Big Ten Network: Fair and Balanced.

Jumping ahead of the question of whether any customer of a large cable company will get this channel, the Cleveland Plain-Dealer discusses the actual content, what we will see on the air. Dave Revsine, eager to make clear that he isn't Jim Delany's Baghdad Bob, says:

"Welcome to the inaugural broadcast of Big Ten Tonight. Allah's Holy warriors, the scholar-athletes of the Western Conference, shall use their intellectual firepower to impose a reign of terror over the grit-eating devils of the Southeast. I spit on their 'southern speed' and their tie-wearing frat boys!"

Actually, he said:

Would he and his fellow broadcasters be allowed to cover the conference fully, from good to bad, from its championships to its scandals? "It would have been a deal-breaker had I gotten the wrong answer," the face of the Big Ten Network said Wednesday. "We feel like we have a responsibility to cover the big story, and obviously our hope is that the primary component of that will be the stuff on the field and the positive stories that come out of athletic competition. "But let's be honest. Part of college athletics is that some stories aren't quite as positive. We need to cover that stuff just like anyone else would cover it."

Not holding my breath. Still, it should be a fun product, even if distribution is limited.

Delany and Silverman are going to AA.

No, not that AA, although they may need those services eventually if Comcast and Time Warner don't budge. Commissioner Delany and BTN president Mark Silverman are going to Ann Arbor. The two will meet the public at the Junge Family Champions Center in Michigan Stadium on Wednesday. Hopefully an Ann Arbor-based Michigan blogger can provide an update.

Counterpoint: Comcast's Bill Connors.

Last month, Mike Pegram published a detailed interview with BTN president Mark Silverman. Peegs just posted an in-depth interview with Bill Connors, the president of Comcast's midwest division (hat tip to a reader who shares a name with a former world leader). As usual, Peegs's prior experience in the corporate world shows. Read the whole thing. He knew what to ask. And Connors made some good points, particularly the minuscule ratings for the C list games that used to be on ESPN plus and now will be on the BTN.

I will take an example---a Wisconsin-Indiana game that will on average over the last few years when that game is on broadcast medium and remember that broadcast
signals are available to cable homes, satellite homes and to non-cable, non-satellite homes. A 100% footprint. That game has had an average rating of 0.6, not 6.0 but 0.6. That is the product that they are saying is analogous to and I will just use yesterday, the rating for Comcast Sports Chicago in a major market like Chicago or in Indiana where it is distributed, has a rating of between six and seven points. Also think that is a product that has the Chicago Cubs, the Chicago White Sox, the Black Hawks and the Bulls. It would take the Big Ten multiple years of aggregate viewing to equal the amount of people that watch Comcast Sports Network over just a few months.

Also, my previous theory about a mere price negotiation may not be accurate, or at least Connors doesn't want us to think that is accurate:

Q - So from your standpoint to get this done, either the BTN backs off the $1.10 number or agrees to digital tier in the midwest?

From our standpoint it is just the forced expanded basic coverage. I can't speak for other companies, we can only decipher when other companies are spoken to about this but that appears to be the single issue with all the other companies.

Again, I'm not sure what to make of it. Perhaps this was a huge miscalculation, not just by the Jim Delany and the presidents but also by the industry professionals who are working with the Big Ten on this project. On the other hand, cherry-picking a random Wisconsin-Indiana football (I presume) game might make things look a bit rosier. Sure, IU football doesn't have a great following and sometimes ends up on TV opposite Notre Dame, Purdue, the SEC game of the week, or all of the above. Still, I have a hard time believing that a .6 rating is the typical output. What market? What game? Was that the rating for that game in Wisconsin? It's hard to square what Connors says about ratings with this, as discussed a few weeks ago:

Klatt showed that in recent years, more than half the TV sets in the Des Moines area are tuned to Iowa football when it is on TV, and about a quarter watch Iowa men's basketball when they play.

My point, I guess, is that this still may be a game of chicken. If the cable companies blink and acknowledge that it's a price negotiation, then the Big Ten has the cable companies right where it wants them. The smaller companies that have signed up aren't stupid, right? They must have determined that it was potentially damaging for their business if they didn't have the BTN. Larger companies with a national base of customers can more easily sustain an exodus of customers. So yeah, I guess I have talked myself into sticking with my old position.

If I have one tiny criticism, it would be that Peegs didn't ask about all of the channels--religious stations, ten different shopping networks, half a dozen Discovery channels, foreign language channels--that everyone has (and pays for) but no one wants. Still, a fine effort by Peegs at educating us on where the most vocal of the cable operators stands.

