(05-12-2011 09:25 AM)Neue Regel Wrote:  

(05-12-2011 06:28 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-12-2011 12:38 AM)Neue Regel Wrote:  No. They will go after the best choice's regardless of a split.

The metrics will change depending on the situation. If your conference is riddled with great BB schools, as is the case in the hybrid league, then it makes no sense to go after another one. You take the shot to get a school that has potential to get it done in FB. However, in the event of a split, you lose a number of great BB schools which will change the dynamic of this hypothetical all sports conference. It's a game changer.

Well the question is this. Will they get more value by going all out in football and getting 3 quality teams that may not add anything short term or should they grab one more team and wait? I guess it depends on what basketball brings in money wise but I would not think it would match what football would bring.
Either way a split is bad because they lose the best conference for any sport that has ever been created. The only thing that comes close is the SEC in football. Also the older rivalries would probably end up turning into an early season game for for both schools. And in basketball we always hear it isn't what schools done in December, it is what they a few weeks before the tournament that matters. So a game betweens Providence and UCONN in case of a split ends up meaning nothing in the long run except for bragging rights.
Either way The Big East has no wrong or right choice. Someone is gonna be mad regardless. So they might as well go with what brings in the money.
I personally think they will not split. I think basketball only schools will realize they will get paid more in a bloated conference where they have to share instead of going out on their own.

I agree, I doubt the conference splits. As you point out, what combination maximizes revenue on a per team basis is the direction the conference will go in. But we know that conventional wisdom can be wrong.

I think the evaluations definitely change with a split situation. It's easy to ignore basketball completely for expansion in the BE's current situation as a BB power or when you're adding a school like Notre Dame or Nebraska, but that's not the position that the BE would be in if it split up. BE BB makes very good TV money right now and that's based on a combo of (1) the national perception that it's the best BB league and (2) its presence in several of the largest TV markets. So, you don't just throw that away if whatever gains you might get on the FB side don't compensate for it. If adding, say, Temple and Memphis allows the BE to retain its perception as the top BB league along with the Philly market, then that's consequential.

In essence, BB is actually the variable here - NOT FB. The TV contract for the FB side of the BE is going to be essentially the same whether or not there's a split. No one is going to magically pay more for a 10 or 12 team FB league without the hybrid versus one that's part of a hybrid. The revenue difference is going to be on the BB side.

(05-12-2011 07:47 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-12-2011 07:17 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  

(05-11-2011 06:34 PM)NashvillePirate Wrote:  You guys give the market argument way too much credit. Answer this for me. If markets were the "end all be all" when it comes to television then why does the Big East have the worst contract out of the AQ conferences.

I'm just curious here, but why don't BE fans want to address the significant issues your conference have(empty stadiums, small fan bases, an overall poor product)? Not trying to throw stones here, I just cannot understand the thought process of some.

This is a valid point that really is never rebutted with a quality answer I'll admit.

I'll try to address those points:

The BE has the worst contract now because the BE conference had to renegotiate their TV contract during the major upheaval experienced by the BE in 2003 - 2004. ESPN thought that the conference lost significant value, and that swapping Miami, VT and BC for UL, UC and USF did not get it done. I'm not trying to throw stones here either, but this shows definitively why CUSA schools were/are not perceived to be valuable commodities when compared to established BCS schools. Fortunately for the BE, the 3 newest members worked out. Now the BE is primed for a significantly larger BCS TV contract. It is far from clear if this new contract could be enhanced on a payout per team basis if the conference adds 3 additional CUSA programs now. No one on this board can make that leap of faith that it would be an enhancement, and logic would indicate that it wouldn't be.

Yes, some schools do have issues with filling their stadiums (USF for example) and traveling to bowls (Pitt for example), but that does not mean that the entire conference is like this. You also think the BE FB product is of poor quality on the field. Yes, the last year was poor, but the BE is far from unique from having a down year. If your contention is that the BE product is consistently poor in FB, then my response to you would be that this would be the perfect argument AGAINST inviting CUSA schools into the conference, wouldn't it? You could say that the BE addressed our putrid FB with the addition of TCU. Since there are no other schools on the horizon that could strengthen our poor quality product, then what's the point of expanding further? You cannot tell me with a straight face that any of the current CUSA schools would improve the FB product right now.

