CSNbbs

If more than one Big East team leaves, there is not going to be a Big East football conference according to more than one source from the conference. There is still a chance that the Big Ten will take just one Big East team. If they do take just one, it is possible the Big East could add a team or teams to replace the lost tv households and move forward as a league. Below is an examination of what could be lost and what would need to be added just to replace the lost tv households from one defection, which relates directly to how much the Big East could earn from tv contracts and/or a network in the future.

Estimated total tv households of the 4 Big East teams in the Big Ten discussion:

Syracuse TV households
All tv markets upstate NY
2,400,460 total TV Households
Syracuse with NYC 9,893,990 TV households

Rutgers TV households
approx. 25% of NYC DMA 1,873,383
approx 22% of Philadelphia DMA 650,142
2,523,525 total TV Households
Rutgers with NYC 8,143,672 TV households

Connecticut TV households
Hartford DMA 1,010,630
approx 10% of NYC DMA 749,353
1,759,983 total TV Households

Pittsburgh TV households
Pittsburgh DMA 1,154,950
Johnstown DMA and Erie DMA 450,870
1,605,820 total TV Households


Estimated total tv households needed to replace lost Big East tv households from one defection:

Replacing Syracuse (2,400,460):
Any of these schools might replace lost tv sets for upstate NY markets lost
Maryland tv households=approx. 3,586,556
Temple (Philly) tv households=2,955,190
Boston College (Boston) tv households=2,410,180
Navy (D.C.) tv households=2,335,040*adding Navy might include adding a strong bb or all-sports program
or if the BE decided to spread out west:
TCU (DFW) tv households=2,544,410*adding TCU might include adding a strong bb or all-sports program
Houston (Houston) tv households=2,123,460*adding Houston might include adding a strong bb or all-sports program
If two or more programs are added to replace upstate NY tv households:
UCF (Orlando)/Memphis(Memphis)/Buffalo(Buffalo) tv households=2,756,500
UCF (Orlando)/Memphis(Memphis)/Marshall (Charleston/Huntington) tv households=2,624,810
UCF (Orlando)/Memphis(Memphis)/ECU(Greenville-New Bern-Washington, NC)tv households=2,413,560
UCF (Orlando)/Memphis(Memphis)tv households=2,123,280

Replacing Syracuse w/NYC (9,893,990):
Multiple programs required to replace lost tv households:
Maryland (Maryland)/Boston College(Boston)/Temple(Philly)/UCF (Orlando) tv households=10,407,546
Boston College(Boston)/Temple(Philly)/TCU(DFW)/Houston(Houston) tv households=10,033,240
Navy(D.C.)/Temple(Philly)/TCU(DFW)/Houston(Houston) tv households=9,958,100
Boston College(Boston)/Navy(D.C.)/Temple(Philly)/UCF (Orlando)/Memphis tv households=9,823,690



Replacing Rutgers (2,523,525):
Any of these schools might replace lost tv sets for Rutgers markets lost
Maryland tv households=approx. 3,586,556
Temple (Philly) tv households=2,955,190
Boston College (Boston) tv households=2,410,180
Navy (D.C.) tv households=2,335,040*adding Navy might include adding a strong bb or all-sports program
or if the BE decided to spread out west:
TCU (DFW) tv households=2,544,410
Houston (Houston) tv households=2,123,460
If two or more programs are added to replace Rutgers tv households:
UCF (Orlando)/Memphis(Memphis)/Buffalo(Buffalo) tv households=2,756,500
UCF (Orlando)/Memphis(Memphis)/Marshall (Charleston/Huntington) tv households=2,624,810
UCF (Orlando)/Memphis(Memphis)/ECU(Greenville-New Bern-Washington, NC)tv households=2,413,560
UCF (Orlando)/Memphis(Memphis)tv households=2,123,280

Replacing Rutgers w/NYC (8,143,672):
Multiple programs required to replace lost tv households:
Navy(D.C.)/Temple(Philly)/TCU(DFW)/Houston(Houston) tv households=9,958,100
Boston College(Boston)/Navy(D.C.)/Temple(Philly)/UCF (Orlando)/Memphis tv households=9,823,690
UCF(Orlando)/Temple(Philly)/TCU(DFW)/Houston(Houston) tv households=9,078,680
Maryland (Maryland)/Boston College(Boston)/Temple(Philly) tv households=8,951,926
Maryland (Maryland)/Boston College(Boston)/UCF (Orlando)/Memphis(Memphis) tv households=8,120,016
Temple(Philly)/Navy(D.C.)/UCF (Orlando)/Memphis(Memphis)/Buffalo(Buffalo) tv households=8,046,730


