(09-09-2019 07:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 08:40 AM)Bogg Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 03:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 03:12 PM)scoscox Wrote:  A lot? Maybe 1 per year per school if that. Xavier has maybe had 1 or 2 games in 6 years that wasn’t available in HD

maybe for you but just last year Xavier had 2 OOC games on FS2- and no where near everyone gets FS2 in HD.

Big East last year had 16 OOC games on FS2, and 14 OOC games on FSN.

I mean, you may have to buy the sports package, but that's true of many ESPN properties as well.

no, there are a lot of places where FS2 is only available in SD.

Also, FS2 is only available in about 57 million households(as of April this year)- compared to 82 million for FS1. ESPNews and ESPNU available in more households than they are(about 60 million each).

Can you define this or provide some sort of basis (with supporting data/information) on which this statement is being made? I know not being available in HD was a problem a few years ago, except for a few markets for comcast/xfinity until late last year... but as far as I'm aware of, this is no longer an issue in nearly all markets.

And the availability of FS2 and ESPNU and ESPNews are about the same. I'm not sure why this channel thing is even a debate. The discussion was nationally broadcast games and network broadcast games. The big advantage for Big East is the sheer volume of games that a fan of a team can watch anywhere they live is on par with or superior, as a whole, to any other conference.

Plus there's no need to worry about paywalls for a streaming service or difficult to access conference specific channels... thank god.

(09-09-2019 09:26 AM)MU in MKE Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 07:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 08:40 AM)Bogg Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 03:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 03:12 PM)scoscox Wrote:  A lot? Maybe 1 per year per school if that. Xavier has maybe had 1 or 2 games in 6 years that wasn’t available in HD

maybe for you but just last year Xavier had 2 OOC games on FS2- and no where near everyone gets FS2 in HD.

Big East last year had 16 OOC games on FS2, and 14 OOC games on FSN.

I mean, you may have to buy the sports package, but that's true of many ESPN properties as well.

no, there are a lot of places where FS2 is only available in SD.

Also, FS2 is only available in about 57 million households(as of April this year)- compared to 82 million for FS1. ESPNews and ESPNU available in more households than they are(about 60 million each).

Can you define this or provide some sort of basis (with supporting data/information) on which this statement is being made? I know not being available in HD was a problem a few years ago, except for a few markets for comcast/xfinity until late last year... but as far as I'm aware of, this is no longer an issue in nearly all markets.

And the availability of FS2 and ESPNU and ESPNews are about the same. I'm not sure why this channel thing is even a debate. The discussion was nationally broadcast games and network broadcast games. The big advantage for Big East is the sheer volume of games that a fan of a team can watch anywhere they live is on par with or superior, as a whole, to any other conference.

Plus there's no need to worry about paywalls for a streaming service or difficult to access conference specific channels... thank god.

does TWC get it now?

my contention is that the Big East/fans want to make such a huge deal about the network piece of things. Sorry but in 2019 there is absolutely no difference being on Fox/CBS and being on cable. NONE. The ACC doesn't get dinged because Duke/UNC is on ESPN and not network TV.

(09-09-2019 12:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 09:26 AM)MU in MKE Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 07:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 08:40 AM)Bogg Wrote:  

(09-06-2019 03:32 PM)stever20 Wrote:  maybe for you but just last year Xavier had 2 OOC games on FS2- and no where near everyone gets FS2 in HD.

Big East last year had 16 OOC games on FS2, and 14 OOC games on FSN.

I mean, you may have to buy the sports package, but that's true of many ESPN properties as well.

no, there are a lot of places where FS2 is only available in SD.

Also, FS2 is only available in about 57 million households(as of April this year)- compared to 82 million for FS1. ESPNews and ESPNU available in more households than they are(about 60 million each).

Can you define this or provide some sort of basis (with supporting data/information) on which this statement is being made? I know not being available in HD was a problem a few years ago, except for a few markets for comcast/xfinity until late last year... but as far as I'm aware of, this is no longer an issue in nearly all markets.

And the availability of FS2 and ESPNU and ESPNews are about the same. I'm not sure why this channel thing is even a debate. The discussion was nationally broadcast games and network broadcast games. The big advantage for Big East is the sheer volume of games that a fan of a team can watch anywhere they live is on par with or superior, as a whole, to any other conference.

