Top 10 increases and decreases in attendance

[Colorado Man]

Look who is in the top 10 for increase and who is in the top 10 for decline. Who says B1G membership isn't paying dividends for Rutgers and Maryland. Rutgers has set attendance records in other sports as well. No further message.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...iggest-gains-and-losses-in-stadium-attendance

 

[aalion]

Noone here has ever argued that BIG membership wouldn't pay dividends for Rutgers... the argument has always been that Rutgers membership doesn't pay dividends for the BIG.

 

[psute]

I think Maryland will break attendance records as well this year, the PSU game is too big to be played at its home stadium....

 

[ru109]

Noone here has ever argued that BIG membership wouldn't pay dividends for Rutgers... the argument has always been that Rutgers membership doesn't pay dividends for the BIG.

On the field we are a long way from helping the BIG out, but revenue wise we are already contributing. NJ is one of the largest TV markets in the country and Rutgers is probably contributing more $$ then they are getting from the BIG and always will be. It's all about population and the NJ/NY area is huge.

 

[Colorado Man]

Noone here has ever argued that BIG membership wouldn't pay dividends for Rutgers... the argument has always been that Rutgers membership doesn't pay dividends for the BIG.

Their rebuttal is that they bring the New York market. True or false I don't know. Their fan base thinks they are getting screwed in comparison to Maryland.

 

[Bushwood CC]

On the field we are a long way from helping the BIG out, but revenue wise we are already contributing. NJ is one of the largest TV markets in the country and Rutgers is probably contributing more $$ then they are getting from the BIG and always will be. It's all about population and the NJ/NY area is huge.

Laughable, PSU draws the biggest numbers in this media demographic (the Pinstripe Bowl invitation to PSU, not butgers being a good example). In any event already controlled this market before butgers ever joined, so it is beyond laughable and silly to claim that butgers delivered this market for the b1g turd. ROTGLMFAO that butgers is delivering the NE and NY marketplace for the b1g.....you funny! Go smoke another bowl of crack pal.

 

[T J]

Noone here has ever argued that BIG membership wouldn't pay dividends for Rutgers... the argument has always been that Rutgers membership doesn't pay dividends for the BIG.

Not so fast...

There have been reviews that mention ways the B1G and BTN benefit from adding better access to 3 mega TV markets, NYC, Baltimore and DC.

• Would add that the BIG TEN and member Teams have already cashed in by added more TV revenue from those mega sized media market areas.

IIRC, there is also an upcoming negotiation ahead for 2017 and beyond. We will see how well the contract works for the BT and BT Team's revenue sharing. We will likely see a nice increase.

IIRC - Maryland sources indicated that BT team revenues were expected to go up each year in the $33-35 million range pre-2017 contract re-negotiation. Then per team $$$$$ would boost up into the $40-45 million per year range after the contract.

The exact numbers aren't important now, as we may find out later. But this revenue level is stunning per team, per year. If it continues, all Big Ten teams will benefit from adding NEB, Rutg & MD.

The Big Ten expansion added two teams with higher traditional viewership than their flagship teams tOSU & Mich, when they added PSU & NEB.

Then the BT leveraged access to the #1, #8 and #22 most valuable TV markets, in NYC, DC and Baltimore. (See reports for exact rankings)

The BTN has higher ratings with live and recent games. Adding more live games vs NEB, MD & Rutg helps BTN Adv revenue too.

Savvy BT negotiations, created greater value for all BT teams, by expanding with plum programs and into plum media market areas.

 

[Bushwood CC]

On the field we are a long way from helping the BIG out, but revenue wise we are already contributing. NJ is one of the largest TV markets in the country and Rutgers is probably contributing more $$ then they are getting from the BIG and always will be. It's all about population and the NJ/NY area is huge.

