(03-17-2015 06:42 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 07:31 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  Found this post by Pony94 in another thread...figured I would drop it here.

College Basketball ratings

Saturday
1.20 rating CBS 6:00 pm Mountain West Championship: Wyoming vs San Diego State
1.13 rating ESPN 11:00 pm PAC-12 Championship: Oregon vs #5-Arizona
0.28 rating FS1 8:00 pm Big East Championship: Xavier vs #4-Villanova

Sunday
1.20 rating CBS 1:00 pm Atlantic 10 Championship: VCU vs Dayton
1.25 rating ESPN 3:15 pm AAC Championship: UConn vs #20-SMU

Pretty impressive that AAC had higher ratings than MWC and A-10 Championship games that were played on over-air CBS.

I said 2 years ago or so that AAC went for EXPOSURE vs upfront $$$ to help market this brand new conf and that was the way to go.

Even old Big East Hoop teams didn't get the same exposure as former CUSA teams that moved up to AAC.



Brand new conf that no one knew or ever heard about NEEDED exposure (and still does). Getting a few extra bucks won't help AAC Football or Basketball Coaches recruit better if the TV exposure side sucked.

Fuzzy math. Counting stuff like ESPNNews and CBSSports as national TV is a pretty loose translation. By that definition, all of the Fox Sports 1 games are national TV games.

(03-17-2015 07:22 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 06:42 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 07:31 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  Found this post by Pony94 in another thread...figured I would drop it here.

College Basketball ratings

Saturday
1.20 rating CBS 6:00 pm Mountain West Championship: Wyoming vs San Diego State
1.13 rating ESPN 11:00 pm PAC-12 Championship: Oregon vs #5-Arizona
0.28 rating FS1 8:00 pm Big East Championship: Xavier vs #4-Villanova

Sunday
1.20 rating CBS 1:00 pm Atlantic 10 Championship: VCU vs Dayton
1.25 rating ESPN 3:15 pm AAC Championship: UConn vs #20-SMU

Pretty impressive that AAC had higher ratings than MWC and A-10 Championship games that were played on over-air CBS.

I said 2 years ago or so that AAC went for EXPOSURE vs upfront $$$ to help market this brand new conf and that was the way to go.

Even old Big East Hoop teams didn't get the same exposure as former CUSA teams that moved up to AAC.



Brand new conf that no one knew or ever heard about NEEDED exposure (and still does). Getting a few extra bucks won't help AAC Football or Basketball Coaches recruit better if the TV exposure side sucked.

Fuzzy math. Counting stuff like ESPNNews and CBSSports as national TV is a pretty loose translation. By that definition, all of the Fox Sports 1 games are national TV games.

Nothing fuzzy at all...as those games were on TV...something most CUSA teams (and even some Big East teams) couldn't get in the past.

(03-16-2015 09:58 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 09:21 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  llion

Yep, exposure means everything. In the last round of CUSA, Memphis would have exposure in OOC but once conference began play we would literally disappear from the nation and it hurt us.

This year, disappearing may have helped.

No doubt it would have helped the Knights.

(03-16-2015 09:49 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 09:21 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  They chose more money less exposure. The AAC went opposite way and being a new conference with many teams that need to develop their basketball programs I think exposure is better than that extra 2 million

I'm in full agreement here ^^^

I'm stoked the AAC went this route, I must say... Any improvement while on TV is a PLUS ($$$) for this league.

One thing to bear in mind is that we did not "choose" exposure over more money. In order to choose something, there has to be a choice, and there is no evidence that NBC, ESPN, or anyone else ever offered us a "more money, less exposure" deal of the kind the Big East signed. Saying we "went a different route" thus wrongly implies that Aresco made some bold strategic decision or somesuch. But since the only offer we got was the very low money offer from NBC, which ESPN then matched, we didn't go a "different route", we just took the only deal offered.