Expansion talk again?

There hasn't been serious expansion talk since 1999, when Notre Dame's administration seriously considered joining up. Nevertheless, the commish has revived that talk with a suggestion that the existence of the BTN makes expansion more valuable. Where might the league be looking?:

"Wherever," Delany said when asked about specifics. "With the network — there's a different element. It changes the dynamics."

This statement:

"We have eight states. With expansion, you could have nine."

suggests that the focus would be on expanding the league's footprint rather than adding a school within the current Big Ten territory such as Iowa State or Pitt. I have often heard, but never confirmed, that the Big Ten bylaws require that expansion be limited to contiguous states, so for now I will forget Texas and other attractive schools elsewhere. Is there a good fit in the adjacent states? Let's consider what Penn State added to the conference: 1) one of the nation's most prominent football programs; 2) academic profile very similar to that of many Big Ten schools; 3) two significant media markets. Limiting ourselves to contiguous states, who are the possibilities and how do they measure up? (For what it's worth, here is how the eleven Big Ten schools are ranked by US News & World Report among "national universities": 14. Northwestern; 24. Michigan; 34. Wisconsin; 41. Illinois; 47. Penn State; 57. Ohio State; 64. Iowa; 64. Purdue; 67. Minnesota; 70. Indiana; 70. Michigan State). (P.S. I started this post before realizing that mgoblog was doing much the same thing. Since my approach is a bit different, here goes.)

From east to west:

