(12-15-2015 09:19 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-13-2015 11:13 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The question is going to be, will FS1 get enough good games of the Big Ten to really make a difference though? The Big Ten isn't going to make the mistake the Big East in going all in with Fox. And sorry, but it was a HUGE mistake.

Also it's about 40 games that FS1 had this year. Between UFC and MLB- there isn't much more room for FS1 to add any more games. They can't air fewer Pac 12 games, and are only losing like 4 Big 12 games to ESPN. Where's all the space that FS1 really has?

Mistake the Big East Made? The deal they got paid them much more than what ESPN was willing to pay them. That 12 year deal allowed them to have a transition where they could have the money to become a power BBall conference. I wouldn't call that a mistake, they make more TV money than any of the G5 conferences.

And they largely fall off of tv in January and February. They totally chose money over exposure. To not have any presence on ESPN, which is still THE gold standard no matter how much you despise them, is a big mistake. You don't have to be all with ESPN, but you have to be partly with ESPN.

(12-15-2015 09:25 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 09:19 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-13-2015 11:13 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The question is going to be, will FS1 get enough good games of the Big Ten to really make a difference though? The Big Ten isn't going to make the mistake the Big East in going all in with Fox. And sorry, but it was a HUGE mistake.

Also it's about 40 games that FS1 had this year. Between UFC and MLB- there isn't much more room for FS1 to add any more games. They can't air fewer Pac 12 games, and are only losing like 4 Big 12 games to ESPN. Where's all the space that FS1 really has?

Mistake the Big East Made? The deal they got paid them much more than what ESPN was willing to pay them. That 12 year deal allowed them to have a transition where they could have the money to become a power BBall conference. I wouldn't call that a mistake, they make more TV money than any of the G5 conferences.

And they largely fall off of tv in January and February. They totally chose money over exposure. To not have any presence on ESPN, which is still THE gold standard no matter how much you despise them, is a big mistake. You don't have to be all with ESPN, but you have to be partly with ESPN.

But ESPN wasn't going to offer them the money which they needed to keep up with the FB5s facilities and coaches salaries. Exposure is meaningless without good coaches and facilities. It's working for them since the committee and the college BBall world looks at them as the same level as the FB5. It looked like ESPN would have offered them a little more than what they paid the A-10 which means they would have had slightly better exposure than the A-10. I don't think that would have helped their perception at all. Less money for less televised games doesn't seem like they would have been better off than they are right now.

So you think they would have less exposure than the AAC? bull****.

The AAC's deal is so far beyond the A10 it's not funny. A10 has 50 conference games on ESPN's, CBSSN, and NBCSN. The AAC has 91 of 99 conference games on ESPN's or CBS or CBSSN. It's not even remotely close. And you don't think the Big East could have gotten at least that much? BS.

(12-15-2015 10:16 AM)stever20 Wrote:  So you think they would have less exposure than the AAC? bull****.

The AAC's deal is so far beyond the A10 it's not funny. A10 has 50 conference games on ESPN's, CBSSN, and NBCSN. The AAC has 91 of 99 conference games on ESPN's or CBS or CBSSN. It's not even remotely close. And you don't think the Big East could have gotten at least that much? BS.

The Big East has all it's conference games on FS1. In fact I saw Seton Hall play St. Peters on national TV the other day, ESPN never would have aired that game. We have no idea what ESPN would have slotted for the Big East so you can't say they would have gotten better exposure.

They now are promoting the games more during the NFL games, thats exposure they wouldn't have gotten on ESPN.

(12-15-2015 10:22 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 10:16 AM)stever20 Wrote:  So you think they would have less exposure than the AAC? bull****.

The AAC's deal is so far beyond the A10 it's not funny. A10 has 50 conference games on ESPN's, CBSSN, and NBCSN. The AAC has 91 of 99 conference games on ESPN's or CBS or CBSSN. It's not even remotely close. And you don't think the Big East could have gotten at least that much? BS.

The Big East has all it's conference games on FS1. In fact I saw Seton Hall play St. Peters on national TV the other day, ESPN never would have aired that game. We have no idea what ESPN would have slotted for the Big East so you can't say they would have gotten better exposure.

They now are promoting the games more during the NFL games, thats exposure they wouldn't have gotten on ESPN.

THIS!! I love being on Fox Sports. I hate everything about ESPN so its great to be on their top competitor.

