(05-28-2012 04:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 12:27 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 12:20 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 11:31 AM)attackfrog Wrote:  Thats close, but that wasnt the question asked. The question asked was 'how much with would the Big-8 be worth if they just added Texas'. The network exec gave a price. Then they asked the exec --how much if we added all 8 SWC teams---the exec said "same price". It was 1994 and the only thing ABC cared about was getting Texas. Even A&M was an add-on. Texas was the prize.

I think this is a major point that is often missed around here: Networks want the Elite, Tent-Pole teams. They do not sign the SEC for Vanderbilt and Mississippi State or the Big 12 for Iowa State. They want the elite teams, so it is dangerous to look at average TV ratings across conferences, and thus they are willing to sign Vandy, Northwestern, Mississippi State, and other "baggage" teams to get these elite teams.

Unfortunately, the Big East does not have any such teams.

Incorrect. The networks want viewers. Reality programming has no stars, but is popular with networks because it brings comparable or better viewership than scripted TV, but often at a lower production price.

The question is, can the Big East bring viewers without a tent-pole program. The reality is, it appears it can. It hasnt truely had a tent-pole program since Miami and Virginia Tech left. Despite this, it has a viewership that is close to other conferences while having fewer members. Expanding the size of the league and the footprint of the league can only increase the number of viewers.

While not huge tent poles, both WVU and Pitt are nationally known names, as is Syracuse.

Only nationally known name in nBE is Boise.

UConn-Rutgers, Houston-UCF, Memphis-USF have ZERO national appeal.
Boise will, at least for the first few years have a lot of interest in seeing how well they do.

Well said, and, let's face it: Boise's national appeal is second-tier. They have appeal when (a) they are winning 12 games, and (b) when they are playing a big-name team from another conference. So even in Boise's case, their national appeal is tenuous and situational.

Those who discount the import of having big-name teams to sell the TV networks will, IMO, end up being very disappointed by the media deal.

Actually, when Boise plays Wyoming or New Mexico, nobody cares. When Boise plays a team in an eastern time zone where there are a lot of tv sets, people will care and they're going to watch. Calling Boise's appeal second-tier is a complete joke. There are only a dozen or so programs that generate more interest on an annual basis.

I am sure you will be disappointed when the deal happens and it is in excess of $2 billion.

(05-28-2012 04:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 12:43 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 12:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 12:16 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think this is a major point that is often missed around here: Networks want the Elite, Tent-Pole teams. They do not sign the SEC for Vanderbilt and Mississippi State or the Big 12 for Iowa State. They want the elite teams, so it is dangerous to look at average TV ratings across conferences, and thus they are willing to sign Vandy, Northwestern, Mississippi State, and other "baggage" teams to get these elite teams.

Unfortunately, the Big East does not have any such teams.

Come on, quo. This is NOT a major point that is missed around here. We know this already, b/c you keep posting it everywhere.

And we know our numbers don't match up with the SEC, either. We know we're not getting deals like that.

We're just trying to discuss what we might get, low though it will be, compared to better FB conferences.

That's what you appeared to be discussing, but others, like SF Husky, seemed to not have in mind the point i made, so i believe it was worth making.

Another common belief around here that i think bears scrutiny is the enthusiasm for service academies. God bless them, but for the whole 40 years I've been watching college football, the service academies have been viewed by the national football culture as strictly low-end cannon-fodder, and if any big-time team scheduled them, it has always been viewed as a kind of charity work, throwing a bone to our men in uniform, so to speak. But around here, the service academies are viewed as big-time prizes, valuable additions. It's a real head-scratcher.

It's not a head scratcher at all. The service academies have a lot of viewers; that is all the networks care about. Nothing mysterious about it...and thanks for making the point that totally shoots down your own argument.

Not sure what point I made that shoots down my own argument? Someone in this thread posted about being surprised at AFA's low TV ratings. I don't see why anyone would be surprised by that at all.

If service academies were all-that on TV, then why haven't they been scooped up by major conferences long ago? In my experience, big-time teams would typically get ridiculed for scheduling service academies, almost rent-a-win type games.

I'm sure Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Penn State, South Carolina, Pitt, Missouri and Texas A&M are worried that a clueless internet guy is in a basement somewhere ridiculing them.

(05-29-2012 09:23 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 04:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 12:27 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 12:20 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think this is a major point that is often missed around here: Networks want the Elite, Tent-Pole teams. They do not sign the SEC for Vanderbilt and Mississippi State or the Big 12 for Iowa State. They want the elite teams, so it is dangerous to look at average TV ratings across conferences, and thus they are willing to sign Vandy, Northwestern, Mississippi State, and other "baggage" teams to get these elite teams.

Unfortunately, the Big East does not have any such teams.

Incorrect. The networks want viewers. Reality programming has no stars, but is popular with networks because it brings comparable or better viewership than scripted TV, but often at a lower production price.

The question is, can the Big East bring viewers without a tent-pole program. The reality is, it appears it can. It hasnt truely had a tent-pole program since Miami and Virginia Tech left. Despite this, it has a viewership that is close to other conferences while having fewer members. Expanding the size of the league and the footprint of the league can only increase the number of viewers.

