THE BIG TEN NETWORK: YOU, SIR, ARE PEEING ON MY LEG
Smarter, more agile brains than ours are busy picking apart the technical details and forecasting the potential success of the Big Ten network. In summary, though, here’s what you need to know:
1. The Big Ten is building its own television network. You know, much like the one Notre Dame has called NBC.

AIIIIIGGGGHHH!!! We hope the Big Ten gets someone more lifelike than synthflesh-covered cyborg Tom Hammond to call their games.
2. The Big Ten Network would broadcast games “carved out” of existing network agreements. So rather than the pork tenderloin of Michigan/Ohio State, you’d likely be looking at the head cheese and chitterlings of Purdue/Northwestern if you tuned in during the fall.
3. The Big Ten Network, headed by Bud Selig Charm School Graduate Jim Delany, is charging viewers more than any network besides ESPN for its services.
4. This has gotten the fledgling network into a tiff with cable giant Comcast, and their tussle has been prodigious enough to attract the attention of the three most important media outlets in the nation: MGoBlog, The New York Times, and Sunday Morning Quarterback, all of whom have spent considerable bandwidth and column space discussing it in intelligent fashion.
We here at EDSBS are of the opinion that Jim Delany is a complete and total dickface, even above and beyond the dickfacedness required in being a conference head. (See “SEC is fast because they cut class” incident, 2007.) However, the pricing argument presents a canard for those who would want to demonize the easy, miles-wide target the Big Ten commish offers.
The price remains astronomically high for a network, but we’re not talking Fuse here–we’re talking about a sports network, and a boutique-y one at that with a following that tends to pay whatever it has to for access to even the most rancid of content. Sports networks, as the NYT points out with a nifty sidebar, are among the most expensive per viewer. It makes sense that a startup network with a small but rabid following just going into year one would charge upwards of two dollars for the service, since there’s a lot of startup, a smallish pool of viewers, and boundless potential for demand. The price, over time, will flatten as subscribers line up.
This bit of logic won’t stop people (especially bloggers) from holding their noses and picking a side in the meteor game that is a corporate pissfight between Comcast and the Big Ten Network. Good luck with that–either one would sell your grandmother for kibble, take the dog that had eaten your grandmother, and then cook it and serve it to you as cut-rate bratwurst. It’s a pissing contest between two parties both extremely-well prepared for the fight.
And yet you merely delay the inevitable! As much of a reputation as the South has for breeding outspoken, Foghorn Leghorn orators, the SEC has actually handled most of its business
like mumming church elders lately, especially in comparison to Delany’s occasionally acrid public statements and sharp PR elbowing.
No matter, though–the Big Ten network will likely still grow into a cash pinata, with other regionals following, including (inevitably) the SEC, Pac-10, and Big 12. If you doubt it, ask the commissioner of the Big 12, who left his job last week to take a new job working at…the Big Ten Network. (God bless dramatic ellipses.)









1
PJ from NU in SF says:
As long as the games show up on DirecTV, I could care less how they get handed out. (I see the auto-renewal is coming up in the near future, so it’s time to turn some screws on the satellite flingers.
And yes, Jim Delany is a douche. Wayne Duke was the last Big Ten commish who had class.
June 18th, 2007 at 9:45 am
2
PJ from NU in SF says:
As long as the games show up on DirecTV, I could care less how they get handed out. (I see the auto-renewal is coming up in the near future, so it’s time to turn some screws on the satellite flingers.)
And yes, Jim Delany is a douche. Wayne Duke was the last Big Ten commish who had class.
June 18th, 2007 at 9:45 am
3
PJ from NU in SF says:
I should know better than to post this early in the morning, or care about whether my parentheses close properly.
June 18th, 2007 at 9:50 am
4
Don V says:
Unless it’s an outrageous concidence, setting your price ($1.10) by using a gimmick such as number of teams in your conference sounds like just bad business practice.
June 18th, 2007 at 9:59 am
5
kleph says:
ummm…. headcheese now that’s good eatin’.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:06 am
6
Jon hates Russian spammers and UofA says:
This won’t hapen in the Pac-10 as long as Tom Hansen is commish. He doesn’t have the foresight or the ingenuity for something of this size. Furthermore, who would watch the Pac-10 network? Wouldn’t it be easier for the mythical “east coast bias” to occur if there was a single network to ignore, especially since the wwl only shows highlights of games carried on their affiliate networks?
June 18th, 2007 at 10:07 am
7
Oops Pow Surprise says:
A bad business practice like a fox!