(12-11-2015 03:57 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Tough to look at ratings in a vacuum. What are other networks (in particular ESPN 2 and best comparison, ESPNU, which is the closest channel in terms of tier and # of households) and how did they did year over year? How did overall college football ratings do in general? Was the mix of game windows/ days the same?

There are lots of variables in TV ratings.

CBS has been down. Maybe they should dump the SEC! (or the SEC dump them).

(12-14-2015 11:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-14-2015 10:45 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-14-2015 10:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  that's the key. FS1 isn't in everyone's package. It's in the sports tier vs the basic tier that ESPN and ESPN 2 are on.

Then we were never talking apples to apples. That should be patently obvious.

FS1 with the same game, in the same number of basic tier households, gets the same ratings.

No two ways about it.

Not necessarily at all. Casual sports viewers are wired to tune into ESPN, not FS1. Going to take a long time, if ever for that to change.

Casual viewers only make up 0.1% of most regular season college football games.

(12-15-2015 05:36 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-14-2015 10:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-14-2015 09:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-14-2015 09:51 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-13-2015 03:11 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Except that for you, the fact that the ESPN2 games got higher ratings proves that they were better games. Ignoring the fact that the PAC and Big 12 contracts give ESPN and Fox (and the PAC networks) equal quality picks.

If true, all that would prove is that FS1 picked wrong and ESPN2 picked right. Not that one channel has an inherent viewership advantage over the other.

Would anything prove to you that one channel (hint: the one that's been building a brand and an audience for 30 years) has a built-in viewership advantage?

If you have the game people want to watch, it doesn't matter if it's on HGTV or Nickelodeon.

You say that, as if stating it makes it true. I tell you it is not true.

Can you imagine any evidence that would convince you otherwise? That the same game should be expected to draw different ratings based on what network it is on? Or is that like dry water or a square circle?

It would require something like this:

- a game between the same two teams, in similar circumstances (same records, same rankings, etc.), in two consecutive years --- year one on channel A, year two on channel B

- then they'd have to do a detailed study of the viewership, not simply the total number of viewers, but the sub-groups of the viewers ... people who consider themselves fans of team A, fans of team B, fans of neither team but fans of college football, etc.

- and I'd want to see interviews conducted with a random sampling of people who viewed the game the first year, but did not view the game the second year, to ask them why they didn't watch. Most likely because they had something else to do ... but that would be the point.


With something like this in hand ... you have a chance.

(12-15-2015 10:22 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 10:16 AM)stever20 Wrote:  So you think they would have less exposure than the AAC? bull****.

The AAC's deal is so far beyond the A10 it's not funny. A10 has 50 conference games on ESPN's, CBSSN, and NBCSN. The AAC has 91 of 99 conference games on ESPN's or CBS or CBSSN. It's not even remotely close. And you don't think the Big East could have gotten at least that much? BS.

The Big East has all it's conference games on FS1. In fact I saw Seton Hall play St. Peters on national TV the other day, ESPN never would have aired that game. We have no idea what ESPN would have slotted for the Big East so you can't say they would have gotten better exposure.

They now are promoting the games more during the NFL games, thats exposure they wouldn't have gotten on ESPN.

Wrong. Big East has 14 conference games on CBSSN, and 10 games on FSN(regional networks).

(12-15-2015 10:50 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 05:36 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-14-2015 10:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-14-2015 09:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-14-2015 09:51 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If true, all that would prove is that FS1 picked wrong and ESPN2 picked right. Not that one channel has an inherent viewership advantage over the other.

Would anything prove to you that one channel (hint: the one that's been building a brand and an audience for 30 years) has a built-in viewership advantage?

If you have the game people want to watch, it doesn't matter if it's on HGTV or Nickelodeon.

You say that, as if stating it makes it true. I tell you it is not true.

Can you imagine any evidence that would convince you otherwise? That the same game should be expected to draw different ratings based on what network it is on? Or is that like dry water or a square circle?

It would require something like this:

- a game between the same two teams, in similar circumstances (same records, same rankings, etc.), in two consecutive years --- year one on channel A, year two on channel B

- then they'd have to do a detailed study of the viewership, not simply the total number of viewers, but the sub-groups of the viewers ... people who consider themselves fans of team A, fans of team B, fans of neither team but fans of college football, etc.

