(05-31-2011 01:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-31-2011 12:31 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  At end of the day, there just isn't enough room on ESPN for another conference. You honestly think Joe Blow out here in CA cares about SEC and B11 teams? The answer would be a big fat NO. You think people in CT cares about B11 and SEC teams? Again, you know the answer.

Even when all the MWC teams were good, they got no press on ESPN. Trust me, ESPN is promoting SEC/B11 teams much more than other schools and not just because everybody in the world want to watch SEC/B11 teams.

Another reason why BE need to partner with another network for better coverage.

To the extent that all sports are local, then of course a random person in CA is likely going to care a lot more about a Pac-12 than an SEC or Big Ten game. However, ESPN is *national* and can't program like Comcast SportsNet Bay Area or NESN. Therefore, the standard is whether Joe Blow in CA is more likely to be interested in an SEC or Big Ten game over a BE (or ACC or Big 12) game, and that answer shown through ratings has been pretty consistently yes. As someone living in Chicago, do I really give a crap about who the Dallas Cowboys QB is or what the Yankees are doing? Absolutely not! However, it's still more likely that your average Chicago sports fan is going to be more interested in the Cowboys QB than the Jaguars QB or how the Yankees are doing compared to how the Mariners are doing, and as a result, I can't blame them for pimping those teams on SportsCenter.

Let's put it this way: we can argue all day whether the BE is worth gold or aluminum. The point is that ESPN believes the BE is valued as aluminum, so it therefore treats it like aluminum. Once again, maybe ESPN's valuation is wrong, but if that's what they truly believe, then their actions are logical. What they are NOT doing is valuing the BE as gold but then treating it as aluminum in order to "devalue" the BE so that it can then pay aluminum prices in a couple of years. You simply don't do that in the TV industry. ESPN is NOT stupid - if they think they have gold, then they'll treat it like gold.

Wow, what an example. You really think that Espn values the difference between the SEC and BE is the difference between gold and aluminum? You could have at least used gold and silver as your example. It would have at least been less offensive

(05-31-2011 01:23 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-31-2011 01:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-31-2011 12:31 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  At end of the day, there just isn't enough room on ESPN for another conference. You honestly think Joe Blow out here in CA cares about SEC and B11 teams? The answer would be a big fat NO. You think people in CT cares about B11 and SEC teams? Again, you know the answer.

Even when all the MWC teams were good, they got no press on ESPN. Trust me, ESPN is promoting SEC/B11 teams much more than other schools and not just because everybody in the world want to watch SEC/B11 teams.

Another reason why BE need to partner with another network for better coverage.

To the extent that all sports are local, then of course a random person in CA is likely going to care a lot more about a Pac-12 than an SEC or Big Ten game. However, ESPN is *national* and can't program like Comcast SportsNet Bay Area or NESN. Therefore, the standard is whether Joe Blow in CA is more likely to be interested in an SEC or Big Ten game over a BE (or ACC or Big 12) game, and that answer shown through ratings has been pretty consistently yes. As someone living in Chicago, do I really give a crap about who the Dallas Cowboys QB is or what the Yankees are doing? Absolutely not! However, it's still more likely that your average Chicago sports fan is going to be more interested in the Cowboys QB than the Jaguars QB or how the Yankees are doing compared to how the Mariners are doing, and as a result, I can't blame them for pimping those teams on SportsCenter.

Let's put it this way: we can argue all day whether the BE is worth gold or aluminum. The point is that ESPN believes the BE is valued as aluminum, so it therefore treats it like aluminum. Once again, maybe ESPN's valuation is wrong, but if that's what they truly believe, then their actions are logical. What they are NOT doing is valuing the BE as gold but then treating it as aluminum in order to "devalue" the BE so that it can then pay aluminum prices in a couple of years. You simply don't do that in the TV industry. ESPN is NOT stupid - if they think they have gold, then they'll treat it like gold.

