Neil, I used the “Even if we are on the same page” to express all-sport league. No matter how you slice it’s a hybrid and a hybrid through and through. I too will concede. There will be a small drop off in revenue if we go all-sport league, a few million dollars. But it would be much easier for us to respond or react to a changing college landscape than what we are able to currently do now.

You see value in Villanova and Georgetown but the landscape changes so much that our way of thinking how a league should exist now is not the same as back in the ’80 and ’90 which is not much a factor as today. Otherwise our ‘reach’ should put our league as the highest payout of any league but that is not true and if ACC renewal contract payout the same or more than before then my statement is true. This marketing thing is the biggest myth of all.

Changes scare anybody even our presidents but it scares our non-football members even more because (1) they not participate in it and so they have a hard time see it affect on the league and (2) they have no control of it which scares anybody. So for us to count on them to help us make any changes is not going to happen. The current hybrid is setup for no changes or complete changes. We have enough time to recover from the raid. It’s time to throw away the crutch and move forward. The next blind-sided maybe the final blow. I don’t think we can recover it.

BJUnklFkr Wrote:What does the population growth in the southeast really mean? If people are moving into that region, would that be a catalyst for other leagues' markets to expand INTO that region.

For example, if it is mainly midwesterners and easterners moving into the south, wouldn't that possibly expand the BE and Big 11 markets. It'd be interesting to see the BE ratings over time, broken down by region, for its nationally televised games.

The older folks will continue to watch their old teams. I know that I'd rather watch WVU, even though I live in Knoxville - home of the University of Tennessee. I even worked for UT for while, and my wife got her masters there and is retired from UT now. But these families have kids, and kids are going to go with the local team because that is who all their friends follow. That will force the parents to placate their kids by turning the channel to the local team's games.

The population growth is both in the SE and in the rockies on west. Does that mean the mtn. will eventually have a larger market of folks? Over a long period of time, maybe.

What is even more scary about the revenues for the Big Ten Network is that they go directly into the coffers of the athletics departments. I've read that all Big Ten schools would take public funds and direct them exclusively into the academics/research areas of the schools, not athletics. Athletics departments would be self-sufficient for those schools with the BTN providing a chunk of that, along with ABC/ESPN revenues, ticket sales, donations, etc.

As for programming on the BTN, about 12 hours of every week will have "institutional" programming. Now if that gets skewed towards the summer, there's your filler: educational programming.

One thing not to discount is the deal the BTN signed w/AT&T. AT&T is ramping up its U-Verse rollout in many areas. UVerse is already in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Indianapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and surrounding suburbs. They've got a decent chunk of cities ready to roll.

Well, if the tone of this thread is heading towards the necessary creation of a Big East network, then it might be in our best interest in keeping some of the Catholic schools around. The nitch the BE network is going to have to have is being an "Eastern league" and appealing to Eastern markets. If that is where we are going, St Johns, Gtown, Nova, Depaul become more valuable

The football schools +Memphis will not be an Eastern league

Jackson

I agree with SO on the tv markets being a myth. Right now with our current set up, the BE has by far the largest TV market in the country and yet our TV contracts do NOT reflect that. What that tells you is that just by having a school in a tv market area doesnt necessarily affect the TV contract.

We will see what happens BUT I hope we take a risk and move forward, the current situation will NOT let us grow.
We need all our members to help in ALL revenues for BOTH football and basketball.

SO#1 Wrote:Neil, I used the “Even if we are on the same page” to express all-sport league. No matter how you slice it’s a hybrid and a hybrid through and through. I too will concede. There will be a small drop off in revenue if we go all-sport league, a few million dollars. But it would be much easier for us to respond or react to a changing college landscape than what we are able to currently do now.

You see value in Villanova and Georgetown but the landscape changes so much that our way of thinking how a league should exist now is not the same as back in the ’80 and ’90 which is not much a factor as today. Otherwise our ‘reach’ should put our league as the highest payout of any league but that is not true and if ACC renewal contract payout the same or more than before then my statement is true. This marketing thing is the biggest myth of all.

Changes scare anybody even our presidents but it scares our non-football members even more because (1) they not participate in it and so they have a hard time see it affect on the league and (2) they have no control of it which scares anybody. So for us to count on them to help us make any changes is not going to happen. The current hybrid is setup for no changes or complete changes. We have enough time to recover from the raid. It’s time to throw away the crutch and move forward. The next blind-sided maybe the final blow. I don’t think we can recover it.

It's certainly an approach. But in my mind, it's the wrong approach.

The strengths of the Big East are:

1) It's market reach
2) It's market pull in basketball (both men's and women's)
3) It's potential market pull in lacrosse, a sport the northeastern markets are interested in.
4) It's adaptability
5) It's size (not just quantity of product, but quality of product)
6) It's mixture of academic institutional types

The weaknesses of the Big East are:

1) It's market pull in football
2) It's current hybrid of equal football and basketball members
3) It's own lack of self-esteem

How does the league eliminate or significantly reduce the weaknesses and increase it's strengths to the point it can challenge the Big Ten and the SEC?

