(05-02-2017 09:02 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 08:22 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 07:03 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 01:16 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 01:00 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Yeah it must be that anti-catholic fervor that is clearly gripping the nation. hahaha

They are smaller schools playing on a network that most casual fans don't tune into looking for sports. Yes, even Fox OTA isn't a regular channel casual fans check for sports. If you think it's bad for the Big East put all those conferences you list on Fox/FS1 and it's going to be even worse. Do you think those conferences would do better on Fox?

By the way, I didn't state the brand identity.

I think many fans go to Fox for sports. The MWC is on CBSSports network, and barely on at that, and it's rating outdrew the Big East head to head. So yeah if they were on Fox Sports 1 every week like the Big East then yes I think they would do better.

So you think the MWC would get better ratings than the Pac-12? Your ignorance is pretty amusing.

I'll jump in. The Big East Championship game on Fox had pretty bad numbers. According to the numbers on this thread, the MWC (who had an awful all time low season) actually had better ratings in their championship game. That shocked me. The MWC plays their games on cbs-SN. They get absolutely no exposure during the season, and espn doesn't play highlights of cbs-SN games I don't think. As to your point on the PAC-12, they've never been a ratings monster. I actually remember old WAC/MWC games with Utah/New Mexico/UNLV/BYU more than I do PAC games. So yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if there's been years where the MWC got better ratings than the PAC in hoops. Other than Arizona and UCLA I can't think of a PAC basketball team that's interesting tv.

Oregon would be one, so that makes 3. Also Utah who you mention is now also in the Pac-12.

If you are asking who has a more passionate devoted core group of fans, I will be the first to tell you the Big East. If you read the posts I said the have a floor of around a .4 which for a tier 2 channel is pretty good. The issue isn't the floor it's the ceiling which to date appears lower than many other mid-majors until proven otherwise.

(05-02-2017 11:48 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 09:02 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 08:22 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 07:03 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 01:16 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  By the way, I didn't state the brand identity.

I think many fans go to Fox for sports. The MWC is on CBSSports network, and barely on at that, and it's rating outdrew the Big East head to head. So yeah if they were on Fox Sports 1 every week like the Big East then yes I think they would do better.

So you think the MWC would get better ratings than the Pac-12? Your ignorance is pretty amusing.

I'll jump in. The Big East Championship game on Fox had pretty bad numbers. According to the numbers on this thread, the MWC (who had an awful all time low season) actually had better ratings in their championship game. That shocked me. The MWC plays their games on cbs-SN. They get absolutely no exposure during the season, and espn doesn't play highlights of cbs-SN games I don't think. As to your point on the PAC-12, they've never been a ratings monster. I actually remember old WAC/MWC games with Utah/New Mexico/UNLV/BYU more than I do PAC games. So yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if there's been years where the MWC got better ratings than the PAC in hoops. Other than Arizona and UCLA I can't think of a PAC basketball team that's interesting tv.

Oregon would be one, so that makes 3. Also Utah who you mention is now also in the Pac-12.

If you are asking who has a more passionate devoted core group of fans, I will be the first to tell you the Big East. If you read the posts I said the have a floor of around a .4 which for a tier 2 channel is pretty good. The issue isn't the floor it's the ceiling which to date appears lower than many other mid-majors until proven otherwise.

Yup, ignorant.

(05-03-2017 12:50 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 11:48 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 09:02 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 08:22 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 07:03 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  So you think the MWC would get better ratings than the Pac-12? Your ignorance is pretty amusing.

I'll jump in. The Big East Championship game on Fox had pretty bad numbers. According to the numbers on this thread, the MWC (who had an awful all time low season) actually had better ratings in their championship game. That shocked me. The MWC plays their games on cbs-SN. They get absolutely no exposure during the season, and espn doesn't play highlights of cbs-SN games I don't think. As to your point on the PAC-12, they've never been a ratings monster. I actually remember old WAC/MWC games with Utah/New Mexico/UNLV/BYU more than I do PAC games. So yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if there's been years where the MWC got better ratings than the PAC in hoops. Other than Arizona and UCLA I can't think of a PAC basketball team that's interesting tv.

Oregon would be one, so that makes 3. Also Utah who you mention is now also in the Pac-12.

