AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Big East wanted $300m per year from ESPN for its TV rights
- Thread starter Jens1893
- Start date
are they insane?
somebody
Well-Known Member
You only get one chance to make a first offer. The problem is that when it's 5-6x your value you just look stupid.
And who wouldn't pay that much to watch South Florida and Rutgers? LOL.
Probably more people now that Rutgers is a Big 10 team. Oh, the irony.
What a bunch of buffoons. Apparently (can ESPN.com really report without a bias when using ESPN sources for a ESPN TV contract rumor?), ESPN offered the BE $130 million ($13.8 for football schools, $2.8 for basketball schools) and the conference turned it down. And it was the uni presidents that turned it down against the commissioner's recommendation. Hoping for $300 million? They were smoking crack. Pac 12/SEC/Big Ten and Big 12 now have very similar deals for ~ $20-21 million per school (total per conference varies due to conference size), while the Big East had a complete garbage football product that is getting worse.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...-schools-working-lucrative-tv-deal-basketball
It does look like the breakaway 7 basketball schools have a standing $500 million 12 year offer from Fox to play on their rebranded Speed channel. They are also looking at adding 3-5 teams, giving them a smaller cut (really welcoming, huh?) - but that would put the value per former Big East school at $4-5 million per year. Moral, don't let basketball schools run your conference.
I sure hope ESPN doesn't match. They made Big East basketball through their coverage. When these teams play on Fox's reject sports channel, they can just see how much less hype the get. Also, no Big East on ESPN means more time for other confernces... like maybe the Pac12.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...-schools-working-lucrative-tv-deal-basketball
It does look like the breakaway 7 basketball schools have a standing $500 million 12 year offer from Fox to play on their rebranded Speed channel. They are also looking at adding 3-5 teams, giving them a smaller cut (really welcoming, huh?) - but that would put the value per former Big East school at $4-5 million per year. Moral, don't let basketball schools run your conference.
I sure hope ESPN doesn't match. They made Big East basketball through their coverage. When these teams play on Fox's reject sports channel, they can just see how much less hype the get. Also, no Big East on ESPN means more time for other confernces... like maybe the Pac12.
Last edited:
Read an article in the Washington Post about a month ago which sort of detailed the history of the Big Least, talked about how it was originally a basketball conference that sort of accidentally became a quasi-big-time football conference. The original basketball members never were very happy with the changes.
But, the more interesting part of the article was an argument for separating out the revenue sports from the rest of athletic conference alignments. Basically argued that it would make a lot more sense for everyone if schools could join different conferences for different sports. One conference for football, another for basketball, and another one for the non-revenue sports. The D1 hockey schools already do this (DU and Air Force are good local examples, Boston College, UConn & the Big 10 Schools that play hockey are other examples*).
The example the article trotted out was West Virginia. It makes a lot of sense for the Mountaineers to play in a big football conference, and even in the Big we're bad at math Conference, but it doesn't make sense for, say, their women's soccer or volleyball teams to do so - those teams should be competing against Louisville, Kentucky, UVA, V-Tech, etc, and not having to travel all the way to Waco for a 1 hour mid-week game. What was not addressed was the trickle down revenue mismatch that would end up occurring in the non-revenue sports conferences - e.g. a school with a big time football affiliation would have more resources to compete in the non-revenue sports, and they would be playing against some schools without access to that same level of resources (imagine if CU played football in the P12 or even B12, but then fielded the rest of their teams in a conference with CSU, Wyoming, New Mexico, etc).
*Big 10 hockey schools are weird, they don't even all play in the same non B1G hockey conference: OSU, Michigan & Michigan State all play in the CCHA, whereas Minnesota & Wisconsin both play in the WCHA.
But, the more interesting part of the article was an argument for separating out the revenue sports from the rest of athletic conference alignments. Basically argued that it would make a lot more sense for everyone if schools could join different conferences for different sports. One conference for football, another for basketball, and another one for the non-revenue sports. The D1 hockey schools already do this (DU and Air Force are good local examples, Boston College, UConn & the Big 10 Schools that play hockey are other examples*).
The example the article trotted out was West Virginia. It makes a lot of sense for the Mountaineers to play in a big football conference, and even in the Big we're bad at math Conference, but it doesn't make sense for, say, their women's soccer or volleyball teams to do so - those teams should be competing against Louisville, Kentucky, UVA, V-Tech, etc, and not having to travel all the way to Waco for a 1 hour mid-week game. What was not addressed was the trickle down revenue mismatch that would end up occurring in the non-revenue sports conferences - e.g. a school with a big time football affiliation would have more resources to compete in the non-revenue sports, and they would be playing against some schools without access to that same level of resources (imagine if CU played football in the P12 or even B12, but then fielded the rest of their teams in a conference with CSU, Wyoming, New Mexico, etc).
*Big 10 hockey schools are weird, they don't even all play in the same non B1G hockey conference: OSU, Michigan & Michigan State all play in the CCHA, whereas Minnesota & Wisconsin both play in the WCHA.
FYI - B1G hockey schools begin play next season in the "new" B1G conference with the addition of the recently upgraded Penn State hockey program. DU, CC, and North Dakota, among others, will break away from the WCHA to form the new National Collegiate Hockey Conference.