(04-26-2018 11:46 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-26-2018 11:21 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-26-2018 11:13 AM)Bogg Wrote:  

(04-26-2018 10:30 AM)stever20 Wrote:  for the 2011 league, it absolutely was a fatal blow for the all sports conference. To act like it's the same league as in 2011, sorry but it's not close.

I know how much it grates on you that things have gone well for the Big East and not so well for the AAC, but I'm pretty sure that Villanova and Providence and Seton Hall would dispute the idea that they were ever dealt a fatal blow. There was some shake-up in membership, sure, but they're still playing basketball in one of the best conferences in the country under the Big East banner and spending their postseason in a sold-out MSG. The current Big East is true to the vision of the original Big East despite the partial turnover - remember, "Big East Football" came along well after the fact as an accommodation to members of the originally non-football-playing conference. If anything the Big East went back to their roots with the current lineup.

(04-26-2018 10:30 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Also, hate to say it but tough to call the BET the best conference tournament in the sport when it draws less than half the viewers the ACC tourney draws. The ACC tourney has the BET time spot prime time Saturday night. Last years ACC final was the #1 regular season basketball game of the year.

I don't see what ESPN/ABC's numbers have to do with in-person experience.

(04-26-2018 10:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  And that never has changed. Of course, in a given year since 1980, the Big East tournament might have been 'better' than the ACC tournament, from the perspective of team quality or fan enthusiasm, but that never changed the overall fact that the ACC tournament is the #1 conference hoops tournament, and always will be.

The Greensboro Coliseum isn't a sold-out MSG, and Greensboro NC isn't Manhattan.

uh, back in 2011, the Big East wasn't one of the best conferences. It WAS the best conference. To act like there's no drop off is ignorant. It's not the same conference like 7 years ago.

And acting like TV doesn't matter is foolish. Of course it matters.

TV certainly matters and we could argue that the ACC (and the Big Ten, for that matter) will get consistently higher TV ratings compared to the Big East when all things are equal. I don't think that would be a controversial statement.

However, the overall problem that we have discussed many times on this board is that a rating on FS1 (or frankly any other sports network like NBCSN) has absolutely no relation to a rating on ESPN and, for that matter, a rating for college sports on even OTA Fox has no relation to a rating on CBS or ABC. People in the industry know full well what the "replacement value" rating of a program is on a particular network, e.g. when ESPN props up the rating of an otherwise mediocre sports property or, conversely, FS1 depresses the rating of an otherwise good-to-great sports property.

This isn't just for sports. When you look at the weekly "Cancellation Bear" analysis of which scripted network programs are predicted to be either renewed or cancelled, they look at the 18-49 rating of a program compared to the other 18-49 ratings of programs on THAT particular network (and not competing networks). This analysis has borne out to be incredibly accurate in its renewal/cancellation predictions over many years:

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/author/...ncel-bear/

The point is that each individual network has a baseline rating that it needs and the strength of a particular program (whether sports, entertainment, news or otherwise) is shown by how much it can adjust that baseline up or down. Saying the Big East Tournament has x rating on FS1 while the ACC Tournament has y rating on ESPN is pretty meaningless. You can see the difference that the ESPN/ABC platform provides when comparing ratings for the Big Ten and Pac-12 (both football and basketball) for essentially the same quality of games.

Note that I still think the ACC Tournament would be more highly rated than the Big East Tournament if they were on the same network. Saying that the ACC is more popular than the Big East for basketball is more than fair considering that the ACC has 2 of the top 4 most valuable national college basketball brands for TV purposes (Duke and UNC). However, it irks me when I see comparisons of other leagues that are clearly getting propped up by ESPN placement alone and attempting to crow about the Big East's "low" TV ratings on FS1. Those other leagues would get beaten pretty soundly if they were on the same network as the Big East (and people in the industry know that and will adjust their rights fees accordingly).

At some point though is the fact that the Big East willingly went to FS1. They chose that plus the money over staying with ESPN. The Big East made the bed they are sleeping on, so they are responsible for it.