http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2014/janu...-bowl.html

Quote:It was always going to be a short term marriage between Regis and Fox Sports 1. Signing a daytime television host in his 80s to host an afternoon sports variety show isn't exactly a long-term strategy. It's hard to call Regis' tenure at FS1 a success or a failure. I'm sure Fox would have liked a bigger ratings pop from someone of Philbin's TV stature, but the show has certainly carved its own niche in FS1's daily lineup.

What will this do to Crowd Goes Wild? I would imagine it sticks around in its same format. Although the ratings haven't quite been there (a story for the entire network) you could argue that all of the individual personalities on the show have been a bright spot for the network. From Sky's Georgie Thompson to Katie Nolan and former NFL Pro Bowler Trevor Pryce, they should all have a future at the network in some capacity.

(01-27-2014 02:54 PM)Jet915 Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 01:30 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Article from David Barron. Money quote per Lawdog:

"In another example of the platform frequently determining the audience, American Athletic Conference basketball games on ESPN networks are averaging 356,000 viewers. Big East games are averaging just 77,000 viewers on Fox Sports 1."

Not saying these numbers aren't true but just looking at last two weeks of numbers:

USF vs. SMU = 44K
UCF vs. Rutgers = 50K
UCONN vs. Memphis = 383K
SMU vs. UCF = 48K
Cincy vs. USF = 85K
Louisville vs. UCONN = 1.5 million (ESPN)
Memphis vs. Louisville = 232K
USF vs. Temple = 31K
Memphis vs. Temple = 349K
UCF vs. UCONN = 96K

Overall the average is 281K. So it's possibly that those numbers are true, not sure how the non-conference numbers look. Those are good numbers but if you look deeper, 3 of the 4 top games involve Louisville who won't be around much longer. Also, the FS1 numbers look about right just based on what I've seen. However, keep in mind that non-conference games for which almost all the Big East games were shown included teams like Chicago State, NJIT, Manchester and what not which would get horrible ratings with almost any team (but it's alot better to get some viewers than to be put on ESPN3). I think the true barometer will be next year. By then, FS1 will be pretty known by then and Louisville will be gone to the ACC. I didn't bother including CBS Sports Network games which don't even get ratings.

Memphis looks to be bringing a lot of those numbers. Look at Memphis v. Temple and Memphis v. UCONN against Memphis V. Louisville in your sample.
THe big media markets of UCONN and Temple are helping that equation. We will miss Louisville, but our numbers will still be very good for the competitive schools.

(01-24-2014 02:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-24-2014 11:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 06:14 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Frank

What's your take on the American adding one basketball school (Wichita St, VCU, etc) to 1) offset Navy for 12 in football and basketball, and 2) help make up for Louisville's departure?

Good idea?

The first baseline question that any conference should ask before adding school: if that school ends up being horrible in football and/or basketball, will it still add value to the league? That's why there's so much focus in realignment on off-the-field/court metrics such as TV markets, recruiting areas, academics, institutional profiles and geography. Those are factors that generally never change (or take very long periods of time to change), so you can count on those factors for the long-term much more than program performance that fluctuates up and down.

So, there are two questions for the ACC:

(1) At a macro-level, should the AAC add hybrid basketball members in the first place?

(2) If the answer to #1 is yes, is there anyone that fits well enough into the AAC to be the lone or one of a small number of hybrid numbers?

For #1, I'm skeptical that the AAC should go looking at a full hybrid again. That doesn't mean that the hybrid in and of itself can never work, but having one or two random schools (unless it's a heavyweight like Notre Dame) in that situation doesn't provide enough critical mass to make it worth it. The old Big East hybrid was worth more together than split apart because of the *specific* composition of schools (which is why the split didn't occur until all of the old line FBS Big East members besides UConn left), but that lineup of tradition-rich schools in major Eastern markets can probably never be replicated again.

The thing that the AAC now has the flexibility to concentrate on ensuring that its place at the FBS level (just as the new Big East can concentrate on its place at the non-FBS Division I level). Note that there are FBS schools with very good basketball programs and fan bases, such as UMass, New Mexico, UNLV and San Diego State, that are still out there, so expansion for basketball and expansion for football aren't mutually exclusive.

As for #2, I wouldn't add Wichita State even if the AAC *did* decide to go the hybrid route. They are the quintessential example of a school whose value is purely based upon their on-the-court performance. Otherwise, they don't have a good market, they're not in a good recruiting area, it isn't really geographically close to anyone in the league other than newcomer Tulsa, and they don't have the institutional profile that's aligned with the rest of the AAC. Whenever Wichita State hits a rough patch (which is inevitable - even the bluest blue bloods like Kentucky, Indiana and UCLA go through down years), they're not going to be someone that the AAC wants around.

VCU is at least a little bit closer to what the AAC would be looking for as an institution. They're in a geographically-friendly location, the TV market coverage at least provides some value, and they have had success with coaches prior to Shaka Smart (so they're not a phenomenon based on one specific coach).

Still, if I were running the AAC, I wouldn't go down the road of the hybrid again. These are solid basketball schools, but the AAC would be better off to see if someone else in the G5 really establishes themselves as a football brand over the next couple of years (with basketball success as a bonus but not a requirement) and then pick them off in an opportunistic fashion. The AAC is going to live and die with football - the old Big East was arguably the best college basketball conference anyone had ever seen, yet that was ultimately not enough to save it in a world where the very elite level of realignment focuses upon football.

I agree to some extent. I think Witchita is a much riskier addition than basketball additions like VCU or UMass. I don't see the AAC ever going to a full hybrid mode where the membership is nearly 50-50. I do see advantages to the minimal strategic use of the hybrid concept. I think UMass Olympics and VCU could fit well in the AAC and be assets for the conference over both the short term and long term horizons. UMass football is probably a riskier addition than Wichita.

What we have seen is that basketball can have significant value. There in fact can be more value in a basketball conference than in a G5 football conference---even the best G5 conferences--offering football and basketball--make less than the Big East. I could see the additions of UMass and VCU---along with the development of some of the recent AAC additions (SMU and Houston) as the catalyst for a significant increase in the value of the basketball side of the AAC.

Bottom line---the AAC can never become a power football conference. It CAN become a power conference in basketball---there is value in that. Maximizing basketball potential and maintaining the AAC position as the 6th best FBS conference do not have to be mutually exclusive. Limited use of the hybrid concept is the best way to accomplish both goals. The hybrid concept, if used in a limited way, allows for the strengthening of basketball without watering down football.

Agree 100%