(05-28-2011 12:13 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 12:11 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 10:34 AM)animus Wrote:  Some good points. But 1 question, I understand that supply will increase, but how would demand increase? If the nation really isn't excited to watch Pitt, WVU, Louisville etc play, why would they be more excited to watch them play schools currently in CUSA? I understand marketing plays a role in all of this. Just curious n all.

Moving our coverage to a network that doesn't continually denegrate the conference would be a big help. When Big East football first formed, ESPN called it Miami and the 7 dwarves. For the last decade we've had nearly continuous discussions of our imminent demise. This is the first season we haven't had to endure such talk, although the discussions of expansion and realignment haven't stopped either. We've had nothing but negative advertising from ESPN - and a half-assed ad campaign out of Providence. IMO getting positive coverage would be more valuable than a good ad campaign. Of course, getting a good ad campaign to go along with the positive coverage would be even better...

ESPN's coverage effects our recruiting efforts, and our attempts to gain a larger audience. IMO ESPN continuously tries to impose its opinions on everyone, whether they want it or not...

It might even be argued that ESPN has too much influence in the college sports world...

You and CJ agree. He just posted similar sentiments in another thread.

This is definitely a revolution I can get behind.

Cheers,
Neil

Yea I agree. I think goin to Comcast/NBC would be a great move for the conference. It would give us a fresh start. And hopefully the new network would promote the league much better.

(05-28-2011 09:30 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  The law of supply and demand also hurts the Big East, because most of our games are not in demand for Saturday so we have to settle for Wednesday, Thursday and Friday often to get on ESPN. Again, Notre Dame works against our best interest by not playing Big East football. But the truth here is its every football team in the Big East fault on the issue by not fielding a better product. That why we have to add a East Carolina and a BYU. The 12 team, there is no great 12th football available to the Big East besides Boise State.

Disagree that the law of supply and demand hurts us. Comcast needs inventory and we are the only provider available to them.

Well let me throw this out. Since the Big East is last up with their television right for a while and ESPN just did a deal with FOX for the Pac-12......why couldn't the BE do a deal with all the potential bidders......Comcast/NBC, Turner, ESPN?

ESPN basically only needs games for Tuesday, Wednesday and Sunday nights.....that stinks....but doesn't the BE have matchups every week that do not derserve to be on Saturday in Prime Time? Those games are wasted. NBC wants Saturday Prime Time games, probably same with Turner. Why couldn't we do Tier 1 rights with one group and Tier 2 with one of the others? Or Tier 3....whatever.

So you showcase a TCU v WVU or Pitt v WVU on Saturday night on Versus or Turner. But also let ESPN show USF v SU on Tuesday or Wednesday night. Yeah the timeslots stink for fans....but I would assume be on TV alone in Primetime for all the gamblers than be on at Noon on Saturday where the game can only be seen on ESPN 3.

You could do the same during Basketball Season. Versus could take some of the top matchups but leave enough for ESPN so they don't abandon BE coverage altogether or vice versa.

(05-28-2011 02:36 PM)frogman Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 10:29 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  I hate to admit it, but under Brian Kelly, ND is a "will-be-again".

I was never impressed with Kelly.
At least RichRod won a BCS game or two-- Kelly got slaughtered in both of his. He beat up on a weakened conference and that's about it. I know Cincy fans see him better but what has he ever won besides the BE title?

Agreed but just to be fair.....I believe Kelly was not on the sidelines for the UF game at the Sugar Bowl....he had already left for ND. They may have played a role in Cincy's performance.

It would be nice if they could somehow, push back National Signing Day and say you cannot negotiate with any potential new hire coaches until they are done coaching their current team at their Bowl. The NFL does that with their coaches in the playoffs.

(05-28-2011 11:02 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 10:58 AM)OrangeXtreme Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 10:08 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:   I am not blaming Notre Dame. The prior Big East schools enabled them. Nonetheless, they still compete against us for bowl games and football revenues. Also, ND causes us to have to add one more mouth in basketball to feed. So Notre Dame indirectly takes money away from every football school in the league. Time changes issues and it is time for Notre Dame to change.

How does ND compete against the BE for bowl games?

If ND qualifies for a BCS bid they aren't taking away a slot from the BE Champion.

ND can only be selected once every four years for the Champs Bowl. Otherwise, the Champs Bowl would have had nothing to do with the BE.

ND has NO involvement with the rest of the BE's bowls.

What takes away 25% of our Bowl money in a four year period. We are luck ND has been sucking in football lately.

You have to remember that we may not have gotten those bowl tie-ins without ND's participation.

(05-28-2011 02:42 PM)animus Wrote:  Yea I agree. I think goin to Comcast/NBC would be a great move for the conference. It would give us a fresh start. And hopefully the new network would promote the league much better.

Let's face it, as long as the money is equal, the best networks are, in order:

1) Traditional free over-the-air (NBC/ABC/CBS/FOX)
2) ESPN
3) TNT
4) Everyone else

That's because that is the order of "exposure".

And by "exposure" i mean a combination of the number of people who get the network in their homes, the time slots offered, and their marketing/hype prowess.