I actually think 2 CUSA schools could improve the FB product today. Both would come in and probably be middle of the road BE teams. One has a decent following and the other has an exceptional one. However, my definition of product is clearly different than a lot of BE fans. I think the term "product" extends beyond just on the field performance. For an explanation, see my post in response to "Catsclaw".

Don't get me wrong miko. You brought up a good topic. I am just not sure what they would consider if they were gonna split the conference up. For all we know they could just stay up in the Northeast
I am wondering if the TCU invite will do more damage then help down the road?

(05-12-2011 07:47 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-12-2011 07:17 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  

(05-11-2011 06:34 PM)NashvillePirate Wrote:  You guys give the market argument way too much credit. Answer this for me. If markets were the "end all be all" when it comes to television then why does the Big East have the worst contract out of the AQ conferences.

I'm just curious here, but why don't BE fans want to address the significant issues your conference have(empty stadiums, small fan bases, an overall poor product)? Not trying to throw stones here, I just cannot understand the thought process of some.

This is a valid point that really is never rebutted with a quality answer I'll admit.

I'll try to address those points:

The BE has the worst contract now because the BE conference had to renegotiate their TV contract during the major upheaval experienced by the BE in 2003 - 2004. ESPN thought that the conference lost significant value, and that swapping Miami, VT and BC for UL, UC and USF did not get it done. I'm not trying to throw stones here either, but this shows definitively why CUSA schools were/are not perceived to be valuable commodities when compared to established BCS schools. Fortunately for the BE, the 3 newest members worked out. Now the BE is primed for a significantly larger BCS TV contract. It is far from clear if this new contract could be enhanced on a payout per team basis if the conference adds 3 additional CUSA programs now. No one on this board can make that leap of faith that it would be an enhancement, and logic would indicate that it wouldn't be.

Yes, some schools do have issues with filling their stadiums (USF for example) and traveling to bowls (Pitt for example), but that does not mean that the entire conference is like this. You also think the BE FB product is of poor quality on the field. Yes, the last year was poor, but the BE is far from unique from having a down year. If your contention is that the BE product is consistently poor in FB, then my response to you would be that this would be the perfect argument AGAINST inviting CUSA schools into the conference, wouldn't it? You could say that the BE addressed our putrid FB with the addition of TCU. Since there are no other schools on the horizon that could strengthen our poor quality product, then what's the point of expanding further? You cannot tell me with a straight face that any of the current CUSA schools would improve the FB product right now.

[/b]ESPN thought that the conference lost significant value, and that swapping Miami, VT and BC for UL, UC and USF did not get it done


You may have just proven my point. The BE got rid of Miami, VT & BC and replaced them with UL, UC & USF. I'm not sure if I am correct, but I think the replacement markets(Louisville, Cincy & Tampa) are as large, if not larger, than the previous ones(Miami, Blacksburg & Boston). You just said that swapping market group 1 for a comparable market group 2 did not get it done TV wise. Why do you think ESPN thought the 2nd group put the BE in a worse position?

I know it is because the BE basically lost the meat of the conference, football wise. You replaced them with 3 CUSA teams, which you are saying decreased the value of the conference. I agree with that. However, I will point out that each of the 3 CUSA schools has been ranked top 10 since you have let them in the club.

I have 2 points I'm trying to make.

#1-You just replaced a group of markets with a comparable one and admitted that ESPN didn't believe that it would cut the mustard, so the BE had to settle for a smaller contract. How is that so if markets are so important?

#2-How can you say that CUSA schools cannot add value if the BE is clearly worth more from a TV standpoint today than it was when you added the lucky 3? I'd be willing to say that those 3 have added more value than they have lost. So, what's the difference between adding those three and adding two more who could compete next year?

(05-12-2011 09:56 AM)NashvillePirate Wrote:  I actually think 2 CUSA schools could improve the FB product today. Both would come in and probably be middle of the road BE teams. One has a decent following and the other has an exceptional one. However, my definition of product is clearly different than a lot of BE fans. I think the term "product" extends beyond just on the field performance. For an explanation, see my post in response to "Catsclaw".