Plus there's no need to worry about paywalls for a streaming service or difficult to access conference specific channels... thank god.

does TWC get it now?

my contention is that the Big East/fans want to make such a huge deal about the network piece of things. Sorry but in 2019 there is absolutely no difference being on Fox/CBS and being on cable. NONE. The ACC doesn't get dinged because Duke/UNC is on ESPN and not network TV.

I have seen no questions about FS2 being in HD on TWC recently.

Here's the deal, you can't form an opinion and present it as fact. Network broadcasts are superior and any school (and generally their fans) would much rather have network broadcast games over cable or streaming broadcasts.

(09-09-2019 02:26 PM)MU in MKE Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 12:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 09:26 AM)MU in MKE Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 07:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 08:40 AM)Bogg Wrote:  I mean, you may have to buy the sports package, but that's true of many ESPN properties as well.

no, there are a lot of places where FS2 is only available in SD.

Also, FS2 is only available in about 57 million households(as of April this year)- compared to 82 million for FS1. ESPNews and ESPNU available in more households than they are(about 60 million each).

Can you define this or provide some sort of basis (with supporting data/information) on which this statement is being made? I know not being available in HD was a problem a few years ago, except for a few markets for comcast/xfinity until late last year... but as far as I'm aware of, this is no longer an issue in nearly all markets.

And the availability of FS2 and ESPNU and ESPNews are about the same. I'm not sure why this channel thing is even a debate. The discussion was nationally broadcast games and network broadcast games. The big advantage for Big East is the sheer volume of games that a fan of a team can watch anywhere they live is on par with or superior, as a whole, to any other conference.

Plus there's no need to worry about paywalls for a streaming service or difficult to access conference specific channels... thank god.

does TWC get it now?

my contention is that the Big East/fans want to make such a huge deal about the network piece of things. Sorry but in 2019 there is absolutely no difference being on Fox/CBS and being on cable. NONE. The ACC doesn't get dinged because Duke/UNC is on ESPN and not network TV.

I have seen no questions about FS2 being in HD on TWC recently.

Here's the deal, you can't form an opinion and present it as fact. Network broadcasts are superior and any school (and generally their fans) would much rather have network broadcast games over cable or streaming broadcasts.

You'd be hard pressed to find someone argue against that thought, normally.

(09-09-2019 02:26 PM)MU in MKE Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 12:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 09:26 AM)MU in MKE Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 07:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-07-2019 08:40 AM)Bogg Wrote:  I mean, you may have to buy the sports package, but that's true of many ESPN properties as well.

no, there are a lot of places where FS2 is only available in SD.

Also, FS2 is only available in about 57 million households(as of April this year)- compared to 82 million for FS1. ESPNews and ESPNU available in more households than they are(about 60 million each).

Can you define this or provide some sort of basis (with supporting data/information) on which this statement is being made? I know not being available in HD was a problem a few years ago, except for a few markets for comcast/xfinity until late last year... but as far as I'm aware of, this is no longer an issue in nearly all markets.

And the availability of FS2 and ESPNU and ESPNews are about the same. I'm not sure why this channel thing is even a debate. The discussion was nationally broadcast games and network broadcast games. The big advantage for Big East is the sheer volume of games that a fan of a team can watch anywhere they live is on par with or superior, as a whole, to any other conference.

Plus there's no need to worry about paywalls for a streaming service or difficult to access conference specific channels... thank god.

does TWC get it now?

my contention is that the Big East/fans want to make such a huge deal about the network piece of things. Sorry but in 2019 there is absolutely no difference being on Fox/CBS and being on cable. NONE. The ACC doesn't get dinged because Duke/UNC is on ESPN and not network TV.

I have seen no questions about FS2 being in HD on TWC recently.

Here's the deal, you can't form an opinion and present it as fact. Network broadcasts are superior and any school (and generally their fans) would much rather have network broadcast games over cable or streaming broadcasts.

Do you think any ACC fans worry about not having their top games on broadcast TV? I sure as hell don't think so. This isn't 1985.

(09-09-2019 03:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 02:26 PM)MU in MKE Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 12:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 09:26 AM)MU in MKE Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 07:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  no, there are a lot of places where FS2 is only available in SD.

Also, FS2 is only available in about 57 million households(as of April this year)- compared to 82 million for FS1. ESPNews and ESPNU available in more households than they are(about 60 million each).

Can you define this or provide some sort of basis (with supporting data/information) on which this statement is being made? I know not being available in HD was a problem a few years ago, except for a few markets for comcast/xfinity until late last year... but as far as I'm aware of, this is no longer an issue in nearly all markets.