Replacing UConn (1,759,983):
Any of these schools might replace lost tv sets for the CT markets lost
Maryland tv households=approx. 3,586,556
Temple (Philly) tv households=2,955,190
Boston College (Boston) tv households=2,410,180
Adding individual teams below might require a bb add to rebuild lost UConn programs
Navy (D.C.) tv households=2,335,040
UCF (Orlando) tv households=1,455,620
or if the BE decided to spread out west:
TCU (DFW) tv households=2,544,410
Houston (Houston) tv households=2,123,460

If two or more programs are added to replace CT tv households:
Memphis(Memphis)/Buffalo(Buffalo)/Marshall(Charleston/Huntington) tv households=1,802,410
UCF(Orlando), Memphis(Memphis) tv households=2,123,280


Replacing Pittsburgh (1,605,820):
Any of these schools might replace lost tv sets for the Pittsburgh markets lost
Maryland tv households=approx. 3,586,556
Temple (Philly) tv households=2,955,190
Boston College (Boston) tv households=2,410,180
Adding individual teams below might require a bb add to rebuild lost Pitt bb
Navy (D.C.) tv households=2,335,040
UCF (Orlando) tv households=1,455,620
or if the BE decided to spread out west:
TCU (DFW) tv households=2,544,410
Houston (Houston) tv households=2,123,460

If two or more programs are added to replace Pittsburgh tv households:
UCF(Orlando), Memphis(Memphis) tv households=2,123,280
Memphis(Memphis)/Buffalo(Buffalo)/Marshall(Charleston/Huntington) tv households=1,802,410
Memphis(Memphis)/Marshall(Charleston/Huntington)/ECU(Greenville-New Bern) tv households=1,459,470

Currently there is no need to worry about lost households. If the Big East was generating money based off of households, we would be the richest conference in the country, with the Pac 10 second. Instead, we are both dead last. We have to be better at marketing to our existing markets, or at least letting networks know how well we perform in those markets.

(05-02-2010 04:28 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]Currently there is no need to worry about lost households. If the Big East was generating money based off of households, we would be the richest conference in the country, with the Pac 10 second. Instead, we are both dead last. We have to be better at marketing to our existing markets, or at least letting networks know how well we perform in those markets.

Tagliabue and the league office are looking at issues such as a BE network now. Also, If a team leaves, then the BE will need to recapture any lost market to keep the network contracts from dropping. Do you not recall that the networks renegotiated the contracts down the last time there was a raid? Maintaining markets along with program quality as much as possible will ensure this doesn't occur again.

(05-02-2010 04:31 PM)buckaineer Wrote: [ -> ]Do you not recall that the networks renegotiated the contracts down the last time there was a raid? Maintaining markets along with program quality as much as possible will ensure this doesn't occur again.

They did not negotiate it down due to lost markets. Speaking purely of markets losing Boston and Miami, and replacing them with Tampa, Cincinnati, and Louisville, and I guess "half" of Milwaukee and Chicago at worse is a break even. The loss in revenue was not due to lost markets; it was due to loss fo marquee teams. That is all I am saying.

Buckaineer - I am not sure you can even include NYC in the Cuse discussion. Sure they are in NY state, but Cuse is much further to NYC than both UCONN and RU. I don't think NYC has more affiliation to either RU or UCONN than to CUSE. Also, UCONN dominates state of CT unlike CUSE for NY and RU for NJ. State of CT has 3.6M people. Both CUSE and UCONN have much greater presence in NYC than RU due to winning basketball programs. With a rising RU football, things might change. However, if RU is in the B11 in the shadow of Michigan, Ohio St and PSU, they might go back to being mediocre. People don't seem to realize BE gave RU a chance to grow without Miami and VTECH. In the B11, I am not sure. When RU is mediocre, I can assure you no one cares about RU one way or another in the NYC area. Even if they are good, I am not sure they would care. B11 is really reaching if they think they can own the NYC with just Cuse and RU.

I do think people underestimate how valuable the Catholic schools are to the Big East NYC penetration.

(05-02-2010 04:58 PM)SF Husky Wrote: [ -> ]Buckaineer - I am not sure you can even include NYC in the Cuse discussion. Sure they are in NY state, but Cuse is much further to NYC than both UCONN and RU. I don't think NYC has more affiliation to either RU or UCONN than to CUSE. Also, UCONN dominates state of CT unlike CUSE for NY and RU for NJ. State of CT has 3.6M people. Both CUSE and UCONN have much greater presence in NYC than RU due to winning basketball programs. With a rising RU football, things might change. However, if RU is in the B11 in the shadow of Michigan, Ohio St and PSU, they might go back to being mediocre. People don't seem to realize BE gave RU a chance to grow without Miami and VTECH. In the B11, I am not sure. When RU is mediocre, I can assure you no one cares about RU one way or another in the NYC area. Even if they are good, I am not sure they would care. B11 is really reaching if they think they can own the NYC with just Cuse and RU.

