Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why the negativity towards more TV coverage?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by UVM Cat in Texas View Post
    Would UVM (Vermont) be considered a Usual Suspect?
    Given that UVM has never won anything... Um.... No.
    Originally posted by Greg Ambrose on 3/7/2010
    The fact that you BC fans revel in the superiority of your team in an admittedly weak league leads me to believe you will be more sorely disappointed when the end comes than we will.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Why the negativity towards more TV coverage?

      I don't think the negativity is simply because there is the prospect of more college hockey on TV. I think it is more a concern of what may happen down the road.

      Sure, getting a chance to see your team play when you may not otherwise is a good thing. Seeing anyone play if you aren't actually AT a game is something that many of us here enjoy, regardless of who is playing. I think what most of us fear is anything that hints at losing any control of our game, our little niche game, to the TV allure and the TV dollar.

      Pro sports, and college football and basketball give it to TV any time TV asks them to. They have to because they are now in love with and dependent on all the TV $$$. The BCS would not exist were it not for all that TV money. Deserving teams not making the NCAA basketball tournament in favor of big time programs who have mediocre seasons being invited would not happen without TV money. 90 minute long half time shows and ridiculously over-hyped wardrobe malfunctions would not happen without TV $$$. Major League Baseball playoff games ending too late for kids to see them in half the country would not happen were it not for TV money.

      Fortunately, this is hardly likely with college hockey, something I'm sure most of us know. I'm not sure what Versus is looking at as far as what kind of numbers will make this a successful venture. I'm sure it is not even NHL-like ratings. Whatever happens, this isn't going to be the next American Idol. And since the NCAA, the individual conferences, and teams aren't going to realize some huge pot of gold at the end of the Versus rainbow, hopefully they will resist all temptation to give away too much of the control to television.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Why the negativity towards more TV coverage?

        Originally posted by IrishHockeyFan View Post
        Sure, getting a chance to see your team play when you may not otherwise is a good thing. Seeing anyone play if you aren't actually AT a game is something that many of us here enjoy, regardless of who is playing. I think what most of us fear is anything that hints at losing any control of our game, our little niche game, to the TV allure and the TV dollar.
        The problem is that without TV exposure, it's hard to see our litle niche sport grow.
        2006-07 Atlantic Hockey Champions!
        2008-09 Atlantic Hockey Co-Champions!
        2009-10 Atlantic Hockey Champions!
        2010 Frozen Four participant
        2010-11 Atlantic Hockey Champions!

        Member of the infamous Corner Crew

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Why the negativity towards more TV coverage?

          Originally posted by fangers View Post
          I don't think folks are being negative about the TV coverage nor about getting more college hockey televised. I read it as being much more a reaction to those posters, whose teams are going to the big10 or the bhhc, who seem to be overly optimisitic about all the revenue they see getting from all these new leagues and the rumored tv contracts. IMO, they are not being realistic and those revunues will be not be anywhere close to what they are projecting.
          I don't think EVERYONE whose team is going to the BTHC is reacting as though their team will be seeing a dramatic increase in revenue. The Gophers were doing just fine from a revenue standpoint before the formation of the BTHC was announced. In fact, I don't think Minnesota will nearly as big of a revenue increase as some of the other teams joining the BTHC. In fact, I think most Gopher fans are indifferent, if not upset, about the new conference.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Why the negativity towards more TV coverage?

            Originally posted by Nick Papagiorgio View Post
            Given that UVM has never won anything... Um.... No.
            Can always count on you Nick.....

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Why the negativity towards more TV coverage?

              Originally posted by JDUBBS1280 View Post
              I don't think EVERYONE whose team is going to the BTHC is reacting as though their team will be seeing a dramatic increase in revenue. The Gophers were doing just fine from a revenue standpoint before the formation of the BTHC was announced. In fact, I don't think Minnesota will nearly as big of a revenue increase as some of the other teams joining the BTHC.
              Each team in the BTHC will most certainly see an increase in revenue and BTN revenue is equally distributed among member schools. While the UMN is less dependent on central funding today than 5 years ago, athletic dept. revenue at the UMN is not "doing just fine" and are still operating in the red. The increase in BTN revenue is one of the main reasons the NCHC was formed to financially compete with the BTHC by seeking a similar "cash cow" in NBC/Versus.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Why the negativity towards more TV coverage?

