College Football--Big Ten Expansion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This could spell trouble for the B1G

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-expansion-big-ten-problems-money-schedule-report

A one-time obligation of $5 million per team (current 14 teams) should not pose a problem as the average payout to each team from the Big Ten Conference was $58.8 million last year & expected to rise substantially this year.

Scheduling issues were to be expected under new TV/media rights contracts--especially so when expanding the number of member teams.

Look for more teams to be added to the Big Ten next year in addition to USC & UCLA as the Pac-12 TV contract expires in 2025 and no new agreement has been reached.

If you read the source article that SI summarized (anyone remember when SI was a real news source), it seems like a bigger complication. Fox owns 61% of the Big10 network which owns the rights to big10 games.

"In 2016, when the Big Ten announced its long-term television deal with Fox and ESPN, the announcement didn't include all the details. One of the things that didn't get disclosed at the time, nor as the new deal was being discussed in recent months, was that the Big Ten Network had acquired all of the league's programming rights back in 2016 through an undisclosed date. The length of that deal with the Big Ten Network from 2016 is carried at least through the current deal, which has been announced through the 2029-30 season.

This relationship was known by athletic directors, television executives at rival networks and officials in other leagues, even if it wasn't announced publicly. It flashed out into the public at various times, including Sports Business Journal reporting in April 2022 that two Fox senior executives were in the room when various media companies -- ESPN, Amazon, NBC and others -- met with the league about their television packages.

What this also essentially meant was the latest round of Big Ten television deals were effectively sub-license arrangements, in which both the Big Ten Network and Fox essentially controlled the rights and worked with the Big Ten to sub-license them off. That meant a majority of the value of the deal had already been sold.

"It was a joint negotiation with the conference and FOX working together and doing deals with these other networks," said an industry source. "They both needed each other to do the deals."

That factor is key to understanding the issues Petitti faces. There are two new partners -- NBC and CBS -- attempting to work out their longform deals. There's a familiar partner, Fox, that's riding shotgun on this bumpy ride, including being upset Warren promised a title game Fox controlled without permission."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

Well stated, this is a much larger issue than some want to admit.

Please back-up your claim: Why is it a much larger issue than some want to admit ?

I disagree with your assertion, but want to learn the basis of your position.

The commissioner included a game in the deal that he didn't have rights to. Fox owns the majority of the big 10 network which owns the big10 grant of rights. Most of the increased money is going to get siphoned off by Fox. NBC and CBS are paying a ton of money and they want marquee games and it seems like that might not happen unless Fox gets paid off which negates to point of bringing in NBC and CBS

Exactly correct.

Only the first two sentences of the quoted post are "exactly correct". The last two sentences are misleading at best.

Well then offer your rebuttal to that poster.

The division of money is stated in the contract.

"unless Fox gets paid off" = there is a contract in place with specific details. NBC & CBS are big enough to protect their interests through contractual terms.

The contract controls the relationships with the parties to the contract.

The contract that the previous commissioner didn't have fully approved.

Please stop trying to derail the thread with misinformation. The contract has been fully approved by all parties to the contract.

"Nearly three months before the season kicks off and those TV deals begin, the Big Ten does not have completed longform contracts, which include the fine print details."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

The contracts are signed. The longform just clarifies details remaining to be worked out.

"These deals aren't done, and they aren't what they were represented to be from the standpoint of the NBC deal and the availability of all members to participate in November games in primetime," said an industry source.

Interviews with nearly a dozen sources in and around the Big Ten and the college sports industry paint a picture of Petitti sprinting to navigate details left unresolved from his predecessor.

As a result, there's a trail of unhappy athletic directors seeing money disappearing from their bottom line, frustrated television executives and big-name coaches irked about the lack of transparency in details that weren't communicated to them.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

Fair enough--now that I know the basis for your thought.

The contracts are signed, the deal is done, but some details need to be worked out. Short of fraud, nothing is going to be changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While it is interesting to read about Big Ten Conference expansion news & rumors, sometimes the best and most accurate news is information that is not known to the media or to the public. For example: The move by USC & UCLA to the Big Ten was kept secret until very late in the process as was the SEC's blockbuster deal with Texas & Oklahoma. Along this line of thought, I do not find any information about current negotiations for Notre Dame to move to the Big Ten Conference despite the lack of progress in the Notre Dame/NBC negotiations over a TV contract that is set to expire relatively soon (at the end of the 2024 football season).

Notre Dame football currently earns a total of roughly $26 million from its NBC deal and its ACC football deal combined. Rumors are that Notre Dame is seeking $75 million per year from NBC--a substantial raise from its current $22 million per year ND receives from NBC. According to recent news reports, no deal is in the works.

NBC is part of the Fox Sports/Big Ten Network/Big Ten Conference deal.

If Notre Dame gives up its semi-independent status to join the Big Ten Conference, Notre Dame would possibly receive about $100 million per year for the next 6 years(as it will miss the first year of the 7 year contract). Of course, this is speculation, but the new Big Ten/Fox deal projects $90 million per year per Big Ten team and the contract contains an escalator clause if the Big Ten Conference expands further beyond the addition of USC & UCLA.