I think this demonstrates what nonsense you're trying to sell

 

[T J]

BTW - Please also consider that PSU and other BT teams had decent to very good followings in NYC, for example. No question, PSU has a huge brand following. But, adding Rutgers helped to raise the overall volume to the point where the BT was able to add new higher level cable contract revenue that didn't exist before. It is what it is. Same with MD and Baltimore/DC.

So, this isn't saying that Rutg or MD carried those areas by themselves. It's the net value of the entire new B1G package, with local team coverage and the huge major brands that were already in the Big Ten that tipped the scales for new contract revenue.

Note: As always, any updates or modifications are welcome!​

 

[NittanyAmerica]

On the field we are a long way from helping the BIG out, but revenue wise we are already contributing. NJ is one of the largest TV markets in the country and Rutgers is probably contributing more $$ then they are getting from the BIG and always will be. It's all about population and the NJ/NY area is huge.

Dip Penn State has been bringing that money in for over 20 years. Don't be taking credit for what we did.

N i t t a n y A m e r i c a

 

[fairgambit]

On the field we are a long way from helping the BIG out, but revenue wise we are already contributing. NJ is one of the largest TV markets in the country and Rutgers is probably contributing more $$ then they are getting from the BIG and always will be. It's all about population and the NJ/NY area is huge.

You cannot be serious. If you are, you are just another delusional Rutgers fan.

 

[T J]

Dip Penn State has been bringing that money in for over 20 years. Don't be taking credit for what we did.

N i t t a n y A m e r i c a

Sorry, but that is not the full story.

PSU has had a big following in NYC, DC and Baltimore. True enough.

But New Cable TV contracts have been cut after the BT added local teams.

The total package of local teams PLUS the mega team brands in the Big Ten are what created the new revenue, that did not exist before in the BT payouts.

Package deal.

Like with many contracts, it can be the marginal increases in value that determine the overall final value.

 

[fairgambit]

Noone here has ever argued that BIG membership wouldn't pay dividends for Rutgers... the argument has always been that Rutgers membership doesn't pay dividends for the BIG.

Exactly right, and while their athletic programs have benefited from the Big Ten, they are still the worst athletic department in the conference if you use the Directors Cup standings as a guide. Rutgers finished 104th. The next worst BigTen school was Purdue at 61. 104th is an absolute embarrassment to the conference. They finished behind such powers as Coastal Carolina, Dayton, Albany, Illinois State, New Hampshire. As much as I despise Rutgers, even I had no idea they were that pathetic.

 

[T J]

Exactly right, and while their athletic programs have benefited from the Big Ten, they are still the worst athletic department in the conference if you use the Directors Cup standings as a guide. Rutgers finished 95th. The next worst BigTen school was Purdue at 61. 95th is an absolute embarrassment to the conference. They finished behind such powers as Coastal Carolina, Dayton, Albany, Illinois State, New Hampshire. As much as I despise Rutgers, even I had no idea they were that pathetic.

True enough, that Rutgers teams have had difficulty competing. That will likely continue for some time.

Consider however, that Big Ten revenue will create a whole new level of abilities at Rutgers. Big money can buy big changes.

If the new 2017 and beyond contract revenue per team hits $40 to $45 million per year, that is huge money.

Over time...
That level of yearly BT team revenue can finance lots of upgrades. It can fund larger payouts for coaches, etc.

MD Ath Dept was essentially broke. It needed the BT to continue it's current teams.

Fortunately, these teams were located in prime real estate territories.

Location... Location... Location...

Savvy investors see the future value of "Fixer-Uppers" if the Net Present Value of future cash flows can be substantial.

So far... These appear to be win-win combinations, in the modern era of college sports as high overhead operations. They thrive on cash flow from Mega Market revenues.

It all comes down to relatively steady streams of yearly cash flow, from teams with similar goals for full sport participation in a high academics-focused conference.

Time will tell if organizations use their revenue streams wisely and successfully.

 

[Bushwood CC]

True enough, that Rutgers teams have had difficulty competing. That will likely continue for some time.