                Originally posted by HarleyMC View Post
                Each team in the BTHC will most certainly see an increase in revenue and BTN revenue is equally distributed among member schools. While the UMN is less dependent on central funding today than 5 years ago, athletic dept. revenue at the UMN is not "doing just fine" and are still operating in the red. The increase in BTN revenue is one of the main reasons the NCHC was formed to financially compete with the BTHC by seeking a similar "cash cow" in NBC/Versus.

                They already broadcast football and basketball on the BTN, so that revenue is already shared. In terms of hockey, yes, Minnesota is doing more than fine in the revenue department. I would say $4+ million a year on it's men's program, and $3+ million for men's and women's combined is pretty darn good, especially considering that not one other program joining the BTHC made money (on both men's and women's hockey combined) last year. Since 2003, Minnesota has made over $27 million on it's hockey programs. The next closest school in the soon to be BTHC in that same period was Michigan, who made less that $3 million.

                http://www.mnhockeycentral.webs.com/bigtennumbers.jpg

                If you want an explanation for why Minnesota may be operating in the red, look at the money Joel Maturi is pumping into non-revenue generating sports. Hockey has NOTHING to do with it.

                And I would argue that, by splitting revenue from hockey broadcasts on the BTN, Minnesota may actually be giving up some of the revenue that it already earns from a lucrative state-wide TV contract with FSN that shows practically every game and gets a pretty good viewership. I don't have the details on how much revenue from the BTN will increase with the added hockey broadcasts, but I find it hard to believe it will increase enough for Minnesota to see much of an increase. Now Ohio State, which has been hemorrhaging money on its hockey programs, is another story.

                And try as they might, I don't think the NCHC schools will ever be able to compete with the BTHC schools in terms of revenue. Most don't have the football and basketball programs to fall back on, which are much larger revenue sports than hockey.
                Last edited by JDUBBS1280; 08-08-2011, 12:54 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Why the negativity towards more TV coverage?

                  Originally posted by JDUBBS1280 View Post
                  They already broadcast football and basketball on the BTN, so that revenue is already shared. In terms of hockey, yes, Minnesota is doing more than fine in the revenue department. I would say $4+ million a year on it's men's program, and $3+ million for men's and women's combined is pretty darn good, especially considering that not one other program joining the BTHC made money (on both men's and women's hockey combined) last year. Since 2003, Minnesota has made over $27 million on it's hockey programs. The next closest school in the soon to be BTHC in that same period was Michigan, who made less that $3 million.

                  http://www.mnhockeycentral.webs.com/bigtennumbers.jpg

                  If you want an explanation for why Minnesota may be operating in the red, look at the money Joel Maturi is pumping into non-revenue generating sports. Hockey has NOTHING to do with it.

                  And I would argue that, by splitting revenue from hockey broadcasts on the BTN, Minnesota may actually be giving up some of the revenue that it already earns from a lucrative state-wide TV contract with FSN that shows practically every game and gets a pretty good viewership. I don't have the details on how much revenue from the BTN will increase with the added hockey broadcasts, but I find it hard to believe it will increase enough for Minnesota to see much of an increase. Now Ohio State, which has been hemorrhaging money on its hockey programs, is another story.

                  And try as they might, I don't think the NCHC schools will ever be able to compete with the BTHC schools in terms of revenue. Most don't have the football and basketball programs to fall back on, which are much larger revenue sports than hockey.
                  You appear to be very naïve and a bit ignorant on how things work. Read at your own risk.

                  1) The reason for UMN operating in the red is not due to Maturi "pumping into non-revenue generating sports" (show me the data). The reason is simply due to outstanding liabilities and reduced funding which has substantially offset school revenue (I've documented this a number of times in previous posts...I won't do again here though).

                  Program expenses over the last two fiscal years have risen (I've also documented these statistics in the recent past), while state funding has dropped significantly to less than 15%. That comes to a drop of over $80M/year which translates into painfully forced spending cuts and staff relocations that are projected at roughly $90M ranging from facilities management to class scheduling.

