(05-18-2015 09:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 06:37 PM)otown Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 11:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  "Exposure" is a silly concept. Those who favor "exposure" over money are basically arguing that it is better to sell your product as a loss-leader, but without any back-end payout. That's crazy.

The AAC contract is therefore awful. ESPN gets loads of filler for ESPNU and ESPN News, and the AAC gets peanuts for it. Much better to have the Big East's money payout.

That said, the AAC will get the "greater percentage improvement" when both re-sign, not because we will get big $$, but just because mathematically, when the base dollar value is a pittance, any increase at all will be a "big percentage improvement".

when looking at the present and future, lets reverse roles.......literally. lets pretend AAC got the media deal the big east got.

where would they be now? at this point, lack of exposure would be a killer for the conference recruiting. we have a hard enough time recruiting against the P5, we would be strangled with nothing to offer the 3 star+ recruits who all have aspirations for the pro's. great, the school would have 5 million a year from football, don't kid yourself into thinking that means crap to a recruit. they care about visibility on TV, so the networks talk about them and their team....... this way the pro front offices are more familiar with them. being praised on national TV is a good thing and attractive to an aspiring pro athlete, although i shouldn't have to spell this out to you.

secondly, lets look at the second contract that would be in store for the AAC. we would literally be obliterated because we have nothing to stand on. yes, we have that BCS win and the NCAA mens and womens title.......... but that means crap if your ratings are IN THE TOILET WHICH IS WHERE THEY WOULD BE if we were on a channel that nobody watches....... if we were even on TV at all.

seems fairly simple, but your typical hell bent anti AAC diatribe would make it hard to comprehend...... so by all means, carry on.

Remember, Aresco SIGNED the exact deal you think would have "killed" the conference. The deal Aresco signed was with NBC-SN, and for $2 million per school/per year. That was a deal with NO money AND no exposure. And yet that's what Aresco chose, rather than signing with ESPN.

We only got the ESPN deal because ESPN matched the NBC-SN terms, and nobody could know whether they would do that or not.

Truth is, Aresco NEVER made a "choice" to take exposure over money. That's because nobody ever offered us any money! He was never offered the FOX deal that the Big East got. No network ever offered us more money for less exposure. We were offered peanuts - no money and no exposure.

ESPN offered more money but less exposure. Aresco declined and found more exposure on NBC-Sports, but less money. The fact ESPN matched the exposure was happenstance. ESPN never intended to give the AAC more exposure than they gave the old Big East---but thats exactly what happened.

I think that's one thing that is definite- we just saw how awful the exposure was for the old Big East.

2011-12 season- Georgetown had 6 games on regional sports network, along with 3 on ESPNU. That's pathetic.

(05-18-2015 09:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 06:37 PM)otown Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 11:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  "Exposure" is a silly concept. Those who favor "exposure" over money are basically arguing that it is better to sell your product as a loss-leader, but without any back-end payout. That's crazy.

The AAC contract is therefore awful. ESPN gets loads of filler for ESPNU and ESPN News, and the AAC gets peanuts for it. Much better to have the Big East's money payout.

That said, the AAC will get the "greater percentage improvement" when both re-sign, not because we will get big $$, but just because mathematically, when the base dollar value is a pittance, any increase at all will be a "big percentage improvement".

when looking at the present and future, lets reverse roles.......literally. lets pretend AAC got the media deal the big east got.

where would they be now? at this point, lack of exposure would be a killer for the conference recruiting. we have a hard enough time recruiting against the P5, we would be strangled with nothing to offer the 3 star+ recruits who all have aspirations for the pro's. great, the school would have 5 million a year from football, don't kid yourself into thinking that means crap to a recruit. they care about visibility on TV, so the networks talk about them and their team....... this way the pro front offices are more familiar with them. being praised on national TV is a good thing and attractive to an aspiring pro athlete, although i shouldn't have to spell this out to you.

secondly, lets look at the second contract that would be in store for the AAC. we would literally be obliterated because we have nothing to stand on. yes, we have that BCS win and the NCAA mens and womens title.......... but that means crap if your ratings are IN THE TOILET WHICH IS WHERE THEY WOULD BE if we were on a channel that nobody watches....... if we were even on TV at all.

seems fairly simple, but your typical hell bent anti AAC diatribe would make it hard to comprehend...... so by all means, carry on.