Wow, what an example. You really think that Espn values the difference between the SEC and BE is the difference between gold and aluminum? You could have at least used gold and silver as your example. It would have at least been less offensive

I believe Frank is also the guy who stated BE should be lucky to get double its current $36M per year TV contract because there is a pecking order in the conferences with B11 and SEC way on the top.

Frank forgot to consult Larry Scott about that. It is obviously Scott did not pay attention to guys like Frank and his "conference assessments". Otherwise, PAC-12 would be sitting at ACC level TV contract if that.

Let's hope BE isn't paying attention to guys like Frank either when it comes his conference pecking orders or TV assessments.

(05-31-2011 01:20 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  But based upon the above Friday games shown on ESPN2 from 2007-2009, it seems to me that ESPN might have been better off placing some of these games (most involving BE teams) on Thursday night on ESPN instead of so many ACC teams that drew less than 2.0.

Cheers,
Neil

Maybe mattsarz can confirm, but I don't think that ESPN can do that to the ACC games (which is why I must emphasize the contractual aspect of it, as you can't really blame ESPN for showing Conference A over Conference B when they have a firm obligation with A but not B). What I'm wondering about is when a game choice is truly discretionary: if they have 1 game to choose from each BCS conference and they aren't contractually obligated to choose any one over the other, then what do they do?

(05-31-2011 01:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-31-2011 01:20 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  But based upon the above Friday games shown on ESPN2 from 2007-2009, it seems to me that ESPN might have been better off placing some of these games (most involving BE teams) on Thursday night on ESPN instead of so many ACC teams that drew less than 2.0.

Cheers,
Neil

Maybe mattsarz can confirm, but I don't think that ESPN can do that to the ACC games (which is why I must emphasize the contractual aspect of it, as you can't really blame ESPN for showing Conference A over Conference B when they have a firm obligation with A but not B). What I'm wondering about is when a game choice is truly discretionary: if they have 1 game to choose from each BCS conference and they aren't contractually obligated to choose any one over the other, then what do they do?

Neil simply proved that your assessment that other conference games get higher rating than BE games is just plain WRONG.

(05-31-2011 01:23 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Wow, what an example. You really think that Espn values the difference between the SEC and BE is the difference between gold and aluminum? You could have at least used gold and silver as your example. It would have at least been less offensive

A matter of semantics and not intended to offend. If you want to say silver instead, then that's fine. The point is that ESPN values the conferences differently, which I believe is true.

(05-31-2011 01:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-31-2011 01:20 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  But based upon the above Friday games shown on ESPN2 from 2007-2009, it seems to me that ESPN might have been better off placing some of these games (most involving BE teams) on Thursday night on ESPN instead of so many ACC teams that drew less than 2.0.

Cheers,
Neil

Maybe mattsarz can confirm, but I don't think that ESPN can do that to the ACC games (which is why I must emphasize the contractual aspect of it, as you can't really blame ESPN for showing Conference A over Conference B when they have a firm obligation with A but not B). What I'm wondering about is when a game choice is truly discretionary: if they have 1 game to choose from each BCS conference and they aren't contractually obligated to choose any one over the other, then what do they do?

Good point about the contracts. But then they just re-upped with the ACC knowing what the numbers show. So while my numbers were contractually bound and ESPN had no way of knowing that BE games would do as well as ACC games back in the mid-00s, they do now.

And they still favor the ACC potential over the Big East even though in actuality the two conferences are very similar. This is what frustrates Big East fans.

I think the Pac numbers shocked ESPN as well. They may not be as smart at their business as some want to believe.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-31-2011 01:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The point is that ESPN values the conferences differently, which I believe is true.

You've still got it wrong, Frank. ESPN values some conferences, and devalues the others...

(05-31-2011 12:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line: if we want more attention from ESPN and other national media outlets, we have to earn it on the field and in ratings/attendance.

As usual, your negative POV is wrong...again.

(05-31-2011 01:29 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  I believe Frank is also the guy who stated BE should be lucky to get double its current $36M per year TV contract because there is a pecking order in the conferences with B11 and SEC way on the top.

Frank forgot to consult Larry Scott about that. It is obviously Scott did not pay attention to guys like Frank and his "conference assessments". Otherwise, PAC-12 would be sitting at ACC level TV contract if that.

