(03-12-2014 11:20 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 11:15 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 11:10 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Look at the current Big East: No one watches the games...they draw ESPNU or worse nums.

No doubt about that. That is Fox's fault. They haven't marketed FS1 well (nobody knows it is there, way down the sports channels on my Time Warner Cable system). They probably didn't get the entity needed to launch a channel (Catholic schools instead of schools whom a state and/or city truly attach to). In time Fox could easily become a viable option... but it will take a few years of consistent marketing to get it there.

It's a major fail on Fox's part. Look at comparable games on ESPN and FS1 -- hell, forget ESPN for a minute, if you want, and compare ESPN2 with FS1 -- and the FS1 ratings are drawing between one-tenth and one-fifth the number of viewers.

Even with hoops realignment is about networks, not conferences. ESPN busted the chops of the Big East leadership, but retained the product it wanted in a conference it owns.

We'll see if Delany gets this when the Big 10 renegotiates T1. It would be funny if FOX outbid ESPN and the Big 10 went all in with FOX. They may wind up being the most payed and least watched conference in the nation for the next 15 years.

Face it between the SEC and ACC plus N.D. and the LHN and Kansas T3 ESPN owns 7 of the top 10 most profitable college athletic programs in the nation and the vast majority of the top 20. This too figures into the poor FOX numbers and eventually will be something that Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State will have to think a lot more about. Sure they will always be top programs but can they afford to take a serious downgrade in exposure for a long duration?

(03-12-2014 11:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  We'll see if Delany gets this when the Big 10 renegotiates T1. It would be funny if FOX outbid ESPN and the Big 10 went all in with FOX.

They won't do that, because even if Fox Sports management pulls its head out of its derriere and gets viewers over to FS1, it's not in the best interests of your league to shut ESPN out. You have to give them at least a piece. If you don't, then, like the NHL, you'll be almost invisible on ESPN's TV channels and website.

I could see the Big Ten going with Fox for over-the-air games and giving a package of games to FS1, but IMO they'll give ESPN, at least, one or two 12 noon ET FB games on Saturdays and a few BB games each week.

(03-12-2014 11:44 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 11:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  We'll see if Delany gets this when the Big 10 renegotiates T1. It would be funny if FOX outbid ESPN and the Big 10 went all in with FOX.

They won't do that, because even if Fox Sports management pulls its head out of its derriere and gets viewers over to FS1, it's not in the best interests of your league to shut ESPN out. You have to give them at least a piece. If you don't, then, like the NHL, you'll be almost invisible on ESPN's TV channels and website.

I could see the Big Ten going with Fox for over-the-air games and giving a package of games to FS1, but IMO they'll give ESPN, at least, one or two 12 noon ET FB games on Saturdays and a few BB games each week.

I do think you are probably right about this, but will that be enough for ESPN's favor to be earned with regards to realignment? I'm not sure it will be. So the Mouse will plug them some, accept status quo and hold tight to its other sports property.

(03-12-2014 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 11:44 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 11:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  We'll see if Delany gets this when the Big 10 renegotiates T1. It would be funny if FOX outbid ESPN and the Big 10 went all in with FOX.

They won't do that, because even if Fox Sports management pulls its head out of its derriere and gets viewers over to FS1, it's not in the best interests of your league to shut ESPN out. You have to give them at least a piece. If you don't, then, like the NHL, you'll be almost invisible on ESPN's TV channels and website.

I could see the Big Ten going with Fox for over-the-air games and giving a package of games to FS1, but IMO they'll give ESPN, at least, one or two 12 noon ET FB games on Saturdays and a few BB games each week.

I do think you are probably right about this, but will that be enough for ESPN's favor to be earned with regards to realignment? I'm not sure it will be. So the Mouse will plug them some, accept status quo and hold tight to its other sports property.

ESPN doesn't want the entire Big Ten "cable" TV package; they don't have enough "shelf space" for that much content. They'll be happy to let Fox have a piece. If Comcast/NBC tries to move in, though, then IMO ESPN will do the same thing they did when Comcast made its move on the Pac-12; ESPN would get together with Fox and make sure that Comcast remains shut out.