Somehow, I seriously doubt an 8 or 9 team all-sports conference is going to come close to doing that - but that's just my thinking.

Cheers,
Neil

bitcruncher Wrote:......... I'm not concerned for the SEC......

Me either - it can go to hell.

Cubanbull Wrote:I agree with SO on the tv markets being a myth. Right now with our current set up, the BE has by far the largest TV market in the country and yet our TV contracts do NOT reflect that. What that tells you is that just by having a school in a tv market area doesnt necessarily affect the TV contract.

True. But where is the contract not so good, especially in comparison with other BCS conferences? It's on the football side of the house. Which means that Rutgers, Syracuse, and Connecticut are not carrying the NYC market (at least at the time of the deal) and USF isn't carrying the Tampa market - those two being our biggest football markets. Now, if Rutgers continues to improve in terms of drawing NYC interest and USF continues to improve in terms of drawing Tampa interest, then the next national football contract will be higher.

As for the basketball contract - it is second best to the ACC. So, in some respects, wouldn't you say that at least some of the bb schools are helping to carry their markets in their sport?

Quote:We will see what happens BUT I hope we take a risk and move forward, the current situation will NOT let us grow.
We need all our members to help in ALL revenues for BOTH football and basketball.

Agreed that the current situation will not allow growth. But I don't necessarily want to cut off the league's nose to spite its face either.

The market reach and the volume of product a 16-team conference produces can be helpful when launching a league network.

Cheers,
Neil

Gray Avenger Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:......... I'm not concerned for the SEC......

Me either - it can go to hell.

I'm waiting for them :billgates:

Jackson1011 Wrote:The football schools +Memphis will not be an Eastern league

That depends upon the definition of "Eastern" (I believe we have already been over that ground). By your shallow logic, the ACC would not have wanted Boston College, but we see that they did.

I always thought the eastern U.S. was on this side of the Mississippi River. It does divide the nation in half.

omnicarrier Wrote:The other impact I see coming down the road is the Plus-One model. Obviously, this will have much less impact than a successful BTN, but could have implications for the ACC, Pac-10, and Big East.

Is there any doubt that 3 of the top four rated teams in most years will be from the Big Ten, Big 12 (assuming the above doesn't come true) and the SEC? Three of the four will likely come from Big Ten and SEC if Texas and A&M go to the SEC in the above scenario.

Let's face it. The game, if it isn't already rigged in the Big Ten's and SEC's favor, soon will be.

How do 'the lesser' conferences respond to these changes?

Are the Big East football schools even aware of these possibilities? Or are Big East fans likely to hear in 2012, "We was blind-sided"?

Cheers,
Neil

I'm going to focus on the Plus One side of your question.

I agree that the inherent bias in the human-based BCS poll system will lead to over-representation by the SEC and B10 in the Plus One Playoff. And that definitely is not our imagination, but a reality to deal with.

I think the answer is to understand that a National Playoff such as this limited Plus One model is flawed. #1 thru #4 can't be guaranteed to ACTUALLY be #1 thru #4. So, a better approach to the Plus One is to accept these flaws and add some rules to insure Plus One is more NATIONAL in scope.

1. The Plus One Playoff (semifinals) are limited to NO MORE THAN ONE representative of each conference.

2. That the conference representative be the champion of that conference by means of regular season or conference championship game.

3. Seeding is based on BCS Rating.

Clearly, many (mostly from the SEC and Big 10) will argue "what if the best two teams are from the SEC or B10 ? The answer is that that might be true, but that those are not the rules. The rules are designed to bring the best representatives of the best four conferences (or independents) to face off to crown a truly National champion.

Only something like this will satisfy the concern that the Plus One will be used to exclude the Big East, ACC and to a lesser extent the Big 12 and Pac 10.

Bearcat 1984 Wrote:

omnicarrier Wrote:The other impact I see coming down the road is the Plus-One model. Obviously, this will have much less impact than a successful BTN, but could have implications for the ACC, Pac-10, and Big East.

Is there any doubt that 3 of the top four rated teams in most years will be from the Big Ten, Big 12 (assuming the above doesn't come true) and the SEC? Three of the four will likely come from Big Ten and SEC if Texas and A&M go to the SEC in the above scenario.

Let's face it. The game, if it isn't already rigged in the Big Ten's and SEC's favor, soon will be.

How do 'the lesser' conferences respond to these changes?

Are the Big East football schools even aware of these possibilities? Or are Big East fans likely to hear in 2012, "We was blind-sided"?

Cheers,
Neil

I'm going to focus on the Plus One side of your question.

I agree that the inherent bias in the human-based BCS poll system will lead to over-representation by the SEC and B10 in the Plus One Playoff. And that definitely is not our imagination, but a reality to deal with.

I think the answer is to understand that a National Playoff such as this limited Plus One model is flawed. #1 thru #4 can't be guaranteed to ACTUALLY be #1 thru #4. So, a better approach to the Plus One is to accept these flaws and add some rules to insure Plus One is more NATIONAL in scope.