More money & a better chance for a National Championship might be enough to attract Notre Dame to the Big Ten Conference. As things are now, according to my understanding, if Notre Dame makes the College Football Playoffs, Notre Dame is not eligible for a bye in the first round of the playoffs. If true, then this greatly reduces the chances for Notre Dame of winning a national championship in football.

Continuing: My best guess is that Notre Dame is in simultaneous negotiations with both NBC and with the Big Ten since time is running short. But, of course, this is just speculation on my part. Nevertheless, few foresaw the USC & UCLA move to the Big Ten so anything is possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This could spell trouble for the B1G

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-expansion-big-ten-problems-money-schedule-report

A one-time obligation of $5 million per team (current 14 teams) should not pose a problem as the average payout to each team from the Big Ten Conference was $58.8 million last year & expected to rise substantially this year.

Scheduling issues were to be expected under new TV/media rights contracts--especially so when expanding the number of member teams.

Look for more teams to be added to the Big Ten next year in addition to USC & UCLA as the Pac-12 TV contract expires in 2025 and no new agreement has been reached.

If you read the source article that SI summarized (anyone remember when SI was a real news source), it seems like a bigger complication. Fox owns 61% of the Big10 network which owns the rights to big10 games.

"In 2016, when the Big Ten announced its long-term television deal with Fox and ESPN, the announcement didn't include all the details. One of the things that didn't get disclosed at the time, nor as the new deal was being discussed in recent months, was that the Big Ten Network had acquired all of the league's programming rights back in 2016 through an undisclosed date. The length of that deal with the Big Ten Network from 2016 is carried at least through the current deal, which has been announced through the 2029-30 season.

This relationship was known by athletic directors, television executives at rival networks and officials in other leagues, even if it wasn't announced publicly. It flashed out into the public at various times, including Sports Business Journal reporting in April 2022 that two Fox senior executives were in the room when various media companies -- ESPN, Amazon, NBC and others -- met with the league about their television packages.

What this also essentially meant was the latest round of Big Ten television deals were effectively sub-license arrangements, in which both the Big Ten Network and Fox essentially controlled the rights and worked with the Big Ten to sub-license them off. That meant a majority of the value of the deal had already been sold.

"It was a joint negotiation with the conference and FOX working together and doing deals with these other networks," said an industry source. "They both needed each other to do the deals."

That factor is key to understanding the issues Petitti faces. There are two new partners -- NBC and CBS -- attempting to work out their longform deals. There's a familiar partner, Fox, that's riding shotgun on this bumpy ride, including being upset Warren promised a title game Fox controlled without permission."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

Well stated, this is a much larger issue than some want to admit.

Please back-up your claim: Why is it a much larger issue than some want to admit ?

I disagree with your assertion, but want to learn the basis of your position.

The commissioner included a game in the deal that he didn't have rights to. Fox owns the majority of the big 10 network which owns the big10 grant of rights. Most of the increased money is going to get siphoned off by Fox. NBC and CBS are paying a ton of money and they want marquee games and it seems like that might not happen unless Fox gets paid off which negates to point of bringing in NBC and CBS

Exactly correct.

Only the first two sentences of the quoted post are "exactly correct". The last two sentences are misleading at best.

Well then offer your rebuttal to that poster.

The division of money is stated in the contract.

"unless Fox gets paid off" = there is a contract in place with specific details. NBC & CBS are big enough to protect their interests through contractual terms.

The contract controls the relationships with the parties to the contract.

The contract that the previous commissioner didn't have fully approved.

Please stop trying to derail the thread with misinformation. The contract has been fully approved by all parties to the contract.

"Nearly three months before the season kicks off and those TV deals begin, the Big Ten does not have completed longform contracts, which include the fine print details."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

The contracts are signed. The longform just clarifies details remaining to be worked out.

"These deals aren't done, and they aren't what they were represented to be from the standpoint of the NBC deal and the availability of all members to participate in November games in primetime," said an industry source.

Interviews with nearly a dozen sources in and around the Big Ten and the college sports industry paint a picture of Petitti sprinting to navigate details left unresolved from his predecessor.

As a result, there's a trail of unhappy athletic directors seeing money disappearing from their bottom line, frustrated television executives and big-name coaches irked about the lack of transparency in details that weren't communicated to them.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

Fair enough--now that I know the basis for your thought.

The contracts are signed, the deal is done, but some details need to be worked out. Short of fraud, nothing is going to be changed.

That’s not what the article says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This could spell trouble for the B1G

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-expansion-big-ten-problems-money-schedule-report

A one-time obligation of $5 million per team (current 14 teams) should not pose a problem as the average payout to each team from the Big Ten Conference was $58.8 million last year & expected to rise substantially this year.

Scheduling issues were to be expected under new TV/media rights contracts--especially so when expanding the number of member teams.

Look for more teams to be added to the Big Ten next year in addition to USC & UCLA as the Pac-12 TV contract expires in 2025 and no new agreement has been reached.

If you read the source article that SI summarized (anyone remember when SI was a real news source), it seems like a bigger complication. Fox owns 61% of the Big10 network which owns the rights to big10 games.

"In 2016, when the Big Ten announced its long-term television deal with Fox and ESPN, the announcement didn't include all the details. One of the things that didn't get disclosed at the time, nor as the new deal was being discussed in recent months, was that the Big Ten Network had acquired all of the league's programming rights back in 2016 through an undisclosed date. The length of that deal with the Big Ten Network from 2016 is carried at least through the current deal, which has been announced through the 2029-30 season.