I would disagree because the Big Ten feels they have at least some of the NY market. Regardless, this is why I split SU's analysis into one without NYC and one with.

(05-02-2010 05:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]I do think people underestimate how valuable the Catholic schools are to the Big East NYC penetration.

I agree that is important, however football is driving the college athletics financial bus.

(05-02-2010 04:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2010 04:31 PM)buckaineer Wrote: [ -> ]Do you not recall that the networks renegotiated the contracts down the last time there was a raid? Maintaining markets along with program quality as much as possible will ensure this doesn't occur again.

They did not negotiate it down due to lost markets. Speaking purely of markets losing Boston and Miami, and replacing them with Tampa, Cincinnati, and Louisville, and I guess "half" of Milwaukee and Chicago at worse is a break even. The loss in revenue was not due to lost markets; it was due to loss fo marquee teams. That is all I am saying.

Lost markets were part of the reason they dropped the rates as well as why the Big East added the teams it did. Milwaukee and Chicago were bb adds and didn't bring as much revenue to the table. Times have changed and markets have become even more important than they were in the past-especially with the advent of the Big Ten Network model.

(05-02-2010 05:16 PM)buckaineer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2010 05:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]I do think people underestimate how valuable the Catholic schools are to the Big East NYC penetration.

I agree that is important, however football is driving the college athletics financial bus.

Not when it comes to getting a conference network on basic cable it isn't. Basketball, and the potential for so many local games to be missed, was what actually did the trick. You have to look deep into the numbers.

(05-02-2010 05:18 PM)buckaineer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2010 04:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2010 04:31 PM)buckaineer Wrote: [ -> ]Do you not recall that the networks renegotiated the contracts down the last time there was a raid? Maintaining markets along with program quality as much as possible will ensure this doesn't occur again.

They did not negotiate it down due to lost markets.

Times have changed and markets have become even more important than they were in the past-especially with the advent of the Big Ten Network model.

You are doing what too many on this board are doing, and confusing priorities. The Big Ten Network model has zero to do with our ESPN contract. Zero. The number of markets we are in i mostly irrelvent, because we are not collecting subscriber fees from ESPN, and ESPN is on EVERY cable system in the country. It has some effect on rights fees, to the extent that market size effects your fanbase, but not much. For example, Virginia Tech and Miami probably represented less than 10% of the "market" the BE covers, yet they lost 90% of their TV revenue. It was not the market.

ESPN is broadcasting nationally, and they care about national ratings. Think about this; the SEC covers the smallest market in terms of population, and has the richest contract in college sports. It has nothing to due with market size, and everything to do with national appeal. The Big East STILL covers the largest market, and gets the smallest contract. The Pac ten covers the second largest market, and gets the second smallest contract.

If you are starting a conference network, then, and only then, is market size the first priority. but not with an ESPN contract.

(05-02-2010 06:35 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2010 05:16 PM)buckaineer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2010 05:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]I do think people underestimate how valuable the Catholic schools are to the Big East NYC penetration.

I agree that is important, however football is driving the college athletics financial bus.

Not when it comes to getting a conference network on basic cable it isn't. Basketball, and the potential for so many local games to be missed, was what actually did the trick. You have to look deep into the numbers.

(05-02-2010 05:18 PM)buckaineer Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2010 04:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2010 04:31 PM)buckaineer Wrote: [ -> ]Do you not recall that the networks renegotiated the contracts down the last time there was a raid? Maintaining markets along with program quality as much as possible will ensure this doesn't occur again.

They did not negotiate it down due to lost markets.

Times have changed and markets have become even more important than they were in the past-especially with the advent of the Big Ten Network model.

You are doing what too many on this board are doing, and confusing priorities. The Big Ten Network model has zero to do with our ESPN contract. Zero. The number of markets we are in i mostly irrelvent, because we are not collecting subscriber fees from ESPN, and ESPN is on EVERY cable system in the country. It has some effect on rights fees, to the extent that market size effects your fanbase, but not much. For example, Virginia Tech and Miami probably represented less than 10% of the "market" the BE covers, yet they lost 90% of their TV revenue. It was not the market.

ESPN is broadcasting nationally, and they care about national ratings. Think about this; the SEC covers the smallest market in terms of population, and has the richest contract in college sports. It has nothing to due with market size, and everything to do with national appeal. The Big East STILL covers the largest market, and gets the smallest contract. The Pac ten covers the second largest market, and gets the second smallest contract.

If you are starting a conference network, then, and only then, is market size the first priority. but not with an ESPN contract.

I am not confusing anything. I never said the BTN model had anything to do with an ESPN contract. I mentioned that the Big East is examining their own. You are very mistaken if you actually believe that the size of the television market makes no difference to a network like ESPN. For starters, the bigger the market, the more likely more viewers will be watching and the more viewers that can be captured down the road. The more viewers and potential viewers, the more likely advertisers will pay money. Why do you think they created DMA's in the first place? It's about advertising dollars--money--the same thing that ESPN and CBS pay to the Big East and other conferences.