Honestly, this seems like a genuinely poor idea from the commissioner. Considering (and this is a hugely optimistic estimation) that there will be six hours of watchable football a week, for 13 weeks, worth watching, that’s 78 hours of watchable programming. Let’s also go six hours of watchable basketball a week for, oh, 17 weeks (again, wildly optimistic). There’s 102 hours. All told, 180 hours, maximum. That’s just over a hair over 2% of the time the network will be on.
Worse, none of those 180 hours come between late March and early September, but we’ll still be paying for it anyway. The awkward post-game shows where Ahmad Rashad cries into his coffee and wonders where his career went? Paying for those too. The press conferences where Joe Tiller unleashes seismic farts that rattle the light fixtures? Well, that’s worth paying for too. Fine, 181 good hours of TV.
Delany is rightly interpreting his job as doing as much as possible for his conference. The means by which he goes about that task, however, are not correct, and they may have serious unintended financial consequences for the conference.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:17 am
8
Fesser says:
It may be a regional bias, but of the BCS conferences, the Big 10 seems the most capable of producing matchups that are unwatchable, and if the network is getting Hoosier/Illini variety cuts, rather than the UM/OSU tenderloins, who the hell is gonna watch?
June 18th, 2007 at 10:18 am
9
Albino Tornado says:
Weiberg left the Big 12 in something of a over revenue sharing, where he believes in the Big 11’s model of total revenue sharing. The Big 12’s shares television revenue more like MLB, so there’s 4 teams with big budgets and tv revenues, and 8 have-nots. Of course, it takes a 9-team vote to change by-laws another legacy of the Texas voting bloc of the Big 12.
I really wonder how long until the Big 12 blows itself apart and the old SWC reforms.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:22 am
10
CKGator says:
Do we really need this? I’m a Florida fan. I’m interested in what’s happening in the rest of the SEC, but I really don’t need a network to show me that Miss. State vs. Vanderbilt matchup that got squeezed out of the network schedule. What makes the Big Televen so compelling that we absolutely must have every game broadcast?
And doesn’t this take the fun out of having the gf take me to a bar with the local Penn State Alumni group to watch the PSU-Northwestern game? That’s the only thing that makes that thing watchable, anyway…
June 18th, 2007 at 10:23 am
11
bhors says:
This is going to turn into a fiasco, i can see it already. It is rumored that the network will only be available to the area the Big Ten serves (um, sorry fans in other states). Also, not all games will be on, and tOSU was a complete mess when the Indiana-osu game wasn’t on last year, I can’t imagine if their are multiple games blocked out during the season. Just another ass raping the fans take, dispite shelling out thousands$$ a year to support the teams, the Big Teneleven has gone totally corporate. They should make the Network donate all proceeds back to the universities to lower some fucking prices of some shit.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:26 am
12
Brian says:
The ACC would be a better choice for a sports network because they have the football games, the basketball games, the great baseball teams, and also good lacrosse teams, which is a tertiary revenue sport that would be worth mixing in. I would be willing to watch some golf on occaison, even. A couple rivalry Volleyball or Softball matches thrown in for good measure and you’re not doing too shabby.
Then, you get yourself the “ACC News” tv show, and the thing’s looking like a champ. Then you can have some show like “ledgends of the ACC” a history channel style show that does a 30 min. bio of some ACC person from whence back when, which could actually be fairly cool.
Taking from the food network, you could easily shoehorn together some sorta-decent tailgating show. That would tape their show at a different game every week, or something gimmicky.
I’m an idea man I feed off enthusiasm.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:33 am
13
Flann says:
If not for the picture clarity of High Definition television revealing Tom Hammond to be a muppet-robot, he would likely be well on his way to world domination.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:35 am
14
Brian says:
Oh, I forgot to mention that “The Erin Andrews Hour” would be another hit show. This would involve showing clips of the interviews given by “E.A.” that always make you cringe with pain when people don’t get wtf she’s talking about or trying to ask…which is practicalyl every time she opens her mouth. But I still love her.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:36 am
15
PeterPumpkinhead says:
I brought this up in a thread last week, but I was very late, so I don’ t think anyone noticed…
In 5 years, when every cell phone (or the Oakley Bluetooth MP3Player/Headset/Video goggles you’re stylishly sporting) has a 10MP, 45 frame/sec, 1080p HD video camera in it, why will we need ESPN (or now the Big 10/SEC/BIG 12/PAC 10 Networks). When you can log into any one of the thousands of VideoBlogs broadcasting from any sporting event in the nation and get pretty much any angle you want, why would you pay to watch Purdue/Indiana in Big Televenvision?
June 18th, 2007 at 10:38 am
16
maskedavenger says:
While it is easy to make fun of Delany, let’s all agree about this. The people on this blog have an insatiable need for college football.