This relationship was known by athletic directors, television executives at rival networks and officials in other leagues, even if it wasn't announced publicly. It flashed out into the public at various times, including Sports Business Journal reporting in April 2022 that two Fox senior executives were in the room when various media companies -- ESPN, Amazon, NBC and others -- met with the league about their television packages.

What this also essentially meant was the latest round of Big Ten television deals were effectively sub-license arrangements, in which both the Big Ten Network and Fox essentially controlled the rights and worked with the Big Ten to sub-license them off. That meant a majority of the value of the deal had already been sold.

"It was a joint negotiation with the conference and FOX working together and doing deals with these other networks," said an industry source. "They both needed each other to do the deals."

That factor is key to understanding the issues Petitti faces. There are two new partners -- NBC and CBS -- attempting to work out their longform deals. There's a familiar partner, Fox, that's riding shotgun on this bumpy ride, including being upset Warren promised a title game Fox controlled without permission."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

Well stated, this is a much larger issue than some want to admit.

Please back-up your claim: Why is it a much larger issue than some want to admit ?

I disagree with your assertion, but want to learn the basis of your position.

The commissioner included a game in the deal that he didn't have rights to. Fox owns the majority of the big 10 network which owns the big10 grant of rights. Most of the increased money is going to get siphoned off by Fox. NBC and CBS are paying a ton of money and they want marquee games and it seems like that might not happen unless Fox gets paid off which negates to point of bringing in NBC and CBS

Exactly correct.

Only the first two sentences of the quoted post are "exactly correct". The last two sentences are misleading at best.

Well then offer your rebuttal to that poster.

The division of money is stated in the contract.

"unless Fox gets paid off" = there is a contract in place with specific details. NBC & CBS are big enough to protect their interests through contractual terms.

The contract controls the relationships with the parties to the contract.

The contract that the previous commissioner didn't have fully approved.

Please stop trying to derail the thread with misinformation. The contract has been fully approved by all parties to the contract.

"Nearly three months before the season kicks off and those TV deals begin, the Big Ten does not have completed longform contracts, which include the fine print details."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

The contracts are signed. The longform just clarifies details remaining to be worked out.

"These deals aren't done, and they aren't what they were represented to be from the standpoint of the NBC deal and the availability of all members to participate in November games in primetime," said an industry source.

Interviews with nearly a dozen sources in and around the Big Ten and the college sports industry paint a picture of Petitti sprinting to navigate details left unresolved from his predecessor.

As a result, there's a trail of unhappy athletic directors seeing money disappearing from their bottom line, frustrated television executives and big-name coaches irked about the lack of transparency in details that weren't communicated to them.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

Fair enough--now that I know the basis for your thought.

The contracts are signed, the deal is done, but some details need to be worked out. Short of fraud, nothing is going to be changed.

If Fox keeps the championship game and Ohio State and Michigan decline evening games, the other networks are not paying the original amount

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This could spell trouble for the B1G

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-expansion-big-ten-problems-money-schedule-report

A one-time obligation of $5 million per team (current 14 teams) should not pose a problem as the average payout to each team from the Big Ten Conference was $58.8 million last year & expected to rise substantially this year.

Scheduling issues were to be expected under new TV/media rights contracts--especially so when expanding the number of member teams.

Look for more teams to be added to the Big Ten next year in addition to USC & UCLA as the Pac-12 TV contract expires in 2025 and no new agreement has been reached.

If you read the source article that SI summarized (anyone remember when SI was a real news source), it seems like a bigger complication. Fox owns 61% of the Big10 network which owns the rights to big10 games.

"In 2016, when the Big Ten announced its long-term television deal with Fox and ESPN, the announcement didn't include all the details. One of the things that didn't get disclosed at the time, nor as the new deal was being discussed in recent months, was that the Big Ten Network had acquired all of the league's programming rights back in 2016 through an undisclosed date. The length of that deal with the Big Ten Network from 2016 is carried at least through the current deal, which has been announced through the 2029-30 season.

This relationship was known by athletic directors, television executives at rival networks and officials in other leagues, even if it wasn't announced publicly. It flashed out into the public at various times, including Sports Business Journal reporting in April 2022 that two Fox senior executives were in the room when various media companies -- ESPN, Amazon, NBC and others -- met with the league about their television packages.

What this also essentially meant was the latest round of Big Ten television deals were effectively sub-license arrangements, in which both the Big Ten Network and Fox essentially controlled the rights and worked with the Big Ten to sub-license them off. That meant a majority of the value of the deal had already been sold.

"It was a joint negotiation with the conference and FOX working together and doing deals with these other networks," said an industry source. "They both needed each other to do the deals."

That factor is key to understanding the issues Petitti faces. There are two new partners -- NBC and CBS -- attempting to work out their longform deals. There's a familiar partner, Fox, that's riding shotgun on this bumpy ride, including being upset Warren promised a title game Fox controlled without permission."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

Well stated, this is a much larger issue than some want to admit.

Please back-up your claim: Why is it a much larger issue than some want to admit ?

I disagree with your assertion, but want to learn the basis of your position.

