(08-20-2012 06:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-20-2012 05:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I do think people are generally undervaluing the Big East's basketball product (while simultaneously overvaluing the Big East's football product). Basketball is what provides the day-to-day viewership for a network like NBCSN, so even though it might be more of a commodity compared to football, it's still an important commodity. The "volume of games" argument is more persuasive when buying basketball rights, whereas football rights have been much more hinged about "quality of games" (which in TV terms means higher rated games).

I dont know if thats completely true. The ACC estimated its basketball at 20% of the total contract. Most people have been estimating that basketball would be 30% of the Big East contract--a 50% increase over the ACC's basketball contribution. The basketball value is similar, so the difference in percentage comes from an acknowledged difference in football value. Even the raw Neilson numbers indicate that Big East football has nearly twice the viewership of Big East basketball.

But Big East basketball gives ESPN and ESPN2 45 games, plus I think 18 games on CBS. 1M viewers x 63 games = 63M. 2M viewers x 22 football games = 44M. (I didn't count the 30 games on ESPN-U because I don't think Nielsen counted them.)

(08-20-2012 12:36 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(08-20-2012 11:50 AM)gotigers1 Wrote:  Duke and North Carolina would stroke out if the ACC tournament moved out of the state.

Or play the first two rounds of the NCAA tourament outside of the state of North Carolina.

Funny but to be fair, Duke prefers the East bracket since much of their alumni come from the Northeast.

Big East basketball is pretty darn serious, I'm just glad a weak program like Houston was accepted to join. Thank you Big East!

Hopefully our AD and our coach can improve our program so we're a contributor to the conference.

UH hasn't been a weak program since Ray McCallum was, uh, "reassigned" in 2004. These past two years were transition years and now there are big time recruits coming in (crosses fingers that they qualify) and a renovation to the very outdated Hofienz Pavilion.

(08-21-2012 12:06 AM)Caltex2 Wrote:  UH hasn't been a weak program since Ray McCallum was, uh, "reassigned" in 2004. These past two years were transition years and now there are big time recruits coming in (crosses fingers that they qualify) and a renovation to the very outdated Hofienz Pavilion.

So the Coogs have been rebuilding since 2004?

(08-21-2012 12:44 AM)Fireman451 Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 12:06 AM)Caltex2 Wrote:  UH hasn't been a weak program since Ray McCallum was, uh, "reassigned" in 2004. These past two years were transition years and now there are big time recruits coming in (crosses fingers that they qualify) and a renovation to the very outdated Hofienz Pavilion.

So the Coogs have been rebuilding since 2004?

Penders was regularly winning 18-20 games a year and had the Cougars in the NCAA tournament in 2009. The problem with Penders is he relied too heavily on juco transfers and never was able to develop a recruiting network in the talent rich Houston area. Penders wasn't bad, but he had topped out. Houston would never do any better under his guidance. Dickey was brought in to improve local recruiting and build the program. So far recruiting has improved...unfortunately the "build the program" part is off to an awfully slow start.

EDIT: LOL, Attackcoog beat me to it but I'll rehash some of his points.

UH was a top 100 RPI team every year under Penders except the last one, when he ironically crashed the Big Dance anyway. They beat ranked/high profile teams, played on national TV (i.e. ESPN networks and occasionally FSN nationally and CBS), was once named the team of the week by ESPN's Weekly Watch, was ranked for a brief moment and actually played Memphis as tough as anyone in the conference except maybe UAB, though UH is to date the only team since realignment to eliminate UM from the C-USAT since the last realignment.

UH was in the running for an at-large every year under Penders except 2007 and 2010, when they made the conference finals, winning the latter while playing respectably in a loss in the former. Yeah, the team underachieved and probably should have been in at least two NCAA Tournaments via at-large but UH hasn't been bad for a while.

And it's funny and somewhat true you say that we've been rebuilding since 2003, as Penders would always rely on JUCO's to patch together a team instead of building a foundation (possibly due to his feud with AAU coaches but that's neither h/t), which is why Dickey was left with little to work with when he got here, and he now is building a true program.

(08-20-2012 06:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-20-2012 05:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I do think people are generally undervaluing the Big East's basketball product (while simultaneously overvaluing the Big East's football product). Basketball is what provides the day-to-day viewership for a network like NBCSN, so even though it might be more of a commodity compared to football, it's still an important commodity. The "volume of games" argument is more persuasive when buying basketball rights, whereas football rights have been much more hinged about "quality of games" (which in TV terms means higher rated games).