Consider however, that Big Ten revenue will create a whole new level of abilities at Rutgers. Big money can buy big changes.

If the new 2017 and beyond contract revenue per team hits $40 to $45 million per year, that is huge money.

Over time...
That level of yearly BT team revenue can finance lots of upgrades. It can fund larger payouts for coaches, etc.

MD Ath Dept was essentially broke. It needed the BT to continue it's current teams.

Fortunately, these teams were located in prime real estate territories.

Location... Location... Location...

Savvy investors see the future value of "Fixer-Uppers" if the Net Present Value of future cash flows can be substantial.

So far... These appear to be win-win combinations, in the modern era of college sports as high overhead operations. They thrive on cash flow from Mega Market revenues.

It all comes down to relatively steady streams of yearly cash flow, from teams with similar goals for full sport participation in a high academics-focused conference.

Time will tell if organizations use their revenue streams wisely and successfully.

No, I really don't follow your logic at all - PSU is the biggest MARKET DRAW in all of the East Coast markets that you keep talking about. If you couple PSU with any, or all, of their traditional rivals in their HOME REGION the Northeast & Middle Atlantic, PSU would deliver these same cable revenues to the ACC if they were in that conference (especially if ND became a full-time member in the North Division along with PSU, BC, sorryexcuse, ASWP, butgers, MD, etc....). The b1g turd conference has ZERO to do with generating these cable revenues in the Northeast and Middle Atlantic and PSU has everything to do with it.

 

[T J]

No, I really don't follow your logic at all - PSU is the biggest MARKET DRAW in all of the East Coast markets that you keep talking about. If you couple PSU with any, or all, of their traditional rivals in their HOME REGION the Northeast & Middle Atlantic, PSU would deliver these same cable revenues to the ACC if they were in that conference (especially if ND became a full-time member in the North Division along with PSU, BC, sorryexcuse, ASWP, butgers, MD, etc....). The b1g turd conference has ZERO to do with generating these cable revenues in the Northeast and Middle Atlantic and PSU has everything to do with it.

Sorry, but you're introducing an apples and oranges argument. Let's recap what has happened. (Note: Any updates or modifications are welcome)

A) Penn State has a huge following, of course.

B) Penn State's revenue contributions in the 11 team market area and nationally, had already been factored in to Big Ten revenue, for decades.

C) The issue is the marginal contribution from adding Rutg & MD.

D) PSU and the 11 Team Big Ten had not gotten the higher revenue BTN cable deals in NYC, DC and Baltimore. IIRC - There was revenue from contracts with Disney/ESPN and the lower remote location BTN cable revenue, but not the higher levels of monthly cable subscribers' revenue, that is more likely with local area teams.

E) Reports show that beyond PSU's fan support in NYC, other BT teams also had quantifiable levels of fans. Those included teams like Mich, tOSU, Wisconsin in general, plus Indiana and MICH ST for BB, etc. Yet, the combined draw of the Big Eleven, including PSU, didn't net any of these new higher revenue BTN contracts with NYC, DC and Balt area cable suppliers. That's just the way it was. That left a lot more money on the table, that the old Eleven weren't enjoying.

F) IIRC - The combined package of the Big Eleven, plus NEB, Rutg and MD was the first time the BT was able to secure the higher subscription payments for the BTN via new cable deals in those big markets of NYC, DC and Balt.

G) The new combined 14 team package will likely be worth considerably more, when the 2017 contract gets negotiated with Disney/ESPN or any other Sports network that wants some of our combined BT programming. As a co-owner in the BTN, FOXSports might be a player, for example.

G) The reality is the Big Ten for PSU.

Contracts focus on with can be delivered and not with fantasies that can't be delivered. As such, I leave you to whatever speculation you want to have, regarding the ACC and some imaginary group of Eastern teams.

Have at it Bushwood CC. No harm in some friendly "What if" speculations. They can be fun exercises too and can make for some interesting reading.

Enjoy...