- and I'd want to see interviews conducted with a random sampling of people who viewed the game the first year, but did not view the game the second year, to ask them why they didn't watch. Most likely because they had something else to do ... but that would be the point.


With something like this in hand ... you have a chance.

OK, so you're saying that you cannot be persuaded without access to data that the general public doesn't get, and the networks rarely get. Ok then.

(12-15-2015 10:54 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 10:22 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 10:16 AM)stever20 Wrote:  So you think they would have less exposure than the AAC? bull****.

The AAC's deal is so far beyond the A10 it's not funny. A10 has 50 conference games on ESPN's, CBSSN, and NBCSN. The AAC has 91 of 99 conference games on ESPN's or CBS or CBSSN. It's not even remotely close. And you don't think the Big East could have gotten at least that much? BS.

The Big East has all it's conference games on FS1. In fact I saw Seton Hall play St. Peters on national TV the other day, ESPN never would have aired that game. We have no idea what ESPN would have slotted for the Big East so you can't say they would have gotten better exposure.

They now are promoting the games more during the NFL games, thats exposure they wouldn't have gotten on ESPN.

Wrong. Big East has 14 conference games on CBSSN, and 10 games on FSN(regional networks).

Whats your point? ESPN still wouldn't air as many games nationally and they would have closer to an A-10 schedule then a FB5 schedule if they went with ESPN plus also a significant pay cut.

Wonder if you see Fox dump CUSA to make room for B1G bid?

(12-15-2015 11:34 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  Wonder if you see Fox dump CUSA to make room for B1G bid?

Probably not dump them since they don't have a ton of product but move them to weeknights and FS2.

(12-15-2015 11:27 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 10:54 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 10:22 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 10:16 AM)stever20 Wrote:  So you think they would have less exposure than the AAC? bull****.

The AAC's deal is so far beyond the A10 it's not funny. A10 has 50 conference games on ESPN's, CBSSN, and NBCSN. The AAC has 91 of 99 conference games on ESPN's or CBS or CBSSN. It's not even remotely close. And you don't think the Big East could have gotten at least that much? BS.

The Big East has all it's conference games on FS1. In fact I saw Seton Hall play St. Peters on national TV the other day, ESPN never would have aired that game. We have no idea what ESPN would have slotted for the Big East so you can't say they would have gotten better exposure.

They now are promoting the games more during the NFL games, thats exposure they wouldn't have gotten on ESPN.

Wrong. Big East has 14 conference games on CBSSN, and 10 games on FSN(regional networks).

Whats your point? ESPN still wouldn't air as many games nationally and they would have closer to an A-10 schedule then a FB5 schedule if they went with ESPN plus also a significant pay cut.

You have no way of knowing. The AAC has all but 8 conference games aired nationally with ESPN/CBSSN. And I think you would agree the Big East is a bit better than the AAC.

The A10's tv package sucks. Their big network with most of their games is the ASN.

(12-15-2015 11:42 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 11:27 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 10:54 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 10:22 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 10:16 AM)stever20 Wrote:  So you think they would have less exposure than the AAC? bull****.

The AAC's deal is so far beyond the A10 it's not funny. A10 has 50 conference games on ESPN's, CBSSN, and NBCSN. The AAC has 91 of 99 conference games on ESPN's or CBS or CBSSN. It's not even remotely close. And you don't think the Big East could have gotten at least that much? BS.

The Big East has all it's conference games on FS1. In fact I saw Seton Hall play St. Peters on national TV the other day, ESPN never would have aired that game. We have no idea what ESPN would have slotted for the Big East so you can't say they would have gotten better exposure.

They now are promoting the games more during the NFL games, thats exposure they wouldn't have gotten on ESPN.

Wrong. Big East has 14 conference games on CBSSN, and 10 games on FSN(regional networks).

Whats your point? ESPN still wouldn't air as many games nationally and they would have closer to an A-10 schedule then a FB5 schedule if they went with ESPN plus also a significant pay cut.

You have no way of knowing. The AAC has all but 8 conference games aired nationally with ESPN/CBSSN. And I think you would agree the Big East is a bit better than the AAC.

The A10's tv package sucks. Their big network with most of their games is the ASN.

Exactly, we have no way of knowing so you can't say they took money over exposure since we have no idea what their exposure would have been. What we do know is that ESPN wasn't willing to pay the Big East what Fox is paying them now.