The commissioner included a game in the deal that he didn't have rights to. Fox owns the majority of the big 10 network which owns the big10 grant of rights. Most of the increased money is going to get siphoned off by Fox. NBC and CBS are paying a ton of money and they want marquee games and it seems like that might not happen unless Fox gets paid off which negates to point of bringing in NBC and CBS

Exactly correct.

Only the first two sentences of the quoted post are "exactly correct". The last two sentences are misleading at best.

Well then offer your rebuttal to that poster.

The division of money is stated in the contract.

"unless Fox gets paid off" = there is a contract in place with specific details. NBC & CBS are big enough to protect their interests through contractual terms.

The contract controls the relationships with the parties to the contract.

The contract that the previous commissioner didn't have fully approved.

Please stop trying to derail the thread with misinformation. The contract has been fully approved by all parties to the contract.

"Nearly three months before the season kicks off and those TV deals begin, the Big Ten does not have completed longform contracts, which include the fine print details."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

The contracts are signed. The longform just clarifies details remaining to be worked out.

"These deals aren't done, and they aren't what they were represented to be from the standpoint of the NBC deal and the availability of all members to participate in November games in primetime," said an industry source.

Interviews with nearly a dozen sources in and around the Big Ten and the college sports industry paint a picture of Petitti sprinting to navigate details left unresolved from his predecessor.

As a result, there's a trail of unhappy athletic directors seeing money disappearing from their bottom line, frustrated television executives and big-name coaches irked about the lack of transparency in details that weren't communicated to them.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

Fair enough--now that I know the basis for your thought.

The contracts are signed, the deal is done, but some details need to be worked out. Short of fraud, nothing is going to be changed.

That’s not what the article says.

The article is not the contract.

All the article says in concrete terms is that some details need to be worked out. When details need to be worked out, bickering among parties is likely to occur.

No party has alleged fraud and no party to the contract has expressed a desire to pull out of the agreement. And there is an agreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This could spell trouble for the B1G

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-expansion-big-ten-problems-money-schedule-report

A one-time obligation of $5 million per team (current 14 teams) should not pose a problem as the average payout to each team from the Big Ten Conference was $58.8 million last year & expected to rise substantially this year.

Scheduling issues were to be expected under new TV/media rights contracts--especially so when expanding the number of member teams.

Look for more teams to be added to the Big Ten next year in addition to USC & UCLA as the Pac-12 TV contract expires in 2025 and no new agreement has been reached.

If you read the source article that SI summarized (anyone remember when SI was a real news source), it seems like a bigger complication. Fox owns 61% of the Big10 network which owns the rights to big10 games.

"In 2016, when the Big Ten announced its long-term television deal with Fox and ESPN, the announcement didn't include all the details. One of the things that didn't get disclosed at the time, nor as the new deal was being discussed in recent months, was that the Big Ten Network had acquired all of the league's programming rights back in 2016 through an undisclosed date. The length of that deal with the Big Ten Network from 2016 is carried at least through the current deal, which has been announced through the 2029-30 season.

This relationship was known by athletic directors, television executives at rival networks and officials in other leagues, even if it wasn't announced publicly. It flashed out into the public at various times, including Sports Business Journal reporting in April 2022 that two Fox senior executives were in the room when various media companies -- ESPN, Amazon, NBC and others -- met with the league about their television packages.

What this also essentially meant was the latest round of Big Ten television deals were effectively sub-license arrangements, in which both the Big Ten Network and Fox essentially controlled the rights and worked with the Big Ten to sub-license them off. That meant a majority of the value of the deal had already been sold.

"It was a joint negotiation with the conference and FOX working together and doing deals with these other networks," said an industry source. "They both needed each other to do the deals."

That factor is key to understanding the issues Petitti faces. There are two new partners -- NBC and CBS -- attempting to work out their longform deals. There's a familiar partner, Fox, that's riding shotgun on this bumpy ride, including being upset Warren promised a title game Fox controlled without permission."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

Well stated, this is a much larger issue than some want to admit.

Please back-up your claim: Why is it a much larger issue than some want to admit ?

I disagree with your assertion, but want to learn the basis of your position.

The commissioner included a game in the deal that he didn't have rights to. Fox owns the majority of the big 10 network which owns the big10 grant of rights. Most of the increased money is going to get siphoned off by Fox. NBC and CBS are paying a ton of money and they want marquee games and it seems like that might not happen unless Fox gets paid off which negates to point of bringing in NBC and CBS

Exactly correct.

Only the first two sentences of the quoted post are "exactly correct". The last two sentences are misleading at best.

Well then offer your rebuttal to that poster.

The division of money is stated in the contract.

"unless Fox gets paid off" = there is a contract in place with specific details. NBC & CBS are big enough to protect their interests through contractual terms.

The contract controls the relationships with the parties to the contract.

The contract that the previous commissioner didn't have fully approved.

Please stop trying to derail the thread with misinformation. The contract has been fully approved by all parties to the contract.

"Nearly three months before the season kicks off and those TV deals begin, the Big Ten does not have completed longform contracts, which include the fine print details."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

The contracts are signed. The longform just clarifies details remaining to be worked out.

"These deals aren't done, and they aren't what they were represented to be from the standpoint of the NBC deal and the availability of all members to participate in November games in primetime," said an industry source.

