I can't understand why the football schools would not want to split. They have all the power and this hybrid thing is holding the conference back. This would be a great conference for football and would be a 6-7 bid league for basketball:
Syracuse
UConn
Rutgers
Pitt
West Virginia
Cincinnati
Louisville
USF
UCF
TCU
Memphis
Houston
The basketball schools could hook up with the likes of Xavier, Charlotte, Richmond, St. Louis, Dayton and be a heck of a hoops league and would help schools like Providence, Seton Hall and St. Johns be competitive again. Seems like a win/win to me.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ from the Hoops Schools Media Markets.
besides i dont think you need to split you just need to drop some of the BB only dead wieght
The teams i would drop in order of least important to more important
1. Seton Hall (They have given up on there sports and can't afford it)
2. Providence (Have been dead wieght for along time)
3. Depaul (Once the first 2 go even a big market cant save you)
4. St John's(More history, MSG there home court,Good for some upsets during the season)
5. Marquette (Have been a beast on the court and have earned there right to be dropped ONLY if the other 4 are gone and you still need to drop someone)
G-town,Vill,ND are to good to get dropped althtough i could easily put marquette in this catagory
More football conference games *would* lead to more network money though. I would be interested to see what the $$$ with a split would be.
For what it's worth 10 of the 12 UCF games this season has been on ESPN/ESPN2/CBS-CS/FOX SPORTS NET/BHSN. The networks like us
.
(11-06-2010 05:43 PM)saxamoophone Wrote: [ -> ]More football conference games *would* lead to more network money though. I would be interested to see what the $$$ with a split would be.
For what it's worth 10 of the 12 UCF games this season has been on ESPN/ESPN2/CBS-CS/FOX SPORTS NET/BHSN. The networks like us .
You and TCu is my dream situation:)
When consultants are projecting 7.5 in revenue for both football and basketball. That in itself proves how valuable the basketball media markets are.
As animus said and Frank has detailed greatly on his blog, its about the money, or lack there of it even with 16 members. In the Big East basketball TV money is in the same ballpark with football. That means you can't decimate basketball money for the sake of only adding say TCU on the football side for a 9 team all-sports league. And as luck would have it, most of the basketball teams that suck at the current time are the same schools that have big city markets, even if they have little to no true fan support.
Also, we'd never get the votes to kick out a few members. I know fans from the NE corridor schools get defensive with the comments of "fans from the new kid on the block want to kick out a founding member" attitude. The flip side though is Seton Hall is currently giving us Temple-like behavior, only worse because it's for ALL sports, not just football. As a league we need to be forward thinking to thrive. I don't care if Seton Hall was in the league decades ago, they barely have an athletics program anymore and have no commitment.
Since we aren't kicking anyone out, we have to make something else work. What makes me want to pull my hair out is the fact that a Seton Hall and DePaul could rally support to keep the football league from being more secure and strengthing itself.
(11-06-2010 05:14 PM)animus Wrote: [ -> ]$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ from the Hoops Schools Media Markets.
I know this is true, but I still don't get how a conference with home-and-home games between Pitt, Syracuse, UConn, WVU, Louisville, and Cincinnati would have any problem at all getting games on TV. The conference would be rolling in money for basketball. Home and home match ups between those schools would probably result in MORE games on TV, not less.
(11-06-2010 05:51 PM)CollegeCard Wrote: [ -> ]As animus said and Frank has detailed greatly on his blog, its about the money, or lack there of it even with 16 members. In the Big East basketball TV money is in the same ballpark with football. That means you can't decimate basketball money for the sake of only adding say TCU on the football side for a 9 team all-sports league. And as luck would have it, most of the basketball teams that suck at the current time are the same schools that have big city markets, even if they have little to no true fan support.
Also, we'd never get the votes to kick out a few members. I know fans from the NE corridor schools get defensive with the comments of "fans from the new kid on the block want to kick out a founding member" attitude. The flip side though is Seton Hall is currently giving us Temple-like behavior, only worse because it's for ALL sports, not just football. As a league we need to be forward thinking to thrive. I don't care if Seton Hall was in the league decades ago, they barely have an athletics program anymore and have no commitment.
Since we aren't kicking anyone out, we have to make something else work. What makes me want to pull my hair out is the fact that a Seton Hall and DePaul could rally support to keep the football league from being more secure and strengthing itself.