 

[Bushwood CC]

Sorry, but you're introducing an apples and oranges argument.

A) Penn State has a huge following, of course.

B) Penn State's revenue contribution in the 11 team market area has already been factored in to Big Ten revenue.

C) The issue is the marginal contribution from adding Rutg & MD.

D) PSU and the 11 Team Big Ten had not gotten the cable deals in NYC, DC and Baltimore. There was Ad revenue from ratings, but not the higher levels of monthly cable subscribers' revenue.

E) The combined package of the Big Eleven, plus NEB, Rutg and MD was the first time the BT was able to secure the higher subscription payments in those markets.

F) Reports show that beyond PSU's fan support in NYC, other BT teams also had quantifiable levels of fans. Those included teams like Mich, tOSU, Wisconsin, Indisna BB

The revenues and market share in the Northeastern and Middle Atlantic markets result from PSU and they would be delivered to any conference PSU was in (again, especially if ND was in the North Division of an "Atlantic Coast" conference with PSU). The revenues have zilch to do with the b1g turd conference and everything to do with PSU. Again PSU (especially with ND) linked up with PSU's traditional Eastern Rivals would deliver massive cable revenues via "carriage fees" to WHATEVER conference they were in. IOW, the b1g turd has gotten way more from PSU than PSU has gotten from this puke, bush-league conference with last year's tO$U game being a great example where the conference quite literally cheated to screw PSU in their own stadium.

 

[Cruising Route 66]

Dip Penn State has been bringing that money in for over 20 years. Don't be taking credit for what we did.

N i t t a n y A m e r i c a

In recognition of RU and MD joining the B1G, the BTN agreed to increase the annual rights fee paid to the conference starting with fiscal 2015. The incremental increase for 2015 was $15.7M which took the 2015 BTN annual rights fee to $121,128,545. The rights fees ratchets up three percent a year through 2032.

 

[Blueblood4eva]

On the field we are a long way from helping the BIG out, but revenue wise we are already contributing. NJ is one of the largest TV markets in the country and Rutgers is probably contributing more $$ then they are getting from the BIG and always will be. It's all about population and the NJ/NY area is huge.

Rutgers contributes very little, just like their alumni when it comes to donating cash to their Alma Mater. It is the big time teams in the Conference that generate most of the additional interest and associated revenue. The novelty of, "let's see how Rutgers does", from casual fans will wear off quickly, when Rutgers performs as they historically have. The huge population in this market is notorious for tuning out losers.

 

[cment]

True enough, that Rutgers teams have had difficulty competing. That will likely continue for some time.

Consider however, that Big Ten revenue will create a whole new level of abilities at Rutgers. Big money can buy big changes.

If the new 2017 and beyond contract revenue per team hits $40 to $45 million per year, that is huge money.

Over time...
That level of yearly BT team revenue can finance lots of upgrades. It can fund larger payouts for coaches, etc.

MD Ath Dept was essentially broke. It needed the BT to continue it's current teams.

Fortunately, these teams were located in prime real estate territories.

Location... Location... Location...

Savvy investors see the future value of "Fixer-Uppers" if the Net Present Value of future cash flows can be substantial.

So far... These appear to be win-win combinations, in the modern era of college sports as high overhead operations. They thrive on cash flow from Mega Market revenues.

It all comes down to relatively steady streams of yearly cash flow, from teams with similar goals for full sport participation in a high academics-focused conference.

Time will tell if organizations use their revenue streams wisely and successfully.

It really comes down to what the institutions do with that money. RU anf MD do not have great track records on how they handle money. Just saying.

 

[T J]

The revenues and market share in the Northeastern and Middle Atlantic markets result from PSU and they would be delivered to any conference PSU was in (again, especially if ND was in the North Division of an "Atlantic Coast" conference with PSU). The revenues have zilch to do with the b1g turd conference and everything to do with PSU. Again PSU (especially with ND) linked up with PSU's traditional Eastern Rivals would deliver massive cable revenues via "carriage fees" to WHATEVER conference they were in. IOW, the b1g turd has gotten way more from PSU than PSU has gotten from this puke, bush-league conference with last year's tO$U game being a great example where the conference quite literally cheated to screw PSU in their own stadium.