Interviews with nearly a dozen sources in and around the Big Ten and the college sports industry paint a picture of Petitti sprinting to navigate details left unresolved from his predecessor.

As a result, there's a trail of unhappy athletic directors seeing money disappearing from their bottom line, frustrated television executives and big-name coaches irked about the lack of transparency in details that weren't communicated to them.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

Fair enough--now that I know the basis for your thought.

The contracts are signed, the deal is done, but some details need to be worked out. Short of fraud, nothing is going to be changed.

That’s not what the article says.

The article is not the contract.

All the article says in concrete terms is that some details need to be worked out. When details need to be worked out, bickering among parties is likely to occur.

No party has alleged fraud and no party to the contract has expressed a desire to pull out of the agreement. And there is an agreement.

That’s not what the article says.

[Anonymous]

No one is alleging that the former Big Ten Commission lacked authority to negotiate on behalf on the Big Ten Conference.

College coaches complain, but they typically have little to no say in this type of negotiation.

University presidents and/or university athletic directors gave the Big Ten Commissioner the authority to negotiate on their behalf.

Again, no party has made any allegation of fraud or even displeasure to the extent of regret over the contract terms.

The deal is done even though secondary details need to be worked out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one is alleging that the former Big Ten Commission lacked authority to negotiate on behalf on the Big Ten Conference.

College coaches complain, but they typically have little to no say in this type of negotiation.

University presidents and/or university athletic directors gave the Big Ten Commissioner the authority to negotiate on their behalf.

Again, no party has made any allegation of fraud or even displeasure to the extent of regret over the contract terms.

The deal is done even though secondary details need to be worked out.

"These deals aren't done, and they aren't what they were represented to be from the standpoint of the NBC deal and the availability of all members to participate in November games in primetime," said an industry source.

Interviews with nearly a dozen sources in and around the Big Ten and the college sports industry paint a picture of Petitti sprinting to navigate details left unresolved from his predecessor.

As a result, there's a trail of unhappy athletic directors seeing money disappearing from their bottom line, frustrated television executives and big-name coaches irked about the lack of transparency in details that weren't communicated to them.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_...-coaches-uncertainty

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This could spell trouble for the B1G

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-expansion-big-ten-problems-money-schedule-report

A one-time obligation of $5 million per team (current 14 teams) should not pose a problem as the average payout to each team from the Big Ten Conference was $58.8 million last year & expected to rise substantially this year.

Scheduling issues were to be expected under new TV/media rights contracts--especially so when expanding the number of member teams.

Look for more teams to be added to the Big Ten next year in addition to USC & UCLA as the Pac-12 TV contract expires in 2025 and no new agreement has been reached.

If you read the source article that SI summarized (anyone remember when SI was a real news source), it seems like a bigger complication. Fox owns 61% of the Big10 network which owns the rights to big10 games.

"In 2016, when the Big Ten announced its long-term television deal with Fox and ESPN, the announcement didn't include all the details. One of the things that didn't get disclosed at the time, nor as the new deal was being discussed in recent months, was that the Big Ten Network had acquired all of the league's programming rights back in 2016 through an undisclosed date. The length of that deal with the Big Ten Network from 2016 is carried at least through the current deal, which has been announced through the 2029-30 season.

This relationship was known by athletic directors, television executives at rival networks and officials in other leagues, even if it wasn't announced publicly. It flashed out into the public at various times, including Sports Business Journal reporting in April 2022 that two Fox senior executives were in the room when various media companies -- ESPN, Amazon, NBC and others -- met with the league about their television packages.

What this also essentially meant was the latest round of Big Ten television deals were effectively sub-license arrangements, in which both the Big Ten Network and Fox essentially controlled the rights and worked with the Big Ten to sub-license them off. That meant a majority of the value of the deal had already been sold.

"It was a joint negotiation with the conference and FOX working together and doing deals with these other networks," said an industry source. "They both needed each other to do the deals."

That factor is key to understanding the issues Petitti faces. There are two new partners -- NBC and CBS -- attempting to work out their longform deals. There's a familiar partner, Fox, that's riding shotgun on this bumpy ride, including being upset Warren promised a title game Fox controlled without permission."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

Well stated, this is a much larger issue than some want to admit.

Please back-up your claim: Why is it a much larger issue than some want to admit ?

I disagree with your assertion, but want to learn the basis of your position.

The commissioner included a game in the deal that he didn't have rights to. Fox owns the majority of the big 10 network which owns the big10 grant of rights. Most of the increased money is going to get siphoned off by Fox. NBC and CBS are paying a ton of money and they want marquee games and it seems like that might not happen unless Fox gets paid off which negates to point of bringing in NBC and CBS

Exactly correct.

Only the first two sentences of the quoted post are "exactly correct". The last two sentences are misleading at best.

Well then offer your rebuttal to that poster.

The division of money is stated in the contract.

"unless Fox gets paid off" = there is a contract in place with specific details. NBC & CBS are big enough to protect their interests through contractual terms.

The contract controls the relationships with the parties to the contract.

The contract that the previous commissioner didn't have fully approved.

Please stop trying to derail the thread with misinformation. The contract has been fully approved by all parties to the contract.