If ESPN had given the Big East the exposure that the AAC is getting, the Big East would have been fine. Also, I don't know the difference between 4 million and 2 million is worth being off of ESPN. If 2 million means that much to your program, your program isn't going to be great long term any ways.

Bottom line, going with Fox was(and still is) a HUGE gamble. The Big East title game last year got 8k viewers more than a regular season game with Cincy and Xavier last year on ESPN2. That's just stupid. It's not because of the Big East, but rather FS1 just isn't the same as being on ESPN.

(12-15-2015 11:50 AM)stever20 Wrote:  If ESPN had given the Big East the exposure that the AAC is getting, the Big East would have been fine. Also, I don't know the difference between 4 million and 2 million is worth being off of ESPN. If 2 million means that much to your program, your program isn't going to be great long term any ways.

Bottom line, going with Fox was(and still is) a HUGE gamble. The Big East title game last year got 8k viewers more than a regular season game with Cincy and Xavier last year on ESPN2. That's just stupid. It's not because of the Big East, but rather FS1 just isn't the same as being on ESPN.

But it's not hurting the conference so it seems the gamble is paying off. We'll see how FS1 does when the B1G starts airing games. I see Fox getting at least part of the contract.

thing is for basketball- hoops won't make that much of a difference. Big Ten airs only about 5 games a week on ESPN. They aren't going to go totally off of ESPN. It'll probably only be like 1-3 games a week on FS1.

The big question will be how many games are on Fox and how many are on FS1 for Big Ten. Big Ten is going to want IMO a lot of network games. And bottom line, Big Ten isn't doing Fox a solid. It's straight cash homie.....

(12-15-2015 12:15 PM)stever20 Wrote:  thing is for basketball- hoops won't make that much of a difference. Big Ten airs only about 5 games a week on ESPN. They aren't going to go totally off of ESPN. It'll probably only be like 1-3 games a week on FS1.

The big question will be how many games are on Fox and how many are on FS1 for Big Ten. Big Ten is going to want IMO a lot of network games. And bottom line, Big Ten isn't doing Fox a solid. It's straight cash homie.....

They will have games on both since Fox only airs games on the weekends. The B1G and Big East have pretty much the same foot print so folks in that area will now be more invested in that channel since both the local state school and the local private school will be playing games on that network. I can also see a push for more OOC games between the two outside of the Gavitt Tip Off series. We already play Seton Hall every year and I wouldn't be shocked if we play St. John's regularly. Same with OSU and X, GTown and Maryland etc along with others that would be appealing to both the schools and their Tv partner like Michigan/Nova, Marquette/Indiana etc.

Pretty much if they want that cash they need to give something up for it and if Fox wants games on FS1 then they will put that in the deal. Weekend double headers with the Big East on Big Fox along with weeknight games on FS1.

(12-15-2015 11:00 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 10:50 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 05:36 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-14-2015 10:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-14-2015 09:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Would anything prove to you that one channel (hint: the one that's been building a brand and an audience for 30 years) has a built-in viewership advantage?

If you have the game people want to watch, it doesn't matter if it's on HGTV or Nickelodeon.

You say that, as if stating it makes it true. I tell you it is not true.

Can you imagine any evidence that would convince you otherwise? That the same game should be expected to draw different ratings based on what network it is on? Or is that like dry water or a square circle?

It would require something like this:

- a game between the same two teams, in similar circumstances (same records, same rankings, etc.), in two consecutive years --- year one on channel A, year two on channel B

- then they'd have to do a detailed study of the viewership, not simply the total number of viewers, but the sub-groups of the viewers ... people who consider themselves fans of team A, fans of team B, fans of neither team but fans of college football, etc.

- and I'd want to see interviews conducted with a random sampling of people who viewed the game the first year, but did not view the game the second year, to ask them why they didn't watch. Most likely because they had something else to do ... but that would be the point.


With something like this in hand ... you have a chance.

OK, so you're saying that you cannot be persuaded without access to data that the general public doesn't get, and the networks rarely get. Ok then.

I'm just supposed to take your word for it, then?

We're talking about base fundamental of television watching psychology.

Hypothesis at this level can not be "proven", one way or another, without detailed study and data. Sorry, that's how it works.


Until that time, I suppose we will continue to champion our own hypotheses.