• Rutgers. 1) Athletics: Meh. The Scarlet Knights have always been a supposed sleeping giant. They did play in the first college football game ever, so they have that going for them. Rutgers finally seems to have found a really good coach who actually wants to be at Rutgers, and combined with the departure of Miami, BC, and VT from the Big East, could emerge as a perennial contender in the Big East. Could they compete with Michigan and OSU for Big Ten supremacy? Seems pretty unlikely. Rutgers has had a bit more success in basketball, but not much. Rutgers has a fairly new football stadium (opened in 1994), but at 41,000 would be the conference's smallest football stadium by far (Ryan Field seats around 49,000; IU's Memorial Stadium will seat somewhere between 53,000-54,000 when the current construction is complete). 2) Academics: Rutgers is ranked #60 in the US News rankings, right in the middle of the pack. That wouldn't be an issue. 3) Media markets. Rutgers is in the NYC market, the Holy Grail for conference commissioners and TV executives (is there a difference anymore?). My main concern would be whether Rutgers is of any significance in the NYC market. Do Rutgers games have any ratings pull? Would any cable subscribers in New York or Connecticut care if the BTN were on their cable system? I'm less than overwhelmed by Rutgers.
• Maryland. I'm trying to list all theoretical candidates in contiguous states, not just the real candidates, if there are any. Maryland doesn't immediately come to mind as a state anywhere near Big Ten territory, but it's right there south of Pennsylvania. 1) Athletics: Maryland isn't a football power, but has had a nice run in recent years. Maryland is more of a basketball school, and in light of that seems quite unlikely to leave the ACC. 2) Academics: Maryland ranks #54 in the USN&WP sweepstakes, right in the heart of the Big Ten. 3) Media markets: Baltimore, of course, and Maryland seems to be a bigger draw in the shared Washington TV market than Rutgers is in New York. In sum, it seems that Maryland has everything the Big Ten would want except for any inclination to join.
• Syracuse. The Orangemen have long been mentioned as a possible candidate. One would have to think that any Big East school, despite competitive concerns, would have a tough time saying no to the Big Ten. 1) Athletics: tradition rich, if currently downtrodden football program. I don't know enough about Syracuse's athletic history to know how long this has been the case, but in my living memory as a sports fan, Syracuse is a basketball school, one of the traditional powers of the Big East. Would Jim Boeheim want to trade Madison Square Garden for Conseco Fieldhouse, and if not, would he have enough power to stop it? 2) Academics: Syracuse is private school, small by Big Ten standards but fairly large for a private school: about 13,000 undergrads, 19,000 total. USN&WR ranks Syracuse #52. 3) Media markets: I don't know much about Syracuse's fan following. I presume that the Orange are closely followed in Syracuse and Rochester, but are they Buffalo's team? I know that SU draws much of its student population from metro New York, but is there any interest there?
• West Virginia. 1) Athletics. Good football program, solid basketball program. Again, WVU might have a hard time turning us down, but the football staff might be perfectly happy not having to go to Columbus in November. 2) Academics: not among the top 124 USN&WR universities. Still, as the state's flagship university, WVU probably isn't too much of a stretch. 3) Media: Not much. WV is pretty lightly populated. If I recall correctly, Morgantown gets its TV from Pittsburgh, a market that already has a Big Ten presence via PSU.
• Louisville. 1) Athletics: Same caveat as all other Big East teams--big fish, small pond, etc. Top shelf basketball tradition, of course, and a remarkable renaissance in football. As a bitter Indiana fan, I have to note that building a football program in C-USA isn't as hard as building one in the Big Ten, but UL's improvement is impressive by any standard. 2) Academics: USN&WR doesn't seem to give away its entire rankings for free anymore. When they did, my recollection is that UL was in tier four. For reference, Ball State is Tier 3 and Indiana State is Tier 4. UL has a research component and a med school, but as an undergrad institution Louisville is a commuter school that isn't in the same league as any Big Ten school. As Brian notes, whatever the athletic merits, UL's academic reputation almost certainly would be a dealbreaker. 3)Media: not much. UL's fan base is concentrated in Louisville, essentially, and IU already has some presence in that market.
• Kentucky. This one intrigues me. 1) Athletics: not a great football program, but Kentucky does seem to support its football program well. UK's basketball program is legendary, of course. As Brian notes, UK is a charter member of the SEC. Still, UK might be the flip side of the Big East coin. As the SEC is currently aligned, absent a blimp crash at the Cocktail Party, UK will never play in the SEC title game. The right Big Ten alignment might look attractive to Kentucky. As for hoops, they have an existing rivalry with IU. Indeed, it would immediately become the Big Ten's signature basketball rivalry, with twelve combined NCAA titles (compared to a measly seven for Duke-Carolina). UK has been in the SEC since the beginning, but oddly enough, its two biggest rivals (Louisville and Indiana) are non-conference rivals. 2) Academics. UK is #112 in US News, lower than every Big Ten school, but not outrageously so. UK is the state's flagship public university and doesn't strike me as a stretch academically. 3) Media: UK is immensely popular throughout the state, and of course would deliver the middling Lexington market. The currently split markets of Louisville and Cincinnati would be Big Ten territory on both sides of the river. In sum, as a Hoosier, I can't help but be somewhat hoops-centric, although I think UK is a worthy addition in football: I would prefer Kentucky over any other candidate in the states contiguous to Big Ten territory.
• Missouri. 1) Athletics. Mizzou is a mystery. Missouri is a decent-size state with two large metro areas, yet the Tigers have never emerged as a power in either sport. Thanks to Maryland's recent success, Mizzou probably holds the less-than-prestigious title of "best basketball program without a Final Four appearance." The football program had its moments under Dan Devine half a century ago, but in modern times, Mizzou is best known for finding uniquely awful ways to lose (the fifth down against Colorado; the kicked ball against Nebraska). Still, the potential seems to be there. It is unclear whether Mizzou fans and alumni would be willing to walk away from a long history in the Big 8/XII or from their rivalry with Kansas. The Tigers do have an existing rivalry with Illinois. 2) Academics: #88 in USN&WR. Like Kentucky, ranked lower than all Big Ten schools, but not outrageously so. 3) Media: the Tigers would bring the bulk of the population of metro St. Louis and some significant portion (probably more than half) of the KC market. Anyone who lives there can correct me if I'm wrong, but I have never had the impression that either St. Louis or KC is crazy about Mizzou. Overall, Missouri is a solid fit but not terribly exciting.
• Nebraska: 1) Athletics: legendary football program, nothing on the basketball side. Long history of Big 8/XII membership and a division that it should dominate. I'm guessing that NU fans wouldn't like the move. 2) Academics: #98. See Kentucky and Mizzou. 3) Media: nothing of note. Still, the state follows Husker football with religious fervor. Would the Big Ten be better off with a populous state like Missouri that seems lukewarm about its flagship university, or a less populated, rural state like Nebraska where it seems that nearly everyone is invested?

I don't have any idea on the likelihood of any particular school joining. As is obvious above, I would like to see Kentucky in the league. Louisville will never happen. I could live with any of the others. The question Delany and Co. will have to ask is whether expansion is worthwhile absent a slam-dunk such as Penn State or Notre Dame.

More on the BTN saga.

Jim Delany seems to be taking his pills. The Centre Daily provides some more insight on the BTN today. Our once-pugnacious commissioner has this to say about Comcast now:

"Comcast is an important and respected distributor," Delany said in a Capitol news conference. He said negotiations with the Philadelphia-based company, which serves Centre County, are ongoing."Their customers are our fans. And it's really about what is the best way" to deliver programming to them, Delany said.