1. The Plus One Playoff (semifinals) are limited to NO MORE THAN ONE representative of each conference.

2. That the conference representative be the champion of that conference by means of regular season or conference championship game.

3. Seeding is based on BCS Rating.

Clearly, many (mostly from the SEC and Big 10) will argue "what if the best two teams are from the SEC or B10 ? The answer is that that might be true, but that those are not the rules. The rules are designed to bring the best representatives of the best four conferences (or independents) to face off to crown a truly National champion.

Only something like this will satisfy the concern that the Plus One will be used to exclude the Big East, ACC and to a lesser extent the Big 12 and Pac 10.

I'm hoping to see something like this, but where conference championship game winner is that league's 'official' entry since that is the way it is now. If a regular season champion is defeated in their conference championship, then they should be treated like any other at-large entry. And in terms of the semi-final games that should mean they don't get to participate. They could still be an at-large selection for one of the other BCS Bowls, but, in my mind they should be out of the running for a possible NC.

Don't think what you describe with my caveat is likely, but such a set-up would have created some great match-ups, a lot of controversy and best of all equity.

Going back all the way to 1998, if such a model were in effect then and forward:

Pac 10 teams 8 out of 9
SEC teams 7 out of 9
Big 10 teams 5 out of 9
Big 12 teams 5 out of 9
Big East teams 5 out of 9
ACC teams 4 out of 9

Utah once
Notre Dame once

Whereas if it had simply been the Top 4 BCS ranked teams, not limited to one conference representative in the semi-finals in a given year, this would have been the distribution:

Big 12 - 9 teams
SEC - 7 teams
Big 10 - 7 teams
Pac 10 - 6 teams
Big East - 4 teams
ACC - 3 teams

No non-BCS representatives and no independents.

I wonder which methodology will win out?

Cheers,
Neil

Omni
Going back to the markets, if we ever did get the actual TV contracts amount for football and basketball we would be able to compare.
But if im not mistaken the difference between the football TV money/8 and the basketball tv money/16 is not great.
So in efect IF basketball reach was so much better shouldnt the amount per team be a lot larger.
If according to the report in the WV paper the TV money was 19 mill for 05-06. I think football was cut down to 7 mill at that time, so that left 12 mill for basketball.
If those numbers are correct it doesnt show the reach in basketbal markets that the BE should have.

How does BE football get a better tv package?Thats why they tried for Army and Navy.Hopefully ,more great football seasons will help more.The movement of ND to 3 BE games per year in 2010.(the realities of their new scheduling format).The improvement in more top flight BCS games by BE football members.D'ont forget the new tv contract is better than the current tv contract.

bitcruncher Wrote:I always thought the eastern U.S. was on this side of the Mississippi River. It does divide the nation in half.

B-I-N-G-O!!!

bitcruncher Wrote:I always thought the eastern U.S. was on this side of the Mississippi River. It does divide the nation in half.

B-I-N-G-O!!!

omnicarrier Wrote:Rough estimates then would be:

Pennsylvania - 5 million subscribers at $5 = $25 million
Illinois - just under 5 million subscribers at $5 = $24 million
Ohio - 4.5 million subscribers at $5 = $23 million
Michigan - 4.5 million subscribers at $5 = $23 million
Indiana - 2.75 million subscribers at $5 = $14 million
Wisconsin - 2.4 million subscribers at $5 = $12 million
Minnesota - 2 million subscribers at $5 = $10 million
Iowa - 1.5 million subscribers at $5 = $7.5 million

Your numbers are off...WAY off on the high side.

Sorry...clicked reply before posting link. (FYI...Cable's TV MArket Share has dropped from 89% in 2000 to just 71% in 2006...as Satellite's market share is now approaching 30%.)

http://www.ipbusinessmag.com/departments...icle_id=17

KnightLight Wrote:

omnicarrier Wrote:Rough estimates then would be:

Pennsylvania - 5 million subscribers at $5 = $25 million
Illinois - just under 5 million subscribers at $5 = $24 million
Ohio - 4.5 million subscribers at $5 = $23 million
Michigan - 4.5 million subscribers at $5 = $23 million
Indiana - 2.75 million subscribers at $5 = $14 million
Wisconsin - 2.4 million subscribers at $5 = $12 million
Minnesota - 2 million subscribers at $5 = $10 million
Iowa - 1.5 million subscribers at $5 = $7.5 million

Your numbers are off...WAY off on the high side.

I think that would be why he used the term "rough estimates".

tigersharktwo Wrote:How does BE football get a better tv package?Thats why they tried for Army and Navy.Hopefully ,more great football seasons will help more.The movement of ND to 3 BE games per year in 2010.(the realities of their new scheduling format).The improvement in more top flight BCS games by BE football members.D'ont forget the new tv contract is better than the current tv contract.

According to those number the BE football per team take from the football contract was almost the same as our highly ranked and tv market driven basketball league. If thats the case then those markets havent done the job for BE basketball.