I think that on-the-whole, adding ECU and/or UCF probably improves the on-the-field performance of the BE. However, the real question is whether one or more of those additions would generate enough additional TV revenue to compensate for splitting the conference money pie more ways (for both FB and BB) in a hybrid league or splitting off entirely into a separate league. That's where it gets more dicey and there likely isn't a clear answer - and university presidents don't like making expansion decisions without a clear answer. TCU, on the other hand, was perceived to be a pretty clear answer - ESPN and other potential TV suitors see value in not just TCU vs. WVU or Pitt, but TCU vs. the whole range of BE teams. At the same time, the law of inertia is fairly strong in college sports, which is why the Big 12 still exists after last summer and the Big East chose to create an even larger hybrid after the 2003 ACC raid than split apart. Barring a feeding frenzy like last summer when the Pac-16 proposal came to light and certain conferences HAD to act, conferences generally would rather exercise caution (even if it means waiting for several years) than rush into a decision.

(05-12-2011 10:11 AM)NashvillePirate Wrote:  You may have just proven my point. The BE got rid of Miami, VT & BC and replaced them with UL, UC & USF. I'm not sure if I am correct, but I think the replacement markets(Louisville, Cincy & Tampa) are as large, if not larger, than the previous ones(Miami, Blacksburg & Boston). You just said that swapping market group 1 for a comparable market group 2 did not get it done TV wise.

You aren't correct, they aren't larger markets. Miami vs Tampa is a wash, and Cincy and Louisville are nice mid-sized markets. But Boston is top 10 and VT is a land-grant flagship for a state of 8 Mil. A VT game in DC is a home game, ostensibly.

(05-12-2011 10:11 AM)NashvillePirate Wrote:  The BE got rid of Miami, VT & BC and replaced them with UL, UC & USF. I'm not sure if I am correct, but I think the replacement markets(Louisville, Cincy & Tampa) are as large, if not larger, than the previous ones(Miami, Blacksburg & Boston).

Just so the facts are out there (not saying anything about if the whole argument is valid or not)....

2004-2005 Nielsen DMA households:

Primary media market for schools exiting the BIG EAST:
Boston 2.39 million
Miami 1.50 million
Roanoke 0.45
---------------------------
Total 4.34 million


Primary media market for new schools entering the BIG EAST:
Tampa 1.67 million
Cincinnati 0.88 million
Louisville 0.64 million
------------------------------
Total 3.19 million

(05-12-2011 10:11 AM)NashvillePirate Wrote:  You may have just proven my point. The BE got rid of Miami, VT & BC and replaced them with UL, UC & USF. I'm not sure if I am correct, but I think the replacement markets(Louisville, Cincy & Tampa) are as large, if not larger, than the previous ones(Miami, Blacksburg & Boston). You just said that swapping market group 1 for a comparable market group 2 did not get it done TV wise. Why do you think ESPN thought the 2nd group put the BE in a worse position?

I know it is because the BE basically lost the meat of the conference, football wise. You replaced them with 3 CUSA teams, which you are saying decreased the value of the conference. I agree with that. However, I will point out that each of the 3 CUSA schools has been ranked top 10 since you have let them in the club.

I have 2 points I'm trying to make.

#1-You just replaced a group of markets with a comparable one and admitted that ESPN didn't believe that it would cut the mustard, so the BE had to settle for a smaller contract. How is that so if markets are so important?

#2-How can you say that CUSA schools cannot add value if the BE is clearly worth more from a TV standpoint today than it was when you added the lucky 3? I'd be willing to say that those 3 have added more value than they have lost. So, what's the difference between adding those three and adding two more who could compete next year?[/b]

I kind of agree with you that market size isn't the be-all end-all, but to be sure, you need some legit national brand name power in order to compensate for the lack of a large market (i.e. Nebraska, Oklahoma). Also, the BE absolutely lost a ton of market size in the ACC raid. VT isn't the Blacksburg TV market - it's really the DC TV market (and legitimately so, not just a decent fan base living there). That's the #9 TV market. Even if you were to take a more limited view and call Norfolk as VT's real market, that's at #43 (which is larger than Louisville). Boston is the #7 TV market. Miami is technically the #16 TV market, but combined with the adjacent West Palm Beach TV market that's really culturally and geographically part of the same metro area, it would be a top 10 TV market, too. In comparison, Tampa is #13, Cincinnati is #34, and Louisville is #50. Now, once again, I agree with you to the extent that it was really the national TV drawing power of Miami, VT and BC that was a bigger factor in the TV contract differences than markets in and of themselves, but those markets were definitely large ones.