Remember, another way of thinking of getting very little money for lots of games is that the network is paying us extremely little for each game. Typically, in any aspect of life and any product I can think of, if you go into a store and are able to by lots of stuff for very little money, that's great for the buyer, awful for the seller. And we were the seller.

Now, that doesn't mean it won't work out for us in the end. Maybe all those ESPN News and ESPNU games will build a following for our conference and we will get big $$$ when our next deal is made. But, there's no reason to think that will actually happen. As of now, we are just getting paid very little for our games.

(03-17-2015 07:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 09:49 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 09:21 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  They chose more money less exposure. The AAC went opposite way and being a new conference with many teams that need to develop their basketball programs I think exposure is better than that extra 2 million

I'm in full agreement here ^^^

I'm stoked the AAC went this route, I must say... Any improvement while on TV is a PLUS ($$$) for this league.

One thing to bear in mind is that we did not "choose" exposure over more money. In order to choose something, there has to be a choice, and there is no evidence that NBC, ESPN, or anyone else ever offered us a "more money, less exposure" deal of the kind the Big East signed. The only offer we got was the very low money offer from NBC, which ESPN then matched. So we didn't go a "different route", we took the only deal offered.

Remember, another way of thinking of getting very little money for lots of games is that the network is paying us extremely little for each game. Typically, in any aspect of life and any product I can think of, if you go into a store and are able to by lots of stuff for very little money, that's great for the buyer, awful for the seller.

And we were the seller.

Recall there's also 'product placement.' I'm sure some sellers would rather have their products on the shelves of Walmart than Sears --- and are willing to take a hit on price per unit sold in order to sell more units. I think that finishes your analogy.

(03-17-2015 07:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 09:49 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 09:21 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  They chose more money less exposure. The AAC went opposite way and being a new conference with many teams that need to develop their basketball programs I think exposure is better than that extra 2 million

I'm in full agreement here ^^^

I'm stoked the AAC went this route, I must say... Any improvement while on TV is a PLUS ($$$) for this league.

One thing to bear in mind is that we did not "choose" exposure over more money. In order to choose something, there has to be a choice, and there is no evidence that NBC, ESPN, or anyone else ever offered us a "more money, less exposure" deal of the kind the Big East signed. The only offer we got was the very low money offer from NBC, which ESPN then matched. So we didn't go a "different route", we took the only deal offered.

Remember, another way of thinking of getting very little money for lots of games is that the network is paying us extremely little for each game. Typically, in any aspect of life and any product I can think of, if you go into a store and are able to by lots of stuff for very little money, that's great for the buyer, awful for the seller.

And we were the seller.

The AAC negotiated for more exposure and lower pay instead of more money and less exposure with NBC. ESPN matched the offer from NBC and so we are with them. The presidents of the AAC conference believed it was in the best interest of the new conference to have maximum exposure.

(03-17-2015 08:10 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 07:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 09:49 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 09:21 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  They chose more money less exposure. The AAC went opposite way and being a new conference with many teams that need to develop their basketball programs I think exposure is better than that extra 2 million

I'm in full agreement here ^^^

I'm stoked the AAC went this route, I must say... Any improvement while on TV is a PLUS ($$$) for this league.

One thing to bear in mind is that we did not "choose" exposure over more money. In order to choose something, there has to be a choice, and there is no evidence that NBC, ESPN, or anyone else ever offered us a "more money, less exposure" deal of the kind the Big East signed. The only offer we got was the very low money offer from NBC, which ESPN then matched. So we didn't go a "different route", we took the only deal offered.

Remember, another way of thinking of getting very little money for lots of games is that the network is paying us extremely little for each game. Typically, in any aspect of life and any product I can think of, if you go into a store and are able to by lots of stuff for very little money, that's great for the buyer, awful for the seller.

And we were the seller.

The AAC negotiated for more exposure and lower pay instead of more money and less exposure with NBC. ESPN matched the offer from NBC and so we are with them. The presidents of the AAC conference believed it was in the best interest of the new conference to have maximum exposure.