And the availability of FS2 and ESPNU and ESPNews are about the same. I'm not sure why this channel thing is even a debate. The discussion was nationally broadcast games and network broadcast games. The big advantage for Big East is the sheer volume of games that a fan of a team can watch anywhere they live is on par with or superior, as a whole, to any other conference.

Plus there's no need to worry about paywalls for a streaming service or difficult to access conference specific channels... thank god.

does TWC get it now?

my contention is that the Big East/fans want to make such a huge deal about the network piece of things. Sorry but in 2019 there is absolutely no difference being on Fox/CBS and being on cable. NONE. The ACC doesn't get dinged because Duke/UNC is on ESPN and not network TV.

I have seen no questions about FS2 being in HD on TWC recently.

Here's the deal, you can't form an opinion and present it as fact. Network broadcasts are superior and any school (and generally their fans) would much rather have network broadcast games over cable or streaming broadcasts.

Do you think any ACC fans worry about not having their top games on broadcast TV? I sure as hell don't think so. This isn't 1985.

OK, clearly we're spinning our wheels here as you've dug in pretty hard on all facets of this topic. I don't think an ACC fan is "worried" about it anymore than a BE fan is... but it sure is nice and has lots of advantages. I'm going to just leave this one here and let others argue with you if they want.

You seem oddly anti-anything positive for the BE. This should be an interesting year of discussion with you...

(09-09-2019 03:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 02:26 PM)MU in MKE Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 12:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 09:26 AM)MU in MKE Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 07:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  no, there are a lot of places where FS2 is only available in SD.

Also, FS2 is only available in about 57 million households(as of April this year)- compared to 82 million for FS1. ESPNews and ESPNU available in more households than they are(about 60 million each).

Can you define this or provide some sort of basis (with supporting data/information) on which this statement is being made? I know not being available in HD was a problem a few years ago, except for a few markets for comcast/xfinity until late last year... but as far as I'm aware of, this is no longer an issue in nearly all markets.

And the availability of FS2 and ESPNU and ESPNews are about the same. I'm not sure why this channel thing is even a debate. The discussion was nationally broadcast games and network broadcast games. The big advantage for Big East is the sheer volume of games that a fan of a team can watch anywhere they live is on par with or superior, as a whole, to any other conference.

Plus there's no need to worry about paywalls for a streaming service or difficult to access conference specific channels... thank god.

does TWC get it now?

my contention is that the Big East/fans want to make such a huge deal about the network piece of things. Sorry but in 2019 there is absolutely no difference being on Fox/CBS and being on cable. NONE. The ACC doesn't get dinged because Duke/UNC is on ESPN and not network TV.

I have seen no questions about FS2 being in HD on TWC recently.

Here's the deal, you can't form an opinion and present it as fact. Network broadcasts are superior and any school (and generally their fans) would much rather have network broadcast games over cable or streaming broadcasts.

Do you think any ACC fans worry about not having their top games on broadcast TV? I sure as hell don't think so. This isn't 1985.

Using football ratings this past weekend as an example:

Mississippi/Memphis got a 1.2 rating on ABC. No way do those two teams duplicate that rating if it was on ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, etc. If Michigan/Middle Tennesse State (on FS1, 1.1 million viewers) was switched with Ohio State/FAU (on Fox, 2.62 million viewers), do you honestly believe that those ratings would have remained the same on switched networks? You had two power B1G programs in the top-10 facing equal G5/C-USA opponents at home; the only different was the network (Fox vs. FS1).

National networks, by default, get higher ratings, especially with sports coverage. It is why Tennessee/Georgia State (one power program that got upset by a G5 program) only had 702k viewers on ESPNU.

You are entitled to your opinion, unfortunately I don't think many share the same strong viewpoint on this subject.

(09-09-2019 04:51 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 03:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 02:26 PM)MU in MKE Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 12:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 09:26 AM)MU in MKE Wrote:  Can you define this or provide some sort of basis (with supporting data/information) on which this statement is being made? I know not being available in HD was a problem a few years ago, except for a few markets for comcast/xfinity until late last year... but as far as I'm aware of, this is no longer an issue in nearly all markets.