Everyone is overthinking the presence of FS1 after almost a year of existence. No one really expected them to challenge ESPN right out of the gate, and that thought process extends to Fox Sports executives. By 2016, when the B1G deal is announced, along with that of the NBA(unless they're renewed earlier, which hurts FS1), it will have had 2 seasons of MLB, 2 U.S. Opens(among other USGA events), a FIFA Women's World Cup, and plenty of UEFA, NASCAR, UFC, and Big East events. Fox won't pay for past performance, it will pay for future results. And if the B1G feels that it's better to be with a group of networks with plenty of upside, rather than with one that is already deemphasizing the conference, it will go with a company that will give it the fullest attention possible(see NHL and NBCSN(and Rogers in Canada, starting next season.))

The one problem that FS1 has on their shoulders(outside of the obvious one of not going against the 6PM SportsCenter) is, as has been pointed out in this thread, is the lack of aggressive promotion of it's channel number. Oddly, it's more inclined to promote where FS2 is, but the not "The 1". The same argument can be said of NBCSN, too. At least CBSSN let's viewers know where to find their network.

/End rant on FS1's worthiness.

(03-12-2014 09:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Kentucky for Florida State? Anyone?

Nah, I think that's going in the wrong direction. A better trade for both leagues would be Auburn for UNC or Tennessee for Virginia.

Personally, I'm fine with leaving the membership the way it is and just play a football and basketball challenge - say 1 game for each team in football, 2 games in basketball? (make those football games in addition to the existing in-state rivals, though; ditto any UNC/Kentucky BB games - just add 2 more for each team).

(03-12-2014 01:06 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 09:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Kentucky for Florida State? Anyone?

Nah, I think that's going in the wrong direction. A better trade for both leagues would be Auburn for UNC or Tennessee for Virginia.

Personally, I'm fine with leaving the membership the way it is and just play a football and basketball challenge - say 1 game for each team in football, 2 games in basketball? (make those football games in addition to the existing in-state rivals, though; ditto any UNC/Kentucky BB games - just add 2 more for each team).

Yes a partnership is all that's really needed. SEC football boosts the content value for Clemson, F.S.U., Virginia Tech, Miami, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, and North Carolina. Even Pitt could find games of interest there.

ACC basketball boosts the content for Florida, Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas and Kentucky.

Symbiosis cures the ills of both. 1 game in football and 2 in basketball would be a great start.

JR, IMO it's not in the SEC's best interest to partner with the ACC. Helping their football product would allow the ACC to gain fans, detracting from the SEC's market share. While it would help the SEC in basketball, the ACC isn't the only conference out there with a basketball rep. Partnering with the B1G would give them the same boost in basketball, and would do little to help the B1G in football, since they don't share markets.

(03-12-2014 01:32 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  JR, IMO it's not in the SEC's best interest to partner with the ACC. Helping their football product would allow the ACC to gain fans, detracting from the SEC's market share. While it would help the SEC in basketball, the ACC isn't the only conference out there with a basketball rep. Partnering with the B1G would give them the same boost in basketball, and would do little to help the B1G in football, since they don't share markets.

There is logic to what you suggest, but ESPN is the one that benefits the most by what I suggested and since they own both I am inclined to believe that it would be the most likely to happen since it is in ESPN's interest to do so. Also, there are many ACC football fans that follow SEC football anyway and the die hard basketball fans of the SEC follow the ACC anyway. But from a ratings standpoint it helps both and in doing that helps ESPN.

Besides the obvious games are played anyway. Georgia/Georgia Tech, F.S.U./Florida, Clemson/South Carolina, Louisville/Kentucky, and Vanderbilt/Wake Forest. We would be adding games like Tennesee/Virginia Tech, Kentucky/Pitt, Auburn/Virginia, Miami/A&M, and I'm sure Alabama would want Duke (heh heh). Missouri/Syracuse might make a good game too. It's better than adding a 10th conference game and we'll be going there anyway sooner or later so given the geography it makes sense. If the SEC does the same with the Big 12 then we are looking at 1 Rent a Kill a year for that guaranteed 6th or 7th home game.