If you are asking who has a more passionate devoted core group of fans, I will be the first to tell you the Big East. If you read the posts I said the have a floor of around a .4 which for a tier 2 channel is pretty good. The issue isn't the floor it's the ceiling which to date appears lower than many other mid-majors until proven otherwise.

Yup, ignorant.

Did you see the data? Much higher performance and 1.1? If the MWC had that performance level I guarantee they pull higher than a 1.1 smartguy.

(05-02-2017 02:43 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Since the conferences fund the Broadcast entities that the broadcast entities get funded based on ratings, ratings is the best forward looking measure. It is hardly hot air speculation or entities like Sports Media watch spend a lot of time for no purpose.

Lastly as a fan of Butler I would rather not wait until it happens. I would rather adjust earlier so it doesn't happen.

Maybe you're on to something with this "elite" concept you've been critiqued for around here. E.g., even before Tiger, for as long as I've been alive, PGA golf has always been televised by a major network, taking up large swathes of Saturday and Sunday afternoons, even though for many of those years the raw ratings were miniscule. But, that's because golf is an elite sport that appeals to a desirable wealthy demographic.

The Big East does seem to have an elite/Tiffany quality to it, at least by the standards of big-time athletics, and so maybe TV is willing to pay a premium to reach its more affluent/elite/culturally cutting edge viewers as opposed to the maybe more numerous but lower-end viewers of AAC, MAC, WCC, MWC sports, etc.

Just a theory.

(05-03-2017 07:24 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 12:50 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 11:48 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 09:02 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 08:22 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I'll jump in. The Big East Championship game on Fox had pretty bad numbers. According to the numbers on this thread, the MWC (who had an awful all time low season) actually had better ratings in their championship game. That shocked me. The MWC plays their games on cbs-SN. They get absolutely no exposure during the season, and espn doesn't play highlights of cbs-SN games I don't think. As to your point on the PAC-12, they've never been a ratings monster. I actually remember old WAC/MWC games with Utah/New Mexico/UNLV/BYU more than I do PAC games. So yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if there's been years where the MWC got better ratings than the PAC in hoops. Other than Arizona and UCLA I can't think of a PAC basketball team that's interesting tv.

Oregon would be one, so that makes 3. Also Utah who you mention is now also in the Pac-12.

If you are asking who has a more passionate devoted core group of fans, I will be the first to tell you the Big East. If you read the posts I said the have a floor of around a .4 which for a tier 2 channel is pretty good. The issue isn't the floor it's the ceiling which to date appears lower than many other mid-majors until proven otherwise.

Yup, ignorant.

Did you see the data? Much higher performance and 1.1? If the MWC had that performance level I guarantee they pull higher than a 1.1 smartguy.

Did you see what I highlighted smart guy? (BTW if you are going to call someone smart guy at least be smart enough to know that it's two words not one.)

You can crap in one hand and guarantee in another and all you'll have left is crap in your hand.

(05-03-2017 08:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 02:43 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Since the conferences fund the Broadcast entities that the broadcast entities get funded based on ratings, ratings is the best forward looking measure. It is hardly hot air speculation or entities like Sports Media watch spend a lot of time for no purpose.

Lastly as a fan of Butler I would rather not wait until it happens. I would rather adjust earlier so it doesn't happen.

Maybe you're on to something with this "elite" concept you've been critiqued for around here. E.g., even before Tiger, for as long as I've been alive, PGA golf has always been televised by a major network, taking up large swathes of Saturday and Sunday afternoons, even though for many of those years the raw ratings were miniscule. But, that's because golf is an elite sport that appeals to a desirable wealthy demographic.

The Big East does seem to have an elite/Tiffany quality to it, at least by the standards of big-time athletics, and so maybe TV is willing to pay a premium to reach its more affluent/elite/culturally cutting edge viewers as opposed to the maybe more numerous but lower-end viewers of AAC, MAC, WCC, MWC sports, etc.

Just a theory.

I don't watch any of those conference teams ever play.

(No offense, I hardly ever watch non-ND P5 schools play either)

But, if forced to pick one at gunpoint, I would pick the Big East precisely because it is largely Catholic and private.