And the availability of FS2 and ESPNU and ESPNews are about the same. I'm not sure why this channel thing is even a debate. The discussion was nationally broadcast games and network broadcast games. The big advantage for Big East is the sheer volume of games that a fan of a team can watch anywhere they live is on par with or superior, as a whole, to any other conference.

Plus there's no need to worry about paywalls for a streaming service or difficult to access conference specific channels... thank god.

does TWC get it now?

my contention is that the Big East/fans want to make such a huge deal about the network piece of things. Sorry but in 2019 there is absolutely no difference being on Fox/CBS and being on cable. NONE. The ACC doesn't get dinged because Duke/UNC is on ESPN and not network TV.

I have seen no questions about FS2 being in HD on TWC recently.

Here's the deal, you can't form an opinion and present it as fact. Network broadcasts are superior and any school (and generally their fans) would much rather have network broadcast games over cable or streaming broadcasts.

Do you think any ACC fans worry about not having their top games on broadcast TV? I sure as hell don't think so. This isn't 1985.

Using football ratings this past weekend as an example:

Mississippi/Memphis got a 1.2 rating on ABC. No way do those two teams duplicate that rating if it was on ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, etc. If Michigan/Middle Tennesse State (on FS1, 1.1 million viewers) was switched with Ohio State/FAU (on Fox, 2.62 million viewers), do you honestly believe that those ratings would have remained the same on switched networks? You had two power B1G programs in the top-10 facing equal G5/C-USA opponents at home; the only different was the network (Fox vs. FS1).

National networks, by default, get higher ratings, especially with sports coverage. It is why Tennessee/Georgia State (one power program that got upset by a G5 program) only had 702k viewers on ESPNU.

You are entitled to your opinion, unfortunately I don't think many share the same strong viewpoint on this subject.

You stop it with your actual examples and use of logic!

(09-09-2019 04:51 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 03:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 02:26 PM)MU in MKE Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 12:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 09:26 AM)MU in MKE Wrote:  Can you define this or provide some sort of basis (with supporting data/information) on which this statement is being made? I know not being available in HD was a problem a few years ago, except for a few markets for comcast/xfinity until late last year... but as far as I'm aware of, this is no longer an issue in nearly all markets.

And the availability of FS2 and ESPNU and ESPNews are about the same. I'm not sure why this channel thing is even a debate. The discussion was nationally broadcast games and network broadcast games. The big advantage for Big East is the sheer volume of games that a fan of a team can watch anywhere they live is on par with or superior, as a whole, to any other conference.

Plus there's no need to worry about paywalls for a streaming service or difficult to access conference specific channels... thank god.

does TWC get it now?

my contention is that the Big East/fans want to make such a huge deal about the network piece of things. Sorry but in 2019 there is absolutely no difference being on Fox/CBS and being on cable. NONE. The ACC doesn't get dinged because Duke/UNC is on ESPN and not network TV.

I have seen no questions about FS2 being in HD on TWC recently.

Here's the deal, you can't form an opinion and present it as fact. Network broadcasts are superior and any school (and generally their fans) would much rather have network broadcast games over cable or streaming broadcasts.

Do you think any ACC fans worry about not having their top games on broadcast TV? I sure as hell don't think so. This isn't 1985.

Using football ratings this past weekend as an example:

Mississippi/Memphis got a 1.2 rating on ABC. No way do those two teams duplicate that rating if it was on ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, etc. If Michigan/Middle Tennesse State (on FS1, 1.1 million viewers) was switched with Ohio State/FAU (on Fox, 2.62 million viewers), do you honestly believe that those ratings would have remained the same on switched networks? You had two power B1G programs in the top-10 facing equal G5/C-USA opponents at home; the only different was the network (Fox vs. FS1).

National networks, by default, get higher ratings, especially with sports coverage. It is why Tennessee/Georgia State (one power program that got upset by a G5 program) only had 702k viewers on ESPNU.

You are entitled to your opinion, unfortunately I don't think many share the same strong viewpoint on this subject.

For whatever reason, college basketball isn't like that. You go look at the top rated games from last season in college basketball.... 8 of the top 10 were on ESPN. If network TV were so important for basketball, why would BOTH Duke/UNC games and BOTH Duke/UVA games be on ESPN and not network? Those were the top 4 games of the year ratings wise last year.

Also, I think it's very interesting in your football question with Ole Miss/Memphis- you left out ESPN as a network. The noon game on ESPN that time got 10k fewer viewers.