Let's hope BE isn't paying attention to guys like Frank either when it comes his conference pecking orders or TV assessments.

Please don't be so narrow-minded that you ignore broad-based market factors. All sports rights have suddenly increased dramatically over the past couple of months. If the SEC was renegotiating its contract right now, do you honestly think it would be less than the Pac-12? If the answer is no, then where do you get off on this line of critique? That's what I was basing my analysis on before and I don't quite understand why that was unreasonable. Did it turn out to be wrong because of market forces beyond the fundamental underpinnings of the particular conferences? Sure, but if you think that the Big Ten is going to get less than the Pac-12 when it gets a new contract 2 years from now, then I don't know what you're smoking. A rising tide is lifting all ships right now, but how high those ships go compared to each other still depends upon the ships themselves. That hasn't changed because of the Pac-12 contract or anything that Larry Scott has done or said. The SEC and Big Ten are fundamentally more valuable than the Pac-12. It might be a couple of years before such market reset value is realized (just as the BE will have to wait another year to realize its own new value), but that doesn't change the ultimate pecking order.

(05-31-2011 01:30 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(05-31-2011 01:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-31-2011 01:20 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  But based upon the above Friday games shown on ESPN2 from 2007-2009, it seems to me that ESPN might have been better off placing some of these games (most involving BE teams) on Thursday night on ESPN instead of so many ACC teams that drew less than 2.0.

Cheers,
Neil

Maybe mattsarz can confirm, but I don't think that ESPN can do that to the ACC games (which is why I must emphasize the contractual aspect of it, as you can't really blame ESPN for showing Conference A over Conference B when they have a firm obligation with A but not B). What I'm wondering about is when a game choice is truly discretionary: if they have 1 game to choose from each BCS conference and they aren't contractually obligated to choose any one over the other, then what do they do?

Neil simply proved that your assessment that other conference games get higher rating than BE games is just plain WRONG.

Well to be fair, there are not a lot of SEC Thursday night games in the pool I was able to look at and no Big Ten games. The few Pac games were all rated highly.

So I would have to still agree with Frank that the difference between those three leagues and the Big East is still significant - unless the Big East is having a magical year like 2006.

But there is so much data out there with ACC/Big East that the evidence shows there truly isn't much of a difference. It's all fixated on FSU and Miami but West Virginia clearly outperforms both and is just as capable of carrying their Big East brethren as the two Floridian schools are theirs.

Will be interesting to continue to follow this once TCU joins the league and Louisville gets back to 2004-2006 levels.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-31-2011 01:33 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(05-31-2011 01:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The point is that ESPN values the conferences differently, which I believe is true.

You've still got it wrong, Frank. ESPN values some conferences, and devalues the others...

Agreed. It appears to be in their best interests to keep one league down and available for Friday night and Wednesday night games. I think they have chosen a deliberate business strategy to make the Big East that league.

If I were in their shoes, I might do the same thing.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-31-2011 01:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-31-2011 01:29 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  I believe Frank is also the guy who stated BE should be lucky to get double its current $36M per year TV contract because there is a pecking order in the conferences with B11 and SEC way on the top.

Frank forgot to consult Larry Scott about that. It is obviously Scott did not pay attention to guys like Frank and his "conference assessments". Otherwise, PAC-12 would be sitting at ACC level TV contract if that.

Let's hope BE isn't paying attention to guys like Frank either when it comes his conference pecking orders or TV assessments.

Please don't be so narrow-minded that you ignore broad-based market factors. All sports rights have suddenly increased dramatically over the past couple of months. If the SEC was renegotiating its contract right now, do you honestly think it would be less than the Pac-12? If the answer is no, then where do you get off on this line of critique? That's what I was basing my analysis on before and I don't quite understand why that was unreasonable. Did it turn out to be wrong because of market forces beyond the fundamental underpinnings of the particular conferences? Sure, but if you think that the Big Ten is going to get less than the Pac-12 when it gets a new contract 2 years from now, then I don't know what you're smoking. A rising tide is lifting all ships right now, but how high those ships go compared to each other still depends upon the ships themselves. That hasn't changed because of the Pac-12 contract or anything that Larry Scott has done or said. The SEC and Big Ten are fundamentally more valuable than the Pac-12. It might be a couple of years before such reset value is realized (just as the BE will have to wait another year to realize its own new value), but that doesn't change the ultimate pecking order.