(05-03-2017 08:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 02:43 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Since the conferences fund the Broadcast entities that the broadcast entities get funded based on ratings, ratings is the best forward looking measure. It is hardly hot air speculation or entities like Sports Media watch spend a lot of time for no purpose.

Lastly as a fan of Butler I would rather not wait until it happens. I would rather adjust earlier so it doesn't happen.

Maybe you're on to something with this "elite" concept you've been critiqued for around here. E.g., even before Tiger, for as long as I've been alive, PGA golf has always been televised by a major network, taking up large swathes of Saturday and Sunday afternoons, even though for many of those years the raw ratings were miniscule. But, that's because golf is an elite sport that appeals to a desirable wealthy demographic.

The Big East does seem to have an elite/Tiffany quality to it, at least by the standards of big-time athletics, and so maybe TV is willing to pay a premium to reach its more affluent/elite/culturally cutting edge viewers as opposed to the maybe more numerous but lower-end viewers of AAC, MAC, WCC, MWC sports, etc.

Just a theory.

Interesting. Certainly you could make the case that graduates of some schools may have a higher spend than others. Of course taken to an extreme we should be seeing the Yale-Harvard game on TV.

(05-03-2017 03:19 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 08:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 02:43 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Since the conferences fund the Broadcast entities that the broadcast entities get funded based on ratings, ratings is the best forward looking measure. It is hardly hot air speculation or entities like Sports Media watch spend a lot of time for no purpose.

Lastly as a fan of Butler I would rather not wait until it happens. I would rather adjust earlier so it doesn't happen.

Maybe you're on to something with this "elite" concept you've been critiqued for around here. E.g., even before Tiger, for as long as I've been alive, PGA golf has always been televised by a major network, taking up large swathes of Saturday and Sunday afternoons, even though for many of those years the raw ratings were miniscule. But, that's because golf is an elite sport that appeals to a desirable wealthy demographic.

The Big East does seem to have an elite/Tiffany quality to it, at least by the standards of big-time athletics, and so maybe TV is willing to pay a premium to reach its more affluent/elite/culturally cutting edge viewers as opposed to the maybe more numerous but lower-end viewers of AAC, MAC, WCC, MWC sports, etc.

Just a theory.

I don't watch any of those conference teams ever play.

(No offense, I hardly ever watch non-ND P5 schools play either)

But, if forced to pick one at gunpoint, I would pick the Big East precisely because it is largely Catholic and private.

Which given that you're from Notre Dame makes sense because you would, at first blush, have an affinity for Catholic and private. (Given Notre Dame is both)

Marketing is largely about affinity. For sports teams, obviously graduates have affinity but smart leagues use other strategies to pull in non-graduates. The SEC represents the South. People who have a strong affinity with being Southern will more naturally "buy/watch" the SEC because they feel it represents them even though they didn't go to the school.

That is why the SEC adding Kansas or West Virginia could be a questionable move. Kansas in no way represents the south. If anything they are anti-south and anti your brand image. So if you add either you can start people thinking, well maybe the SEC doesn't really represent me anymore. In comparison, if you add Oklahoma and NC State as an example, then that reinforces the perception this conference represents me and who I am (a southerner).

(05-03-2017 10:27 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 07:24 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 12:50 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 11:48 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 09:02 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Oregon would be one, so that makes 3. Also Utah who you mention is now also in the Pac-12.

If you are asking who has a more passionate devoted core group of fans, I will be the first to tell you the Big East. If you read the posts I said the have a floor of around a .4 which for a tier 2 channel is pretty good. The issue isn't the floor it's the ceiling which to date appears lower than many other mid-majors until proven otherwise.

Yup, ignorant.

Did you see the data? Much higher performance and 1.1? If the MWC had that performance level I guarantee they pull higher than a 1.1 smartguy.

Did you see what I highlighted smart guy? (BTW if you are going to call someone smart guy at least be smart enough to know that it's two words not one.)

You can crap in one hand and guarantee in another and all you'll have left is crap in your hand.

Yes, you highlighted Mid majors. And I listed MVC, WCC, A-10, MWC and AAC, all of whose conference championship games had higher ratings than the Big East and none of whom had nearly the on court performance.

Lastly if I am typing at lunch on my phone I could care less if I misspell a word. The point remains the same.