(09-09-2019 06:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 04:51 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 03:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 02:26 PM)MU in MKE Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 12:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  does TWC get it now?

my contention is that the Big East/fans want to make such a huge deal about the network piece of things. Sorry but in 2019 there is absolutely no difference being on Fox/CBS and being on cable. NONE. The ACC doesn't get dinged because Duke/UNC is on ESPN and not network TV.

I have seen no questions about FS2 being in HD on TWC recently.

Here's the deal, you can't form an opinion and present it as fact. Network broadcasts are superior and any school (and generally their fans) would much rather have network broadcast games over cable or streaming broadcasts.

Do you think any ACC fans worry about not having their top games on broadcast TV? I sure as hell don't think so. This isn't 1985.

Using football ratings this past weekend as an example:

Mississippi/Memphis got a 1.2 rating on ABC. No way do those two teams duplicate that rating if it was on ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, etc. If Michigan/Middle Tennesse State (on FS1, 1.1 million viewers) was switched with Ohio State/FAU (on Fox, 2.62 million viewers), do you honestly believe that those ratings would have remained the same on switched networks? You had two power B1G programs in the top-10 facing equal G5/C-USA opponents at home; the only different was the network (Fox vs. FS1).

National networks, by default, get higher ratings, especially with sports coverage. It is why Tennessee/Georgia State (one power program that got upset by a G5 program) only had 702k viewers on ESPNU.

You are entitled to your opinion, unfortunately I don't think many share the same strong viewpoint on this subject.

For whatever reason, college basketball isn't like that. You go look at the top rated games from last season in college basketball.... 8 of the top 10 were on ESPN. If network TV were so important for basketball, why would BOTH Duke/UNC games and BOTH Duke/UVA games be on ESPN and not network? Those were the top 4 games of the year ratings wise last year.

Also, I think it's very interesting in your football question with Ole Miss/Memphis- you left out ESPN as a network. The noon game on ESPN that time got 10k fewer viewers.

Yeah, it isn’t like that because ABC and NBC don’t broadcast College Basketball, and there’s only so many games that CBS/Fox can get to air. When CBS last had the Final Four in 2017 (it alternates years with TBS), the two Saturday games averaged 16.75 million viewers, and 23 million watched the title game. On TBS a year ago, the Final Four averaged 13.1 million viewers and the championship a shade under 16 million, the latter figure an all-time low.

And are you referencing the Nebraska/South Alabama on ESPN game? Yeah, it didn’t get as many viewers as the game on ABC. That only solidified the point....

(09-09-2019 07:08 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 06:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 04:51 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 03:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 02:26 PM)MU in MKE Wrote:  I have seen no questions about FS2 being in HD on TWC recently.

Here's the deal, you can't form an opinion and present it as fact. Network broadcasts are superior and any school (and generally their fans) would much rather have network broadcast games over cable or streaming broadcasts.

Do you think any ACC fans worry about not having their top games on broadcast TV? I sure as hell don't think so. This isn't 1985.

Using football ratings this past weekend as an example:

Mississippi/Memphis got a 1.2 rating on ABC. No way do those two teams duplicate that rating if it was on ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, etc. If Michigan/Middle Tennesse State (on FS1, 1.1 million viewers) was switched with Ohio State/FAU (on Fox, 2.62 million viewers), do you honestly believe that those ratings would have remained the same on switched networks? You had two power B1G programs in the top-10 facing equal G5/C-USA opponents at home; the only different was the network (Fox vs. FS1).

National networks, by default, get higher ratings, especially with sports coverage. It is why Tennessee/Georgia State (one power program that got upset by a G5 program) only had 702k viewers on ESPNU.

You are entitled to your opinion, unfortunately I don't think many share the same strong viewpoint on this subject.

For whatever reason, college basketball isn't like that. You go look at the top rated games from last season in college basketball.... 8 of the top 10 were on ESPN. If network TV were so important for basketball, why would BOTH Duke/UNC games and BOTH Duke/UVA games be on ESPN and not network? Those were the top 4 games of the year ratings wise last year.

Also, I think it's very interesting in your football question with Ole Miss/Memphis- you left out ESPN as a network. The noon game on ESPN that time got 10k fewer viewers.

Yeah, it isn’t like that because ABC and NBC don’t broadcast College Basketball, and there’s only so many games that CBS/Fox can get to air. When CBS last had the Final Four in 2017 (it alternates years with TBS), the two Saturday games averaged 16.75 million viewers, and 23 million watched the title game. On TBS a year ago, the Final Four averaged 13.1 million viewers and the championship a shade under 16 million, the latter figure an all-time low.