I dont know if thats completely true. The ACC estimated its basketball at 20% of the total contract. Most people have been estimating that basketball would be 30% of the Big East contract--a 50% increase over the ACC's basketball contribution. The basketball value is similar, so the difference in percentage comes from an acknowledged difference in football value. Even the raw Neilson numbers indicate that Big East football has nearly twice the viewership of Big East basketball.

Oh, I agree that football draws higher ratings than basketball and believe exactly what you've said: Big East basketball, as a proportion of the total contract, is going to be higher than compared to the other conferences. If there were a football/basketball split in the SEC, it would probably be 90/10. In the Big East, I think you'll at least see 70/30 and think that it will end up being closer to 60/40. Basketball is what gives the Big East a legit claim to NYC, Chicago, DC and Philly as opposed to football. That won't matter much for the all-sports members, but the football-only members would need to take note.

(08-20-2012 12:48 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  Its set again for the generic 50 plus year old Greensboro Coliseum for the next 3 years.

To be fair, the Greensboro Coliseum has been renovated four times, last in 1993.

The current MSG renovations are the first substantive changes since it opened in 1968, and is the oldest NBA arena (in consecutive seasons) still in existence. (The Oakland Coliseum was built two years earlier but didn't host the NBA until 1971.)

(08-20-2012 06:29 PM)FULL_MONTY Wrote:  

(08-20-2012 05:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I do think people are generally undervaluing the Big East's basketball product (while simultaneously overvaluing the Big East's football product). Basketball is what provides the day-to-day viewership for a network like NBCSN, so even though it might be more of a commodity compared to football, it's still an important commodity. The "volume of games" argument is more persuasive when buying basketball rights, whereas football rights have been much more hinged about "quality of games" (which in TV terms means higher rated games).

I don't follow. Here is how I look at the situation. For the regular season, basketbal teams play 28-30 games and football plays 12-13 games.

Basketball has twice the inventory than football, but football generates 2x the neilsen ratings. 1.0 to 1.9 per the nielsen report. Essentially it is a wash between the higher ratings of football and the increased inventory of basketball.

This would suggest that football should be 50% of the contract. But what that ignores is the market. Looking at the Nielsen report, you can see that advertisers place a huge premium on football over basketball.

Here were the ad spend dollars:

7-8 274 BB 585 FB
8-9 254 BB 577 FB
9-10 269 BB 573 FB
10-11 295 BB 604 FB

As you can see Advertizers spent 2.25 times more on ads running during football than basketball.

This means that Football received 70% of the kitty to Basketball's 30%. Sic, anyone who assumes that basketball will be 30% of the tv contract value is not undervalueing the basketball piece of the pie.

What this says is 1.0 nielsen point of football is worth 2.25 nielsen points in Basketball.

JMO.

Except now take out the Nielsen #'s for Pitt, Syracuse and West Virgina for football and add the Nielsen #'s for SMU, UCF, BSU, SDSU and Navy...oh, Memphis and Temple. How do they compare now?

(08-20-2012 06:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-20-2012 05:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I do think people are generally undervaluing the Big East's basketball product (while simultaneously overvaluing the Big East's football product). Basketball is what provides the day-to-day viewership for a network like NBCSN, so even though it might be more of a commodity compared to football, it's still an important commodity. The "volume of games" argument is more persuasive when buying basketball rights, whereas football rights have been much more hinged about "quality of games" (which in TV terms means higher rated games).

I dont know if thats completely true. The ACC estimated its basketball at 20% of the total contract. Most people have been estimating that basketball would be 30% of the Big East contract--a 50% increase over the ACC's basketball contribution. The basketball value is similar, so the difference in percentage comes from an acknowledged difference in football value. Even the raw Neilson numbers indicate that Big East football has nearly twice the viewership of Big East basketball.

Even though you refuse to beleive that was postering, this article, and everyone that came out when that deal was signed, directly contradicted it. The ACC got a big increase from the old contract to the new one (the one signed in 2010) because ESPN picked up the basketball rights they never had before. This was well documented. And this article makes a direct reference to it.