                  The UMN athletic budget is currently $72M. As stated by the AD finance administrator last year, without BTN money to bail them out over the past couple years, the UMN would NOT have been able to sustain their debt repayment schedule (i.e. TCF, general fund loans, etc.) forcing them to go back to the general fund or look for other immediate sources of emergency revenue.

                  In all fairness, Maturi has actually done a superb job with balancing the AD budget. In fact, he has been commended recently for reducing expenses, and reliance upon the general fund IIRC to 3%/yr, while inching the athletic dept. closer to becoming financially self sustaining.

                  2) In addition to current income of $232M/yr, as the BTN broadens its footprint over the next five years, current projections indicate it could generate substantially more than a quarter of a billion dollars a year for the Big Ten conference. That would more than double aggregate revenue distribution to member schools to $16M (I have also provided actual breakdowns of these numbers as well in previous posts). BTN revenue distribution is based upon all sports not just hockey, but indeed hockey will play a significant role and sweeten the pot.

                  While I agree with you that the NCHC will not come close to matching BTN revenues for member schools, in essence they're not trying to match it. In response to the projected increase in BTN revenue to member schools, they're simply trying to focus their energies on their own media deal to help sustain and expand their athletic programs in general, not just hockey, which IIRC is the only major revenue generating sport for every member school of the NCHC thus far.

                  Regarding FSN, it only reaches at best 3 million potential viewers in a regional market of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. UMN charges a licensing fee to a regional sports network (RSN) like FSN to broadcast their games…that’s it. That is essentially pocket change to the UMN compared to carriage and advertising revenue generated and in part distributed to Big Ten schools by the BTN national market which covers over 35% of the US alone. To give an example of how little licensing fees amount to with an RSN, the Twins signed with FSN a few years ago to broadcast 105 or so games/yr until 2012 for only $12M. UMN’s contract with FSN to broadcast about 28 games/yr or so is substantially less than that.

                  The BTN footprint already reaches 14 times the amount of households in the US and Canada than FSN, and is positioned to increase that by 60% over the next five years. Multiply that by a few cents increase in carriage fees/household, include a projected ad revenue increase of over $80M, and school revenue kickbacks from the BTN will by far exceed the relatively stagnant revenue growth potential of any local RSN.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Why the negativity towards more TV coverage?

                    Originally posted by HarleyMC View Post
                    You appear to be very naïve and a bit ignorant on how things work. Read at your own risk.

                    1) The reason for UMN operating in the red is not due to Maturi "pumping into non-revenue generating sports" (show me the data). The reason is simply due to outstanding liabilities and reduced funding which has substantially offset school revenue (I've documented this a number of times in previous posts...I won't do again here though).

                    Program expenses over the last two fiscal years have risen (I've also documented these statistics in the recent past), while state funding has dropped significantly to less than 15%. That comes to a drop of over $80M/year which translates into painfully forced spending cuts and staff relocations that are projected at roughly $90M ranging from facilities management to class scheduling.

                    The UMN athletic budget is currently $72M. As stated by the AD finance administrator last year, without BTN money to bail them out over the past couple years, the UMN would NOT have been able to sustain their debt repayment schedule (i.e. TCF, general fund loans, etc.) forcing them to go back to the general fund or look for other immediate sources of emergency revenue.

                    In all fairness, Maturi has actually done a superb job with balancing the AD budget. In fact, he has been commended recently for reducing expenses, and reliance upon the general fund IIRC to 3%/yr, while inching the athletic dept. closer to becoming financially self sustaining.

                    2) In addition to current income of $232M/yr, as the BTN broadens its footprint over the next five years, current projections indicate it could generate substantially more than a quarter of a billion dollars a year for the Big Ten conference. That would more than double aggregate revenue distribution to member schools to $16M (I have also provided actual breakdowns of these numbers as well in previous posts). BTN revenue distribution is based upon all sports not just hockey, but indeed hockey will play a significant role and sweeten the pot.