And are you referencing the Nebraska/South Alabama on ESPN game? Yeah, it didn’t get as many viewers as the game on ABC. That only solidified the point....

yeah ESPN got 10k fewer viewers. not a big deal.....

Regular season folks want to watch college basketball, they're defaulting to ESPN and CBS. You can say a game on Fox should be better than a game on ESPN- but that's just not realistic.

(09-09-2019 08:05 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 07:08 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 06:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 04:51 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 03:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Do you think any ACC fans worry about not having their top games on broadcast TV? I sure as hell don't think so. This isn't 1985.

Using football ratings this past weekend as an example:

Mississippi/Memphis got a 1.2 rating on ABC. No way do those two teams duplicate that rating if it was on ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, etc. If Michigan/Middle Tennesse State (on FS1, 1.1 million viewers) was switched with Ohio State/FAU (on Fox, 2.62 million viewers), do you honestly believe that those ratings would have remained the same on switched networks? You had two power B1G programs in the top-10 facing equal G5/C-USA opponents at home; the only different was the network (Fox vs. FS1).

National networks, by default, get higher ratings, especially with sports coverage. It is why Tennessee/Georgia State (one power program that got upset by a G5 program) only had 702k viewers on ESPNU.

You are entitled to your opinion, unfortunately I don't think many share the same strong viewpoint on this subject.

For whatever reason, college basketball isn't like that. You go look at the top rated games from last season in college basketball.... 8 of the top 10 were on ESPN. If network TV were so important for basketball, why would BOTH Duke/UNC games and BOTH Duke/UVA games be on ESPN and not network? Those were the top 4 games of the year ratings wise last year.

Also, I think it's very interesting in your football question with Ole Miss/Memphis- you left out ESPN as a network. The noon game on ESPN that time got 10k fewer viewers.

Yeah, it isn’t like that because ABC and NBC don’t broadcast College Basketball, and there’s only so many games that CBS/Fox can get to air. When CBS last had the Final Four in 2017 (it alternates years with TBS), the two Saturday games averaged 16.75 million viewers, and 23 million watched the title game. On TBS a year ago, the Final Four averaged 13.1 million viewers and the championship a shade under 16 million, the latter figure an all-time low.

And are you referencing the Nebraska/South Alabama on ESPN game? Yeah, it didn’t get as many viewers as the game on ABC. That only solidified the point....

yeah ESPN got 10k fewer viewers. not a big deal.....

Regular season folks want to watch college basketball, they're defaulting to ESPN and CBS. You can say a game on Fox should be better than a game on ESPN- but that's just not realistic.

GW11, there's no disputing an excellently researched, well thought out, cogent argument such as this. I wouldn't try anymore.

The network broadcast thing matters, but not exactly for the reasons being discussed. First, basically for the length of the current contract the occasional knock has been that a deal with Fox is undesirable due to the prospect of being "stuck" on FS1/2. In the strictest sense, more games on Big Fox and CBS are always better than fewer, and in a more broad sense getting a number of broadcast games closer to what other leagues are getting on Big ESPN goes a long way towards negating the inferior exposure argument.

Second and more importantly, the window of time in which the conference is potentially going to start talking an extension with Fox or have to prepare to go to market is starting to get visible on the horizon. A vote of confidence by Fox in terms of dedicating valuable air time, and interest by CBS in purchasing games, is nothing but a good thing. It's good momentum heading into the addition of the two UConn teams, which themselves will be good momentum heading into negotiations.

Honestly, because it's stever this whole discussion is obviously being framed in terms of the AAC's new contract its significant commitment to ESPN+, but I'm really not interested in doing the AAC/BE thing any more. Uconn's out, and that's all that really matters at this point, I'm not concerned with how they do going forward well or ill. There are no real connections between the two leagues left outside of the couple of OOC series the AAC asked UConn for, so there's no real reason to dedicate significant forum space to the discussion.

(09-09-2019 04:50 PM)MU in MKE Wrote:  You seem oddly anti-anything positive for the BE. This should be an interesting year of discussion with you...