I think you would be supprised that alot of fans in the NE would have no problem dropping Sh,depaul,providence, and st Johns. I will say this tho if we are getting like a TCU,UCF,Houston,and throw in ECU i would drop the first 4 from my post above in a heart beat solid confrence in Fb from north to south.
But i wouldnt even consider dropping Sh for even temple so it's more or less the fans want something solid in FB and not just kicking schools for other pointless schools.
(11-06-2010 06:17 PM)papablastter Wrote: [ -> ]I will say this tho if we are getting like a TCU,UCF,Houston,and throw in ECU i would drop the first 4 from my post above in a heart beat solid confrence in Fb from north to south.
I think that 12 team conference would get the big east closer to the level of the ACC in a lot of ways (especially if USF/UCF would develop a little more)
(11-06-2010 06:29 PM)saxamoophone Wrote: [ -> ] (11-06-2010 06:17 PM)papablastter Wrote: [ -> ]I will say this tho if we are getting like a TCU,UCF,Houston,and throw in ECU i would drop the first 4 from my post above in a heart beat solid confrence in Fb from north to south.
I think that 12 team conference would get the big east closer to the level of the ACC in a lot of ways (especially if USF/UCF would develop a little more)
Money wise we would more than likely blow the ACC away since we would blanket the east into texas where the ACC has more teams covering the same markets imo
(11-06-2010 06:17 PM)papablastter Wrote: [ -> ] (11-06-2010 05:51 PM)CollegeCard Wrote: [ -> ]As animus said and Frank has detailed greatly on his blog, its about the money, or lack there of it even with 16 members. In the Big East basketball TV money is in the same ballpark with football. That means you can't decimate basketball money for the sake of only adding say TCU on the football side for a 9 team all-sports league. And as luck would have it, most of the basketball teams that suck at the current time are the same schools that have big city markets, even if they have little to no true fan support.
Also, we'd never get the votes to kick out a few members. I know fans from the NE corridor schools get defensive with the comments of "fans from the new kid on the block want to kick out a founding member" attitude. The flip side though is Seton Hall is currently giving us Temple-like behavior, only worse because it's for ALL sports, not just football. As a league we need to be forward thinking to thrive. I don't care if Seton Hall was in the league decades ago, they barely have an athletics program anymore and have no commitment.
Since we aren't kicking anyone out, we have to make something else work. What makes me want to pull my hair out is the fact that a Seton Hall and DePaul could rally support to keep the football league from being more secure and strengthing itself.
I think you would be supprised that alot of fans in the NE would have no problem dropping Sh,depaul,providence, and st Johns. I will say this tho if we are getting like a TCU,UCF,Houston,and throw in ECU i would drop the first 4 from my post above in a heart beat solid confrence in Fb from north to south.
But i wouldnt even consider dropping Sh for even temple so it's more or less the fans want something solid in FB and not just kicking schools for other pointless schools.
In a world where we don't have to worry about voting blocks and numerous other issues, I'd be happy with dropping 2 non-football anchors and adding TCU and someone else all-sports. That's not happening though, so we have to work out the best solution we can.
(11-06-2010 07:11 PM)CollegeCard Wrote: [ -> ] (11-06-2010 06:17 PM)papablastter Wrote: [ -> ] (11-06-2010 05:51 PM)CollegeCard Wrote: [ -> ]As animus said and Frank has detailed greatly on his blog, its about the money, or lack there of it even with 16 members. In the Big East basketball TV money is in the same ballpark with football. That means you can't decimate basketball money for the sake of only adding say TCU on the football side for a 9 team all-sports league. And as luck would have it, most of the basketball teams that suck at the current time are the same schools that have big city markets, even if they have little to no true fan support.
Also, we'd never get the votes to kick out a few members. I know fans from the NE corridor schools get defensive with the comments of "fans from the new kid on the block want to kick out a founding member" attitude. The flip side though is Seton Hall is currently giving us Temple-like behavior, only worse because it's for ALL sports, not just football. As a league we need to be forward thinking to thrive. I don't care if Seton Hall was in the league decades ago, they barely have an athletics program anymore and have no commitment.
Since we aren't kicking anyone out, we have to make something else work. What makes me want to pull my hair out is the fact that a Seton Hall and DePaul could rally support to keep the football league from being more secure and strengthing itself.