(05-12-2011 07:54 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(05-12-2011 07:47 AM)miko33 Wrote:  You cannot tell me with a straight face that any of the current CUSA schools would improve the FB product right now.

After a few years of BCS Recruiting...most likely.

Heck...a MAC Team just beat the Big East CHAMPION last season...and since two CUSA teams ended up ranked in the Top 25...it wouldn't be without question to suggest that yes, some CUSA teams COULD improve the Big East Football product...both ON and OFF the field (i.e. with good/strong attendance).

Prior to last season....former CUSA schools won the Big East Championship 3 out of the previous 4 years...and odds are...other CUSA schools might/could do the same...especially after benefiting from BCS recruiting classes like all the other former CUSA schools have....and/or former I-AA schools like UCONN, which now has a Big East Championship plus a "share" of a Big East Championship in a previous season.

Other schools have taken advantage of the "BCS" opportunities...and odds are...another school in the future could do just the same.

OK, you're using the 4 year time period from 2006 - 2009. I think it's more accurate to use time line since the CUSA members began playing BCS football, but fine CUSA schools won 3 out of 4 during that time period. So lets look at the CUSA schools that were invited a little closer, shall we? UL was ready to play BCS football before they ever entered the BE, and they immediately made a big impact. So for UL, the BCS tag did not help them in recruiting because they were already there. Even if you look at their recruiting class rankings, you'll notice that their inclusion into the BE did not affect that much. Has UL been able to sustain their FB by "winning the lottery"? No, because there is much more to having a great FB program than just slapping a "BCS" tag on it. Lets look at USF. Has slapping the BCS tag really helped them? I'd argue no here as well. Look at their records: Years 1 - 3: 6-5, 8-4, 9-3. So did Leavitt get it done with those new BCS level recruits in their first 3 years or did he get it done with CUSA recruits? Maybe we can look at years 4 - 6 to see how those BCS recruits made USF better. Three years of 7-5 in the BE conference with consistent finishes in the middle to the bottom of the conference. So did that BCS tag work for USF? No, it did not. Now UC is different, and the BCS tag absolutely helped them. With the BCS tag, UC was able to secure the coaching skills of Brian Kelly, who would otherwise not have even returned UC's calls if it wasn't for that BCS tag. That I'll concede to you. But even in the case of UC, the BCS tag did not suddenly make them recruiting juggernauts. Their recruiting classes were nothing special and were only recently beginning to move up - all thanks to Kelly. So in evaluating the CUSA invites to the BE, the "BCS tag will propel my school to greatness" argument has a 33% success rate for the BE conference. Some odds, right?

You also mentioned UCONN. When I look at UCONN, I do not see a CUSA type school but an FCS school that made the jump to the BCS level. Are you sure you want to go down this path of discussion???

(05-12-2011 10:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-12-2011 10:11 AM)NashvillePirate Wrote:  You may have just proven my point. The BE got rid of Miami, VT & BC and replaced them with UL, UC & USF. I'm not sure if I am correct, but I think the replacement markets(Louisville, Cincy & Tampa) are as large, if not larger, than the previous ones(Miami, Blacksburg & Boston). You just said that swapping market group 1 for a comparable market group 2 did not get it done TV wise. Why do you think ESPN thought the 2nd group put the BE in a worse position?

I know it is because the BE basically lost the meat of the conference, football wise. You replaced them with 3 CUSA teams, which you are saying decreased the value of the conference. I agree with that. However, I will point out that each of the 3 CUSA schools has been ranked top 10 since you have let them in the club.

I have 2 points I'm trying to make.