Stever is a long-time concern troll pretending to be a Big East fan but is mostly just waiting for a three-bid Big East season to tell everyone how wrong the C7 were for splitting off in the first place. Oddly enough, he doesn't seem to be a particular fan of the AAC or any other conference, nearest I can tell he was a general fan of the old football-playing Big East lineup and either blames the C7 for blowing up football continuity or is just someone who thinks the current group shouldn't have gotten to use the name in the first place. Val stays dunking on him, but at this point I suppose he's spilled enough digital ink on the act that he's in it for the long haul. I'd advise against engaging, as it only makes things worse.

I'm with the Big East posters overall. There is a perception that "national network" is a bit more prestigious than "cable" or "streaming." That's just the way it is for most folks, Stever20. I agree with those who disagree with you.

Having said that, I'm not sure where Bogg got the idea Stever20 is "pretending to be a Big East fan." I've been reading the board since about 2013-14 and have never gotten that impression (though I could be wrong). Stever20 can alternate between being both anti-Big East and "respectful of the Big East." I suspect he enjoys engaging Big East fans in (for the most part) a reasonable manner but, no doubt, I do feel he sometimes can be a bit antagonistic and I have told him this in a previous post. To his credit, he reacted in a fair manner. He clearly knows his stuff and I respect that.

Not everybody who posts on a "conference-specific" board such as this is going to "play nice" all the time. Stever20 is not a Big East fan. Neither am I (for that matter, I am not a fan of any particular conference), but I do follow with a certain personal connection two Big East programs and wish the league well and think very highly of it.

(09-09-2019 10:33 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Having said that, I'm not sure where Bogg got the idea Stever20 is "pretending to be a Big East fan." I've been reading the board since about 2013-14 and have never gotten that impression (though I could be wrong).

He's previously identified as a Georgetown fan.

The context helps a lot. I don't mind debates and banter between opposing viewpoints. It's more about when it has gone on too long. Knowing the background assists in that.

One thing I will say about being on Fox/Fox Sports is that ESPN does their best to completely ignore content it doesn't control. So unless a team does something you absolutely can not ignore (like have a player go off for 40+ points multiple times or have the team break into the upper end of the top 25) they'll do their best to pretend those teams and conferences to not exist. As long as they're still the dominant player, this is a pretty big drawback.

(09-09-2019 09:06 PM)Bogg Wrote:  Stever is a long-time concern troll pretending to be a Big East fan but is mostly just waiting for a three-bid Big East season to tell everyone how wrong the C7 were for splitting off in the first place. Oddly enough, he doesn't seem to be a particular fan of the AAC or any other conference, nearest I can tell he was a general fan of the old football-playing Big East lineup and either blames the C7 for blowing up football continuity or is just someone who thinks the current group shouldn't have gotten to use the name in the first place. Val stays dunking on him, but at this point I suppose he's spilled enough digital ink on the act that he's in it for the long haul. I'd advise against engaging, as it only makes things worse.

Stever definitely wishes that the Big East, under a hybrid model, stayed together. Going back, he has spoken highly about, and gotten excited with, Memphis, Temple, Wichita State and Houston, while talking about the "potential" of programs like UCF, SMU, Tulane and ECU.

And, again - not trying to start yet another BE/AAC debate, but the reality is that there was, and still is, more value with the basketball schools separated, than with, the football schools. Programs like Syracuse, Pittsburgh, West Virginia and Louisville not only were strong men's basketball programs, but there was a geographic fit as well. The hybrid model worked for as long as it possibly was able to, and when the C-USA call-ups (Houston, Memphis, UCF, SMU, Tulane) were added (and I would also toss-in Temple and ECU, since it was common knowledge that they would eventually be sneaked-in through the backdoor) all of the value on the basketball side was simply lost. Other than Memphis, no basketball program had done anything in over 20 years. It was what it was.

UConn is in its rightful place. The most ironic aspect of UConn's addition, going back to Stever, was that he was adamant that - because of UConn's bright future under Hurley, and the fact that they were recruiting better - the AAC was on its way to becoming an established power basketball conference. When UConn left, suddenly that tune changed to "Well, you see the thing is that UConn wasn't ever really good in the AAC, so it really doesn' change their projections at all. The AAC can still add VCU and still be better off." It's the blatant moving of the goal posts that get many Big East fans to attack those statements and calling them out for what they really are.

(09-09-2019 10:33 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I'm with the Big East posters overall. There is a perception that "national network" is a bit more prestigious than "cable" or "streaming." That's just the way it is for most folks, Stever20. I agree with those who disagree with you.