ESPN may offer us worse slots than Comcast, but exposure isn't just the game itself. It's hyping the game beforehand, and covering it afterwards. When you sign with ESPN, you not only benefit from their hype beforehand, you get hyped *after* the game as well. ESPN will show your highlights on sportscenter, and you'll get discussed on shows like Mike & Mike, PTI, and Sportsnation. If you're on Comcast, ESPN will show far fewer highlights, unless it is a game that they have to cover heavily, like between two highly-ranked teams.

And the Big East doesn't have many of those, at least not in football. So it's better for ESPN to show a Big East game on Thursday night than for Comcast to show a Big East game on Saturday. We won't get the same type of highlights exposure and talking-head hype.

And since we're not going to get (1), ESPN is the best option for us, as long as they show us as much money as anyone else does.

Sounds to me a lot of folks in the Big East are afraid to take the training wheels off their bike! When I was in the Army there were two kind of soldiers, the ones who wait to be told what to do and the ones who were leaders. The leaders would see the problem, access the problem, take the appropriate action, and say follow me, completing the mission and overcoming the problem. The Big East has few leaders with the balls to say follow me. They are all waiting to hear follow me from somebody else. It is sad indeed because accept for AD Luck and Doctor Ramsey, no one else will say follow me. They are all acting like a bunch of political hacks and are doing nothing!

I am still in a wait and see mode with Brian Kelly.

I do like the way his team did not collapse and mail it in after going 4-5.

They won four straight against Utah, Army, USC and Miami to end the year.

ND is recruiting well and picking up stud defensive linemen like they have not in 15-20 years.

Like I said, wait and see. Kelly needs to win 9-10 games next season.

I think Notre Dame will prosper under Brian Kelly, if he is allowed to recruit the right players.

(05-28-2011 04:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 02:42 PM)animus Wrote:  Yea I agree. I think goin to Comcast/NBC would be a great move for the conference. It would give us a fresh start. And hopefully the new network would promote the league much better.

Let's face it, as long as the money is equal, the best networks are, in order:

1) Traditional free over-the-air (NBC/ABC/CBS/FOX)
2) ESPN
3) TNT
4) Everyone else

That's because that is the order of "exposure".

And by "exposure" i mean a combination of the number of people who get the network in their homes, the time slots offered, and their marketing/hype prowess.

ESPN may offer us worse slots than Comcast, but exposure isn't just the game itself. It's hyping the game beforehand, and covering it afterwards. When you sign with ESPN, you not only benefit from their hype beforehand, you get hyped *after* the game as well. ESPN will show your highlights on sportscenter, and you'll get discussed on shows like Mike & Mike, PTI, and Sportsnation. If you're on Comcast, ESPN will show far fewer highlights, unless it is a game that they have to cover heavily, like between two highly-ranked teams.

And the Big East doesn't have many of those, at least not in football. So it's better for ESPN to show a Big East game on Thursday night than for Comcast to show a Big East game on Saturday. We won't get the same type of highlights exposure and talking-head hype.

And since we're not going to get (1), ESPN is the best option for us, as long as they show us as much money as anyone else does.

What you say about ESPN's exposure and hype is true, but only if you think that 5 years from now, they will still be the only network to promote and hype games, or be the only network that has a sportscenter like show, or be the only network that has shows like Mike and Mike, PTI etc....... As someone said a few posts up, and as I and others have said, the FOX's, Comcasts and others are already eroding ESPN's dominance. Once these guys start broadcasting their newly signed leagues, they will also have their own hilites shows and the like. I would much rather for the BE to help a fledling league to gain dominance than to allow ESPN to treat the league the way they have.

(05-28-2011 09:30 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  ESPN/ABC is the “Holy Grail” of college football sports leave their broadcasting and we will be forgotten in football. TCU fans you know Versus is not the answer!

Versus was a huge upgrade over ESPN. Saturday games meant I could actually attend TCU games. And the announcers actually talk about the game on the field and the teams playing. None of this Rod Gilmore pimping an I Pad while discussing ESPN's saturday slate of SEC & B10 games. Plus versus paid us in legal US tender, not ESPN exposure dollars. It's no coincidence that the MWC with its "horrible TV contract" flew by all the other non AQs with their ESPN sugar daddy; which is when ESPN started pushing the line about how nobody could see MWC games.

I think we should sell a few games to ESPN, but our first tier games need to go to Comcast/NBC. No more placing the Big East's best matchups on ESPN wednesday nights.

(05-28-2011 04:48 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I am still in a wait and see mode with Brian Kelly.

I do like the way his team did not collapse and mail it in after going 4-5.

They won four straight against Utah, Army, USC and Miami to end the year.

While it was admirable the way ND rallied to win those last 4 game and salvage what was shaping up as another ugly season, it seemed to me that ND got some wins during what was "garbage time" for those other teams. Utah and Miami had already seen their bubbles burst, and USC was slumping through their first season under NCAA penalties. ND seemed a lot more motivated to win those games than the competition.