Either Jim reconsidered, or the folks from Fox, which owns 49 percent of the endeavor, have been in his ear. Either way, he seems to be making some progress. He also makes some points that I have been trying to make concerning the appeal of the network and Comcast's new-found respect for its customers' pocketbooks:

"I've seen networks with far less compelling content than this (appear) on basic" cable, Delany said at the news conference.

***

"The fact is, we would not be the only network without 100 percent support from every subscriber," Delany said. " ... There's no one (channel) where 100 percent of people support it."

There's more info on the programming itself and what sort of advertising the network will accept:

The Big Ten Network has made several pledges, including a ban on advertising for
alcoholic drinks.

Makes sense.

It's also agreed to devote, within three years, equal time to men's and women's athletics, and to carry some academic programs.

Sigh. Of course, the women who play varsity sports work every bit as hard as the men. But come on. There are exactly two college sports with widespread viewing appeal: football and men's basketball. Other sports, including hockey (which the BTN won't have because it isn't a Big Ten sport), women's basketball, baseball, and soccer have niche followings, but the big two are basically it, in terms of attracting an audience of folks who aren't necessarily fans of the particular schools that are playing. I might watch Minnesota and Northwestern play football(might even do a bit of Sports Betting on it). I won't watch them play field hockey.

Earlier this week I noted that the nightly Sportscenter-type show had potential, unless the league decided to go all politically correct with how they treat various sports. I never would have guessed that the league would do that with actual programming. As with Title IX implementation generally, the teams that really will fall victim to this are the men's non-revenue sports. And I really don't have a problem with Title IX. As long as we are going to pretend that intercollegiate athletics are a purely educational activity, let the schools deal with Title IX. but it seems a strange business decision to impose Title IX restrictions where they aren't necessarily required. Actually making money off this enterprise would benefit non-renvue sports in a tangible way that broadcasting corss country meets will not.

A little clarification on the BTN.

I will never pass on the opportunity to kick some sand in Jim Delany’s face. His behavior has been embarrassing and amateurish, and couldn’t possibly be advancing the interests of the BTN. On the other hand, I can’t quite join with mgoblog, Maize-n-Brew, and others in concluding that the BTN is destined to fail. One crucial fact is that while it is the "Big Ten Network," the conference only owns 51 percent of the network. Fox owns the other 49 percent. While Delany’s public comments make him look about as sophisticated as George Costanza in his NBC negotiations, those of us who care (such as Comcast subscribers who don’t want to switch to DirecTV) can take some comfort in the fact that there are some genuine TV professionals involved in this negotiation. These folks didn't pull $1.10 out of thin air, and I don't think the current public posturing means that the network won't be on Comcast.

As Maize-n-Brew notes, from the football fan's perspective, the Big Ten Network is more relevant to fans of middle or lower-tier programs than to fans of Michigan and Ohio State (Jim Delany would say, "how dare you?! In the Big Ten,, all of our teams are first tier, from the champion all the way down to the 10th runner-up!"). As he notes, all or nearly all of Michigan's games will be picked up by ABC/ESPN/ESPN2. One thing that I am thinking may be worthwhile is the Big Ten studio show that is supposed to be on the BTN every night. I'm a college football/basketball junkie. I was the guy who would actually spend Saturday afternoon watching the Big Ten tripleheader on ESPN plus. I actually will watch the lesser games, even when my team isn't involved. Still, even if you don't care about watching the other games, the studio show could be useful for keeping up with other conference teams--that is, unless the BTN goes all politically correct and insists on treating soccer and field hockey and wrestling as if they are on par with football and men's basketball. I think it has potential, and I think that Comcast will end up paying something close to what the BTN is requesting.

Jim Delany's amateur hour.

Thanks to this post on mgoblog, we now know that Jim Delany has come unhinged about this Big Ten Network deal. The Big Ten sent an e-mail to various outlets that says this:

“Comcast recently has characterized events that will be on the Big Ten Network as ‘second and third tier.’ I believe Comcast owes every Big Ten university an apology. The comments are an insult to Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue and Wisconsin: To the universities, their students, their fans and alumni and their communities. There are no second-rate contests in the Big Ten.”

I love IU football, but if that November 10 contest at Northwestern qualifies as second tier, it will have exceeded expectations. We're adults, Jim. Those of us who follow such programs understand that IU-Northwestern isn't going to attract more viewers than Auburn-Georgia. Unfortunately, Mr. Delany seems to be utterly clueless about how to conduct a negotiation. Don't let them know it hurt, Jim.