There is no evidence that we 'negotiated' for more exposure and lower pay. There is no evidence that, e.g., NBC offered us more money for fewer games. In fact, they would have to be idiots to do that. Why pay MORE money for LESS of something? That is the opposite of rational.

I mean, just think about how your alleged negotiation would have gone:

NBC: We will give you $4m per year for 1/2 of your games.
Aresco: NO! We want you to give us $2m per year for ALL of our games!
NBC: No way! We INSIST that we give you a lot MORE money for a lot FEWER games!!!
Aresco: NO WAY! WE absolutely demand you give us PEANUTS for ALL OF THEM!!!!
NBC: WHAT??? Are you trying to ROB US???

Is that insane or what?

(03-17-2015 08:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 08:10 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 07:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 09:49 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 09:21 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  They chose more money less exposure. The AAC went opposite way and being a new conference with many teams that need to develop their basketball programs I think exposure is better than that extra 2 million

I'm in full agreement here ^^^

I'm stoked the AAC went this route, I must say... Any improvement while on TV is a PLUS ($$$) for this league.

One thing to bear in mind is that we did not "choose" exposure over more money. In order to choose something, there has to be a choice, and there is no evidence that NBC, ESPN, or anyone else ever offered us a "more money, less exposure" deal of the kind the Big East signed. The only offer we got was the very low money offer from NBC, which ESPN then matched. So we didn't go a "different route", we took the only deal offered.

Remember, another way of thinking of getting very little money for lots of games is that the network is paying us extremely little for each game. Typically, in any aspect of life and any product I can think of, if you go into a store and are able to by lots of stuff for very little money, that's great for the buyer, awful for the seller.

And we were the seller.

The AAC negotiated for more exposure and lower pay instead of more money and less exposure with NBC. ESPN matched the offer from NBC and so we are with them. The presidents of the AAC conference believed it was in the best interest of the new conference to have maximum exposure.

There is no evidence that we 'negotiated' for more exposure and lower pay. There is no evidence that, e.g., NBC offered us more money for fewer games. In fact, they would have to be idiots to do that. Why pay MORE money for LESS of something? That is the opposite of rational.

I mean, just think about how your alleged negotiation would have gone:

NBC: We will give you $4m per year for 1/2 of your games.
Aresco: NO! We want you to give us $2m per year for ALL of our games!
NBC: No way! We INSIST that we give you a lot MORE money for a lot FEWER games!!!
Aresco: NO WAY! WE absolutely demand you give us PEANUTS for ALL OF THEM!!!!
NBC: WHAT??? Are you trying to ROB US???

Is that insane or what?

It is understood that the majority of teams in the AAC are from Conference USA. Some have called the AAC another version of CUSA. Matter of fact, it is safe to say there are only two current members of the AAC that are from the early Big East days, UConn in BB and Temple. So out of 12 members, 10 have long time roots in CUSA. So I think it is safe to say this newly branded CUSA (AAC) is getting much more exposure and more money than ever before. So in my opinion, the conference negotiated and got more money and more exposure than what they were receiving. A few teams (Cincinnati, UConn, USF) took a pay cut so they could avoid going independent (since no P-5 conference wanted them). At least two of those teams (UConn and UC) could have stayed with the new-Big East BB conference and launch their football as independents, but choose not to. So yes, the AAC negotiated for more money and more exposure. And the market correctly valued the new brand until it can prove otherwise.

(03-17-2015 08:38 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  At least two of those teams (UConn and UC) could have stayed with the new-Big East BB conference and launch their football as independents....

Why do you still believe in that fallacy?

(03-17-2015 09:20 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 08:38 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  At least two of those teams (UConn and UC) could have stayed with the new-Big East BB conference and launch their football as independents....

Why do you still believe in that fallacy?

Are you saying that the Big East would not have taken UC and UConn in all sports except football and would have preferred Xavier and Butler My response to this thread relates to the notion that the AAC did not receive a worthy TV contract as a rebrand old CUSA. The complaints from any left over Big East team (Uconn, UC, USF), who did not receive any invites from the P-5 as they were deemed unworthy at the time (could change in the future),are unwarrant. My contention is that if you truly consider this a crap conference, you should drop out and join another conference or go independent.

