The east is kind of forgotten in college football. We're an afterthought.

KnightLight Wrote:

brista21 Wrote:

Tallgrass Wrote:Newspaper readership has declined 50% since 1980. Newspapers run stories to sell newspapers.

Actually New York unlike most other metros hasn't seen that kind of drop, we have a very good readership rate that hasn't seen the declines of the rest of the country which can be directly attributed to our mass transit usage in the high density urban areas and on commuter rail lines radiating into/out of New York and Newark & Hudson County in NJ. So here they don't necessarily have to do such garbage to sell papers. Other than that I agree with your post.
(I'm at work or I'd have the time to get you some reference for this. I'll be sure to edit when I get a chance later today.)

NY Times has lost 30% of their NYC readers since 1993:
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.co...times.html

NYTimes has done well in selling papers to 3rd party vendors that distribute them Nationally (mostly to Hotels, businesses, some home subscriptions, etc..).

Its been the tabloids in NYC (Daily News and The Post) that had done "well" over the recent years..

Here's a real world example I don't know one person on my entire block that doesn't get at least one newspaper. I live in what would be considered low-density urban (or inner ring suburbs aka there is some space between the houses and modestly large yards). My town is 2.7 square miles and has a population well over 19,000 people. The tabloids do sell very well I think partly because of the format being much easier to read on the train or the bus.

buckaineer Wrote:

bluesox Wrote:I still think the best move mike T, nd, and the hoop school's can make to save the league is to expand to 18 teams, 1 bball only and 1 all sports, than split into two bball divisions based on geography. Under those conditions, the best teams are Memphis and St.Louis U and i'd make these invites sometime next spring, maybe after memphis wins a hoop title. If the big 10 did make a move for a big east school, you got an easy replacement in central flordia.

The problem is--would adding Memphis, or ECU, or UCF or any other CUSA program cause a Rutgers or Syracuse to want to remain a member of the Big East conference? Money is the issue. The other BCS conferences can offer more money--and if the B Televen gets a BE school such as Rutgers, ALOT more money. I just don't see how adding a school such as Memphis would generate enough revenue for the BE to make an SU or Rutgers turn down an invite where they'll make over $10million more per year. No, the hybrid can't just keep adding team after team after team to still be the 6th best BCS league with the 6th best payout. IF all schools really want to stay together, then they'll have to become proactive and raid other BCS conferences for cities and programs that could bring BE schools up to par money wise with the other BCS conferences.

If the B Televen can try and lure Rutgers or Syracuse, why can't the BE first try to lure PSU, ND, Maryland, Kentucky, UNC, BC or any combination of 4 BCS teams that would boost the revenues up to the same level as a Big Televen or ACC or SEC. If that were possilbe reasons for the BCS not to join diminish.

The last part is the key thing. I think a combination of BC, Maryland, PSU, and Virginia Tech with the current league would actually net all participants more money than any other conference in the country. You cover some very populous and wealthy states and metro areas. You are the conference of choice and proximity to the entire Northeast Corridor region, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Louisville, the Tampa Bay area, etc. It would reorient the conference around northeast and mid-atlantic where it started as well.

buckaineer Wrote:

bluesox Wrote:I still think the best move mike T, nd, and the hoop school's can make to save the league is to expand to 18 teams, 1 bball only and 1 all sports, than split into two bball divisions based on geography. Under those conditions, the best teams are Memphis and St.Louis U and i'd make these invites sometime next spring, maybe after memphis wins a hoop title. If the big 10 did make a move for a big east school, you got an easy replacement in central flordia.

The problem is--would adding Memphis, or ECU, or UCF or any other CUSA program cause a Rutgers or Syracuse to want to remain a member of the Big East conference? Money is the issue. The other BCS conferences can offer more money--and if the B Televen gets a BE school such as Rutgers, ALOT more money. I just don't see how adding a school such as Memphis would generate enough revenue for the BE to make an SU or Rutgers turn down an invite where they'll make over $10million more per year. No, the hybrid can't just keep adding team after team after team to still be the 6th best BCS league with the 6th best payout. IF all schools really want to stay together, then they'll have to become proactive and raid other BCS conferences for cities and programs that could bring BE schools up to par money wise with the other BCS conferences.

If the B Televen can try and lure Rutgers or Syracuse, why can't the BE first try to lure PSU, ND, Maryland, Kentucky, UNC, BC or any combination of 4 BCS teams that would boost the revenues up to the same level as a Big Televen or ACC or SEC. If that were possilbe reasons for the BCS not to join diminish.