(05-02-2017 09:02 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 08:22 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 07:03 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 01:16 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 01:00 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Yeah it must be that anti-catholic fervor that is clearly gripping the nation. hahaha

They are smaller schools playing on a network that most casual fans don't tune into looking for sports. Yes, even Fox OTA isn't a regular channel casual fans check for sports. If you think it's bad for the Big East put all those conferences you list on Fox/FS1 and it's going to be even worse. Do you think those conferences would do better on Fox?

By the way, I didn't state the brand identity.

I think many fans go to Fox for sports. The MWC is on CBSSports network, and barely on at that, and it's rating outdrew the Big East head to head. So yeah if they were on Fox Sports 1 every week like the Big East then yes I think they would do better.

So you think the MWC would get better ratings than the Pac-12? Your ignorance is pretty amusing.

I'll jump in. The Big East Championship game on Fox had pretty bad numbers. According to the numbers on this thread, the MWC (who had an awful all time low season) actually had better ratings in their championship game. That shocked me. The MWC plays their games on cbs-SN. They get absolutely no exposure during the season, and espn doesn't play highlights of cbs-SN games I don't think. As to your point on the PAC-12, they've never been a ratings monster. I actually remember old WAC/MWC games with Utah/New Mexico/UNLV/BYU more than I do PAC games. So yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if there's been years where the MWC got better ratings than the PAC in hoops. Other than Arizona and UCLA I can't think of a PAC basketball team that's interesting tv.

Oregon would be one, so that makes 3. Also Utah who you mention is now also in the Pac-12.

When Utah was very good (Rick Majerus) and making sweet 16's, elite 8's and NCAA finals they were in the WAC/MWC. I don't think Utah has been considered very good in close to a decade. Went back and looked and they were last place in the MWC their last 2 years in it, and have made the NCAA tournament twice as a PAC 12 member. In 2012 Utah went 6-25. I bet Rutgers would've given them a good game that year.

(05-03-2017 06:46 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 03:19 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-03-2017 08:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-02-2017 02:43 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Since the conferences fund the Broadcast entities that the broadcast entities get funded based on ratings, ratings is the best forward looking measure. It is hardly hot air speculation or entities like Sports Media watch spend a lot of time for no purpose.

Lastly as a fan of Butler I would rather not wait until it happens. I would rather adjust earlier so it doesn't happen.

Maybe you're on to something with this "elite" concept you've been critiqued for around here. E.g., even before Tiger, for as long as I've been alive, PGA golf has always been televised by a major network, taking up large swathes of Saturday and Sunday afternoons, even though for many of those years the raw ratings were miniscule. But, that's because golf is an elite sport that appeals to a desirable wealthy demographic.

The Big East does seem to have an elite/Tiffany quality to it, at least by the standards of big-time athletics, and so maybe TV is willing to pay a premium to reach its more affluent/elite/culturally cutting edge viewers as opposed to the maybe more numerous but lower-end viewers of AAC, MAC, WCC, MWC sports, etc.

Just a theory.

I don't watch any of those conference teams ever play.

(No offense, I hardly ever watch non-ND P5 schools play either)

But, if forced to pick one at gunpoint, I would pick the Big East precisely because it is largely Catholic and private.

Which given that you're from Notre Dame makes sense because you would, at first blush, have an affinity for Catholic and private. (Given Notre Dame is both)

Marketing is largely about affinity. For sports teams, obviously graduates have affinity but smart leagues use other strategies to pull in non-graduates. The SEC represents the South. People who have a strong affinity with being Southern will more naturally "buy/watch" the SEC because they feel it represents them even though they didn't go to the school.

That is why the SEC adding Kansas or West Virginia could be a questionable move. Kansas in no way represents the south. If anything they are anti-south and anti your brand image. So if you add either you can start people thinking, well maybe the SEC doesn't really represent me anymore. In comparison, if you add Oklahoma and NC State as an example, then that reinforces the perception this conference represents me and who I am (a southerner).

Despite this BORDER WAR becoming a hot topic on this site all of a sudden, I think the map clearly shows both Oklahoma and Kansas not only make geographic sense and logistical sense (for MO and AR) but it makes strategic sense to block Big10 encroachment south. As for bluechip pick-ups in FB and BB respectively, it'd be a coup.