I think you would be supprised that alot of fans in the NE would have no problem dropping Sh,depaul,providence, and st Johns. I will say this tho if we are getting like a TCU,UCF,Houston,and throw in ECU i would drop the first 4 from my post above in a heart beat solid confrence in Fb from north to south.
But i wouldnt even consider dropping Sh for even temple so it's more or less the fans want something solid in FB and not just kicking schools for other pointless schools.
In a world where we don't have to worry about voting blocks and numerous other issues, I'd be happy with dropping 2 non-football anchors and adding TCU and someone else all-sports. That's not happening though, so we have to work out the best solution we can.
12/20 baby!
(11-06-2010 05:14 PM)animus Wrote: [ -> ]$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ from the Hoops Schools Media Markets.
Animus your joking correct. The only media outlet worth talking about on the hoops side is Chicago, and possibly Philly, but Pitt takes care of that for us. I really have a hard time believing that the football side is in need of the hoops side of the BE media outlets. I don't think Providence, Seton Hall, Marquette, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Nova, Depaul, Saint Johns media outlet produces more ratings that the football side. Not only does football have the best basketball to boot they also IMO have the best media outlet to produce the ratings that a conference would need if a split would occur, but that is my opinion for someone would have to check for the facts to see.
(11-07-2010 12:18 AM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote: [ -> ] (11-06-2010 05:14 PM)animus Wrote: [ -> ]$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ from the Hoops Schools Media Markets.
Animus your joking correct. The only media outlet worth talking about on the hoops side is Chicago, and possibly Philly, but Pitt takes care of that for us. I really have a hard time believing that the football side is in need of the hoops side of the BE media outlets. I don't think Providence, Seton Hall, Marquette, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Nova, Depaul, Saint Johns media outlet produces more ratings that the football side. Not only does football have the best basketball to boot they also IMO have the best media outlet to produce the ratings that a conference would need if a split would occur, but that is my opinion for someone would have to check for the facts to see.
As I said in another post tonight, or possibly in this thread can't remember because its getting late. But when consultants are telling you that a Ben would generate 7.5M in Football and 7.5 in Hoops per school. Then that tells me that the hoops schools are very important. Cutting away hoops schools would lower that 7.5M in hoops and possibly football, because we'd be able to get the BEN in those markets for football as well. Pitt doesn't bring the Philly market and i'm pretty sure Philly could care less about Pitt athletics. Rutgers would give us the Philly Market more than Pitt would dream of bringing. Here's the deal, the football schools are using the hoops schools for more revenue, not the other way around.
(11-07-2010 12:29 AM)animus Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2010 12:18 AM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote: [ -> ] (11-06-2010 05:14 PM)animus Wrote: [ -> ]$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ from the Hoops Schools Media Markets.
Animus your joking correct. The only media outlet worth talking about on the hoops side is Chicago, and possibly Philly, but Pitt takes care of that for us. I really have a hard time believing that the football side is in need of the hoops side of the BE media outlets. I don't think Providence, Seton Hall, Marquette, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Nova, Depaul, Saint Johns media outlet produces more ratings that the football side. Not only does football have the best basketball to boot they also IMO have the best media outlet to produce the ratings that a conference would need if a split would occur, but that is my opinion for someone would have to check for the facts to see.
As I said in another post tonight, or possibly in this thread can't remember because its getting late. But when consultants are telling you that a Ben would generate 7.5M in Football and 7.5 in Hoops per school. Then that tells me that the hoops schools are very important. Cutting away hoops schools would lower that 7.5M in hoops and possibly football, because we'd be able to get the BEN in those markets for football as well. Pitt doesn't bring the Philly market and i'm pretty sure Philly could care less about Pitt athletics. Rutgers would give us the Philly Market more than Pitt would dream of bringing. Here's the deal, the football schools are using the hoops schools for more revenue, not the other way around.
I'd fire those consultants myself and ask for my $$$ back. There is no way Big East basketball is worth $120 million annually. ACC bb is probably only valued at $40 million annually in the new ESPN contracts which is less than $3.5 million per school.
Just saying.
Cheers,
Neil
The first reason is that a split is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY easier said than done logistically when looking at TV contracts, various bonds between schools, the fact that the football members really aren't on the same page, etc.
