Big Ten Completes 7 year $7 Billion Media Right Deal!

KentuckyBoiler

All-American
Jul 6, 2011
12,515
17,509
113
The Big Ten completes the 7 year $7 Billion media rights deal with Fox, CBS and NBC. I would say the league and member schools have to be a little happy. If we expand the league more, I am sure that the deal will get even bigger. I guess we see why cable and streaming rates keep going up for the consumer.

 

FirstDownB

All-American
Oct 12, 2015
9,728
13,792
113
From the perspective of a Purdue fan and general college football fan, how does this deal affect various approaches to television/subscription packaging?

For example, if I am a cord cutter with rabbit ears for local HD channels NBC, CBS, and FOX, how many Purdue games can I expect to see over the course of the season? And how many Big Ten games on a weekly basis will I get if I can live without seeing Purdue vs. ISU but at least want to see some good regional football? I understand that the first question is probably unknown because each network will probably have the ability to prioritize games between a primary and secondary channel (see NBC/Peacock, Fox/BTN/FS1, CBS/CBSSN), but maybe there is an estimate. Does this package provide more opportunities, not relying solely on ABC, to see Purdue on the main networks or will it come out in a wash?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victorbmyboy

TX4GB

All-American
May 19, 2012
8,024
16,145
113
I saw this from an IU writer. A bunch of basketball games on Peacock it looks like:
 

Tommaker

Senior
Dec 11, 2002
2,722
1,963
113
I saw this from an IU writer. A bunch of basketball games on Peacock it looks like:

Nobody talks about it, but I do wonder how this impacts ALL brand loyalty. Used to be you could flip around the tube and find your team playing a game on a Saturday (football) or during the week (basketball) and you could follow other teams if so inclined. Now that it looks like the games will be at a destination, how many of the fans will be lost, and more importantly, never materialize?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt Tiger

TX4GB

All-American
May 19, 2012
8,024
16,145
113
Nobody talks about it, but I do wonder how this impacts ALL brand loyalty. Used to be you could flip around the tube and find your team playing a game on a Saturday (football) or during the week (basketball) and you could follow other teams if so inclined. Now that it looks like the games will be at a destination, how many of the fans will be lost, and more importantly, never materialize?
I think most people will be moving to streaming services eventually. I moved to YouTubeTV that has local channels and saved some $. I found out Frontier FiOS TV is not offering TV now to new customers and giving incentives to YouTube. My wife signed up for Peacock at some point to watch Housewives or something :). I’m set there. There always seems to be a battle between TV providers and networks. Streaming gives the users some control on what they want to watch.
 

FirstDownB

All-American
Oct 12, 2015
9,728
13,792
113
I think most people will be moving to streaming services eventually. I moved to YouTubeTV that has local channels and saved some $. I found out Frontier FiOS TV is not offering TV now to new customers and giving incentives to YouTube. My wife signed up for Peacock at some point to watch Housewives or something :). I’m set there. There always seems to be a battle between TV providers and networks. Streaming gives the users some control on what they want to watch.
Both are eventually going to lose my dollars as my family is content with Netflix, Amazon, Disney+. We are not subscribing to 3 different streaming services or a deluxe cable package just to watch Purdue football. I can get the broadcast games for free with rabbit ears and catch the others in person or at a restaurant/bar. If I have to listen to a game or two on the radio, so be it. When I can get season tickets for the price of the services required to watch every game I am reallocating my tv budget.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indyogb
Nov 10, 2014
387
191
43
I think most people will be moving to streaming services eventually. I moved to YouTubeTV that has local channels and saved some $. I found out Frontier FiOS TV is not offering TV now to new customers and giving incentives to YouTube. My wife signed up for Peacock at some point to watch Housewives or something :). I’m set there. There always seems to be a battle between TV providers and networks. Streaming gives the users some control on what they want to watch.
Me too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pboiler18 and TX4GB
Jan 29, 2002
115
228
43
Both are eventually going to lose my dollars as my family is content with Netflix, Amazon, Disney+. We are not subscribing to 3 different streaming services or a deluxe cable package just to watch Purdue football. I can get the broadcast games for free with rabbit ears and catch the others in person or at a restaurant/bar. If I have to listen to a game or two on the radio, so be it. When I can get season tickets for the price of the services required to watch every game I am reallocating my tv budget.
We have the same 3 + Hulu Live so I can get BTN and FS1 but Peacock and Paramount+ aren't going to happen, despite this deal. I agree that radio for a few games isn't so bad vs. shelling out another $15/month
 