Remember, Aresco SIGNED the exact deal you think would have "killed" the conference. The deal Aresco signed was with NBC-SN, and for $2 million per school/per year. That was a deal with NO money AND no exposure. And yet that's what Aresco chose, rather than signing with ESPN.

We only got the ESPN deal because ESPN matched the NBC-SN terms, and nobody could know whether they would do that or not.

Truth is, Aresco NEVER made a "choice" to take exposure over money. That's because nobody ever offered us any money! He was never offered the FOX deal that the Big East got. No network ever offered us more money for less exposure. We were offered peanuts - no money and no exposure.

way to go on a tangent. please revisit the question at hand. this thread is about WHOSE TV DEAL HELPED THEM THE MOST.

this has nothing to do about what deal aresco may or may not have signed. this has everything to do with the current deal.

and yes, the deal aresco signed with nbc would have destroyed the conference.

bottom line, if i can go back in time and had the option to take either deal.......... I RUN WITH OUR CURRENT DEAL.

if the big east duplicates the ratings for the next 10 years............ they are gonna take a nice well deserved haircut next go around.

(05-18-2015 09:17 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The problem with using 2014 recruiting classes is a lot of them were done prior to the split. And a lot of them were signed before FS1 showed how awful the ratings were going to be on there.

Using that as a barometer is a double edged sword. If the class rankings were prior to the split, it also doesn't account for the AAC teams as to how the league is now perceived, which is lower on the basketball totem poll than before, and below the Big East 3.0. So for both, it is a wait and see. I will say this though, I think recruits care less about ratings, and more about their friends and family being able to see the games. It is not that they don't want to be in big games, but being seen at home is a bigger deal. While AAC games are on ESPN networks, and draw higher ratings, neither conference has many if any showcase games, so for the "exposure" part, I don't think there is a clear difference when it comes to basketball. But when it comes to games, their fans can easily see them. I randomly am picking three teams from each league, the marquee team, the worst team, and one in the middle. (note it can be hard to find the TV schedule for, since the schedules now mostly have wins and losses, and no longer show who is carrying it).

Big East

Georgetown
1 CBS
2 Fox Network
2 ESPN
2 ESPN 2
15 Fox Sports 1
2 Fox Sports Net (national games)
3 CBS Sports Net
2 Fox sports 2 (3 November OOC games)
Only 2 games not easily seen. 5 marquee nationwide games (OTA network or ESPN)

Butler
1 Fox Network
1 ESPN
3 ESPN 2
15 Fox Sports 1
1 ESPNU
3 Fox Sports Net (national games)
3 CBS Sports Net
4 Fox sports 2 (3 November OOC games)
1 local TV
2 exhibition games have no TV listed
Only 5 of their games might be hard for a player's family to see, depending on if their cable package has Fox Sports 2 (it's in about 50 million homes). 2 marquee nationwide games (OTA network or ESPN)

DePaul
2 Fox Network
2 ESPN
2 ESPN 2
15 Fox Sports 1
1 Fox Sports Net (national games)
6 CBS Sports Net
2 Fox sports 2 (3 November OOC games)
1 Comcast Sports Net Chicago
1 Pac 12 Network
1 ESPN 3
2 no TV (Exhibition games)

5 games hard to find outside of Chicago. 4 marquee nationwide games (OTA network or ESPN)


AAC teams

UConn
2 CBS
3 ESPN
10 ESPN 2
2 ESPNU
6 CBS Sports Net
5 SNY
5 games not easily seen nationwide. 5 marquee nationwide games (OTA network or ESPN).

SMU
1 CBS
1 ESPN
7 ESPN 2
5 ESPNU
2 ESPNews
7 CBS Sports Net
5 ESPN3

5 hard to find games. 2 marquee national TV games.