Once again, this isn't about getting anyone to turn down anything at this point. The Big East is what it is; it is gaining strength but will be vulnerable to poaching for the foreseeable future. It is the #6 BCS conference in terms of its payout and unwieldy structure. What adding a Memphis or whomever does is buy us an insurance policy that the league will remain not only a BCS league but also a viable football conference in the eyes of the NCAA. No one program can then hold the league hostage. Think how hard Miami would have been laughing had they taken the money and stayed in the Big East as lord and master only to have fallen off the face of the earth with crappy facilities and a tiny fan base. With the current alignment you're setting up the Big East to have to make those wild, knee-jerk attempts to hold itself together at the expense of the remaining members.

With an additional leg to stand on the Big East can begin to plan for a stable future and work toward long term and very achievable goals that could launch it into the top 3-4 conferences in terms of revenue nation wide. However, if the membership wants to advance in this direction it can't become paralyzed and sit in a holding pattern waiting for the hammer to fall. Inaction on this front is more telling than any internet rumor imo.

Pie in the sky- Let's get richer football conferences.
First, there were several reasons in addition to money, the ACC expanded. I thought the main one was that the conference was at risk of losing its BCS bid. If you look at FSU, which dominated the conference, and check their BSC rankings, you will see that since 2001 the ACC leader had been on a serious decline barely keeping the conference in the top 12 BCS.
With ACC expansion, there was also talk of opening the ACC with a Monday night nationally televised game: FSU/UM. Cha-ching. There's not two teams in the ACC that a national audience is interested in this year- period. So that game won't be nationally televised but the contract money will still be honored I'm sure. Can ESPN be happy?
The ACC's big TV deal was fuled by potential and speculation. Sufford said he was creating the "best football conference" in the country. Well where is it?
VT and BC, if you recall, followed UM thinking that UM was the college football Goliath and where they went that's where the money would go. UM, like Goliath, ran into a few too many Davids last few year and lost their head coach. Not exactly where everyone thought they would be at this time is it?
This year VT will carry the ACC. Remember the ACC didn't even want VT, they wanted SYR but the Virginia goverment intervened. Bla, bla bla, you know the story.
So what's my point?
What have we learned?
Pie in the sky- get richer than rich- schemes don't always go as planned. Will adding Rutgers (or SYR) to the Big 10 cause New Yorkers to buy into the Big 10 Network? Maybe, maybe not.
If we learned anything from the ACC raid is that the grass is not always greener and home is not such a bad place. Conferences raid to solve a problem or need they have, not because they love or admire your university. You're an easy fix to their mismanagement, miscalculation problems. It seems the Big 10 Network is having problems with established cable companies already. Whom do you think knows more about the cable TV business?
Any BE team should first look at what can be done in the BE and carefully weigh that against any offer from another conference. What if the Big 10 Network is not a hot seller in a "new market" where the Big 10 has no established presence.
Frankly, solid BCS money split eight ways not 12, possibly two BCS checks this year. Solid rivalries in the world's richest TV markets. It would be better to develope what the BE has in BB and FB and where we are geographically, than to enter a scheme somebody has come up with to send money from the north east to places like Iowa.
If it ever launches ( and it just may not), in five years the Big 10 Network will probably go belly up. ACC fans are blogging talking about who they should add now to make the conference viable. What do they need 16 all sports teams? How will that make money?
There's no reason the B.E. can't be the richest conference within it's market. BE schools should stick together and work together to make this happen. In fact, I bet they understand and are doing just.

frogman Wrote:With ACC expansion, there was also talk of opening the ACC with a Monday night nationally televised game: FSU/UM. Cha-ching. There's not two teams in the ACC that a national audience is interested in this year- period. So that game won't be nationally televised but the contract money will still be honored I'm sure. Can ESPN be happy?

During negotiations ESPN approached the ACC with this concept, which the ACC, FSU and Miami agreed to for 3 years. After that it would be continued at the discretion of the schools, which they openly said was unlikely to happen after the first two. Obviously the poor play so early in the season has diminished the quality of the game and the schools opted to move their game to later in the season. Bottom line, the contracts only required those first three meetings.

Quote:The ACC's big TV deal was fuled by potential and speculation. Sufford said he was creating the "best football conference" in the country. Well where is it?

I'm not exonerating Swofford, but most of the "best football conference" talk came from casual comments after the fact, and most often by other press wonks and, IIRC, 1-2 football coaches. Swofford may have used a "one of the..." type lines but it was never simply about being THE best conference. To even say so with impunity would be to invite the most stringent criticism, so even if he said it I'm sure it came with a "we're trying to build" kind of notion. As you suggested above, this was about more than just football. The conference was trying to grow stronger and secure it's national appeal.