(03-17-2015 08:38 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  A few teams (Cincinnati, UConn, USF) took a pay cut so they could avoid going independent (since no P-5 conference wanted them). At least two of those teams (UConn and UC) could have stayed with the new-Big East BB conference and launch their football as independents, but choose not to.

Are you saying UC or UCONN football could survive as an Independent?

(03-17-2015 09:27 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 09:20 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 08:38 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  At least two of those teams (UConn and UC) could have stayed with the new-Big East BB conference and launch their football as independents....

Why do you still believe in that fallacy?

Are you saying that the Big East would not have taken UC and UConn in all sports except football and would have preferred Xavier and Butler.

I hazard to guess that he wasn't objecting to your claim that UC and UConn could have kept their basketball in the Big East (they could have) but rather to the notion that they could survive or thrive as football independents. All the evidence suggests that unless you are Notre Dame, you will not thrive as an independent.

As for TV: I agree that the deal we signed reflected the market value of our product at the time of signing. That's axiomatic.

The Big East breakup was botched by all parties. Fox and FS1 need the Big Ten or that network is going to be lumped into the second tier forever with CBSSN, NBCSN, and ESPNews. I am not sure the Big Ten signing with Fox saves FS1 right away or helps the Big East in any way because that conference doesn't play football and my guess is that is where the biggest rating jump will occur for FS1.

The schools in the American in a lot of ways need to work together and maximize the revenue this conference can make. I am still frustrated that more effort was not made for a best of the rest conference. I know Cincinnati and UConn are power five dreams but I am not sure that will happen in the near future.

(03-17-2015 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 09:27 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 09:20 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 08:38 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  At least two of those teams (UConn and UC) could have stayed with the new-Big East BB conference and launch their football as independents....

Why do you still believe in that fallacy?

Are you saying that the Big East would not have taken UC and UConn in all sports except football and would have preferred Xavier and Butler.

I hazard to guess that he wasn't objecting to your claim that UC and UConn could have kept their basketball in the Big East (they could have) but rather to the notion that they could survive or thrive as football independents. All the evidence suggests that unless you are Notre Dame, you will not thrive as an independent.

As for TV: I agree that the deal we signed reflected the market value of our product at the time of signing. That's axiomatic.

Agree with the fact that UC football could not thrive as an independent. But the choice was UC (and UConn) to make. They chose to join the AAC and take less TV money rather than take more TV money with the Big East. So why do I see constant complaints that we are in this "**** crap conference" when we had another option? Not to mentioned, we have yet to outright win the regular season championships in mens basketball and football!

(03-16-2015 07:31 PM)CalallenStang Wrote:  Found this post by Pony94 in another thread...figured I would drop it here.

College Basketball ratings

Saturday
1.55 rating CBS 1:00 pm Big Ten Semifinal: Purdue vs #6-Wisconsin
1.90 rating CBS 3:30 pm Big Ten Semifinal: Michigan State vs #8-Maryland
1.20 rating CBS 6:00 pm Mountain West Championship: Wyoming vs San Diego State
1.55 rating ESPN 1:00 pm SEC Semifinal: Auburn vs #1-Kentucky
0.94 rating ESPN 3:00 pm SEC Semifinal: Georgia vs #21-Arkansas
1.59 rating ESPN 6:00 pm Big 12 Championship: #13-Iowa State vs #9-Kansas
2.31 rating ESPN 8:30 pm ACC Championship: #19-North Carolina vs #11-Notre Dame
1.13 rating ESPN 11:00 pm PAC-12 Championship: Oregon vs #5-Arizona
0.28 rating FS1 8:00 pm Big East Championship: Xavier vs #4-Villanova

Sunday
1.20 rating CBS 1:00 pm Atlantic 10 Championship: VCU vs Dayton
2.63 rating CBS 3:30 pm Big Ten Championship: Michigan State vs #6-Wisconsin
1.95 rating ESPN 1:00 pm SEC Championship: #21-Arkansas vs #1-Kentucky
1.25 rating ESPN 3:15 pm AAC Championship: UConn vs #20-SMU

3.86 rating CBS 6:00 NCAA Tournament Selection Show

My initial reaction.....ESPN is getting a huge bargain with the AAC. Pay 1/10 the cost for similar ratings.

