NCAA signs new TV deal despite financial losses

April 22, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The NCAA has a problem.

The golden goose laid an egg—and it wasn’t golden.

This year—despite Butler University's wonderful story—the NCAA’s broadcast partner, CBS, didn’t turn a profit on the three-week NCAA men’s basketball tournament.

What that means essentially is that CBS didn’t make enough in ad revenue to cover the huge rights fee paid to the NCAA and cover production costs.

The NCAA is eight years into its 11-year, $6 billion deal with CBS, which has broadcast the tournament since 1982. The NCAA has an opt-out clause that kicked in after this year’s Final Four, and is exploring expanding the tournament from 65 to 96 teams next year and bidding the package out for bigger bucks.

Jim Isch, NCAA interim president, was supposed to reveal the decision at an executive committee meeting April 29.

The problem apparently wasn't as big as once supposed, because this morning word leaked out that CBS and Turner have agreed to a 14-year, $10.8 billion deal to broadcast the tournament. NCAA officials are holding a 12:30 p.m. press conference reportedly to discuss the deal.

This development is most interesting. And this is why: Sources close to the network said CBS intended to ask for financial relief from the NCAA because the current/previous deal is/was heavily backloaded. If the NCAA does not opt out, CBS will owe $2.13 billion over the last three years of the deal.

That put the NCAA in a very tricky position. Either the Association sticks with a bird in the hand, albeit a bird that is likely to be squawking for more grub, or they re-bid March Madness on the heels of CBS’ revenue-loss revelation in the teeth of a still uncertain economy.

Apparently NCAA found a way to make this work for all concerned. The total package may be bigger, but I don't think it's likely the NCAA will be getting the $710 million annually over the next three years it would have under CBS' earlier deal.

Either way, cable cash is needed to prop up this deal. Cable stations benefit from two revenue streams—advertising and cash from cable company subscriptions.

ESPN was also eager to jump in the fray, but was shut out by the CBS-Turner alliance.

But Turner isn’t about to jump in for nothing. They want the Final Four on alternating years.

I can’t believe that people deride the Indy Racing League’s decision to move to the Versus cable channel, but there’s been hardly a peep about the NCAA moving its tournament games—including the Final Four—to Turner.

At least Versus has a mission statement centered on sports. Sure, Turner has done a solid job with the National Basketball Association, but they’re just as well known for airing cartoons and classic movies.

When the notion of tournament expansion was first reported in IBJ in December, the NCAA was looking for a more productive goose.

You can't blame the NCAA for grabbing at a bigger deal. After all, the cash from the men's tournament accounts for 98 percent of all the NCAA's revenue.

Still, you have to wonder about the wiseness of the NCAA's decision that essentially reduces the reach of its prized possession, and all the while praying those futuristic eggs don't turn out hollow for its broadcast partners.
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Just the beginning
    Welcome to the new economy. Spectator sports are going to have a tough way to go for the foreseeable future.
  • Tru who?
    What the heck is Tru-TV? Seems unlikely CBS/Turner will be able to drive more ad revenue out of this. Won't the ratings of the games be cannibalized since CBS/Turner will be airing 4 games simultaneously. Still lots of unanswered questions here, and I believe some serious miscalculations by CBS/Turner.

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Those of you yelling to deport them all should at least understand that the law allows minors (if not from a bordering country) to argue for asylum. If you don't like the law, you can petition Congress to change it. But you can't blindly scream that they all need to be deported now, unless you want your government to just decide which laws to follow and which to ignore.

  2. 52,000 children in a country with a population of nearly 300 million is decimal dust or a nano-amount of people that can be easily absorbed. In addition, the flow of children from central American countries is decreasing. BL - the country can easily absorb these children while at the same time trying to discourage more children from coming. There is tension between economic concerns and the values of Judeo-Christian believers. But, I cannot see how the economic argument can stand up against the values of the believers, which most people in this country espouse (but perhaps don't practice). The Governor, who is an alleged religious man and a family man, seems to favor the economic argument; I do not see how his position is tenable under the circumstances. Yes, this is a complicated situation made worse by politics but....these are helpless children without parents and many want to simply "ship" them back to who knows where. Where are our Hoosier hearts? I thought the term Hoosier was synonymous with hospitable.

  3. Illegal aliens. Not undocumented workers (too young anyway). I note that this article never uses the word illegal and calls them immigrants. Being married to a naturalized citizen, these people are criminals and need to be deported as soon as humanly possible. The border needs to be closed NOW.

  4. Send them back NOW.

  5. deport now

ADVERTISEMENT