#1-You just replaced a group of markets with a comparable one and admitted that ESPN didn't believe that it would cut the mustard, so the BE had to settle for a smaller contract. How is that so if markets are so important?

#2-How can you say that CUSA schools cannot add value if the BE is clearly worth more from a TV standpoint today than it was when you added the lucky 3? I'd be willing to say that those 3 have added more value than they have lost. So, what's the difference between adding those three and adding two more who could compete next year?[/b]

I kind of agree with you that market size isn't the be-all end-all, but to be sure, you need some legit national brand name power in order to compensate for the lack of a large market (i.e. Nebraska, Oklahoma). Also, the BE absolutely lost a ton of market size in the ACC raid. VT isn't the Blacksburg TV market - it's really the DC TV market (and legitimately so, not just a decent fan base living there). That's the #9 TV market. Even if you were to take a more limited view and call Norfolk as VT's real market, that's at #43 (which is larger than Louisville). Boston is the #7 TV market. Miami is technically the #16 TV market, but combined with the adjacent West Palm Beach TV market that's really culturally and geographically part of the same metro area, it would be a top 10 TV market, too. In comparison, Tampa is #13, Cincinnati is #34, and Louisville is #50. Now, once again, I agree with you to the extent that it was really the national TV drawing power of Miami, VT and BC that was a bigger factor in the TV contract differences than markets in and of themselves, but those markets were definitely large ones.

Thanks for the research. I was wrong about raw numbers and ratings. But, if you cannot give ECU credit for RDU and a portion of Tidewater VA, it's ridiculous giving VT the DC market. Either way, my point is that market talk is over stated and very over rated.

(05-12-2011 10:25 AM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(05-12-2011 10:11 AM)NashvillePirate Wrote:  You may have just proven my point. The BE got rid of Miami, VT & BC and replaced them with UL, UC & USF. I'm not sure if I am correct, but I think the replacement markets(Louisville, Cincy & Tampa) are as large, if not larger, than the previous ones(Miami, Blacksburg & Boston). You just said that swapping market group 1 for a comparable market group 2 did not get it done TV wise.

You aren't correct, they aren't larger markets. Miami vs Tampa is a wash, and Cincy and Louisville are nice mid-sized markets. But Boston is top 10 and VT is a land-grant flagship for a state of 8 Mil. A VT game in DC is a home game, ostensibly.

VT is a land-grant flagship for a state of 8 Mil. A VT game in DC is a home game, ostensibly.

Yes, I know. Neilson markets are not a true snapshot of a football team's actual draw. Yet another reason why the market argument is flawed.

(05-12-2011 06:28 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-12-2011 12:38 AM)Neue Regel Wrote:  No. They will go after the best choice's regardless of a split.

The metrics will change depending on the situation. If your conference is riddled with great BB schools, as is the case in the hybrid league, then it makes no sense to go after another one. You take the shot to get a school that has potential to get it done in FB. However, in the event of a split, you lose a number of great BB schools which will change the dynamic of this hypothetical all sports conference. It's a game changer.

Don't confuse him with logic.

(05-12-2011 10:56 AM)NashvillePirate Wrote:  Thanks for the research. I was wrong about raw numbers and ratings. But, if you cannot give ECU credit for RDU and a portion of Tidewater VA, it's ridiculous giving VT the DC market. Either way, my point is that market talk is over stated and very over rated.

VT is a flagship with strong state-wide support, and a strong presence in metro DC that deserves market carriage. Nearly 7500 VT students originate from just Northern Virginia in the DC area, with 50K+ of their 215K alumni in just that specific area, too.

By comparison, I just can't see why ECU can get credit for part of a market that is in another state, and with unimpressive numbers. There are only ~2500 ECU alumni association members in the entire Tidewater area, and 900 total students from all of VA. ECU's student and alumni base is overwhelmingly Eastern to Central NC.

If we were to split as long as TCU is on board Houston will be a front runner. For that matter UCF, ECU and Memphis will remain top choices. Now if TCU wants to bow down to the Big East and start a new football thing Temple and Marshall become targets for the NEW CONFERENCE but I think TCU would stay.

