Big Ten Network a letdown, take two
After the plethora of e-mails and comments bashing or complimenting Kevin Spitz’s column last week, I asked Mr. Spitz (actually, I ordered him) to go at it again, this time addressing your concerns — and some more of his own.
So I’ll let him get right to it. Kevin?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
After catching some heavy criticism from my adoring sports column fans, it’s time to clear up some comments and concerns that my readers had with my column.
The first issue that I bring up is with Putting Fans First. A lot of readers were shocked to find out that Comcast is the financial backing for this organization. Well, yes, I knew that, but the fact that Comcast gives money to this organization does not change the fact that at this point over 10,000 independent people have actively signed up for this group in support of Comcast.
Every cable and satellite provider is being told that they are supposed to put the Big Ten Network on their basic cable packages, but there a lot of people who have no interest in having their cable packages cost more money for a channel that 1) has a small niche market and 2) some (most?) will never turn on.
Now, a lot of comments I received seemed to be from alumni, and honestly, I can see where you’re coming from. If you are an alumni who has moved out of the Midwest and is willing to pay a little extra money, the Big Ten Network allows you to see some games you couldn’t have seen before.
To give the alumni a little perspective, I have talked to many students on this campus who agree entirely with me. To sports fans in Champaign-Urbana, the Big Ten Network has proved more of an inconvenience than anything else. Most students do not have a satellite provider and do not even have the option to get one (University residence halls don’t carry the BTN), making it nearly impossible to watch games that were easily viewed before. The Big Ten Network seems completely useless to us.
Now, I still assert that the Big Ten loses some prestige and some national exposure putting their games on the Big Ten Network. The fact of the matter is this: Yes, you can pay extra to get the Big Ten Network by switching to certain cable providers and certain satellite dish packages, but people who are not already vested in the Big Ten (average fans, prospective students and potential athletic recruits) are not going to go out of their way to buy these packages.
If on a Saturday I flip on the TV and go to ESPN, I’ll watch a game — I enjoyed Alabama versus Arkansas just this weekend — but that doesn’t mean I’m going to pay for a satellite with a specific package to be able to watch that game.
I also know that the other conferences are looking into creating their own networks, and I just don’t understand how that fact justifies a Big Ten Network. I’m not saying that other conferences haven’t looked into doing the same, I’m just saying I think it’s a bad idea for any conference to do it.
What market does the Big Ten Network serve other than alumni? Sure, there may be a few rabid football fans who are willing to shell out the extra dough, but I feel alumni are the only ones willing to watch their team and pay extra.
Last but not least, I was rather surprised by the sheer amount of comments I got defending the Big Ten Network. I just want to pose a question and ask readers who feel strongly to respond: Why is there such loyalty towards the Big Ten Network? Why are people willing to go out and do all sorts of research to defend a network that has only been around three weeks?
So I ask my readers, please look at the Big Ten Network as a whole and realize that it does not serve the Big Ten Conference and it certainly does not serve the University of Illinois.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Thank you to you and your editor for trying to remedy some of the errors in your last column. While you make some progress, I still feel that you are slightly off the mark when it comes to criticism of the Big Ten Network.
First, you talk about the “Putting Fans First” group. You claim that readers “were shocked” to learn it was a front for Comcast. That’s not true, the readers knew about that, you’re the one that failed to include it in your column. If you knew about Comcast’s relationship with the group beforehand, how could you not include that fact in your column in order to provide an accurate representation of the group?
Second, you talk about how the Big Ten Network is a niche channel that people shouldn’t have to pay for. This represents another fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. First, the Big Ten is asking for the network to be placed on the basic level of service only in Big Ten school areas.
I agree that a person in California shouldn’t have the BTN added to their basic service. But in these Big Ten cities, the network cannot be called a niche network. These teams and institutions are the lifeblood of these towns, and coverage of them should be placed on a basic package. Speaking of niche channels on cable, cable is made up of entirely niche programming, that’s what it was created for. How many channels do you have that you don’t watch, have you ever demanded a refund from Insight for non-use of those channels?
I agree with your next point. As an alum, I’d love to get the network as I can rarely watch Illinois games. I live in Iowa City, and here at the University of Iowa, they broadcast the network to the dorms. I don’t know why they haven’t done that in Champaign, but that needs to be fixed.
Also, I still don’t understand how a conference having it’s own network makes it lose prestige or exposure. The Big Ten’s highest profile games (Ohio St./Michigan or Michigan/Illinois for that matter) will still be on national TV. Games that aren’t as high profile that used to be on ESPN+ and were broadcast to a very limited audience will now be on a national cable network. And as Illinois fans, we should be happy about this, as our football and basketball teams may not be “high profile” for a few years. How televising more games to more people lowers the profile of a conference I do not know.
Finally, you ask what’s in it for the Big Ten, and why people care. The network may have only been around for 3 months, but the teams have been around much longer than that. How can people not be excited that we have a network devoted to our conference? I watched Sports Center last weekend hoping to see highlights of the Syracuse/Illinois game, but they were never shown. If I were able to watch the Big Ten Network highlight show, I would’ve seen it.
If the Big Ten network does nothing for the conference or our university, then why did all 11 university presidents vote for it? Why, it provides greater exposure especially for sports that aren’t regularly shown on TV, every single football and basketball game will be televised, and instead of paying ESPN to show games, money flows directly back to the Universities.
I didn’t do any “research” to put this together, and I think if you’d done a little more in your first column, your boss wouldn’t have ordered you to write a second one.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Thanks for the comments, Mark. The reason I had Kevin write more was purely because of how much response the column generated — not because I thought he got anything wrong.
Comcast shouldn’t be viewed as the “villain” here. It costs them money to provide a channel and the BTN is not only asking for a lot of money from them, but demanding that its in their standard package. It just doesn’t work like that.
If the BTN were available on Comcast for free, I don’t think anyone would have a problem. Who wouldn’t want that? But the fact is that it isn’t, and it can’t be because of the financial issues, which don’t look like they’ll be resolved any time soon.
The idea and creation of a Big Ten Network is terrific. But for the reasons Kevin states, it will never be the idealistic channel you speak of.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Thanks for the comment David. I realize that this is a pretty unique situation here, one network asking to be placed on the basic lineup. All i’d say is that if there was any network that deserved that kind of treatment, i’d be this one. It costs Comcast money to provide every channel, and i’d gladly give up 10 or more channels I never watch just to watch this. I guess I may have had worse experiences with cable companies. They say, “if we add this network, your bill will go up $1.10″. I’d say to that that my bill has gone up plenty without new channels ever being added. That being said, while I may disagree with you on the placement, there is definately a point to be made on both sides of that argument. And whatever happens, Go Illini!
September 20th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Now there’s something we can both get behind!
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Some advice from MN
This sounds like something the Twins tried up here called “Victory Sports.” It failed for lack of a cable deal, including DirectTV, which I have.
The difference here is this is not a 6th tier netwowrk. Try 6th Rate!!! The whole production, annoucers, studio, programming is beyond lousy. It amounts to a 24 hour infomercial for itself.
If the Big Ten and Comcast wants to consider the fans, they should forget about a network and put together a subscription service (like Game Plan) and let fans buy only the sports they want (with local school coverage on the regional Fox network). You don’t need to launch a 24/7 network for that.
April 8th, 2008 at 6:46 am
I am totally behind you on this.