Right now, I don’t miss a single Michigan game, since they are all on ABC, ESPN (1, 2, or regional). But since there now exists the possibility that an occasional Michigan-Indiana or Michigan-Purdue game might be exclusively on the Big Ten Network, I must have it.
I’ll add the $1.10 a month to the amount I spend on season tickets, the Wolverine magazine, UM apparel, my Rival’s premium account, etc.
One thing that the internet has taught me, I am not alone.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:51 am
17
Seven Years in Gainesville says:
#15:
Will those feeds include network-quality graphics? Network-quality production? Brent Musberger? Unless zoom technology advances a couple generations, too, I don’t think fancams will become the ESPN of the future.
Also, networks pay for rights. Your ticket stub says you will not transmit images or information about the game without consent. No one ever thought Napster was going to get shut down, either.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:57 am
18
CKGator says:
#16 –
I can paraphrase your post thusly [and I say this with all due respect]:
“I am assuming the position”
June 18th, 2007 at 11:00 am
19
PeterPumpkinhead says:
#17… maybe 5 years is optimistic on zoom technology… but I can get the same graphics/stats from Gametracker in one window while I have 17 other windows open with various angles I can pull up, rewind and replay all I want.
As for rights, at some point the technology will overwhelm any way to control it. The guy from Louisville last week is just the tip of the iceburg. Whether it’s 5 years, or 10 or 15, there will come a point where video bloggers do for live events what political bloggers are doing for punditry.
What I’m asking is, when that happens, does anyone here feel like they’ll want to pay just to listen to Mark May and Lee Corso tell us how they feel about the games we just watched online?
June 18th, 2007 at 11:02 am
20
CKGator says:
#15/19 –
Another thing to consider–if you’re watching the feed off of a camera attached to my head, you may miss some of the game, but you’re going to get some great atmospheric shots involving the girl sitting 2 rows in front of me.
June 18th, 2007 at 11:04 am
21
PeterPumpkinhead says:
CKG, you just beat me to that thought… I just started thinking about what I pay attention to between plays when I’m at the game… and that could be a whole network unto itself.
June 18th, 2007 at 11:06 am
22
Wooderson says:
Wow, like sheep to the slaughter are these Integer suckheads drawn. Moth to bug zapper may be a better reference?
By the way I love the math on this whole thing. when properly extrapolated:
10 Large Land Grant Universities + one red-headed stepchild = $1.10/mo on top of whatever it costs to get digital cable in Fly-over country
1 small catholic school right in the middle of all of them = free, every week. Well ,wexcept for that one time every two years we play on ESPN. Then you just go to the bar and get saucy.
June 18th, 2007 at 11:09 am
23
Seven Years in Gainesville says:
#15/19:
Also, the die-hard fan may enjoy having 20 fancams up on their display and playing switchboard operator, but what about the fans watching games in bars? What about the fan who’s watching with other people, and has a need to be social? What about people who don’t have such technical proficiency? It’s an exciting complement to future broadcasts, but I don’t think networks have a lot to worry about.
June 18th, 2007 at 11:16 am
24
Pants McPants says:
Holy crap, did you just call Delany a dickface??
So I was thinking it might be a good time to see the dentist, if you haven’t in awhile…Get some X-rays…At least that way your remains might be identified…Good luck!…(runs
June 18th, 2007 at 11:17 am
25
irishoutsider says:
Oh boy! My studies!
June 18th, 2007 at 11:27 am
26
jebushchrist says:
All I want to know is, will this network prevent me from hearing the dulcet tones of Pam Ryan every Saturday? That lady’s got the body of a bingo player and the face of the Schmoo. She also sounds like she’s always battling a nasty yeast infection.
June 18th, 2007 at 11:30 am
27
Run Up The Score says:
This entire Big Ten Network ordeal is so silly that I refuse to learn anything about it. Seriously, I’m over it already. It probably won’t affect me too much as a Penn State fan since we generally have enough alumni and general popularity to weasel our way onto ESPN2 at the worst (Pam Ward, call me!).
I would prefer that Delany crams his head up his ass and starts chewing.
June 18th, 2007 at 11:39 am
28
Stacy Keibler Luvs Me says:
Grouchy Monday Morning QB:
BIG 10? Ridiculous. It is really Big 3 (Mich, tOSU & Penn St.) + Mid-Size 2 or 3 + MIDGET 5 or so.
BIG 10? Why not call it “Great 10″, like Britain named itself.
BIG 10? Re-change that awful name to something more accurate and descriptive -> Mid-West 10+Hicksville 1 (Penn State)
June 18th, 2007 at 11:40 am
29
jebushchrist says:
#28 :
Remember when Penn State beat Iowa? No, seriously, do you? I don’t. Penn St is not one of the big 3 of anything unless you’re talking about most inaccurately names cities.