The second reason why a split isn't happening (or at least is extremely unlikely) is that the financial reasoning isn't there. I pointed out on my blog that even if we assumed that the 8 football schools could get the same value as the ENTIRE current 16-team Big East TV contract, each additional school would basically have to add the entire values of their old conference TV packages (i.e. TCU would need to bring in revenue equivalent to what the entire MWC makes, UCF would need to bring in revenue equivalent what the entire C-USA makes) to create a viable increase in revenue.
No one is going through extreme acrimony and massive lawsuits over a few hundred thousand dollars of revenue per school just so that there can a split or even the dropping of a member or two just to appease the foaming blogger/message board crowd. There have to be many millions of dollars being left on the table by the football schools in order for it to be worth it for them to split, and the evidence is showing that those millions just aren't there.
Regardless, if the football schools really wanted to split, they would've done it already if they were actually on the same page. The thing is that they're not on the same page - the old-line Big East members look at things differently than schools that were added more recently. Everything that this league has done (and it has nothing to do with the commissioner's office and everything to do with the university presidents, both football and non-football members), shows that it's hell-bent on keeping this hybrid together.
(11-07-2010 12:36 AM)omnicarrier Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2010 12:29 AM)animus Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2010 12:18 AM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote: [ -> ] (11-06-2010 05:14 PM)animus Wrote: [ -> ]$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ from the Hoops Schools Media Markets.
Animus your joking correct. The only media outlet worth talking about on the hoops side is Chicago, and possibly Philly, but Pitt takes care of that for us. I really have a hard time believing that the football side is in need of the hoops side of the BE media outlets. I don't think Providence, Seton Hall, Marquette, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Nova, Depaul, Saint Johns media outlet produces more ratings that the football side. Not only does football have the best basketball to boot they also IMO have the best media outlet to produce the ratings that a conference would need if a split would occur, but that is my opinion for someone would have to check for the facts to see.
As I said in another post tonight, or possibly in this thread can't remember because its getting late. But when consultants are telling you that a Ben would generate 7.5M in Football and 7.5 in Hoops per school. Then that tells me that the hoops schools are very important. Cutting away hoops schools would lower that 7.5M in hoops and possibly football, because we'd be able to get the BEN in those markets for football as well. Pitt doesn't bring the Philly market and i'm pretty sure Philly could care less about Pitt athletics. Rutgers would give us the Philly Market more than Pitt would dream of bringing. Here's the deal, the football schools are using the hoops schools for more revenue, not the other way around.
I'd fire those consultants myself and ask for my $$$ back. There is no way Big East basketball is worth $120 million annually. ACC bb is probably only valued at $40 million annually in the new ESPN contracts which is less than $3.5 million per school.
Just saying.
Cheers,
Neil
I agree that those numbers are just pie-in-the-sky. Big East basketball is receiving around $20 million per year now while Big East football is averaging $13 million per year. There is no practical scenario where the conference could possibly get a bump of 6 times of the current contract. The most completely rosy projection *might* be a doubling of the current contract, but even that's highly unlikely. A 50% increase might be a more reasonable target.
(11-07-2010 12:46 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2010 12:36 AM)omnicarrier Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2010 12:29 AM)animus Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2010 12:18 AM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote: [ -> ] (11-06-2010 05:14 PM)animus Wrote: [ -> ]$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ from the Hoops Schools Media Markets.
Animus your joking correct. The only media outlet worth talking about on the hoops side is Chicago, and possibly Philly, but Pitt takes care of that for us. I really have a hard time believing that the football side is in need of the hoops side of the BE media outlets. I don't think Providence, Seton Hall, Marquette, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Nova, Depaul, Saint Johns media outlet produces more ratings that the football side. Not only does football have the best basketball to boot they also IMO have the best media outlet to produce the ratings that a conference would need if a split would occur, but that is my opinion for someone would have to check for the facts to see.
As I said in another post tonight, or possibly in this thread can't remember because its getting late. But when consultants are telling you that a Ben would generate 7.5M in Football and 7.5 in Hoops per school. Then that tells me that the hoops schools are very important. Cutting away hoops schools would lower that 7.5M in hoops and possibly football, because we'd be able to get the BEN in those markets for football as well. Pitt doesn't bring the Philly market and i'm pretty sure Philly could care less about Pitt athletics. Rutgers would give us the Philly Market more than Pitt would dream of bringing. Here's the deal, the football schools are using the hoops schools for more revenue, not the other way around.