After realignment the only way to get a payout boost will be content. So something like this is going to happen anyway. We'll save our Big 10 & PAC games for bowls and playoffs.

Fans love cross conference games, but they tune in large numbers for the ones that make sense. West Virginia vs Tennessee would be as big as Virginia Tech / Tennessee. Get Texas back on A&M's schedule and you have a game on the Horns schedule second only to Oklahoma. Oklahoma / L.S.U., Oklahoma State / Arkansas, Kansas / Missouri would all go a long way to healing some of the wounds of realignment. IMO that's what needs to be done and sooner rather than later.

ESPN owns a stake of all conferences-especially the important football rights.

It doesn't really make sense to have a collaboration of just two conferences playing each other since there are really maybe 3 or 4 interesting "rivalry" type games and the rest would be completely manufactured.

CFB would be better served to have multiple major conferences playing one another every year. That way you can get matchups like Texas/A&M, Oklahoma/Nebraska, Ohio State/USC, WVU/Pitt--the types of games CFB fans want to see, rather than just one conference playing another where most games are of little interest nationally.

(03-12-2014 01:56 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  ESPN owns a stake of all conferences-especially the important football rights.

It doesn't really make sense to have a collaboration of just two conferences playing each other since there are really maybe 3 or 4 interesting "rivalry" type games and the rest would be completely manufactured.

CFB would be better served to have multiple major conferences playing one another every year. That way you can get matchups like Texas/A&M, Oklahoma/Nebraska, Ohio State/USC, WVU/Pitt--the types of games CFB fans want to see, rather than just one conference playing another where most games are of little interest nationally.

SEC fans want to play ACC schools and Southwestern schools. What they don't give a hoot about are games with the PAC and Big 10. Talk about games we don't want to see. Michigan, Ohio State would be about it as the average SEC fan is concerned. But most of us can find somebody we wouldn't mind, or would actually like, to play in the ACC and Big 12.

(03-12-2014 12:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 11:44 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 11:33 AM)JRsec Wrote:  We'll see if Delany gets this when the Big 10 renegotiates T1. It would be funny if FOX outbid ESPN and the Big 10 went all in with FOX.

They won't do that, because even if Fox Sports management pulls its head out of its derriere and gets viewers over to FS1, it's not in the best interests of your league to shut ESPN out. You have to give them at least a piece. If you don't, then, like the NHL, you'll be almost invisible on ESPN's TV channels and website.

I could see the Big Ten going with Fox for over-the-air games and giving a package of games to FS1, but IMO they'll give ESPN, at least, one or two 12 noon ET FB games on Saturdays and a few BB games each week.

I do think you are probably right about this, but will that be enough for ESPN's favor to be earned with regards to realignment? I'm not sure it will be. So the Mouse will plug them some, accept status quo and hold tight to its other sports property.

ESPN doesn't want the entire Big Ten "cable" TV package; they don't have enough "shelf space" for that much content. They'll be happy to let Fox have a piece. If Comcast/NBC tries to move in, though, then IMO ESPN will do the same thing they did when Comcast made its move on the Pac-12; ESPN would get together with Fox and make sure that Comcast remains shut out.

I was referring to just T1 Wedge and even less of that in perhaps the split with FOX you had mentioned.

If the stars align...Syracuse/Duke Part Trois on Saturday Night.

NCSt among others will have something to say about that though.

You promote the games a week, two, three, a month out like they did for the 'Cuse/Duke games and you'll get big crowds. The games promoted the most, sit atop this most viewed list -- not surprising!

(03-13-2014 01:20 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  You promote the games a week, two, three, a month out like they did for the 'Cuse/Duke games and you'll get big crowds. The games promoted the most, sit atop this most viewed list -- not surprising!

Partially wrong. You can only over-promote certain branded programs to get big results. TV execs aren't stupid...they only have a few games per season to overhype. Fortunately both Duke/Cuse games matched the hype.