The estimated value of BYU's Independent TV package

[Portland Ute]

I can answer at least one of your silly accusations. BYU is being very closemouthed about the deal because they are required to by the contract terms. Notice ESPN didn't report the numbers at all. Notice that no official sources have been cited at either ESPN or BYU on the subject. If anything, this should indicate to you how good the contract is. I would not be suprised to find that BYU had been outmaneuvered by ESPN's attorneys but your comments stink of desperation. You must know how bad the Ute's deal will hurt them for the next 3 years. The cost of stadium expansion alone will eat up all of the additional income the Utes might get in the first decade, at least according to a member of the U of U's BOT.

Utah's deal is going to hurt them over the next three years?

Come on. Get real.

[Portland Ute]

I've seen the numbers on this but wasn't smart enough to write them down. Even in the 50% year Utah will be several multiples ahead of what it got from the MWC. We're going to be just fine.

I believe it is year 4 or 2014 when Utah gets a full share.

[LA Ute]

Utah's deal is going to hurt them over the next three years?

Come on. Get real.

No way. And I mean no way.

[Top Ute]

PU do you have a link for that? Seems like the Conference isn't willing to give up their TV rights just because they are not paying Utah Nor would their TV partners be willing to split viewership. Could be true though, what do I know.

The final year of the Pac-10 TV contract is 2011, and Utah is not a part of it. There likely are some exclusivity issues that will keep us from scheduling games at any time, any day of the week, but someone's going to be profiting from televised Utah football broadcasts in 2011, and I imagine the football program will be one of the parties that profits.

[UteStar]

Notre Dame's deal is old by now. They would probably get more than $2M per game if they negotiated with ESPN or NBC today.

Actually, it is not old...it was re-negotiated within the past 2 years. The original deal was old and it was for about $8-10 million a year...the new deal is for $13-15 million a year.

[Superdeluxe]

Notre Dame's NBC contract is basically around $2 million a game ($13-15 million for 6-7 games a year). I guess BYU's money surprises me because it is thru ESPN and it would come out, if $8 million is the figure, to something relatively close, on a per game basis, to Notre Dames.

ND gets 10 million per year

[Superdeluxe]

Oh my bad..didn't know they signed a new contract. So ESPN thinks that BYU has the same draw power as Notre Dame?

[UteStar]

Here is ESPN reporting that it is for $15 million a year, starting this year 2010.

SOUTH BEND, Ind. -- Notre Dame coach Brian Kelly doesn't want anybody or anything slowing down the Fighting Irish or his spread formation -- one that worked so well in his previous stop at Cincinnati -- and that includes NBC, the network that's had a contract with Notre Dame since 1991.

Kelly said he and athletic director Jack Swarbrick have had conversations with NBC officials about how coverage plans will work with the Irish's up-tempo style, which is basically hurry-up, no-huddle.

"We've talked to NBC about the way we like to play the game versus maybe how it was played in the past," Kelly said Tuesday. "There is certainly a need for us to address it and I think we're working with NBC to make certain that they get what they need from an advertising standpoint. But, also as the network that carries Notre Dame, that we're able to do things we need to do as well."

In response, NBC plans to have five shorter breaks per quarter this season, rather than four longer ones, during Notre Dame games, a format that is used for NFL games.

"Over the years, we have reassessed the structure of our commercial breaks numerous times to improve the experience for our viewers and the fans in the stadium," NBC vice president of communications Chris McCloskey said. "The commercial load this year will be identical to last year. The slight change to the commercial structure is the result of a number of factors done to improve the broadcast, not one single reason."

Kelly would not go into specifics about the conversations Notre Dame had with NBC. The contract between the two parties is reportedly worth $15 million annually for football.

"All we've tried to do is address the model that we think would work well with us," Kelly said. "And there's got to be a meeting somewhere halfway. And I'm very confident that we are going to be able to do the things that we want to do in terms of pushing the tempo and doing the things without having to go to a commercial break."

According to USA Today, the Bearcats, whom Kelly coached from 2006 to 2009, used an average of just 2 minutes, 19 seconds per scoring drive. Overall, they averaged 25:46 in time of possession per game, the lowest among Football Bowl Subdivision schools.

[Coach McGuirk]

The final year of the Pac-10 TV contract is 2011, and Utah is not a part of it. There likely are some exclusivity issues that will keep us from scheduling games at any time, any day of the week, but someone's going to be profiting from televised Utah football broadcasts in 2011, and I imagine the football program will be one of the parties that profits.