I'd fire those consultants myself and ask for my $$$ back. There is no way Big East basketball is worth $120 million annually. ACC bb is probably only valued at $40 million annually in the new ESPN contracts which is less than $3.5 million per school.
Just saying.
Cheers,
Neil
I agree that those numbers are just pie-in-the-sky. Big East basketball is receiving around $20 million per year now while Big East football is averaging $13 million per year. There is no practical scenario where the conference could possibly get a bump of 6 times of the current contract. The most completely rosy projection *might* be a doubling of the current contract, but even that's highly unlikely. A 50% increase might be a more reasonable target.
From our current partners, I'd agree with the latter.
If Comcast/NBC is serious about getting back into college athletics I could see the current bb contract tripling and the football possibly doubling with Versus maybe even being re-branded as a Big East Network although the league teams would not have equity in it.
But that is about as "rosy" a projection that I could see happening.
Cheers,
Neil
(11-07-2010 12:54 AM)omnicarrier Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2010 12:46 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2010 12:36 AM)omnicarrier Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2010 12:29 AM)animus Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2010 12:18 AM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote: [ -> ]Animus your joking correct. The only media outlet worth talking about on the hoops side is Chicago, and possibly Philly, but Pitt takes care of that for us. I really have a hard time believing that the football side is in need of the hoops side of the BE media outlets. I don't think Providence, Seton Hall, Marquette, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Nova, Depaul, Saint Johns media outlet produces more ratings that the football side. Not only does football have the best basketball to boot they also IMO have the best media outlet to produce the ratings that a conference would need if a split would occur, but that is my opinion for someone would have to check for the facts to see.
As I said in another post tonight, or possibly in this thread can't remember because its getting late. But when consultants are telling you that a Ben would generate 7.5M in Football and 7.5 in Hoops per school. Then that tells me that the hoops schools are very important. Cutting away hoops schools would lower that 7.5M in hoops and possibly football, because we'd be able to get the BEN in those markets for football as well. Pitt doesn't bring the Philly market and i'm pretty sure Philly could care less about Pitt athletics. Rutgers would give us the Philly Market more than Pitt would dream of bringing. Here's the deal, the football schools are using the hoops schools for more revenue, not the other way around.
I'd fire those consultants myself and ask for my $$$ back. There is no way Big East basketball is worth $120 million annually. ACC bb is probably only valued at $40 million annually in the new ESPN contracts which is less than $3.5 million per school.
Just saying.
Cheers,
Neil
I agree that those numbers are just pie-in-the-sky. Big East basketball is receiving around $20 million per year now while Big East football is averaging $13 million per year. There is no practical scenario where the conference could possibly get a bump of 6 times of the current contract. The most completely rosy projection *might* be a doubling of the current contract, but even that's highly unlikely. A 50% increase might be a more reasonable target.
From our current partners, I'd agree with the latter.
If Comcast/NBC is serious about getting back into college athletics I could see the current bb contract tripling and the football possibly doubling with Versus maybe even being re-branded as a Big East Network although the league teams would not have equity in it.
But that is about as "rosy" a projection that I could see happening.
Cheers,
Neil
If the Big East indeed was able to secure a deal with Comcast/NBC as well as Versus would they be black balled so to say by ESPN/ABC? I honestly think that the Big East should pursue either FOX or NBC about a package deal. I personally think FOX would be a better fit with all their outlets, BUT if NBC wanted to get back into college football scene as well as the best basketball in the country this would put them back up there with the others ( CBS, ABC/ESPN, and so on ). I for one have a hard time seeing why the BE would have a hard time negotiating a deal similar to what the ACC just reeled in. Now before you start I said SIMILAR not the same, but similar. I have a hard time believing with all the outlets we say we have to offer to the TV gods no matter what sport FB or BB the Big East should be able to garner some thing in 100 million dollar range hands down, especially after seeing what the ACC pulled off. The ACC does not have the markets in comparable to the BE, but their popularity they have is second to none which IMO helped them out big time in raking in that HUGE deal with ESPN earlier this year. So if the ACC can get well over a 100 million then the Big East IMO should have no problem hit the 100 mark as well.