While not huge tent poles, both WVU and Pitt are nationally known names, as is Syracuse.

Only nationally known name in nBE is Boise.

UConn-Rutgers, Houston-UCF, Memphis-USF have ZERO national appeal.
Boise will, at least for the first few years have a lot of interest in seeing how well they do.

Well said, and, let's face it: Boise's national appeal is second-tier. They have appeal when (a) they are winning 12 games, and (b) when they are playing a big-name team from another conference. So even in Boise's case, their national appeal is tenuous and situational.

Those who discount the import of having big-name teams to sell the TV networks will, IMO, end up being very disappointed by the media deal.

Actually, when Boise plays Wyoming or New Mexico, nobody cares. When Boise plays a team in an eastern time zone where there are a lot of tv sets, people will care and they're going to watch. Calling Boise's appeal second-tier is a complete joke. There are only a dozen or so programs that generate more interest on an annual basis.

I am sure you will be disappointed when the deal happens and it is in excess of $2 billion.

Great point.

Just look at Boise State's regular season game vs Va Tech in 2010...it matched the HIGHEST RATED ESPN GAME EVER since 1994!!!

Broncos-Hokies game gets high ratings
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5552261

Boise State-Virginia Tech earns big TV rating
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/re...1009060016

(05-29-2012 09:40 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Great point.

Just look at Boise State's regular season game vs Va Tech in 2010...it matched the HIGHEST RATED ESPN GAME EVER since 1994!!!

Broncos-Hokies game gets high ratings
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5552261

Boise State-Virginia Tech earns big TV rating
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/re...1009060016

Not to take anything away from Boise St, but I think the high ratings were probably were helped out by that fact that it was:
a) a game between two top ten ranked teams (#3 BSU and #10 VTech)
b) the only game featuring two top ten teams during the entire 1st weekend of football
c) played on a Monday night (not really any other competition for sports TV viewers).

(05-29-2012 10:18 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 09:40 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Great point.

Just look at Boise State's regular season game vs Va Tech in 2010...it matched the HIGHEST RATED ESPN GAME EVER since 1994!!!

Broncos-Hokies game gets high ratings
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5552261

Boise State-Virginia Tech earns big TV rating
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/re...1009060016

Not to take anything away from Boise St, but I think the high ratings were probably were helped out by that fact that it was:
a) a game between two top ten ranked teams (#3 BSU and #10 VTech)
b) the only game featuring two top ten teams during the entire 1st weekend of football
c) played on a Monday night (not really any other competition for sports TV viewers).

I was going to post something negative about this, since Quo's gone and someone has to, but it's tough to argue with "highest rated ESPN game ever."

That said, I don't think that Boise State nonconference games vs SEC teams are an accurate predictor of Boise State games vs Rutgers, Temple, UCF, USF, Louisville etc unless the opponent is having a really good year.

(05-29-2012 11:35 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 10:18 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(05-29-2012 09:40 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Great point.

Just look at Boise State's regular season game vs Va Tech in 2010...it matched the HIGHEST RATED ESPN GAME EVER since 1994!!!

Broncos-Hokies game gets high ratings
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5552261

Boise State-Virginia Tech earns big TV rating
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/re...1009060016

Not to take anything away from Boise St, but I think the high ratings were probably were helped out by that fact that it was:
a) a game between two top ten ranked teams (#3 BSU and #10 VTech)
b) the only game featuring two top ten teams during the entire 1st weekend of football
c) played on a Monday night (not really any other competition for sports TV viewers).

I was going to post something negative about this, since Quo's gone and someone has to, but it's tough to argue with "highest rated ESPN game ever."

That was my point....bottom line...BOISE "is" a known national brand commodity, regardless what some hack in Baton Rouge suggests.

I did not read this whole thing, so forgive me if this is addressed, but some of these numbers are not apples to apples comparisons. For example, the Big East has BY far the most basketball games televised, which means that it has several nationally televised games in a given week that are not very attractive, where say as the SEC which has far fewer games on nationally, has mostly their marquee games on national TV. Normally this is not a big deal, but the Big East literally fills out ESPN's schedule, and can have as many as 15 games per week on the 3 networks, whereas the SEC might have 2 or 3. This brings the BE national average down, and brings the SEC average up.

However, the opposite is true as well. The Big East has far less football games on national TV, and thus most of their games are of the marquee variety (for the Big East), as opposed to the SEC and Big Ten who may have as many as six national TV games in a week, including some less marquee matchups. The Big Ten also often has four games that compete with themselves in the 3:30 timeslot on a given week on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, and the Big Ten Network (which I assume are not counted in the ratings, since the B10N is not a national network). So even worse, this brings the BE average up from where it maybe shoudl be, while bringing the SEC and and Big Ten down.

One other note, the Big East has far more football and basketball games on ESPNU than any other conference. With the network being available in about 30% less households, compared ot ESPN and ESPN, that adds up.

