(02-18-2013 08:52 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I wish everybody could stop and think about the natural tendency to want to be on ESPN. They already have major contracts with most of the major conferences, plus others. It has been reported this week that the only place they could slot us would be on ESPNU, and that would only be the best games. Everything else would likely wind up online on ESPN3. And probably some on week nights and odd times.

NBC would utilize the broadcast station for feature games, as well as promos, and put a lot more on NBC SN, which is in more homes than ESPNU, and on the same cable access tier with most providers. And the report in the OP claims CBS is also interested in showing games on their broadcast network, along with the NBC package.

When NBC took over the NHL from ESPN, the ratings doubled. Since the money is low in either place, we might as well consider the better promotion package. Growth could translate to more dollars later. Likely won't happen on ESPNU. Just a thought.

This makes a lot of sense... I rather be on NBC than ESPN showing us on ESPNU or ESPN3...

F*ck ESPN... Let them televise Kensucky to death and then get screwed when Cal leaves..

Who knows at this point? We really don't know yet exactly what is in either proposed package from NBC or CBS, so we don't know if anything is left to sell. Could be that one or more of ESPN, Fox and Turner still get involved.

And there's still the confusing issue about ESPN's right to match, so I'd say it's not settled, but I would guess more details of certain offers will begin to leak out in the next few days.

(02-18-2013 08:52 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I wish everybody could stop and think about the natural tendency to want to be on ESPN. They already have major contracts with most of the major conferences, plus others. It has been reported this week that the only place they could slot us would be on ESPNU, and that would only be the best games. Everything else would likely wind up online on ESPN3. And probably some on week nights and odd times.

NBC would utilize the broadcast station for feature games, as well as promos, and put a lot more on NBC SN, which is in more homes than ESPNU, and on the same cable access tier with most providers. And the report in the OP claims CBS is also interested in showing games on their broadcast network, along with the NBC package.

When NBC took over the NHL from ESPN, the ratings doubled. Since the money is low in either place, we might as well consider the better promotion package. Growth could translate to more dollars later. Likely won't happen on ESPNU. Just a thought.

Under the circumstances you describe, being on ESPNU, I would completely agree. I would much rather be on NBC, CBS or FOX.

Without an ESpin presence we will be hard pressed to get 3-4 teams in the tourney and earn the BCS spot. ESpin controls perception. It is mandatory that we have some type of positive relationship with ESpin if we want to remain relevant.

(02-19-2013 02:13 AM)oakland steve Wrote:  Without an ESpin presence we will be hard pressed to get 3-4 teams in the tourney and earn the BCS spot. ESpin controls perception. It is mandatory that we have some type of positive relationship with ESpin if we want to remain relevant.

I am sure that Aresco is well aware of this and will address it if at all possible. The most important thing of all is the major exposure and PROMOTION which we will supposedly receive thru NBC. Recruits don't care how much money a conference makes - they only care about the PRESTIGE of the conference and FREQUENCY of televised games. With enough promotion, frequent quality broadcasts and enough winning, Big East prestige can grow quickly.

Anything less than 5-6 million per team has to be viewed as a major disappointment. Considering the revenue numbers I've seen for the power conferences if we end up somewhere between 2-3 million per team the $$ gap will be huge and the BE will officially be mid-major.

The term mid-major is no longer useful, if it ever was. In basketball, it's been established that schools from less profitable leagues can easily compete from a resources, exposure, player development, competitive and winning standpoint. Are Butler, Gonzaga, Memphis and Xavier less "major" than Auburn, Penn State, Oregon State and South Carolina? Of course not.

In football, the champions of the BIG EAST & other lower revenue leagues will have a path to a major bowl game and / or the 4-team playoff. There will only be pressure for the playoff to expand. TV exposure isn't the issue it used to be because now everyone is on TV. There's no question that teams from ACC, B1G, PAC12, BIG XII will have resource advantages (facilities, coaches salaries, etc...). On the other hand, there's only so much money you can pour into locker rooms and luxury suites. And I'd rather have a young hungry coach (Fuente) than some of the overpaid retreads you see in the bigger leagues.

(02-19-2013 12:38 AM)JhanJo Wrote:  

(02-18-2013 08:52 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I wish everybody could stop and think about the natural tendency to want to be on ESPN. They already have major contracts with most of the major conferences, plus others. It has been reported this week that the only place they could slot us would be on ESPNU, and that would only be the best games. Everything else would likely wind up online on ESPN3. And probably some on week nights and odd times.

NBC would utilize the broadcast station for feature games, as well as promos, and put a lot more on NBC SN, which is in more homes than ESPNU, and on the same cable access tier with most providers. And the report in the OP claims CBS is also interested in showing games on their broadcast network, along with the NBC package.

When NBC took over the NHL from ESPN, the ratings doubled. Since the money is low in either place, we might as well consider the better promotion package. Growth could translate to more dollars later. Likely won't happen on ESPNU. Just a thought.

Under the circumstances you describe, being on ESPNU, I would completely agree. I would much rather be on NBC, CBS or FOX.

If the cable and satellite companies would wise up and offer ala carte service to subscribers who are following their teams in The Big East I think many more people would find access to NBCSports, other than the way it is tiered now on most systems. Wishful thinking would be a Big East network showing multiple games....

(02-19-2013 10:05 AM)Tiger46 Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 12:38 AM)JhanJo Wrote:  

(02-18-2013 08:52 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I wish everybody could stop and think about the natural tendency to want to be on ESPN. They already have major contracts with most of the major conferences, plus others. It has been reported this week that the only place they could slot us would be on ESPNU, and that would only be the best games. Everything else would likely wind up online on ESPN3. And probably some on week nights and odd times.