When B10 and SEC get their new contract down the road, do you think the following BE contract would be much less? Timing is everything in every negotiation. What BE will get in its TV contract and future ones will be based on what SEC/B11 get with theirs.

Personally, I think PAC-12 got way more potential in the long run than B10/SEC. That's just my assessment. West is growing rapidly population wise. B10/SEC both sit in markets that are declining and with lower income. Big East also sits on several states with high population growth and high income level.

Also, do you think there are unlimited TV dollars for SEC/B11? I mean at some point TV execs gonna have to know there is limited return for amount of $$$$$ they are paying out. B11 and SEC teams better be drawing HUGE HUGE ratings to justify much higher TV contract than PAC-12 just signed. What happens if the market is dead when SEC/B11 is up for their next contract? What happens when Internet is getting much more eyeballs than cable TV? Are you that confident those 2 conferences will get much better deals than PAC-12 just signed?

You were completely wrong about BE's new TV contract, what makes you think you are right about the SEC's and B11's future contracts?

(05-31-2011 01:45 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(05-31-2011 01:33 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(05-31-2011 01:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The point is that ESPN values the conferences differently, which I believe is true.

You've still got it wrong, Frank. ESPN values some conferences, and devalues the others...

Agreed. It appears to be in their best interests to keep one league down and available for Friday night and Wednesday night games. I think they have chosen a deliberate business strategy to make the Big East that league.

If I were in their shoes, I might do the same thing.

Cheers,
Neil

That is the main reason why we need to get off this ESPN train and move to another network for our Tier-1 games. They are not being promoted properly on this channel. ESPN made their decision, now it is time for BE to make ours. Exposure should be just as important as $$$$$.

(05-31-2011 01:42 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Well to be fair, there are not a lot of SEC Thursday night games in the pool I was able to look at and no Big Ten games. The few Pac games were all rated highly.

So I would have to still agree with Frank that the difference between those three leagues and the Big East is still significant - unless the Big East is having a magical year like 2006.

But there is so much data out there with ACC/Big East that the evidence shows there truly isn't much of a difference. It's all fixated on FSU and Miami but West Virginia clearly outperforms both and is just as capable of carrying their Big East brethren as the two Floridian schools are theirs.

Will be interesting to continue to follow this once TCU joins the league and Louisville gets back to 2004-2006 levels.

Cheers,
Neil

I agree about the ACC. I don't completely know how the ACC keeps getting these contracts (which may not look great now, but in relation to where the overall sports TV rights market was sitting last year, it was massive) for comparatively low return outside of (1) if/when Miami and/or FSU get rolling again, then that changes the ratings equation a ton and (2) Duke and UNC are consistently the 2 top draws in college basketball. Now, at a regional level (which ESPN is paying for in its new contract and sublicensing to Raycom, which didn't occur before), the ACC is still pretty valuable since they do arguably draw their own home footprint better than any other during basketball season. I think the ACC has been hurt by not having FSU or Miami in the national title race as much as the BE has been hurt by WVU and Louisville not performing up to par recently.

(05-31-2011 01:45 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Agreed. It appears to be in their best interests to keep one league down and available for Friday night and Wednesday night games. I think they have chosen a deliberate business strategy to make the Big East that league.

If I were in their shoes, I might do the same thing.

Cheers,
Neil

I agree that is exactly what ESPN wants to use The Big East for. They want us to canabalize our football schedule to meet their needs for a fraction of its value. It's a win / win for ESPN. They want to cherry pick our games, put them on when no one watches, them complain about the bad ratings. ESPN is the root of everything bad in colleg sports.
CJ

(05-31-2011 01:36 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(05-31-2011 12:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line: if we want more attention from ESPN and other national media outlets, we have to earn it on the field and in ratings/attendance.