Basically the numbers above overvalue Big East football and SEC basketball, and undervalue Big East basketball and Big Ten and SEC football.

^ I essentially agree with that. Not going to rack my brain over the details. We're going to get the best deal we can later this year, and the fact it will likely get to open bidding is a good thing.

(05-29-2012 02:33 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  That was my point....bottom line...BOISE "is" a known national brand commodity, regardless what some hack in Baton Rouge suggests.

Boise draws high TV ratings when they play established national powers. That is all they have every proven to be on TV.

Boise is still somewhat of a novelty but they do have brand recognition and we need any recognition we can get....cuse/pitt football wasn't much to write home about but they were brand names (not high brand names, but brand none the less). WVA was a huge loss in football.

"Cuse isn't a "brand name" in FB.

(06-04-2012 08:02 AM)TripleA Wrote:  "Cuse isn't a "brand name" in FB.

I think they had some brand power....I didn't say they were Ohio State/Florida/USC.

(06-04-2012 08:03 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:02 AM)TripleA Wrote:  "Cuse isn't a "brand name" in FB.

I think they had some brand power....I didn't say they were Ohio State/Florida/USC.

In FOOTBALL? For what? They have a great "brand name" in BB. But that doesn't bleed over to another sport.

That's like saying Rice is a brand name in basketball, b/c they have a good baseball program.

(06-04-2012 08:08 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:03 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:02 AM)TripleA Wrote:  "Cuse isn't a "brand name" in FB.

I think they had some brand power....I didn't say they were Ohio State/Florida/USC.

In FOOTBALL? For what? They have a great "brand name" in BB. But that doesn't bleed over to another sport.

That's like saying Rice is a brand name in basketball, b/c they have a good baseball program.

No they have a brand name for football. They were a football powerhouse. It's just every passing day, more people go into the ground who remember when they were, so their brand isn't what it used to be.

again, I didn't say they were a brand powerhouse in football but if you don't think they had some brand recognition you are fooling yourself. I'm sorry they are leaving...and I mean for football too, not just hoops.

(06-04-2012 08:46 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  again, I didn't say they were a brand powerhouse in football but if you don't think they had some brand recognition you are fooling yourself. I'm sorry they are leaving...and I mean for football too, not just hoops.

By many of your posts, you seem to be taking the news the hardest.

Not sure why.

(06-04-2012 08:57 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:46 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  again, I didn't say they were a brand powerhouse in football but if you don't think they had some brand recognition you are fooling yourself. I'm sorry they are leaving...and I mean for football too, not just hoops.

By many of your posts, you seem to be taking the news the hardest.

Not sure why.

?

Cuse WAS the BE in hoops...when the ACC grabbed them they ripped out heart out. In football they had some brand recognition...something we could ill afford to lose. Overall it was a bad loss for the conference.

(06-04-2012 09:02 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  In football they (Cuse) had some brand recognition...something we could ill afford to lose.

Some?

Well Boise State certainly has a LOT of brand recognition.

Big East seems to have done pretty well when they lost teams like Miami and Boston College (which haven't done much in both major sports since leaving) and odds are, Big East will do well and maybe even better, especially in football with the addition of some new programs.

In the last 3 seasons, Syracuse had just 2 regular season games selected to be aired on ESPN...I think the Big East can easily afford to lose brand name recognition like that.

(06-04-2012 09:02 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  In football they had some brand recognition...something we could ill afford to lose. Overall it was a bad loss for the conference.

As a brand in football, Syracuse could probably be likened to Keds shoes. You're aware they're on the rack but there isn't a long line waiting to try them on... Were they in a bowl last year? You realize that brand as a construct stagnates if the product isn't featured on the front of the shelves... Syracuse football's lack of success (and more importantly, lack of recent post-season success) has definitely taken its toll on their brand awareness. You're kidding yourself if you think it hasn't.

(06-04-2012 08:44 AM)k5james Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:08 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:03 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(06-04-2012 08:02 AM)TripleA Wrote:  "Cuse isn't a "brand name" in FB.

I think they had some brand power....I didn't say they were Ohio State/Florida/USC.

In FOOTBALL? For what? They have a great "brand name" in BB. But that doesn't bleed over to another sport.

That's like saying Rice is a brand name in basketball, b/c they have a good baseball program.

No they have a brand name for football. They were a football powerhouse. It's just every passing day, more people go into the ground who remember when they were, so their brand isn't what it used to be.

When, and for how long, and how many people still remember it? And were they ever really a "powerhouse?" I'm not trying to dump on 'Cuse. I really don't know, or care. I just think it's odd to say 'Cuse is a brand name in FB right NOW.

If you use the argument that they were a "powerhouse" for a season or two, 50 years ago, then you could use the same argument for Memphis, who has beaten every current SEC team in FB except LSU (whom we have never played), and once went undefeated in the 1960s, and were nationally ranked.

But "brands" come and go, just as companies do. And they are created by consistent achievement over a long period of time, not a short period many years ago. JMO. Not sure it really matters, anyway. Just found that statement to be odd.