What were the ratings for the Saturday AAC semifinal games?

(03-17-2015 10:40 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 09:27 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 09:20 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 08:38 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  At least two of those teams (UConn and UC) could have stayed with the new-Big East BB conference and launch their football as independents....

Why do you still believe in that fallacy?

Are you saying that the Big East would not have taken UC and UConn in all sports except football and would have preferred Xavier and Butler.

I hazard to guess that he wasn't objecting to your claim that UC and UConn could have kept their basketball in the Big East (they could have) but rather to the notion that they could survive or thrive as football independents. All the evidence suggests that unless you are Notre Dame, you will not thrive as an independent.

As for TV: I agree that the deal we signed reflected the market value of our product at the time of signing. That's axiomatic.

Agree with the fact that UC football could not thrive as an independent. But the choice was UC (and UConn) to make. They chose to join the AAC and take less TV money rather than take more TV money with the Big East. So why do I see constant complaints that we are in this "**** crap conference" when we had another option?

Wow, first I was speaking for a UCF fan, now for Cincy fans, LOL. But I guess that the reason some Cincy fans are complaining is that the decision has, in their opinion, not turned out to be a good one. Or else they still think that staying with the AAC was better than going indy in football, but that the AAC is in their view nonetheless a "crappy" conference. Neither of those positions are inherently contradictory with the fact that Cincy chose to remain in the AAC rather than go indy in football.

(03-17-2015 10:40 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 09:27 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 09:20 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 08:38 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  At least two of those teams (UConn and UC) could have stayed with the new-Big East BB conference and launch their football as independents....

Why do you still believe in that fallacy?

Are you saying that the Big East would not have taken UC and UConn in all sports except football and would have preferred Xavier and Butler.

I hazard to guess that he wasn't objecting to your claim that UC and UConn could have kept their basketball in the Big East (they could have) but rather to the notion that they could survive or thrive as football independents. All the evidence suggests that unless you are Notre Dame, you will not thrive as an independent.

As for TV: I agree that the deal we signed reflected the market value of our product at the time of signing. That's axiomatic.

Agree with the fact that UC football could not thrive as an independent. But the choice was UC (and UConn) to make. They chose to join the AAC and take less TV money rather than take more TV money with the Big East. So why do I see constant complaints that we are in this "**** crap conference" when we had another option? Not to mentioned, we have yet to outright win the regular season championships in mens basketball and football!

I don;t think they expected to make half as much as the basketball only nBE. In fact, I bet they thought they would make more than the nBE with equal Bball brands and the addition of FBall content.

Why is Fox not broadcasting the Big East Championship Game on their national network? I suspect that you use your national Fox network to sell FS1 for your other games.

(03-17-2015 09:27 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 09:20 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 08:38 AM)Bearcat61 Wrote:  At least two of those teams (UConn and UC) could have stayed with the new-Big East BB conference and launch their football as independents....

Why do you still believe in that fallacy?

Are you saying that the Big East would not have taken UC and UConn in all sports except football and would have preferred Xavier and Butler My response to this thread relates to the notion that the AAC did not receive a worthy TV contract as a rebrand old CUSA. The complaints from any left over Big East team (Uconn, UC, USF), who did not receive any invites from the P-5 as they were deemed unworthy at the time (could change in the future),are unwarrant. My contention is that if you truly consider this a crap conference, you should drop out and join another conference or go independent.

"Once were kings
But all great things must come to pass
We know the first will soon be last
And in the ground we maybe lain
But a seed is sown to rise again"