move to create the network and earn the carriage fees has been tremendously successful (and was innovative at the time). We'll just have to see how rights deals are structured in the future to see whether it made sense in the long term. I would imagine there were "inventory" issues relevant to adding two more teams -- any teams -- that went into the decision too. And the same goes for their move to MSG for that one year. It would seem to hurt his teams from a preparation-for-the-tournament perspective in that one year, but he surely is looking longer term. And if the goal is to build relationships with the folks at MSG and provide a sold-out event for them that they could use to contrast with what the Big East provides, you could see that being used directly against the Big East at the time the Big East's contract is due for renewal (or earlier, depending on the clauses therein). Would the Big 10 move its tournament to MSG every year? Maybe, though I doubt it. Far more possible is some sort of arrangement with the ACC in which they split years or something along those lines. This thread has been officially hijacked...
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Dec 8, 2014 14:09:09 GMT -5
So basically the Big10 leadership caved in vs the cable companies and let an inferior school like Rutgers into their conference when it wasn't necessary at all. Now they are stuck with Rutgers forever. Seems to me like Delaney doesn't know what he is dong. I would agree, although I think to be fair it remains to be seen. Clearly, the initial move to create the network and earn the carriage fees has been tremendously successful (and was innovative at the time). We'll just have to see how rights deals are structured in the future to see whether it made sense in the long term. I would imagine there were "inventory" issues relevant to adding two more teams -- any teams -- that went into the decision too. And the same goes for their move to MSG for that one year. It would seem to hurt his teams from a preparation-for-the-tournament perspective in that one year, but he surely is looking longer term. And if the goal is to build relationships with the folks at MSG and provide a sold-out event for them that they could use to contrast with what the Big East provides, you could see that being used directly against the Big East at the time the Big East's contract is due for renewal (or earlier, depending on the clauses therein). Would the Big 10 move its tournament to MSG every year? Maybe, though I doubt it. Far more possible is some sort of arrangement with the ACC in which they split years or something along those lines. This thread has been officially hijacked... But there were better options out there (Syracuse, UVA, Clemson, Virginia Tech) and they settled for two scrub schools in Rutgers and Maryland. Rutgers and Maryland are horrible choices unless it is to appease Penn State by giving them two proximate wrestling powers by stealing the elite from the ACC and EIWA. But since it isn't a money generating sports that seems foolish as well. Even the Big 10 tournament in New York is weird since it's still a midwest based conference and only will further alienate Chicago and Indy from Delaney and few people will travel that far or spend that much money for a tournament like that.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 8, 2014 14:22:50 GMT -5
I would agree, although I think to be fair it remains to be seen. Clearly, the initial move to create the network and earn the carriage fees has been tremendously successful (and was innovative at the time). We'll just have to see how rights deals are structured in the future to see whether it made sense in the long term. I would imagine there were "inventory" issues relevant to adding two more teams -- any teams -- that went into the decision too. And the same goes for their move to MSG for that one year. It would seem to hurt his teams from a preparation-for-the-tournament perspective in that one year, but he surely is looking longer term. And if the goal is to build relationships with the folks at MSG and provide a sold-out event for them that they could use to contrast with what the Big East provides, you could see that being used directly against the Big East at the time the Big East's contract is due for renewal (or earlier, depending on the clauses therein). Would the Big 10 move its tournament to MSG every year? Maybe, though I doubt it. Far more possible is some sort of arrangement with the ACC in which they split years or something along those lines. This thread has been officially hijacked... But there were better options out there (Syracuse, UVA, Clemson, Virginia Tech) and they settled for two scrub schools in Rutgers and Maryland. Rutgers and Maryland are horrible choices unless it is to appease Penn State by giving them two proximate wrestling powers by stealing the elite from the ACC and EIWA. But since it isn't a money generating sports that seems foolish as well. Even the Big 10 tournament in New York is weird since it's still a midwest based conference and only will further alienate Chicago and Indy from Delaney and few people will travel that far or spend that much money for a tournament like that. It just depends what you mean by "better options." The entire move was television and, thus, revenue related and had nothing to do with competitive balance in any sport. Ratings and advertising revenue based on the quality of the institution (competitively on the field) was irrelevant to their thinking. All they cared (and still care) about are the carriage fees from cable companies. That's where the real revenue is (at least right now). At the time, Rutgers was viewed as essential to earning NYC carriage fees. Whether it truly was in retrospect is an open question. But that was truly the sole consideration. I suspect the same is true for MD. They didn't view any of those ACC schools you mention as superior choices in terms of the carriage fees they would earn, based simply on the regional television markets in each school's primary footprint. In addition, they knew they would have to pay far more to get another ACC school than they would to get a BE school.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Dec 8, 2014 14:32:31 GMT -5
Rutgers and Maryland are horrible choices unless it is to appease Penn State by giving them two proximate wrestling powers by stealing the elite from the ACC and EIWA. But since it isn't a money generating sports that seems foolish as well. Although we may never know what motivated the Big 14 to add UMCP and the State University of New Jersey, I am confident in believing that wrestling was not a factor. If anything, it is possible that lacrosse helped tilt the balance, although any number of other candidates would have offered similar pedigree (with the added benefit of not being terrible at basketball).
|
|