                    While I agree with you that the NCHC will not come close to matching BTN revenues for member schools, in essence they're not trying to match it. In response to the projected increase in BTN revenue to member schools, they're simply trying to focus their energies on their own media deal to help sustain and expand their athletic programs in general, not just hockey, which IIRC is the only major revenue generating sport for every member school of the NCHC thus far.

                    Regarding FSN, it only reaches at best 3 million potential viewers in a regional market of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. UMN charges a licensing fee to a regional sports network (RSN) like FSN to broadcast their games…that’s it. That is essentially pocket change to the UMN compared to carriage and advertising revenue generated and in part distributed to Big Ten schools by the BTN national market which covers over 35% of the US alone. To give an example of how little licensing fees amount to with an RSN, the Twins signed with FSN a few years ago to broadcast 105 or so games/yr until 2012 for only $12M. UMN’s contract with FSN to broadcast about 28 games/yr or so is substantially less than that.

                    The BTN footprint already reaches 14 times the amount of households in the US and Canada than FSN, and is positioned to increase that by 60% over the next five years. Multiply that by a few cents increase in carriage fees/household, include a projected ad revenue increase of over $80M, and school revenue kickbacks from the BTN will by far exceed the relatively stagnant revenue growth potential of any local RSN.
                    Yeah, you clearly know more than I do about the operating costs\expenses for athletics at the University in general. As I said in my post, I'm not clear as to how much of an increase in advertisting revenue adding the extra hockey games to the BTN programming will bring, but if it is as significant as you make it sound, then I agree with you that even Minnesota may see an increase of revenue. I do remain somewhat skeptical that adding hockey will increase the advertising revenue all that much, but I guess we'll see.

                    I would like to see some projections, but I'm not sure any are available for public consumption at this time. I do stand by my point that the Gophers are in a far better position than the other schools in the BTHC in terms of the revenue generated by it's hockey program. If the increase in revenue generated by adding hockey to the BTN programming isn't as significant as you suggest, then the Gophers stand to gain far less than the other programs in the BTHC.

                    You bring up an excellent point in the # of households reached and how even a small increase in carrying fee will generate a signficant revenue increase, so I guess I will take your word for it until I see differently. Thanks for the explanation
                    Last edited by JDUBBS1280; 08-08-2011, 07:47 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Why the negativity towards more TV coverage?

                      It's been said earlier, but the fears is that the NCHC, Big Ten, Hockey East will get all the coverage and choke the life out the ECAC and the remnants of the WCHA, CCHA, Atlantic Hockey, etc. I love that there will be more coverage, but there are some pretty good matchups in the other conferences. (Clarkson-SLU, Yale-Harvard to name a few.) I understand that the big names will get the lion's share, but the other guys need some run too.
                      Twitter: DanMountSports
                      2013-14 DIII T.O.P. NIT Champion

                      2010-2011 Interlock LPS Co-Champion

                      Well, I'm going to do a farewell tour of upstate New York, hellholes like Plattsburgh. Fred Armisen as Gov. Paterson

                      "There's no point in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes." - The Doctor (Tom Baker)

                      Team I Like NFL: BUF NBA: NYK MLB: SEA NHL: NYR College Hockey: Clarkson (DI) Oswego (D3) Soccer: USA, Man United, Rangers (newco and all), Scotland NCAAF & B: SU

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Why the negativity towards more TV coverage?

                        Originally posted by JDUBBS1280 View Post
                        Yeah, you clearly know more than I do about the operating costs\expenses for athletics at the University in general. As I said in my post, I'm not clear as to how much of an increase in advertisting revenue adding the extra hockey games to the BTN programming will bring, but if it is as significant as you make it sound, then I agree with you that even Minnesota may see an increase of revenue. I do remain somewhat skeptical that adding hockey will increase the advertising revenue all that much, but I guess we'll see.

                        I would like to see some projections, but I'm not sure any are available for public consumption at this time. I do stand by my point that the Gophers are in a far better position than the other schools in the BTHC in terms of the revenue generated by it's hockey program. If the increase in revenue generated by adding hockey to the BTN programming isn't as significant as you suggest, then the Gophers stand to gain far less than the other programs in the BTHC.