Having said that, I'm not sure where Bogg got the idea Stever20 is "pretending to be a Big East fan." I've been reading the board since about 2013-14 and have never gotten that impression (though I could be wrong). Stever20 can alternate between being both anti-Big East and "respectful of the Big East." I suspect he enjoys engaging Big East fans in (for the most part) a reasonable manner but, no doubt, I do feel he sometimes can be a bit antagonistic and I have told him this in a previous post. To his credit, he reacted in a fair manner. He clearly knows his stuff and I respect that.

Not everybody who posts on a "conference-specific" board such as this is going to "play nice" all the time. Stever20 is not a Big East fan. Neither am I (for that matter, I am not a fan of any particular conference), but I do follow with a certain personal connection two Big East programs and wish the league well and think very highly of it.

I just don't think there's that perception though with college basketball. When the unquestioned best games of the season are on cable, it's tough to say that the network games have a better perception than cable games. It's kind of similar quite frankly to the NBA, where most of the top games are on cable. So strange that basketball is like that, but football is the complete opposite.

(09-09-2019 08:05 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Regular season folks want to watch college basketball, they're defaulting to ESPN and CBS. You can say a game on Fox should be better than a game on ESPN- but that's just not realistic.

So now folks are defaulting to ESPN and CBS??? What happened to "There is little to no difference in a game being on Fox/CBS and being on ESPN."

(09-10-2019 08:31 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(09-09-2019 09:06 PM)Bogg Wrote:  Stever is a long-time concern troll pretending to be a Big East fan but is mostly just waiting for a three-bid Big East season to tell everyone how wrong the C7 were for splitting off in the first place. Oddly enough, he doesn't seem to be a particular fan of the AAC or any other conference, nearest I can tell he was a general fan of the old football-playing Big East lineup and either blames the C7 for blowing up football continuity or is just someone who thinks the current group shouldn't have gotten to use the name in the first place. Val stays dunking on him, but at this point I suppose he's spilled enough digital ink on the act that he's in it for the long haul. I'd advise against engaging, as it only makes things worse.

Stever definitely wishes that the Big East, under a hybrid model, stayed together. Going back, he has spoken highly about, and gotten excited with, Memphis, Temple, Wichita State and Houston, while talking about the "potential" of programs like UCF, SMU, Tulane and ECU.

And, again - not trying to start yet another BE/AAC debate, but the reality is that there was, and still is, more value with the basketball schools separated, than with, the football schools. Programs like Syracuse, Pittsburgh, West Virginia and Louisville not only were strong men's basketball programs, but there was a geographic fit as well. The hybrid model worked for as long as it possibly was able to, and when the C-USA call-ups (Houston, Memphis, UCF, SMU, Tulane) were added (and I would also toss-in Temple and ECU, since it was common knowledge that they would eventually be sneaked-in through the backdoor) all of the value on the basketball side was simply lost. Other than Memphis, no basketball program had done anything in over 20 years. It was what it was.

UConn is in its rightful place. The most ironic aspect of UConn's addition, going back to Stever, was that he was adamant that - because of UConn's bright future under Hurley, and the fact that they were recruiting better - the AAC was on its way to becoming an established power basketball conference. When UConn left, suddenly that tune changed to "Well, you see the thing is that UConn wasn't ever really good in the AAC, so it really doesn' change their projections at all. The AAC can still add VCU and still be better off." It's the blatant moving of the goal posts that get many Big East fans to attack those statements and calling them out for what they really are.

My point on UConn/AAC is very simple-
while they were in the AAC- you felt like they were on their way back to being good..... You deal there with the potential- and what that could mean for the future
with them leaving the AAC- you are looking at what they actually had done in the AAC while looking for the AAC for the future.

Reality is that the AAC has become a clear top 7 conference on the floor despite UConn's struggles the last 3 years. Like Rob Dauster said(and he's not one that's been all that postive of the AAC before)- the Uconn loss isn't going to hurt them much right now- they'll be able to maintain what they've done, but will limit their ceiling. That's extremely fair. You want to make it out like UConn leaving is going to mean the AAC is going to do worse now than they have been doing(with UConn not being good). How is that realistic? A FAR more possibly damaging loss was Mick Cronin leaving Cincy. Cincy has performed. UConn hasn't.

And to your 2nd paragraph... Temple was already added- and had been on a run of 5 straight NCAA appearances.