"Nearly three months before the season kicks off and those TV deals begin, the Big Ten does not have completed longform contracts, which include the fine print details."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

The contracts are signed. The longform just clarifies details remaining to be worked out.

"These deals aren't done, and they aren't what they were represented to be from the standpoint of the NBC deal and the availability of all members to participate in November games in primetime," said an industry source.

Interviews with nearly a dozen sources in and around the Big Ten and the college sports industry paint a picture of Petitti sprinting to navigate details left unresolved from his predecessor.

As a result, there's a trail of unhappy athletic directors seeing money disappearing from their bottom line, frustrated television executives and big-name coaches irked about the lack of transparency in details that weren't communicated to them.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

Fair enough--now that I know the basis for your thought.

The contracts are signed, the deal is done, but some details need to be worked out. Short of fraud, nothing is going to be changed.

That’s not what the article says.

The article is not the contract.

All the article says in concrete terms is that some details need to be worked out. When details need to be worked out, bickering among parties is likely to occur.

No party has alleged fraud and no party to the contract has expressed a desire to pull out of the agreement. And there is an agreement.

That’s not what the article says.

Again, a sports article is not the contract.

You are just trying to derail this thread. If you have specific points that you would like to make,then do so, but a sports article seeking readers is not a contract and, certainly, is not the contract in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This could spell trouble for the B1G

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-expansion-big-ten-problems-money-schedule-report

A one-time obligation of $5 million per team (current 14 teams) should not pose a problem as the average payout to each team from the Big Ten Conference was $58.8 million last year & expected to rise substantially this year.

Scheduling issues were to be expected under new TV/media rights contracts--especially so when expanding the number of member teams.

Look for more teams to be added to the Big Ten next year in addition to USC & UCLA as the Pac-12 TV contract expires in 2025 and no new agreement has been reached.

If you read the source article that SI summarized (anyone remember when SI was a real news source), it seems like a bigger complication. Fox owns 61% of the Big10 network which owns the rights to big10 games.

"In 2016, when the Big Ten announced its long-term television deal with Fox and ESPN, the announcement didn't include all the details. One of the things that didn't get disclosed at the time, nor as the new deal was being discussed in recent months, was that the Big Ten Network had acquired all of the league's programming rights back in 2016 through an undisclosed date. The length of that deal with the Big Ten Network from 2016 is carried at least through the current deal, which has been announced through the 2029-30 season.

This relationship was known by athletic directors, television executives at rival networks and officials in other leagues, even if it wasn't announced publicly. It flashed out into the public at various times, including Sports Business Journal reporting in April 2022 that two Fox senior executives were in the room when various media companies -- ESPN, Amazon, NBC and others -- met with the league about their television packages.

What this also essentially meant was the latest round of Big Ten television deals were effectively sub-license arrangements, in which both the Big Ten Network and Fox essentially controlled the rights and worked with the Big Ten to sub-license them off. That meant a majority of the value of the deal had already been sold.

"It was a joint negotiation with the conference and FOX working together and doing deals with these other networks," said an industry source. "They both needed each other to do the deals."

That factor is key to understanding the issues Petitti faces. There are two new partners -- NBC and CBS -- attempting to work out their longform deals. There's a familiar partner, Fox, that's riding shotgun on this bumpy ride, including being upset Warren promised a title game Fox controlled without permission."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

Well stated, this is a much larger issue than some want to admit.

Please back-up your claim: Why is it a much larger issue than some want to admit ?

I disagree with your assertion, but want to learn the basis of your position.

The commissioner included a game in the deal that he didn't have rights to. Fox owns the majority of the big 10 network which owns the big10 grant of rights. Most of the increased money is going to get siphoned off by Fox. NBC and CBS are paying a ton of money and they want marquee games and it seems like that might not happen unless Fox gets paid off which negates to point of bringing in NBC and CBS

Exactly correct.

Only the first two sentences of the quoted post are "exactly correct". The last two sentences are misleading at best.

Well then offer your rebuttal to that poster.

The division of money is stated in the contract.

"unless Fox gets paid off" = there is a contract in place with specific details. NBC & CBS are big enough to protect their interests through contractual terms.

The contract controls the relationships with the parties to the contract.

The contract that the previous commissioner didn't have fully approved.

Please stop trying to derail the thread with misinformation. The contract has been fully approved by all parties to the contract.

"Nearly three months before the season kicks off and those TV deals begin, the Big Ten does not have completed longform contracts, which include the fine print details."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

The contracts are signed. The longform just clarifies details remaining to be worked out.

"These deals aren't done, and they aren't what they were represented to be from the standpoint of the NBC deal and the availability of all members to participate in November games in primetime," said an industry source.

Interviews with nearly a dozen sources in and around the Big Ten and the college sports industry paint a picture of Petitti sprinting to navigate details left unresolved from his predecessor.

As a result, there's a trail of unhappy athletic directors seeing money disappearing from their bottom line, frustrated television executives and big-name coaches irked about the lack of transparency in details that weren't communicated to them.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

Fair enough--now that I know the basis for your thought.

The contracts are signed, the deal is done, but some details need to be worked out. Short of fraud, nothing is going to be changed.

That’s not what the article says.

The article is not the contract.

All the article says in concrete terms is that some details need to be worked out. When details need to be worked out, bickering among parties is likely to occur.