ECU
9 ESPNU
4 ESPNews
3 CBS Sportsnet
7 ESPN 3
2 No TV
9 hard to find game. No marquee national TV games

Unless these six are outside of the norm, I don't see a great big discrepancy in "exposure" between the two conferences in basketball. Roughly the same amount of marquee games, and if anything the Big East games are just as available nationally as the AAC games (note games on ESPN2 are available nationally about as much as on ESPN, but generally are not marquee games and do not draw near the audience as games on ESPN). Only one is getting 4 times the money for basketball - assuming a 50/50 split of AAC football/basketball money. If it is less than that, the numbers skew even more in favor of the Big East. Since the Big East does not play football, the exposure there is not an apt comparison.

ESPN2 games are better than FS1 though. I mean- Xavier played Cincy on ESPN 2 and got over 400k(or about I think it was 30 k less than on FS1 for the Big East title game). FS1 is that much of a drag on the Big East. The average conference game on FS1 went DOWN this year, even though the Big East was so much stronger. So UConn absolutely got more exposure than Georgetown did. UConn 15 games on CBS/ESPN/ESPN2. Georgetown with 7. Just a night and day difference.

And to just show how ESPN2 is a viable option- their showing of the Kentucky/Louisville game was the #5 game for the season. To put things in perspective. Kansas/Georgetown was a great OOC game on FS1. It drew 354k viewers. It was 3rd that evening behind Columbia/Kentucky and Wisconsin/Milwaukee- both of which were on ESPN2(the Columbia game drew 1.064 million, and the Wisconsin game drew 584k- or 230k more). Or the Xavier/Cincy game on ESPN 2 who drew 54k more viewers than the game on FS1 with Georgetown/Kansas.

(05-18-2015 09:41 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think that's one thing that is definite- we just saw how awful the exposure was for the old Big East.

2011-12 season- Georgetown had 6 games on regional sports network, along with 3 on ESPNU. That's pathetic.

How is that any different than the 5 games UConn had on SNY and 2 they had on SNY as defending national champion? And that is the AAC's best team vs. a then middle team. Georgetown was coming off a 22-11 season, and had more games on ESPN (8) than UConn did this past season, along with 5 more on ESPN 2 (and one CBS game). That same year (2011-12), UConn had 2 CBS games, 6 ESPN games, and 5 ESPN 2 games (there were 13 Big East Network/SNY games, but most were OOC), along with 1 on the U, and 3 on NBC Sports (exempt tourney). Louisville, meanwhile, had 4 games on CBS, 8 on ESPN, 3 on ESPN 2, and 4 on ESPNU (10 BEN games). It certainly was not the contract. The only difference is some of the less marquee conference games were syndicated instead of on CBS Sports Network. But on the flip side, many of the early season OOC games that are not shown only on local tv or ESPN3, were syndicated under the Big East to multiple markets, and often picked up by SNY or MASN for wider exposure. But as the Big East syndication network reached 50 million households during that time, I don't really see the issue:

ESPN Regional Television and BIG EAST Conference Announce BIG EAST Network College Basketball Game of the Week Syndication Package

' Wrote:CHARLOTTE, N.C. – ESPN Regional Television, Inc., and the BIG EAST Conference have announced that their 2009-10 BIG EAST Network Game of the Week regionally syndicated basketball package will air in nearly 50 television markets covering 24 states. Once again, the BIG EAST Network Game of the Week has the most substantial coverage of any regionally syndicated college basketball network, with the designated market areas of the network’s affiliates covering nearly 50 million households (41% of the U.S.).

Sixteen of the nation’s top 35 television markets will have clearance, including New York; Chicago; Philadelphia; Washington DC; Boston; Tampa, Fla.; Orlando, Fla.; St. Louis; Pittsburgh; Indianapolis; Baltimore; Hartford, Conn.; Kansas City, Kan.; Cincinnati; Milwaukee; and for the first time, Los Angeles.

Note not every game was widely syndicated, but many were. And many RSN's such as SNY and MASN broadcast many games that were otherwise only regionally syndicated. The thing is, games on regional sports networks are generally more available within their region than games on CBS sports Net, or FS2. Really even ESPNU or ESPN News, since they are generally on basic cable in those areas. There is certainly a give and take on them.