NBC would utilize the broadcast station for feature games, as well as promos, and put a lot more on NBC SN, which is in more homes than ESPNU, and on the same cable access tier with most providers. And the report in the OP claims CBS is also interested in showing games on their broadcast network, along with the NBC package.

When NBC took over the NHL from ESPN, the ratings doubled. Since the money is low in either place, we might as well consider the better promotion package. Growth could translate to more dollars later. Likely won't happen on ESPNU. Just a thought.

Under the circumstances you describe, being on ESPNU, I would completely agree. I would much rather be on NBC, CBS or FOX.

If the cable and satellite companies would wise up and offer ala carte service to subscribers who are following their teams in The Big East I think many more people would find access to NBCSports, other than the way it is tiered now on most systems. Wishful thinking would be a Big East network showing multiple games....

If you rely on the people looking for the games, you severely limit your ability to add new fans (and add revenue).

(02-19-2013 11:17 AM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 10:05 AM)Tiger46 Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 12:38 AM)JhanJo Wrote:  

(02-18-2013 08:52 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I wish everybody could stop and think about the natural tendency to want to be on ESPN. They already have major contracts with most of the major conferences, plus others. It has been reported this week that the only place they could slot us would be on ESPNU, and that would only be the best games. Everything else would likely wind up online on ESPN3. And probably some on week nights and odd times.

NBC would utilize the broadcast station for feature games, as well as promos, and put a lot more on NBC SN, which is in more homes than ESPNU, and on the same cable access tier with most providers. And the report in the OP claims CBS is also interested in showing games on their broadcast network, along with the NBC package.

When NBC took over the NHL from ESPN, the ratings doubled. Since the money is low in either place, we might as well consider the better promotion package. Growth could translate to more dollars later. Likely won't happen on ESPNU. Just a thought.

Under the circumstances you describe, being on ESPNU, I would completely agree. I would much rather be on NBC, CBS or FOX.

If the cable and satellite companies would wise up and offer ala carte service to subscribers who are following their teams in The Big East I think many more people would find access to NBCSports, other than the way it is tiered now on most systems. Wishful thinking would be a Big East network showing multiple games....

If you rely on the people looking for the games, you severely limit your ability to add new fans (and add revenue).

Synergy is the word of the day for the BE/NBC! NBC has the ability with it's braodcast channel, USA network, MSNBC, etc. to really drive people to it's NBC Sports channel. NBC also owns Hulu which could easily place all BE games on Hulu hours after the game has been played. The potential is here for great exposure but the devil is in the details. With all that said even if NBC pimps us 24/7 we still need Espin in some capacity.

(02-19-2013 09:41 AM)bluebacker Wrote:  Anything less than 5-6 million per team has to be viewed as a major disappointment. Considering the revenue numbers I've seen for the power conferences if we end up somewhere between 2-3 million per team the $$ gap will be huge and the BE will officially be mid-major.

Anyone in the media worried about their colleague's opinions are going to call the BE mid-major. No mater the money.

(02-19-2013 09:59 AM)jlbphila Wrote:  The term mid-major is no longer useful, if it ever was. In basketball, it's been established that schools from less profitable leagues can easily compete from a resources, exposure, player development, competitive and winning standpoint. Are Butler, Gonzaga, Memphis and Xavier less "major" than Auburn, Penn State, Oregon State and South Carolina? Of course not.

In football, the champions of the BIG EAST & other lower revenue leagues will have a path to a major bowl game and / or the 4-team playoff. There will only be pressure for the playoff to expand. TV exposure isn't the issue it used to be because now everyone is on TV. There's no question that teams from ACC, B1G, PAC12, BIG XII will have resource advantages (facilities, coaches salaries, etc...). On the other hand, there's only so much money you can pour into locker rooms and luxury suites. And I'd rather have a young hungry coach (Fuente) than some of the overpaid retreads you see in the bigger leagues.

We are not.

(02-18-2013 08:52 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I wish everybody could stop and think about the natural tendency to want to be on ESPN. They already have major contracts with most of the major conferences, plus others. It has been reported this week that the only place they could slot us would be on ESPNU, and that would only be the best games. Everything else would likely wind up online on ESPN3. And probably some on week nights and odd times.

NBC would utilize the broadcast station for feature games, as well as promos, and put a lot more on NBC SN, which is in more homes than ESPNU, and on the same cable access tier with most providers. And the report in the OP claims CBS is also interested in showing games on their broadcast network, along with the NBC package.

When NBC took over the NHL from ESPN, the ratings doubled. Since the money is low in either place, we might as well consider the better promotion package. Growth could translate to more dollars later. Likely won't happen on ESPNU. Just a thought.

Yep. NBC would be huge. Also their NBC sports channel is pretty much becoming a standard channel with dish & dTv. NBC could get The Tigers on the air & in front of a lot of eyes. Have a couple good seasons in football with the nation watching & then you're going to get invited to a better conference. I don't understand the hang up with espn. How long does everyone think all the major networks are just gonna sit back & let espn hog the big college sports revenue? The networks are gonna have their say.

(02-20-2013 12:03 AM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  Yep. NBC would be huge. Also their NBC sports channel is pretty much becoming a standard channel with dish & dTv. NBC could get The Tigers on the air & in front of a lot of eyes. Have a couple good seasons in football with the nation watching & then you're going to get invited to a better conference. I don't understand the hang up with espn. How long does everyone think all the major networks are just gonna sit back & let espn hog the big college sports revenue? The networks are gonna have their say.

Which is ironic considering it's owned by Comcast.