When the games mattered for everyone, they were 4-5, and four of those losses (to Tulsa, MSU, Navy, and Stanford) were embarrassingly inept in various ways, so i agree you have good reason to adopt a wait-and-see attitude about Kelly.

(05-28-2011 05:08 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  What you say about ESPN's exposure and hype is true, but only if you think that 5 years from now, they will still be the only network to promote and hype games, or be the only network that has a sportscenter like show, or be the only network that has shows like Mike and Mike, PTI etc.......

.. and i think they will. Unlike those other networks, sports is all ESPN does. Remember when CNN tried to compete with Sportscenter and had their hour-long nightly sports show? That lasted about a year before folding up.

To the typical sports animal, ESPN is second-nature viewing. I find myself almost automatically flipping to some ESPN channel when i'm not sure what i want to watch, because i know there's always some highlights show on with stuff that i missed. I really don't think that dominance is likely to change. It might, but i'm not betting on it.

I must be different. I never watch ESPN, ever, unless a game is on that I want to see.

Then, I only tune in at the exact time the game begins, I leave the room at halftime, and shut off ESPN as soon as the game is over.

Other than that, my television is never on their channels. I get my sports news from other outlets.

Wins are wins, Quo. Nobody ever said "Well, those wins were against ND when their bubble was already burst". They were just wins for the opposing team.

Miami and USC had a lot of talent. Utah was a pretty good team as well.

ND won those games after overcoming a lot of adversity, including injuries to starting QB Dayne Crist, starting WR Theo Riddick, starting RB Armando Allen and starting TE Kyle Rudolph.

They had just also had Declan Sullivan die in an accident and had lost to Tulsa when Kelly decided to throw for a last second TD instead of kicking a chip shot FG with a kicker who didn't miss all season.

ND was 4-5 and could have packed it in. That they did not says a lot about the team and especially the coaches.

They won with a true freshman QB and backups at most offensive skill positions.

I am "wait and see" but I am also quietly confident as we approach the 2011 season.

(05-28-2011 08:17 PM)TerryD Wrote:  ND won those games after overcoming a lot of adversity, including injuries to starting QB Dayne Crist, starting WR Theo Riddick, starting RB Armando Allen and starting TE Kyle Rudolph.

They had just also had Declan Sullivan die in an accident and had lost to Tulsa when Kelly decided to throw for a last second TD instead of kicking a chip shot FG with a kicker who didn't miss all season.

Yeah, i forgot about the kid dying in the observation tower and all those injuries. That was a lot to overcome.

Maybe i'm just so used to Notre Dame going 7-5 that i won't believe they are back until it happens ...

Well, ND was:


9-3 in 2000.

10-3 in 2002.

9-3 in 2005.

10-3 in 2006.


So, it is not like ND has failed to bounce back to have good seasons in the past decade.

It is that they have had trouble finding the right coach to build upon those good seasons and win with any consistency.

Ara Parseghian often says that it took every one of his prior 13 years as a head coach at Miami (Ohio) and Northwestern to prepare him for the glare, spotlight, pressure and scrutiny imposed upon a Notre Dame head coach.

Bob Davie had no head coaching experience when he took the job. Neither did Charlie Weis. Ty Willingham was a bad head coach who had one or two good seasons at Stanford when USC was in the pits.

Brian Kelly has been a head coach for over 20 years and has won wherever he has coached. I am cautiously hopeful partly because of that experience and that track record.

I think that a less experienced head coach would have cracked under last year's pressure and lost the team in mid season. Kelly did not. I liked seeing that.

We shall see as the next couple of seasons play out whether it is more of the same as the last decade or if ND has found their next Ara or Lou Holtz.

(05-28-2011 09:30 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  You guys cannot seem to understand that every football dollar paid to Notre Dame is a dollar the other 9 Big East Football program does not earn.

Well, it's not like Georgetown and Villanova are earning it either. ND acts in its own interests, which is what UofL would probably do if NBC offered it $16 million a season.

(05-28-2011 10:04 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I live in SEC country. The negative image these folks have of Big East football is not because of the hybrid or ND.

A big part of that is because of the additions to the BE during the last realignment round. Like it or not to SEC folks Louisville will always be Kentucky's little brother, USF is a directional Florida school, and Cincy was a little yankee school you scheduled for homecoming if you couldn't schedule Southern Miss or Memphis.

Sad thing is that line of thinking is going to take a long time to go away, and adding TCU ain't going to help because now you have Horn and Aggie fans who know TCU as the little school that has done some good things since their days as the SWC whipping boy.

The Big East needs to continue what it has been doing since the split....win games, especially the BCS bowls.

(05-28-2011 09:58 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 09:30 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  You guys cannot seem to understand that every football dollar paid to Notre Dame is a dollar the other 9 Big East Football program does not earn.

Well, it's not like Georgetown and Villanova are earning it either. ND acts in its own interests, which is what UofL would probably do if NBC offered it $16 million a season.

Actually, acting in its own interests is exactly why Louisville lost in the first round of BCS realignment musical chairs. I didn't want to share its television money.