Unfortunately, this is just the latest public statement by the commish that casts doubt on his fitness to lead a major conference. Let's not forget, just months ago, this ridiculous broadside against the SEC, including:

I love speed and the SEC has great speed, especially on the defensive line, but there are appropriate balances when mixing academics and athletics. Each school, as well as each conference, simply must do what fits their mission regardless of what a recruiting service recommends. I wish we had six teams among the top 10 recruiting classes every year, but winning our way requires some discipline and restraint with the recruitment process. Not every athlete fits athletically, academically or socially at every university. Fortunately, we have been able to balance our athletic and academic mission so that we can compete successfully and keep faith with our academic standards.

First, it's idiotic for a conference commissioner to issue any sort of statement, snippy or otherwise, to serve as a self-described response to "recruiting services and talking heads." Second, why impugn an entire conference? No one will soon confuse the SEC with the Patriot League, but our fine league, which I think is great, has had its share of black eyes in the last decade. The scandals involving the Michigan and Minnesota basketball programs were among the most breathtaking in the history of the sport. The disclosures about the class loads of Andy Katzenmoyer and Greg Oden make one wonder whether the typical Buckeye is getting anything approximating a college education. To be fair and balanced, one could note that one of the few Big Ten programs that has never been found guilty of an NCAA "major violation" hired a coach with a less-than-pristine compliance record. What an odd decision by Delany. And again, this wasn't an off-the-cuff temper tantrum in front of a live mike; this is a letter that remains on the Big Ten's website months later.

And let's not forget the Hartzell affair. You will recall that late in the 2005 season, IU, on the NCAA bubble, lost a close game at Wisconsin after a series of questionable calls. The game was officiated by Rick Hartzell, the athletic director at Northern Iowa and Ed Hightower, a trustee at Southern Illinois. Both schools were MVC bubble teams. Many in the media, including ESPN analyst and reformed credit card thief Doug Gottleib, criticized the Big Ten, not for any actual intent of the officials to steal the game from IU, but for the appearance of impropriety. Here's what the Big Ten said (this is a link to the Doug Ross @ Journal blog, a political blog that preserved the statement, which no longer appears on the Big Ten's website). Although Delany's name wasn't on the statement, it's in the same voice as the aforementioned SEC diatribe:

The Big Ten has communicated its extreme disappointment and concern to ESPN's management relative to statements made by Mr. Doug Gottlieb at the halftime of Thursday's Purdue at Illinois basketball game on ESPN2.Specifically Mr. Gottlieb called into question the integrity of Mr. Rick Hartzell, an official in Tuesday's Indiana at Wisconsin basketball game, telecast by ESPN. In addition Mr. Gottlieb questioned the professionalism of Big Ten Associate Commissioner Rich Falk relative to the administration of the Big Ten's men's basketball officiating program. Neither statement should have been made, and in our view these statements represent an example of irresponsible sports `reporting'. It is unfortunate that Mr. Gottlieb, whose own reputation for honest dealings has been called into question in the past, has been placed in the position by ESPN to pass judgment on a well-regarded, veteran official working a Big Ten basketball game, and a Big Ten associate commissioner who has rendered valuable service to the Conference and college basketball for decades. The Big Ten Conference considers this matter concluded and will have no further comment.

The Big Ten is a coalition of eleven prominent universities, yet the conference's leadership has no concept of "the appearance of impropriety," a pretty straight-forward concept used in many professions and contexts. With so many officials in the world, why would the Big Ten hire two guys with direct ties to bubble teams to officiate a game involving a bubble team? Because, in essence, Rick is good people, and Rich is good people, so the rest of y'all butt out. This parochial, dim-witted, good-old-boy stuff is what one would expect from the leadership of a backwater high school athletic department, not the Big Ten.

And, finally, the double standard of 2002-03. On September 28, 2002, Joe Paterno, angry about a series of calls that went against his team, chased down and angrily grabbed an official. No action was taken against Paterno, and Jim Delany laughed it off. Fast forward to December, when Mike Davis made a fool of himself by running onto the court and angrily confronting the officials during a nonconference game against Kentucky after a (proper) no call on a supposed foul. After doing nothing to an unrepentant Paterno, the Big Ten initially suggested that Davis, who was immediately and profusely apologetic and did not make physical contact with an official, should be suspended for six games.

The Big Ten has done well under Delany's leadership, but the more we see from the guy, the more I have to wonder whether it is because of Delany or in spite of Delany. It's a tribute to the strength of the member institutions that this guy hasn't ruined us yet.