Quote:VT and BC, if you recall, followed UM thinking that UM was the college football Goliath and where they went that's where the money would go.

VT was the first to accept the invitation (next day?) and was moving no matter what. As their AD or President said at their press conference, "We're coming home." They were going no matter what because they knew either destination would be safe BCS-wise but that the ACC was a much better fit for their fans.

Quote:ACC fans are blogging talking about who they should add now to make the conference viable. What do they need 16 all sports teams? How will that make money?

Show me the link and I'll go talk sense into them.

Thanks for the comments GunnerFan.
BUt tell me what you think about expansion overall for the ACC or the Big 10's plans. Has expansion been better for the ACC or the BE teams so far. People will say, "Oh yea, the money's great." But how long will the money last if the conference is not playing well. For example: The ACC adds a championship game and no stadium wants to host it because of poor attendance. That couldn't be part of the cha-ching plan.
This is not to bash the ACC, but these AD's don't really know what they are doing. They're crap shooters hoping to get lucky.
I think the BE has everything it needs to increase its payout but a real business head at the helm.
The Big 10 Network sounds crazy to me. Like Uncle Louie coming over with new fangled contraption. I don't think the Big 10 is looking for a market to increase the network's viability, I think they are looking for a market to MAKE the network idea viable. It's like they don't have enough support in the areas they have been marketing in all these years but they can open up a new market they know nothing about- especially if they target New York City.
Otherwise launch it. Have it make money and then expand. Why expand and then launch a new, untested, unproven concept in college sports.

3601 Wrote:

Talking to yourself again 3601?

Gunner I think 14 or 16 conf could work, but it would have to involve huge TV markets & those combinations are limited. NY area would be one of them. With 16 team conf you could hold 2 [8] school BB tourn with each mini tourn champ meeting in championship game. More bowls, BB bids, better atten & less travell cost all figure in. As conf moves up the food chain donations go up.

buckaineer Wrote:

bluesox Wrote:I still think the best move mike T, nd, and the hoop school's can make to save the league is to expand to 18 teams, 1 bball only and 1 all sports, than split into two bball divisions based on geography. Under those conditions, the best teams are Memphis and St.Louis U and i'd make these invites sometime next spring, maybe after memphis wins a hoop title. If the big 10 did make a move for a big east school, you got an easy replacement in central flordia.

The problem is--would adding Memphis, or ECU, or UCF or any other CUSA program cause a Rutgers or Syracuse to want to remain a member of the Big East conference? Money is the issue. The other BCS conferences can offer more money--and if the B Televen gets a BE school such as Rutgers, ALOT more money. I just don't see how adding a school such as Memphis would generate enough revenue for the BE to make an SU or Rutgers turn down an invite where they'll make over $10million more per year. No, the hybrid can't just keep adding team after team after team to still be the 6th best BCS league with the 6th best payout. IF all schools really want to stay together, then they'll have to become proactive and raid other BCS conferences for cities and programs that could bring BE schools up to par money wise with the other BCS conferences.

If the B Televen can try and lure Rutgers or Syracuse, why can't the BE first try to lure PSU, ND, Maryland, Kentucky, UNC, BC or any combination of 4 BCS teams that would boost the revenues up to the same level as a Big Televen or ACC or SEC. If that were possilbe reasons for the BCS not to join diminish.

Because it's all about $$$$ and the BE has less of it than the ACC, SEC, and Big 10.... No one is going to walk away from 9 or 10 mil per year to get 5.

goodknightfl Wrote:

buckaineer Wrote:

bluesox Wrote:I still think the best move mike T, nd, and the hoop school's can make to save the league is to expand to 18 teams, 1 bball only and 1 all sports, than split into two bball divisions based on geography. Under those conditions, the best teams are Memphis and St.Louis U and i'd make these invites sometime next spring, maybe after memphis wins a hoop title. If the big 10 did make a move for a big east school, you got an easy replacement in central flordia.

The problem is--would adding Memphis, or ECU, or UCF or any other CUSA program cause a Rutgers or Syracuse to want to remain a member of the Big East conference? Money is the issue. The other BCS conferences can offer more money--and if the B Televen gets a BE school such as Rutgers, ALOT more money. I just don't see how adding a school such as Memphis would generate enough revenue for the BE to make an SU or Rutgers turn down an invite where they'll make over $10million more per year. No, the hybrid can't just keep adding team after team after team to still be the 6th best BCS league with the 6th best payout. IF all schools really want to stay together, then they'll have to become proactive and raid other BCS conferences for cities and programs that could bring BE schools up to par money wise with the other BCS conferences.