As usual, your negative POV is wrong...again.

Actually, as usual, i am correct, and your Rosy Rita scenario is wrong.

First, since 2005, the Big East is ranked 5th out of 6 BCS conferences (by Sagarin) in terms of performance on the field. Second, we are worst in terms of attendance.

Third, as for Neil's TV ratings for thursday and friday evenings and Frank's argument about those schools being at the top of the pecking order, those ratings don't tell us much because there are very few games involving Big 10 or SEC teams.

E.g., Only 5 of 33 Thursday games involved and SEC team, and 0 0f 7 Friday games. And, of those 5 games, 4 times the participant was South Carolina and once it was Vandy. The big-name schools like LSU, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia never appeared on either night, Auburn did once, against WVU.

None of those games involved Big 10 teams.

Basically, thursday and friday on ESPN have been dominated by the ACC and Big East, so we can only use them to compare ratings between those conferences, and by all accounts, ESPN is going to be willing to pay us ACC-level money, which makes sense, doesn't it?

Beyond all that, though, i agree that the Big East is likely to get paid very well in our next contract. We will benefit from the huge rising tide in sports-fees. But, this doesn't mean we are actually better (in terms of on-field performance, ratings, and attendance) than people like Frank have been saying.

It just means those things no longer matter so much in terms of getting paid lots more money. Heck, the Big 10 has been the worst conference on the field since 2005, and they are getting paid mountains of money.

Frank, I think SU being down in FB, and Pitt being between mediocre to above average, has hurt the BE just as much. The last three titles have gone to UC and UConn. Neither one of those two schools are "supposed" to win the league. Also, neither did anything to prove the critics wrong, losing all three by 13 or more points.

(05-31-2011 01:48 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  That is the main reason why we need to get off this ESPN train and move to another network for our Tier-1 games. They are not being promoted properly on this channel. ESPN made their decision, now it is time for BE to make ours. Exposure should be just as important as $$$$$.

I agree that exposure is very important. But remember, as we discussed the other day, time-slot exposure for the games is not the only kind. Pre-game and post-game exposure in the form of hype and coverage on highlight shows and the like matter too, and ESPN has a monopoly on that.

And if they start paying us a lot more money (and if we sign with them, they surely will be), i bet ESPN will have an incentive to boost our exposure in those areas as well.

(05-31-2011 01:58 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(05-31-2011 01:45 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Agreed. It appears to be in their best interests to keep one league down and available for Friday night and Wednesday night games. I think they have chosen a deliberate business strategy to make the Big East that league.

If I were in their shoes, I might do the same thing.

Cheers,
Neil

I agree that is exactly what ESPN wants to use The Big East for. They want us to canabalize our football schedule to meet their needs for a fraction of its value. It's a win / win for ESPN. They want to cherry pick our games, put them on when no one watches, them complain about the bad ratings. ESPN is the root of everything bad in colleg sports.
CJ

Bad time slots also affect attendance. Wed night games can't be good for attendance. Those things are feeding all the negative BE trolls.

-The new Big East alignment in 2006 stabilized itself with a few elite teams but thats only half the battle, the other half is having a few elite at the time of negotiations, and we simply aren't there. Thats why I continue to say sign a short term contract this go around.

-I wish ESPN would have invested in us more with small production things like HD Big East games of the week for both football/basketball......We watch non HD BE basketball meanwhile Auburn vs South Carolina basketball is in HD.....That needs to be fixed for at least basketball, if not both.

-Its true they are devaluing us by putting us in non primetime day/times more and more, would that change if we were good on the field I'm not sure it would unless the audience was there. What made UL vs WVU and UL vs Rutgers ratings in 2006 so high compared to some of these other high ranked games in other conferences since? I could say that UL vs WVU being blackout 2 top 5 ranked teams with high offense helped....then UL a game away from playing tOSU in champ game against Rutgers helped....but not because it was near NYC in my opinion.