I don't have time to do your homework for you, but if you search you might still be able to find the articles quoting Tranghese talking about the Big East losing revenues because they lost the Miami and Boston markets in the last raid--two of the biggest markets out there which Tampa, Cincy and Louisville did NOT replace.

(05-02-2010 07:25 PM)buckaineer Wrote: [ -> ]I don't have time to do your homework for you, but if you search you might still be able to find the articles quoting Tranghese talking about the Big East losing revenues because they lost the Miami and Boston markets in the last raid--two of the biggest markets out there which Tampa, Cincy and Louisville did NOT replace.

It's not about homework, its about knowing when to take something at face value or not. Further, my post above actually lists factual data to show your your theory is inaccurate; and you retaliate with a quote from a man who allowed us to get into this mess, who was trying to vover his own ass, as opposed ot being concerned with the truth. Further losing two markets would not be a suitable reason for such a drastic income reduction, especially when you gained three back that combined represent close to 2/4 of what you lost (not including the basketball markets).

(05-02-2010 04:58 PM)SF Husky Wrote: [ -> ]Buckaineer - I am not sure you can even include NYC in the Cuse discussion. Sure they are in NY state, but Cuse is much further to NYC than both UCONN and RU. I don't think NYC has more affiliation to either RU or UCONN than to CUSE. Also, UCONN dominates state of CT unlike CUSE for NY and RU for NJ.

The point here is that SU may not dominate the entire State of NY, but the parts of NY that SU does dominate has many more eyeballs than the entire state of Connecticut. NY State has a huge population.

There will be no replacing them at all..... After this there is no more big east... Big ten will take there three Pac -10 will take there two, Then the big 12 is taking theres.... And if the Big 12 went with Memphis/Ucf/ And Fiu they would have even more recruiting grounds and tv markets with more tv sets.... After this there is no more big east my friends....Each One Teach One Memphis...

my guess is espn again would be very influential in the decision
shouldn't be that difficult in that there are only a few realistic options...

(05-02-2010 08:21 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote: [ -> ]my guess is espn again would be very influential in the decision
shouldn't be that difficult in that there are only a few realistic options...

ESPN already has all involved on their network. What incentive do they have to pay more money to show teams they are already showing?

So basically, since you didn't really break them out, for the three eastern CUSA members that are commonly mentioned, your saying that the TV Households for their markets are as follows:

UCF 1,455,620
Memphis 667,660
ECU 290,280

Obviously though, their is a difference between actual viewership and market size, but I would imagine that these numbers become important when your considering a TV network, or program growth potential. For those in the know, am I making a correct assumption, that that is the significance of these numbers?

(05-02-2010 08:13 PM)adcorbett Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2010 07:25 PM)buckaineer Wrote: [ -> ]I don't have time to do your homework for you, but if you search you might still be able to find the articles quoting Tranghese talking about the Big East losing revenues because they lost the Miami and Boston markets in the last raid--two of the biggest markets out there which Tampa, Cincy and Louisville did NOT replace.

It's not about homework, its about knowing when to take something at face value or not. Further, my post above actually lists factual data to show your your theory is inaccurate; and you retaliate with a quote from a man who allowed us to get into this mess, who was trying to vover his own ***, as opposed ot being concerned with the truth. Further losing two markets would not be a suitable reason for such a drastic income reduction, especially when you gained three back that combined represent close to 2/4 of what you lost (not including the basketball markets).

It is clear you have no idea what you are talking about-don't have time to play.

(05-02-2010 08:26 PM)UCF-ENG Wrote: [ -> ]So basically, since you didn't really break them out, for the three eastern CUSA members that are commonly mentioned, your saying that the TV Households for their markets are as follows:

UCF 1,455,620
Memphis 667,660
ECU 290,280

Obviously though, their is a difference between actual viewership and market size, but I would imagine that these numbers become important when your considering a TV network, or program growth potential. For those in the know, am I making a correct assumption, that that is the significance of these numbers?

My understanding is that TV executives are mainly concerned with markets. This is the primary number they can use for gaining advertisers. The other numbers are very subjective.

(05-02-2010 08:26 PM)UCF-ENG Wrote: [ -> ]So basically, since you didn't really break them out, for the three eastern CUSA members that are commonly mentioned, your saying that the TV Households for their markets are as follows:

UCF 1,455,620
Memphis 667,660
ECU 290,280

Obviously though, their is a difference between actual viewership and market size, but I would imagine that these numbers become important when your considering a TV network, or program growth potential. For those in the know, am I making a correct assumption, that that is the significance of these numbers?

Those DMA numbers appear correct.