If the B Televen can try and lure Rutgers or Syracuse, why can't the BE first try to lure PSU, ND, Maryland, Kentucky, UNC, BC or any combination of 4 BCS teams that would boost the revenues up to the same level as a Big Televen or ACC or SEC. If that were possilbe reasons for the BCS not to join diminish.

Because it's all about $$$$ and the BE has less of it than the ACC, SEC, and Big 10.... No one is going to walk away from 9 or 10 mil per year to get 5.

There is a very good chance that the Big East will get and even BIGGER contract the next time around so that may not be true in a few years. With the new contract kicking in the Big East could be getting 7 to 8 million per year. People always conveniently ignore that fact.

templefootballfan Wrote:Gunner I think 14 or 16 conf could work, but it would have to involve huge TV markets & those combinations are limited. NY area would be one of them. With 16 team conf you could hold 2 [8] school BB tourn with each mini tourn champ meeting in championship game. More bowls, BB bids, better atten & less travell cost all figure in. As conf moves up the food chain donations go up.

14 to 16 team conference can't work. If they could work conferences would do it. There's a reason why the Big Ten and SEC won't touch a 14 team conference and the Big 12 back off of a 14 team conference.

goodknightfl Wrote:

buckaineer Wrote:If the B Televen can try and lure Rutgers or Syracuse, why can't the BE first try to lure PSU, ND, Maryland, Kentucky, UNC, BC or any combination of 4 BCS teams that would boost the revenues up to the same level as a Big Televen or ACC or SEC. If that were possilbe reasons for the BCS not to join diminish.

Because it's all about $$$$ and the BE has less of it than the ACC, SEC, and Big 10.... No one is going to walk away from 9 or 10 mil per year to get 5.

Correct. But, if the Big Ten Network gets up and running on Basic Cable within the next three years at the current asking price that dynamic can change and can be a catalyst for the monetary situation to change in regards to league situations.

Now, a Big Ten Network with PSU and Notre Dame can make as much, if not more than a Big East with PSU and Notre Dame - but what the Big Ten won't do is pay more money to the Nits and the Irish than they do Northwestern. It's an entirely foreign concept to that league.

The BEast has shown that when its athletics survival is on the line, it is willing to make the necessary accomodations to survive.

Cheers,
Neil

CatsClaw Wrote:

templefootballfan Wrote:Gunner I think 14 or 16 conf could work, but it would have to involve huge TV markets & those combinations are limited. NY area would be one of them. With 16 team conf you could hold 2 [8] school BB tourn with each mini tourn champ meeting in championship game. More bowls, BB bids, better atten & less travell cost all figure in. As conf moves up the food chain donations go up.

14 to 16 team conference can't work. If they could work conferences would do it. There's a reason why the Big Ten and SEC won't touch a 14 team conference and the Big 12 back off of a 14 team conference.

Agree, it can't work NOW under the current model. But a successful Big Ten Network on basic cable will change that. Trust me. The numbers have been crunched with lots of different scenarios. If the scenario is right in terms of teams and markets, expansion to 14 using the BTN model makes money for a conference.

It's just that right now, the BTN is not getting its asking price and therefore it is not financially feasible to expand to 14 if a conference network is relegated to a sports tier or has to settle for basic cable at a drastically reduced pricetag.

Cheers,
Neil

CatsClaw Wrote:

3601 Wrote:

Talking to yourself again 3601?

Is that your next best comeback after, "I know you are, but what am I?"

CatsClaw Wrote:

goodknightfl Wrote:

buckaineer Wrote:

bluesox Wrote:I still think the best move mike T, nd, and the hoop school's can make to save the league is to expand to 18 teams, 1 bball only and 1 all sports, than split into two bball divisions based on geography. Under those conditions, the best teams are Memphis and St.Louis U and i'd make these invites sometime next spring, maybe after memphis wins a hoop title. If the big 10 did make a move for a big east school, you got an easy replacement in central flordia.

The problem is--would adding Memphis, or ECU, or UCF or any other CUSA program cause a Rutgers or Syracuse to want to remain a member of the Big East conference? Money is the issue. The other BCS conferences can offer more money--and if the B Televen gets a BE school such as Rutgers, ALOT more money. I just don't see how adding a school such as Memphis would generate enough revenue for the BE to make an SU or Rutgers turn down an invite where they'll make over $10million more per year. No, the hybrid can't just keep adding team after team after team to still be the 6th best BCS league with the 6th best payout. IF all schools really want to stay together, then they'll have to become proactive and raid other BCS conferences for cities and programs that could bring BE schools up to par money wise with the other BCS conferences.