So just speculation? I am sure the TV contract is worded as PAC 10 members and if you are in the league you are part of that contract. Otherwise, does that mean Nebraska isn't part of the Big 10 deal until it expires sometime mid 2020's? Not following the logic here at all.

[falafel]

Actually, it is not old...it was re-negotiated within the past 2 years. The original deal was old and it was for about $8-10 million a year...the new deal is for $13-15 million a year.

[KillerDog]

Utah's deal is going to hurt them over the next three years?

Come on. Get real.

I'm not making any assumptions or doing any math here. This is a response straight from a U of U BOT member to me on the day after the deal was finalized. Based on the requirements of the Pac-12 deal (increasing the # of sports and the size of the stadium) and the short term benefits, he felt the deal was a short term loser. He also thought the deal was a long term winner. He was very very clear that it was not the "no-brainer" the fans thought it was. Ultimately, the belief is that the U will benefit dramatically and will start regularly filling its (newly enlarged) stadium with paying customers but that won't happen immediately anymore than the TV revenue will be immediately shared. You don't have to agree or believe, I'm just passing along information.

[UteStar]

I'm not making any assumptions or doing any math here. This is a response straight from a U of U BOT member to me on the day after the deal was finalized. Based on the requirements of the Pac-12 deal (increasing the # of sports and the size of the stadium) and the short term benefits, he felt the deal was a short term loser. He also thought the deal was a long term winner. He was very very clear that it was not the "no-brainer" the fans thought it was. Ultimately, the belief is that the U will benefit dramatically and will start regularly filling its (newly enlarged) stadium with paying customers but that won't happen immediately anymore than the TV revenue will be immediately shared. You don't have to agree or believe, I'm just passing along information.

Utah will make more money next year without a tv contract, but based on gate receipts and other sales (new Pac-12 logo sales) of apparel, etc. than they would have getting the mtn contract money. Now, money for new sports and stadium expansion and costs short term, he may be right. But there is NO WAY that any member of the Ute committee that had to think about this for more than 5 seconds on whether to accept the PAC-12 offer.

[KillerDog]

Utah will make more money next year without a tv contract, but based on gate receipts and other sales (new Pac-12 logo sales) of apparel, etc. than they would have getting the mtn contract money. Now, money for new sports and stadium expansion and costs short term, he may be right. But there is NO WAY that any member of the Ute committee that had to think about this for more than 5 seconds on whether to accept the PAC-12 offer.

Unlike the common fan, they have to look at actual guaranteed money. There were guaranteed costs involved. At the end of the day, according to this guy, the only real issue that was a deal breaker for the U BOT was the BYU scheduling deal. Outside of that deal breaker, the costs needed to be analyzed and the guaranteed revenue had to be assessed but he thought it was a clear long term winner (although BOT deliberations took more than 1/2 a day so I guess you are a little off on your 5 seconds thing). These decisions are much more complex, in my observation, than most people think.

[Maximus]

Unlike the common fan, they have to look at actual guaranteed money. There were guaranteed costs involved. At the end of the day, according to this guy, the only real issue that was a deal breaker for the U BOT was the BYU scheduling deal. Outside of that deal breaker, the costs needed to be analyzed and the guaranteed revenue had to be assessed but he thought it was a clear long term winner (although BOT deliberations took more than 1/2 a day so I guess you are a little off on your 5 seconds thing). These decisions are much more complex, in my observation, than most people think.

What BYU scheduling deal? Being able to schedule them whenever or what?

[UteStar]

Unlike the common fan, they have to look at actual guaranteed money. There were guaranteed costs involved. At the end of the day, according to this guy, the only real issue that was a deal breaker for the U BOT was the BYU scheduling deal. Outside of that deal breaker, the costs needed to be analyzed and the guaranteed revenue had to be assessed but he thought it was a clear long term winner (although BOT deliberations took more than 1/2 a day so I guess you are a little off on your 5 seconds thing). These decisions are much more complex, in my observation, than most people think.

No question, all of it has to be analyzed and no question, it was. But I will say, there is NO WAY that any trustee member thought twice about this deal. Either your BOT friend is off his rocker or he is pulling his leg, this was a no brainer. Yes, there are costs involved...but the U has talked about stadium expansion for a long time with long term goals in mind. If the PAC-12 hadn't come a calling, the Utes would have been making plans to renovate the stadium and expand it without the PAC-12....so it makes no sense that it caused concern on the BOT.

I really think the BOT guy s pulling your leg about how the Utes had to really work this out to see if they were going to the PAC-12. There is NO WAY that the Utes would have turned it down, no way.