The 6 RSN games and 3 ESPNU games were just conference games. If you add all of those games- it's way more than what UConn had. You add the OOC games and it's 10 RSN games and a ESPN3 game.

And what was UConn's schedule this year for conference play?
ESPN2 7
CBSSN 6
ESPNU 2
ESPN 2
CBS 1

So 10/18 games on CBS/ESPN/ESPN2. Just looking at the subscriber numbers- much better having 6 on CBSSN/2 on ESPNU than having those on RSN's.

(05-18-2015 11:16 AM)stever20 Wrote:  ESPN2 games are better than FS1 though.

ESPN2 games get much better ratings than equivalent games in equivalent time slots on FS1. I haven't seen ratings data for ESPNU, but I wouldn't be surprised if ESPNU game ratings are better than FS1's.

I think NZMOrange wants to hear everything Syracuse did was the best and everything anybody else did was the worst.

(05-18-2015 11:16 AM)stever20 Wrote:  ESPN2 games are better than FS1 though. I mean- Xavier played Cincy on ESPN 2 and got over 400k(or about I think it was 30 k less than on FS1 for the Big East title game). FS1 is that much of a drag on the Big East.

that is irrelevant. Neither are the destination for marquee games, which is what I said. You can split hairs, but aside from games on CBS, Big Fox, or ESPN, the other games are mostly just there and available. Since we are talking about exposure, being on ESPN 2 or FS1 is essentially about the same. ESPN 2 has a few big games, but by and large, if you look at the ratings, all games "below" ESPN 2 are just mostly drawing from their own fanbase.

Here is a ratings breakdown from this past season (I removed post season conference tournaments)

*CBS Sports net is not a Nielsen rated network, but is comparable to FS2 in viewership.

For sure ESPN2 draws more overall. But if you look at the average or median viewership, there is a DRASTIC drop off after ESPN. ESPN2 had a total of 9 games draw 1 million viewers or more: ESPN had 84. ESPN2 had 48 games draw half a million viewers out of 206: Out of the 121 games on ESPN last year, all but 5 drew over 500k viewers. There is simply a HUGE difference between the two, despite the near identical availability.

Now to be clear, FS1 is behind even ESPN2, and in viewership sits somewhere between ESPNU and ESPN News. I am not saying it isn't. I am saying when it comes to mass "exposure," they are about the same. No one is watching but the fans of the teams involved. There is no huge advantage for just being on ESPN in terms of "mass" exposure.

(05-18-2015 11:45 AM)stever20 Wrote:  So 10/18 games on CBS/ESPN/ESPN2. Just looking at the subscriber numbers- much better having 6 on CBSSN/2 on ESPNU than having those on RSN's.

As shown above, games on ESPN 2 cannot be equated with games on ESPN if you are talking about "exposure." If you want to talk about availability, sure. but not exposure. Not even close. Games on CBS, Fox, and ESPN are marquee games, or garner exposure (ABC and NBC as well, if they ever start carrying games again. Everything else more or less runs together.

So like I said, they had less games on major networks, that garnered exposure. And that is comparing the defending national champion, to returning 8th place team, who STILL got more marquee time slots. The thing is, those games on MASN, were available to anyone with cable in their market, and a godo chunk of the mid-atlantic. Add in that ALL of those games were eligible to be picked up by other networks. For example every game but one (UNC Greensboro) that was shown on MASN was also shown on either SNY or MSG Network. That means it was shown on basic cable in DC, Baltimore, NYC, across various areas in NY State, most of NJ, and half of New England. Not to mention some were also carried on FS Ohio, Cox, CSS, BrightHouse, etc. That is a LOT more exposure than a game on CBS Sports Net, for example. By a long shot.

And you vastly overrate games on CBS SN, not even a Nielsen metered network, over games on RSN's, which were in about the same number of households (when fully syndicated), and available in many more households within their local markets. Many, many more (close to double).

While yes there is a huge drop from ESPN to ESPN2- there's a huge gap between ESPN2 and FS1- 422k to 100k. Like you showed- ESPNU drew more than FS1 by almost 25%.