(05-12-2011 08:23 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(05-12-2011 10:56 AM)NashvillePirate Wrote:  Thanks for the research. I was wrong about raw numbers and ratings. But, if you cannot give ECU credit for RDU and a portion of Tidewater VA, it's ridiculous giving VT the DC market. Either way, my point is that market talk is over stated and very over rated.

VT is a flagship with strong state-wide support, and a strong presence in metro DC that deserves market carriage. Nearly 7500 VT students originate from just Northern Virginia in the DC area, with 50K+ of their 215K alumni in just that specific area, too.

By comparison, I just can't see why ECU can get credit for part of a market that is in another state, and with unimpressive numbers. There are only ~2500 ECU alumni association members in the entire Tidewater area, and 900 total students from all of VA. ECU's student and alumni base is overwhelmingly Eastern to Central NC.

By comparison? You did not say how many Va. Tech alums there are in eastern NC. I guess like ECU most of them are located close to home.

(05-12-2011 08:34 PM)cardshouse Wrote:  

(05-12-2011 08:23 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(05-12-2011 10:56 AM)NashvillePirate Wrote:  Thanks for the research. I was wrong about raw numbers and ratings. But, if you cannot give ECU credit for RDU and a portion of Tidewater VA, it's ridiculous giving VT the DC market. Either way, my point is that market talk is over stated and very over rated.

VT is a flagship with strong state-wide support, and a strong presence in metro DC that deserves market carriage. Nearly 7500 VT students originate from just Northern Virginia in the DC area, with 50K+ of their 215K alumni in just that specific area, too.

By comparison, I just can't see why ECU can get credit for part of a market that is in another state, and with unimpressive numbers. There are only ~2500 ECU alumni association members in the entire Tidewater area, and 900 total students from all of VA. ECU's student and alumni base is overwhelmingly Eastern to Central NC.

By comparison? You did not say how many Va. Tech alums there are in eastern NC. I guess like ECU most of them are located close to home.

My comparison was on his point, 'Why give VT credit for DC, and not give credit to ECU in the Tidewater?", not how VT does in NC.

Actually I said it's ridiculous you can't give ECU credit for RDU and a portion of Tidewater VA. I was making a point about Neilson DMA's not being a true snapshot of a teams following. It has nothing to do with number of alumni or student demographics. By the way, what is your source for that data? Obviously the AA is a poor source because not all grads are members, but the number of students sounds inaccurate.

(05-12-2011 10:39 PM)NashvillePirate Wrote:  Actually I said it's ridiculous you can't give ECU credit for RDU and a portion of Tidewater VA. I was making a point about Neilson DMA's not being a true snapshot of a teams following. It has nothing to do with number of alumni or student demographics. By the way, what is your source for that data? Obviously the AA is a poor source because not all grads are members, but the number of students sounds inaccurate.

Check ECU's own 2010-11 Fact Book on where ECU students originate. The alumni count is from the data map of ECU alums posted earlier, though ecu's most up-to-date alumni count is just under 130K. Even with that, the ratio of NC to non-NC alums is still wide. For schools that aren't state flagships with gaggles of t-shirt fans or national programs like ND, students and alumni demographics are certainly important to understanding where interest in athletics will originate, as well as market limitations.

I'm gonna say no to the OP's original question. While I do think some of the metrics shift up or down a bit, the idea of what the expansion/split is trying to accomplish does not change. Since the basketball power still remains with the all-sports schools, the focus is still on improving the football product. I understand that some think the Big East "loses" some markets by splitting with some of the other schools....but do they really need to worry about that? I highly doubt that NYC, Philly, DC, etc. are going to stop watching Syracuse, Rutgers, etc. since they are in a different conference than St. Johns or Georgetown. Not only that, if the Big East decided it needed to throw everything in on markets and focus only on teams with large markets then they are repeating the exact same mistake that has lead them to the very place they are in right now. Ignoring football again. Anyone who trys to make you believe that basketball is the variable doesn't have a clue as to what is going on. It would not make sense for football schools driven by a football agenda to work this hard only to adopt the exact same philosophy that the basketball side had. Why spilt? I do not agree that having teams exiting via a split means you lose those markets nor do I beleive that the focus changes back to the old and un-wise Big East philosophy of the past. JMO.