DAG10

All-American
Nov 2, 2018
5,709
8,492
113
I saw this from an IU writer. A bunch of basketball games on Peacock it looks like:

Well, they may need to rethink the expansion piece...if UCLA does not jump, unlikely USC does either, as, it was a package deal essentially.

 

TX4GB

All-American
May 19, 2012
8,024
16,145
113
Well, they may need to rethink the expansion piece...if UCLA does not jump, unlikely USC does either, as, it was a package deal essentially.

I don’t put anything past the state of California to screw things up. Stanford is private so that could be a potential replacement if things fall apart with UCLA.
 

DAG10

All-American
Nov 2, 2018
5,709
8,492
113
I don’t put anything past the state of California to screw things up. Stanford is private so that could be a potential replacement if things fall apart with UCLA.
Yes, but, nowhere near the cache...and, there was still speculation that USC would not make the move absent UCLA making it.

Spot on though about the state of California screwing things up, as, they seem to specialize in that (NIL just for an example).
 

purduepat1969

All-American
Sep 28, 2011
13,820
19,865
113
I don’t put anything past the state of California to screw things up. Stanford is private so that could be a potential replacement if things fall apart with UCLA.
California is nothing more than a psychopathic tail wagging a dog. Consumer product value and pricing has suffered all over the US because of California's regulatory demands that aren't required anywhere else in the US.
 

njm8845

Senior
Jul 1, 2008
2,951
2,694
113
Yes, but, nowhere near the cache...and, there was still speculation that USC would not make the move absent UCLA making it.

Spot on though about the state of California screwing things up, as, they seem to specialize in that (NIL just for an example).
I have never heard that USC would only do it if UCLA came along.

from what I heard, USC called the BT before UCLA did.

USC is a private school, so the state can’t screw with them. I agree that in the unlikely event they UCLA had to back out, Stanford would fill the void in about 20 seconds
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victorbmyboy

DAG10

All-American
Nov 2, 2018
5,709
8,492
113
I have never heard that USC would only do it if UCLA came along.

from what I heard, USC called the BT before UCLA did.

USC is a private school, so the state can’t screw with them. I agree that in the unlikely event they UCLA had to back out, Stanford would fill the void in about 20 seconds
USC made it clear that they would not leave the PAC-12 on their own in discussions with the B1G, and, UCLA was the obvious and preferred partner. Thus, perhaps another school would suffice, and, you are right about USC being able to avoid what UCLA is dealing with due to it being Private...which would be the same for Stanford.

If B1G is just looking to add teams, so be it, but again, Stanford does not have near the appeal that UCLA does...nor is it near the bang either...and, not that I care, but, it puts UCLA in a HORRIBLE position. To be fair, some of the reasons for which the move is being fought by the BOR at UCLA are very valid.
 
Nov 10, 2014
387
191
43
How is that 100 mill per year per school. I’m no doctor but 16 schools carry the 4…
From my understanding It’s a back loaded progressive deal. I also have heard(not validated) that doesn’t include the whole revenue from the B1G network. I was wondering the same thing. The 7-8 billion is just guesstimating.
 
  • Love
Reactions: BCfanatic2020

BCfanatic2020

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 5, 2020
10,368
4,864
113
From my understanding It’s a back loaded progressive deal. I also have heard(not validated) that doesn’t include the whole revenue from the B1G network. I was wondering the same thing. The 7-8 billion is just guesstimating.
Ahh