Also, FS1 had of their 127 games only 3 draw more than 250k. So 48/206 games on ESPN2 drew at least 500k, 3/127 games on FS1 drew more than 250k.

even then let's look at the 3 top FS1 games-
Georgetown/Kansas- 354k. Was beat same night by Columbia/Kentucky(1.064 million on ESPN2) and Wisconsin/Milwaukee(584k on ESPN2).
Butler/Indiana- 500k. Was beat same day by SMU/Michigan(522k on ESPN2).
same day- Louisville/Western Kentucky-262k. Was beat by Illinois/Missouri(471k on ESPN2), West Virginia/NC State(423k on ESPN2) and Texas Southern/Michigan St(263k on ESPNU).

The average AAC tournament game got 359.5k viewers.
The average Big East tournament game got 177.8k viewers.
If that's not more exposure I don't know what is...

Bottom line- AAC went for the more exposure. Big East went for more money. plain and simple. The question will be when 5 years are up, will the AAC due to all that exposure be able to get more money and get a lot closer to the Big East? With the lack of live sports rights even by then- it's very possible.

(05-18-2015 11:49 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 11:16 AM)stever20 Wrote:  ESPN2 games are better than FS1 though.

ESPN2 games get much better ratings than equivalent games in equivalent time slots on FS1. I haven't seen ratings data for ESPNU, but I wouldn't be surprised if ESPNU game ratings are better than FS1's.

this is the meat of it all. if the ratings stink, the next contract will take a hit.

(05-18-2015 09:24 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 09:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, Aresco SIGNED the exact deal you think would have "killed" the conference. The deal Aresco signed was with NBC-SN, and for $2 million per school/per year. That was a deal with NO money AND no exposure. And yet that's what Aresco chose, rather than signing with ESPN.

We only got the ESPN deal because ESPN matched the NBC-SN terms, and nobody could know whether they would do that or not.

Truth is, Aresco NEVER made a "choice" to take exposure over money. That's because nobody ever offered us any money! He was never offered the FOX deal that the Big East got. No network ever offered us more money for less exposure. We were offered peanuts - no money and no exposure.

Hang on Quo. He DID choose to take exposure over money. ESPN originally offered more money than NBC, but they included a lot more syndicated games like the old Big East contract. How much more is unclear, but it was supposedly for about the same amount the Big East ended up signing for, for about $50 million per year, which would have been approximately $4 million per full member (note the initial offer IIRC was when the western flank was still aboard. I believe this was the offer, and then the split, that caused Boise St to reconsider). They chose to pass on the offer, which was the highest monetary offer out there, because the NBC offer was deemed better. He did choose the NBC offer due to exposure, since they were going to have every game televised nationally. If you read some of his quotes at the time, he more or less states this without stating it (he states the NBC offer was "the best" deal, but not the highest offer)

Two points come to mind:

1) Any offer made by ESPN, NBC, or anyone else before Boise and SDSU split cannot be compared to the deals that were actually signed, since those departures surely impacted the amount of money offered. What would be relevant is if, say, on February 1st, 2013, Aresco had on his desk the NBC offer, and also an offer from ESPN that would have paid FOX-Big East money but with far fewer nationally televised games than what NBC was offering. That would have been a real choice between money and exposure. But I don't believe Aresco ever had that choice. He had the NBC offer, and that was it.

2) We have to be clear about what 'exposure' means. It can't just mean "nationally televised", because unless I am mistaken, the Big East's FOX deal provides about the same amount of "nationally televised" games as does the AAC's deal with ESPN. So when people say that the Big East got "good money but bad exposure" while the AAC got "bad money but good exposure", they don't mean that the AAC gets 95% of its games televised nationally while the Big East only gets 45% of its games televised nationally, what they mean is that even though FS1 is a national channel, very few people are aware of it and actually watch it, whereas the AAC's games are on ESPN-family channels that are backed by the huge promotional apparatus of ESPN and ESPN has the established brand, and hence there is a lot more awareness about the AAC games.