No party has alleged fraud and no party to the contract has expressed a desire to pull out of the agreement. And there is an agreement.

That’s not what the article says.

Again, a sports article is not the contract.

You are just trying to derail this thread. If you have specific points that you would like to make,then do so, but a sports article seeking readers is not a contract and, certainly, is not the contract in this case.

Accusing others of derailing the thread when your premise is found to be invalid is not useful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This could spell trouble for the B1G

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-expansion-big-ten-problems-money-schedule-report

A one-time obligation of $5 million per team (current 14 teams) should not pose a problem as the average payout to each team from the Big Ten Conference was $58.8 million last year & expected to rise substantially this year.

Scheduling issues were to be expected under new TV/media rights contracts--especially so when expanding the number of member teams.

Look for more teams to be added to the Big Ten next year in addition to USC & UCLA as the Pac-12 TV contract expires in 2025 and no new agreement has been reached.

If you read the source article that SI summarized (anyone remember when SI was a real news source), it seems like a bigger complication. Fox owns 61% of the Big10 network which owns the rights to big10 games.

"In 2016, when the Big Ten announced its long-term television deal with Fox and ESPN, the announcement didn't include all the details. One of the things that didn't get disclosed at the time, nor as the new deal was being discussed in recent months, was that the Big Ten Network had acquired all of the league's programming rights back in 2016 through an undisclosed date. The length of that deal with the Big Ten Network from 2016 is carried at least through the current deal, which has been announced through the 2029-30 season.

This relationship was known by athletic directors, television executives at rival networks and officials in other leagues, even if it wasn't announced publicly. It flashed out into the public at various times, including Sports Business Journal reporting in April 2022 that two Fox senior executives were in the room when various media companies -- ESPN, Amazon, NBC and others -- met with the league about their television packages.

What this also essentially meant was the latest round of Big Ten television deals were effectively sub-license arrangements, in which both the Big Ten Network and Fox essentially controlled the rights and worked with the Big Ten to sub-license them off. That meant a majority of the value of the deal had already been sold.

"It was a joint negotiation with the conference and FOX working together and doing deals with these other networks," said an industry source. "They both needed each other to do the deals."

That factor is key to understanding the issues Petitti faces. There are two new partners -- NBC and CBS -- attempting to work out their longform deals. There's a familiar partner, Fox, that's riding shotgun on this bumpy ride, including being upset Warren promised a title game Fox controlled without permission."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

Well stated, this is a much larger issue than some want to admit.

Please back-up your claim: Why is it a much larger issue than some want to admit ?

I disagree with your assertion, but want to learn the basis of your position.

The commissioner included a game in the deal that he didn't have rights to. Fox owns the majority of the big 10 network which owns the big10 grant of rights. Most of the increased money is going to get siphoned off by Fox. NBC and CBS are paying a ton of money and they want marquee games and it seems like that might not happen unless Fox gets paid off which negates to point of bringing in NBC and CBS

Exactly correct.

Only the first two sentences of the quoted post are "exactly correct". The last two sentences are misleading at best.

Well then offer your rebuttal to that poster.

The division of money is stated in the contract.

"unless Fox gets paid off" = there is a contract in place with specific details. NBC & CBS are big enough to protect their interests through contractual terms.

The contract controls the relationships with the parties to the contract.

The contract that the previous commissioner didn't have fully approved.

Please stop trying to derail the thread with misinformation. The contract has been fully approved by all parties to the contract.

"Nearly three months before the season kicks off and those TV deals begin, the Big Ten does not have completed longform contracts, which include the fine print details."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

The contracts are signed. The longform just clarifies details remaining to be worked out.

"These deals aren't done, and they aren't what they were represented to be from the standpoint of the NBC deal and the availability of all members to participate in November games in primetime," said an industry source.

Interviews with nearly a dozen sources in and around the Big Ten and the college sports industry paint a picture of Petitti sprinting to navigate details left unresolved from his predecessor.

As a result, there's a trail of unhappy athletic directors seeing money disappearing from their bottom line, frustrated television executives and big-name coaches irked about the lack of transparency in details that weren't communicated to them.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

Fair enough--now that I know the basis for your thought.

The contracts are signed, the deal is done, but some details need to be worked out. Short of fraud, nothing is going to be changed.

If Fox keeps the championship game and Ohio State and Michigan decline evening games, the other networks are not paying the original amount

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is alleging that the former Big Ten Commission lacked authority to negotiate on behalf on the Big Ten Conference.

College coaches complain, but they typically have little to no say in this type of negotiation.

University presidents and/or university athletic directors gave the Big Ten Commissioner the authority to negotiate on their behalf.

Again, no party has made any allegation of fraud or even displeasure to the extent of regret over the contract terms.

The deal is done even though secondary details need to be worked out.

"These deals aren't done, and they aren't what they were represented to be from the standpoint of the NBC deal and the availability of all members to participate in November games in primetime," said an industry source.

Interviews with nearly a dozen sources in and around the Big Ten and the college sports industry paint a picture of Petitti sprinting to navigate details left unresolved from his predecessor.

As a result, there's a trail of unhappy athletic directors seeing money disappearing from their bottom line, frustrated television executives and big-name coaches irked about the lack of transparency in details that weren't communicated to them.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_...-coaches-uncertainty

"These deals aren't done" because there are "details left unresolved".