(08-20-2012 11:48 PM)Fireman451 Wrote:  Big East basketball is pretty darn serious, I'm just glad a weak program like Houston was accepted to join. Thank you Big East!

Weak is a bit harsh. They/you just haven't reached the pinnacle of glory days past yet.

(08-21-2012 09:49 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-20-2012 11:48 PM)Fireman451 Wrote:  Big East basketball is pretty darn serious, I'm just glad a weak program like Houston was accepted to join. Thank you Big East!

Weak is a bit harsh. They/you just haven't reached the pinnacle of glory days past yet.

Agreed, I think most of us expect Houston to be a Tourney worthy program under the Big East banner. The pedigree is there and there have been flashes in the last five years so I think "weak" is hardly an honest assessment.

(08-20-2012 11:48 PM)Fireman451 Wrote:  Big East basketball is pretty darn serious, I'm just glad a weak program like Houston was accepted to join. Thank you Big East!

Hopefully our AD and our coach can improve our program so we're a contributor to the conference.

I think weak is a little strong, give it some time, it really does take time. It's now taken Cronin 6 years to get to the point with mostly high school players ( 2 jucos and 1 transfer) where UC should be rated top 5 or 6 in the league to start out.
You new schools have no idea what you are in for night after night, it was amazing the consistent level of competition, no games off as in C-USA or MW. I think some network is really going to pay big to be the home network of the BIG EAST.

(08-21-2012 10:51 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 09:49 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-20-2012 11:48 PM)Fireman451 Wrote:  Big East basketball is pretty darn serious, I'm just glad a weak program like Houston was accepted to join. Thank you Big East!

Weak is a bit harsh. They/you just haven't reached the pinnacle of glory days past yet.

Agreed, I think most of us expect Houston to be a Tourney worthy program under the Big East banner. The pedigree is there and there have been flashes in the last five years so I think "weak" is hardly an honest assessment.

Houston area has a lot of talent. UCONN took multiple players from the area before. Remember Jake Voshcal and Emeka Okafor? Both came from the Houston area. There were others that made impact but not as great as those 2.

Houston should be an annual tournament team in the BE. You can recruit much better under the BE banner.

There will be war night in and night out. Road games are rough. There is a reason why no one ever went undefeated during the BE regular season.

(08-21-2012 11:24 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 10:51 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 09:49 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(08-20-2012 11:48 PM)Fireman451 Wrote:  Big East basketball is pretty darn serious, I'm just glad a weak program like Houston was accepted to join. Thank you Big East!

Weak is a bit harsh. They/you just haven't reached the pinnacle of glory days past yet.

Agreed, I think most of us expect Houston to be a Tourney worthy program under the Big East banner. The pedigree is there and there have been flashes in the last five years so I think "weak" is hardly an honest assessment.

Houston area has a lot of talent. UCONN took multiple players from the area before. Remember Jake Voshcal and Emeka Okafor? Both came from the Houston area. There were others that made impact but not as great as those 2.

Houston should be an annual tournament team in the BE. You can recruit much better under the BE banner.

There will be war night in and night out. Road games are rough. There is a reason why no one ever went undefeated during the BE regular season.

I think that basketball is where the Big East can make the most dramatic difference in the Houston athletic program. Being in the Big Easrt should allow Houston to recruit high school BB players on a footing equal to the Big-12 area schools. Its going to take a while, but with our past history, the Big East badge to aid in recruting, and a planned 40 million dollar investment in on campus basketball facilities, I think Houston basketball has the potential to be among the better Big East programs in the future.

Okay, you guys convinced me, UH is not "weak". It's good to see the perspective of others around here.

So can we agree the Coogs are competitively mediocre?

j/k!



Go COOGS!

(08-21-2012 01:47 PM)Fireman451 Wrote:  Okay, you guys convinced me, UH is not "weak". It's good to see the perspective of others around here.

So can we agree the Coogs are competitively mediocre?

j/k!



Go COOGS!

Lol. After our last two seasons that's probably overly generous....us Coogs just wanted people to know we are not typically this bad.

(08-21-2012 01:47 PM)Fireman451 Wrote:  Okay, you guys convinced me, UH is not "weak". It's good to see the perspective of others around here.

So can we agree the Coogs are competitively mediocre?

j/k!



Go COOGS!