So with that understanding, it's hard to imagine that Aresco could sanely regard an NBC-SN deal as "better" from an exposure POV than an ESPN deal, since NBC-SN is an even more obscure channel than FS1. Even if NBC-SN was offering twice as many national broadcasts as ESPN, you'd still figure that the total eyeballs on the games would be about the same, because twice as many people tune in to ESPN stuff just out of sheer habit and inertia.

(05-18-2015 12:41 PM)stever20 Wrote:  While yes there is a huge drop from ESPN to ESPN2- there's a huge gap between ESPN2 and FS1- 422k to 100k. Like you showed- ESPNU drew more than FS1 by almost 25%.

Also, FS1 had of their 127 games only 3 draw more than 250k. So 48/206 games on ESPN2 drew at least 500k, 3/127 games on FS1 drew more than 250k.

What you are stating is not wrong factually, but it misses the point. That is not "exposure." Expsoure, mass exposure, is limited to the three main networks. Everything else is irrelevant.

(05-18-2015 12:41 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Bottom line- AAC went for the more exposure. Big East went for more money. plain and simple.

That is only true if you ignore how both got there. The AAC actually strived for exposure in the manner that the BE has, the only property on a "new" rebranded network, that revolved around them. That was precisely what BOTH were going for. Based on actual plans, the Big East actually went for what seemed like MORE exposure, even more than the path the AAC chose, that ALSO paid good money, as Fox Sports 1 was expected to be much bigger than it is. But it did not work out that way. the ACC has their games shown on ESPN Network, but most are filler games buried on ESPNU, ESPNnews, and CBS Sports, with some games on ESPN2, and a few games on ESPN and an occasional game on CBS. The "exposure" is not great. The availability is. .

When the term "exposure" is used, I.e. games marketed to a mass audience, only games on ESPN and CBS really qualify, and Big Fox to an extent (their games are mass marketed on all Fox platforms, but as it is not a usual destination for CBB, the ratings are behind the other two ). All the rest are games just available on varying degrees on national TV. ESPN 2 CBB games are rarely "marketed" aside from a "coming up next" type thing. Games on ESPN are marketed all day on their various talk shows. Note *some* of the college football games are marketed (cough SEC games), but by and large the word "exposure" ends with games on ESPN or network TV. The point being, once your games are not on ESPN, as long as they are available on cable, you might as well take the money, because by and large, the only other people watching the games are people purposely seeking out *that* game, and not causal fans like games on ESPN draw.

That is the difference between my viewpoint and yours. Doesn't make one right or wrong per se, but that is the difference, and I believe mine is relevant in this scenario.

(05-18-2015 01:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Two points come to mind:

1) Any offer made by ESPN, NBC, or anyone else before Boise and SDSU split cannot be compared to the deals that were actually signed, since those departures surely impacted the amount of money offered.

Not in this case. Same offer before and after Boise and SD State were on board. It was one primary reason why the remaining AAC teams felt no need to bow to their demands: their "name value" did not really enhance the contract. I only pointed out they were still around, to both explain reasons why they may have left, and to give a timeframe.

(05-18-2015 01:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  So with that understanding, it's hard to imagine that Aresco could sanely regard an NBC-SN deal as "better" from an exposure POV than an ESPN deal, since NBC-SN is an even more obscure channel than FS1. Even if NBC-SN was offering twice as many national broadcasts as ESPN, you'd still figure that the total eyeballs on the games would be about the same, because twice as many people tune in to ESPN stuff just out of sheer habit and inertia.

You leave out quite a bit here. The NBC deal guaranteed that every conference basketball and football game would be on some NBC Network on national TV, with possible games on NBA Network (but no guarantee). The original ESPN offer had very few guarantees of timeslots, and included a lot of regional syndication and ESPN3 games. So yes, he could "sanely" consider the deal as better. In fact, it would almost debatable whether a "sane" person could consider the (original) ESPN deal better from an exposure perspective. Especially with ESPN having recently taken on more SEC games due to their expansion and inability to resell the extra games (syndicators knew the SEC Network was coming and had no interest in taking on more games: CBS had no interest in reworking their admittedly cheap contract for SEC games, that would be needed to take on more games). So between more SEC games, more ACC games, an expanded Big Ten, and new PAC 12 and Big 12 contracts, it was very conceivable to worry about where the games would be shown. Especially football, as Big East football games had already seen less and less games on ESPN and ABC, and more and more on ESPNU, syndication or ESPN3 only.