If the B Televen can try and lure Rutgers or Syracuse, why can't the BE first try to lure PSU, ND, Maryland, Kentucky, UNC, BC or any combination of 4 BCS teams that would boost the revenues up to the same level as a Big Televen or ACC or SEC. If that were possilbe reasons for the BCS not to join diminish.

Because it's all about $$$$ and the BE has less of it than the ACC, SEC, and Big 10.... No one is going to walk away from 9 or 10 mil per year to get 5.

There is a very good chance that the Big East will get and even BIGGER contract the next time around so that may not be true in a few years. With the new contract kicking in the Big East could be getting 7 to 8 million per year. People always conveniently ignore that fact.

Yes...future Big East Contracts will probably continue to get better and more profitable...but so will all the other BCS conferences as well.

It might be very hard for the Big East to "steal" a team away from the Big 10, ACC or SEC in the future.

omnicarrier Wrote:

CatsClaw Wrote:

templefootballfan Wrote:Gunner I think 14 or 16 conf could work, but it would have to involve huge TV markets & those combinations are limited. NY area would be one of them. With 16 team conf you could hold 2 [8] school BB tourn with each mini tourn champ meeting in championship game. More bowls, BB bids, better atten & less travell cost all figure in. As conf moves up the food chain donations go up.

14 to 16 team conference can't work. If they could work conferences would do it. There's a reason why the Big Ten and SEC won't touch a 14 team conference and the Big 12 back off of a 14 team conference.

Agree, it can't work NOW under the current model. But a successful Big Ten Network on basic cable will change that. Trust me. The numbers have been crunched with lots of different scenarios. If the scenario is right in terms of teams and markets, expansion to 14 using the BTN model makes money for a conference.

It's just that right now, the BTN is not getting its asking price and therefore it is not financially feasible to expand to 14 if a conference network is relegated to a sports tier or has to settle for basic cable at a drastically reduced pricetag.

Cheers,
Neil

omni
The SEC and Big10 are paying about 8 mill a team per year. You figure that if the BTN contract brings enough money for a twelve team BigTen to pay 10 mill per team. That would mean that each additional team 13 and 14th must each bring in at least an increase of 10 millon per team just to kep status quo.
I doubt many schools outside of Notre dame or Texas would have that type of economic gain for the Big10

Cubanbull Wrote:omni
The SEC and Big10 are paying about 8 mill a team per year. You figure that if the BTN contract brings enough money for a twelve team BigTen to pay 10 mill per team. That would mean that each additional team 13 and 14th must each bring in at least an increase of 10 millon per team just to kep status quo.
I doubt many schools outside of Notre dame or Texas would have that type of economic gain for the Big10

There are over 110 million TV households per Nielsen.

Over 90 million of those households currently subscribe to basic cable, DirecTV or Dish Network.

At $13.20 per subscriber in your designated markets/state and the rest of the country paying $1.10 per subscriber for each conference network, 5 super conferences would be splitting about $ 1.5 billion annually, per Comcast (and independently verified as well).

This averages to $ 300 million per conference network. The BTN is splitting with FOX 51/49, so basically half, which means each of the 5 super-conferences would take in, on average, $ 150 million annually from subscribers fees alone for their conference network. This does not take into account advertising revenue. Nor does it take into account the national TV contracts.

Believe me, if the BTN model proves successful, the money will be there. It's the reason why the two most powerful cable companies - Comcast and Time Warner and Dish TV are fighting hard to relegate the BTN to sports tier status.

Now factor in that TV households are going to grow 47% by the year 2050 and that the percentage of those households having some form of digital TV signal is being mandated by the federal government (although no hard and fast date has been established by the feds) to reach 100%, those figures will only continue to increase on an annual basis.

Cheers,
Neil

I'm just not under the delusion that penn state, maryland, bc, miami, v.tech, nd, etc have any interest in joining the big east, thus the best bet for the big east staying together would be to go up to 18 teams and basically create 2 hoop leagues under one conf banner. As for a true eastern conf, I think the only way that happens would be for the ACC to expand to 16 teams and than maybe they split up. IF the current big east adds memphis, you got a great hoops program, decent football program with most likely bowl tie in, and new market + a big blow to CUSA. St.louis U adds OK market, catholic school, and decent hoop tradition and a geographic fit with memphis.

bluesox Wrote:the best bet for the big east staying together would be to go up to 18 teams and basically create 2 hoop leagues under one conf banner.

We can call it whatever we want, but the NCAA has already clarified that such an arrangement is one league, receiving one at-large bid. 18 teams isn't the answer.