The contracts are signed and in effect. Bickering about November night-time games and some relatively minor (a one-time $5 million per team obligation each of which is to receive many multiples of that) money due is not enough to negate a contract. Again, there are no allegations of fraud. All parties to the contract were represented by their attorneys. If a coach or coaches has some displeasure with a couple of terms in a contract, then they will complain anonymously to story hungry sports writers who need to produce articles.

[Anonymous]

Also, asserting that "these deals are not done" because some details need to be worked out is quite different than alleging that there is no contract. There is an agreed upon, signed contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This could spell trouble for the B1G

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-expansion-big-ten-problems-money-schedule-report

A one-time obligation of $5 million per team (current 14 teams) should not pose a problem as the average payout to each team from the Big Ten Conference was $58.8 million last year & expected to rise substantially this year.

Scheduling issues were to be expected under new TV/media rights contracts--especially so when expanding the number of member teams.

Look for more teams to be added to the Big Ten next year in addition to USC & UCLA as the Pac-12 TV contract expires in 2025 and no new agreement has been reached.

If you read the source article that SI summarized (anyone remember when SI was a real news source), it seems like a bigger complication. Fox owns 61% of the Big10 network which owns the rights to big10 games.

"In 2016, when the Big Ten announced its long-term television deal with Fox and ESPN, the announcement didn't include all the details. One of the things that didn't get disclosed at the time, nor as the new deal was being discussed in recent months, was that the Big Ten Network had acquired all of the league's programming rights back in 2016 through an undisclosed date. The length of that deal with the Big Ten Network from 2016 is carried at least through the current deal, which has been announced through the 2029-30 season.

This relationship was known by athletic directors, television executives at rival networks and officials in other leagues, even if it wasn't announced publicly. It flashed out into the public at various times, including Sports Business Journal reporting in April 2022 that two Fox senior executives were in the room when various media companies -- ESPN, Amazon, NBC and others -- met with the league about their television packages.

What this also essentially meant was the latest round of Big Ten television deals were effectively sub-license arrangements, in which both the Big Ten Network and Fox essentially controlled the rights and worked with the Big Ten to sub-license them off. That meant a majority of the value of the deal had already been sold.

"It was a joint negotiation with the conference and FOX working together and doing deals with these other networks," said an industry source. "They both needed each other to do the deals."

That factor is key to understanding the issues Petitti faces. There are two new partners -- NBC and CBS -- attempting to work out their longform deals. There's a familiar partner, Fox, that's riding shotgun on this bumpy ride, including being upset Warren promised a title game Fox controlled without permission."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

Well stated, this is a much larger issue than some want to admit.

Please back-up your claim: Why is it a much larger issue than some want to admit ?

I disagree with your assertion, but want to learn the basis of your position.

The commissioner included a game in the deal that he didn't have rights to. Fox owns the majority of the big 10 network which owns the big10 grant of rights. Most of the increased money is going to get siphoned off by Fox. NBC and CBS are paying a ton of money and they want marquee games and it seems like that might not happen unless Fox gets paid off which negates to point of bringing in NBC and CBS

Exactly correct.

Only the first two sentences of the quoted post are "exactly correct". The last two sentences are misleading at best.

Well then offer your rebuttal to that poster.

The division of money is stated in the contract.

"unless Fox gets paid off" = there is a contract in place with specific details. NBC & CBS are big enough to protect their interests through contractual terms.

The contract controls the relationships with the parties to the contract.

The contract that the previous commissioner didn't have fully approved.

Please stop trying to derail the thread with misinformation. The contract has been fully approved by all parties to the contract.

"Nearly three months before the season kicks off and those TV deals begin, the Big Ten does not have completed longform contracts, which include the fine print details."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

The contracts are signed. The longform just clarifies details remaining to be worked out.

"These deals aren't done, and they aren't what they were represented to be from the standpoint of the NBC deal and the availability of all members to participate in November games in primetime," said an industry source.

Interviews with nearly a dozen sources in and around the Big Ten and the college sports industry paint a picture of Petitti sprinting to navigate details left unresolved from his predecessor.

As a result, there's a trail of unhappy athletic directors seeing money disappearing from their bottom line, frustrated television executives and big-name coaches irked about the lack of transparency in details that weren't communicated to them.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

Fair enough--now that I know the basis for your thought.

The contracts are signed, the deal is done, but some details need to be worked out. Short of fraud, nothing is going to be changed.

That’s not what the article says.

The article is not the contract.

All the article says in concrete terms is that some details need to be worked out. When details need to be worked out, bickering among parties is likely to occur.

No party has alleged fraud and no party to the contract has expressed a desire to pull out of the agreement. And there is an agreement.

That’s not what the article says.

Again, a sports article is not the contract.

You are just trying to derail this thread. If you have specific points that you would like to make,then do so, but a sports article seeking readers is not a contract and, certainly, is not the contract in this case.

Accusing others of derailing the thread when your premise is found to be invalid is not useful.

My premise is that there is a signed contract in force. Of course, there are details to be worked out, but my premise is correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, asserting that "these deals are not done" because some details need to be worked out is quite different than alleging that there is no contract. There is an agreed upon, signed contract.

Then show us the signed contract and be sure to inform ESPN too.