You are trying to look at it from a 2015 perspective when you already know what has happened with those things. When the original deal with NBC was signed, those were very real questions, with very unknown answers.

The problem for the Big East is their exposure on FS1 is so putrid. Yes they're nationally televised- but that's about the only plus you can say.

For the regular season- the Big East on FS1 averaged 110k viewers per game. 23 of the 58 games on FS1 got fewer than 100k viewers. Only 2 games drew more than 185k viewers.

The bottom line- the Big East absolutely gambled with going with FS1(and not going with ESPN). As of right now, that gamble has come up snake eyes.

The problem with your logic is if what you are saying is true that if not on CBS/ESPN- it's just people purposely seeking out that game- well- if that's the case, then the Big East has a far bigger problem. It's pretty obvious that folks can't find(or refuse to find) FS1. Until that part changes, the Big East is in trouble.

(05-18-2015 01:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The problem for the Big East is their exposure on FS1 is so putrid. Yes they're nationally televised- but that's about the only plus you can say.

For the regular season- the Big East on FS1 averaged 110k viewers per game. 23 of the 58 games on FS1 got fewer than 100k viewers. Only 2 games drew more than 185k viewers.

The bottom line- the Big East absolutely gambled with going with FS1(and not going with ESPN). As of right now, that gamble has come up snake eyes.

The problem with your logic is if what you are saying is true that if not on CBS/ESPN- it's just people purposely seeking out that game- well- if that's the case, then the Big East has a far bigger problem. It's pretty obvious that folks can't find(or refuse to find) FS1. Until that part changes, the Big East is in trouble.

The issue is Money vs. Exposure. Had the Big East and AAC stayed together, the C7 would have gotten substantially less money than they got from Fox. Further, they would have been stuck in a continued cycle of instability, with football playing members constantly looking for better opportunities.

FS1 is a relatively new network. However, it has a pretty good lineup of programming, with NASCAR, MLB (including divisional round playoffs), and B12 and P12 football. I wouldn't be surprised to see it get a piece of the B1G contract. I think that there is still a good chance that it will find at least ESPN2 level audiences within a few years.

Here's where the conference stood at the time of the breakup:

Georgetown
St. John's
Villanova
Marquette
DePaul
Seton Hall
Providence

UConn
Cincinnati
USF
UCF
Houston
SMU
Temple
Memphis
Tulane
Navy (football only)
ECU (football only)
Boise St. (football only - reneged)
San Diego St. (football only - reneged)

(05-18-2015 01:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The problem for the Big East is their exposure on FS1 is so putrid. Yes they're nationally televised- but that's about the only plus you can say.

That is the exact same thing I am saying with the AAC on ESPN. The only games that get "exposure" are games on ESPN, CBS, and FOX, and based on last year's numbers, it is the same roughly for both parties (unless the six examples I used are outliers one way or the other).

(05-18-2015 01:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The bottom line- the Big East absolutely gambled with going with FS1(and not going with ESPN). As of right now, that gamble has come up snake eyes.

The AAC made the same gamble, only going with NBC. Again, that was the choice the originally made, so both sought the same platform. The thing that would worry me going forward if I were in the AAC, is that I don't watch a whole lot on Fox or FS1, but I always see commercials for Big East basketball on Fox, be it during late season NFL games, Big 12 games, movies on FX, or whatnot. I watch a lot of ESPN: I rarely recall seeing commercials for any AAC basketball games, and that includes them showing defending national champion UConn. The only AAC football games I remember seeing a commercial for was ECU vs. UNC, and ECU vs. UCF. I am sure there were others they advertised, but those are the only two I remember seeing. When we talk about "Exposure," that is what I am talking about.

Back to the topic at hand, when you add all of it up. Similar number of marquee games, similar number of hard to find games, the exposure is about the same. But the money is far greater for the Big East, and for better or worse they are the (current) prime CBB property of Fox, and will be constantly promoted. Even if they have less viewers, that is exposure, and it comes with more money to boot.