                        You bring up an excellent point in the # of households reached and how even a small increase in carrying fee will generate a signficant revenue increase, so I guess I will take your word for it until I see differently. Thanks for the explanation
                        There are significant BTN revenue projections out there, which as many pundits have pointed out is the main reason why Nebraska...a huge national brand, was clamoring for an invitation to the Big Ten gravy train and after finally getting the nod, signed happily on the dotted line. Adding Nebraska means the BTN has the potential to essentially run track from the Atlantic to the Pacific with even the potential to increase license fees above their current average of $.88/household and rake in outlandish profits in the millions. Adding hockey will obviously be challenging in some respects, but remember marketing today surfs the wave of branding, and the Big Ten brand will draw reasonable to high ratings for hockey based upon that alone. Add strategic program scheduling, demographic specific advertising and historic rivalries between Ohio State-Penn State, Minnesota-Wisconsin, etc. and ratings will most likely be favorable in many national media markets in the US and Canada.

                        According to the BTN, 60% of their revenue is derived from advertising. They will most likely bundle sponsorships with programming based upon demographic research for college hockey, but no doubt marketers will stand in line to buy airtime simply because it's the Big Ten. In fact, advertising revenue has steadily increased since it's inception in 2007 (last year 30%) and will most definitely continue to escalate with or without hockey.

                        Peace!

                        Even after paying its guaranteed rights fees to the conference of more than $60 million last year, the network was so profitable that the Big Ten's share amounted to an additional $66 million, which each school shared in equally. "We hoped it would be profitable eventually. But it turned a profit in, what, its second year?" said Minnesota athletic director Joel Maturi, whose athletic budget reaped an estimated $22 million in TV rights (including ABC, CBS and ESPN contracts) alone. "I don't believe anyone truly expected to be this successful this quickly. It's absolutely remarkable."
                        Last edited by HarleyMC; 08-08-2011, 09:57 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Why the negativity towards more TV coverage?

                          Nt
                          Last edited by diddlypoo; 08-08-2011, 10:59 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Why the negativity towards more TV coverage?

                            Originally posted by MountieBoyOz View Post
                            It's been said earlier, but the fears is that the NCHC, Big Ten, Hockey East will get all the coverage and choke the life out the ECAC and the remnants of the WCHA, CCHA, Atlantic Hockey, etc. I love that there will be more coverage, but there are some pretty good matchups in the other conferences. (Clarkson-SLU, Yale-Harvard to name a few.) I understand that the big names will get the lion's share, but the other guys need some run too.
                            Atlantic Hockey barely gets any TV coverage at all - so I don't think it chokes any life out of them. At BEST, CBS Sports broadcasts 1 AHA game - last year RIT-Niagara was covered. I believe they did Air Force-Army once. But I think that is about it.
                            2006-07 Atlantic Hockey Champions!
                            2008-09 Atlantic Hockey Co-Champions!
                            2009-10 Atlantic Hockey Champions!
                            2010 Frozen Four participant
                            2010-11 Atlantic Hockey Champions!

                            Member of the infamous Corner Crew

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Why the negativity towards more TV coverage?

                              Originally posted by HarleyMC View Post
                              According to the BTN, 60% of their revenue is derived from advertising.
                              Harley, where did you get this number from? I saw a similar number floated around last year during the Big Ten expansion talks, but I thought it was debunked.

                              Also, the UM contingent seems to think that the Gopher games not televised on the BTN will be on FSN -- is this fact? I found this surprising since it sounded like the BTN was going to use hockey to bolster its online platform/presence (read: pay-per-view.) If games not being televised by the BTN will be made available to other outlets, I will be much happier.
                              Last edited by diddlypoo; 08-08-2011, 11:38 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Why the negativity towards more TV coverage?

                                Originally posted by komey1 View Post
                                Atlantic Hockey barely gets any TV coverage at all - so I don't think it chokes any life out of them. At BEST, CBS Sports broadcasts 1 AHA game - last year RIT-Niagara was covered. I believe they did Air Force-Army once. But I think that is about it.
                                Air Force has had 3 games broadcast by CBS sports during the past two seasons.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X