June 18th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
30
Run Up The Score says:
They really should just name it Big Televen and get it over with.
Better yet, Penn State should leave. I’d be so down with that.
June 18th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
31
Out of Conference says:
You guys are being way too critical. Come on think about it. The worst qualities of every regional sports stations (Fox Sports, YES), plus a million of those touchy “behind the athlete” stories that we love during the Olympics, plus coverage of indoor track events, plus a game or two a week on taped-delay not covered by anyone else, and throw in 12-hours a day of informercials, and shazzam we have (insert conference name) TV! Open your minds, fools!
June 18th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
32
Wooderson says:
SKLM,
I have to agree, State Penn is NOT one of the elite Big 1? members. Losing to Minnesota (multiple times) would help support that point.
June 18th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
33
Ghost of Carl Monday says:
I wonder if Tom Hammond’s 5-head gets in the way when he’s eating Charlie Weiss’s 3-hole out
June 18th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
34
paulwesterdawg says:
Reason #531 games are better in person:
Hot Co-ed 1: “We don’t have any seats near here.”
Hot Co-ed 2: “But….If we play with each others’ boobs for a while, will you let us sqeeze into your row?”
Westerdawg’s Row (In unison): “YES!”
That’s not really related to this thread. I just wanted to mention it.
June 18th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
35
PJ from NU in SF says:
SKLM, you’re right. We really should rename it the First Conference, and be done with it.
Wooderson, not all of the Big 10’s public (ok, PSU is semi-public) members are land grant schools. Indiana, Iowa, Michigan are not. As far as the red-headed stepchild, NU is closer to being the cousin everyone sucks up to because he has a cool place to crash, but secretly resents because of his trust fund.
June 18th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
36
Papa Lou BSU says:
“I’ll add the $1.10 a month to the amount I spend on season tickets, the Wolverine magazine, UM apparel, my Rival’s premium account, etc.”
$1.10 is what Big Ten Network wants to charge Comcast per subscriber. The actual consumer cost will probably be at least twice that (or did you think Comcast was going provide the new channel at cost?)
I have less of an issue with this when it’s packaged on the premium sports tier, where those who want it can pay for it.
The problem, even in an alleged Big Ten “home market” like Chicago (where there are nevertheless millions of us who aren’t Big Ten fans and could not care less about that overrated league), comes when the BTN is trying to get their fledgling channel on the basic tier. At those prices, such a move would cause an increase in already sky-high cable rates, essentially forcing non-Big Ten fans to subsidize Big Can’t Count fans’ viewing habits.
And if recent history is any indication, Comcast’s basic tier is full, so not only would I have to pay an extra three bucks per month so that John Q. Hawkeye down the street can watch his team’s riveting matchup against the league’s last-place team, but I’d also be losing a channel I currently receive to do so. And not some crappy, fly-by-night home shopping channel, either. The Travel Channel and ESPN Classic have both been shuffled off to the premium tier in recent years to make room for new arrivals.
Thus, I appreciate Comcast CEO’s quote along the lines of “screw that noise” in the linked NYT piece.
June 18th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
37
Coop says:
#26 – I think you meant Pam Ward, not Ryan.
And, yes, she is not pleasant to look at.
June 18th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
38
jebushchrist says:
#37:
That is the most egregious mistake I’ve ever made in my life.
June 18th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
39
Boclive says:
Since I am unlikely to spend one red cent on subscribing to “the big 10 network” this is going to negatively inpact my big ten football nap on the couch.
(The best Saturday naps ever, and you know what I mean).
Thankfully, there is still the Altel Cup Series in Nascar.
June 19th, 2007 at 8:25 am
40
Greg says:
Okay, so this might sound like a dumb question, but will the BTN be in the BIG TEN DORM ROOMS? Here at Michigan, we get comcast, so, ummm, WTF?
June 19th, 2007 at 10:21 am
41
domerdana says:
Agree with “Run up the Score”.
Why DID PSU join the Big Ten?
Arguably, PSU was probably one of the only schools that could have remained independent in football and pulled a Notre Dame by joining the Big East in other sports.
If anything the Big East would have been more compelling given their long time rivalries with Pitt and WVU.
June 19th, 2007 at 11:51 am
42
kunal says:
International viewers like me are going to be left out. I have been able to catch games on espn gameplan last couple of seasons. I will be having no options this year.
Given how international the big ten schools have become, it is sad that they have no internet strategy in place to accommodate their international viewers.
I am done contributing to my schools(illinois) sports funds. I hope they make enough $$ out of this network.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:42 am