First - while it's interesting to speculate about the ACC, that is not in the cards for PSU and there is no chance of that happening for a very very long time.

Second - Not the full story, of course. PSU is an excellent brand. However, the total value from PSU would not be the same in the ACC, under current conditions.

The BIG TEN very wisely created the Big Ten Network. In revenue generation, the BTN is a force multiplier.

The total financial contribution from PSU is greater in the BT than it would be in the ACC. The BTN has secured monthly revenue from massive numbers of people via cable fees. There is no equivalent revenue generator in the ACC. So money that BTN creates via extra broadcasts and more cable contracts, is lost in conferences without such cable subscriber fees.

That's a core reason why MD bolted from the ACC, even though it was a founding level member. MD could help to sweeten the total BT package, to secure higher level cable subscriber revenue. That increased their value in the BT vs the ACC.

MD alone couldn't do it. The BTN without MD had never achieved it.

It appears - Local teams became the critical mass that allowed these additional revenue streams for the BTN and therefore for BT teams.

Bottom line, PSU popularity increases revenue to PSU, by leveraging it via the BTN. The ACC doesn't have a way to leverage PSU's popularity at the level of the Big Ten.

 

[T J]

Rutgers contributes very little, just like their alumni when it comes to donating cash to their Alma Mater. It is the big time teams in the Conference that generate most of the additional interest and associated revenue. The novelty of, "let's see how Rutgers does", from casual fans will wear off quickly, when Rutgers performs as they historically have. The huge population in this market is notorious for tuning out losers.

Consider the beauty of monthly cable revenue from hordes of subscribers.

Even if they tune out at times, the monthly revenue continues during the contract period.

 

[ru109]

Maybe I wasn't specific enough with my prior post. Rutgers is not bringing more people to games they are bringing more cable viewers to the BIG network. The BIG network would never have been on the 1st tier sports package in the NY/NJ area without Rutgers. It's kind of like YES, people don't need to watch it they just need to order the package and people have in here. The $15 million that Rutgers is being paid is less increase in revenue that the BIG received because of their inclusion (the same can be said of Maryland as well). The BIG has a huge presence in this area and the BIG would probably never have been made available without Rutgers joining. If you don't believe please remember that cablevision kept the YES network off it's network entirely for a year because they didn't want to pay what the Yankees wanted. If cablevision can do that to the Yankees they could have done that and more to the BIG.

 

[T J]

Maybe I wasn't specific enough with my prior post. Rutgers is not bringing more people to games they are bringing more cable viewers to the BIG network. The BIG network would never have been on the 1st tier sports package in the NY/NJ area without Rutgers. It's kind of like YES, people don't need to watch it they just need to order the package and people have in here. The $15 million that Rutgers is being paid is less increase in revenue that the BIG received because of their inclusion (the same can be said of Maryland as well). The BIG has a huge presence in this area and the BIG would probably never have been made available without Rutgers joining. If you don't believe please remember that cablevision kept the YES network off it's network entirely for a year because they didn't want to pay what the Yankees wanted. If cablevision can do that to the Yankees they could have done that and more to the BIG.

That said, it's also true that Rutgers on it's own, could not have secured the NYC cable market any time before Hades froze over.

What Rutgers added to the mix wasn't Rutgers itself, per say. They were just the final straw on top of an already full wagon of value.

It's much like a Popular Big Named Band getting booked into a local area.

A local no name band may get to share the stage at some point, which can make the locals feel good. But it's clear to all that the draw is the Popular Big Named Band and the local band is forgettable filler.

Booking the Popular Big Named Band to an area may have been easier, if they allow a low level local group some time on stage. But everyone knows the audience is coming to see the Popular Big Named Band.