(03-20-2015 11:24 AM)ivet Wrote:  I recall Frank saying 2+ years ago is that FS1 needed inventory, they knew it was going to be an uphill climb but they still needed fill in time slots. The Big East just happened to be in a good position to fill that void. On the other hand, they could have also included the AAC but Frank would probably be a better person to respond to that.

(03-21-2015 01:28 AM)ivet Wrote:  You guys are a classy bunch. Going to need someone to tell me why your schools and your fan base don't seem to get any respect. This one eludes me like why water is wet.

Yet it was you who injected a clueless comment...others can't respond in kind?

You are so emo that you are worried about which schools/conf that your online buddies respect? Really?

I just want to thank you for the comedy that you added to this thread...made it worth reading.

(03-21-2015 07:19 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Yet it was you who injected a clueless comment...others can't respond in kind?

You are so emo that you are worried about which schools/conf that your online buddies respect? Really?

I just want to thank you for the comedy that you added to this thread...made it worth reading.

There is a more mature ways to respond on message board. I won't hold it against Majority of ACC fans as many seem to be ok to dialogue from an outside debate but it seems there are others, especially from certain schools, that want to treat this place like the clubhouse on the little rascals. Words like "Emo" makes me wonder if you're still in high school and not actually a college graduate and your Ad hominan attacks confirms that. What will you attack me with next to hurt my feelings? Should I go tell my mommy that someone is cyber bullying me?

More concern by AAC fans for Big East basketball, LOL.

Just remember that Big East gets paid twice as much $$$ for basketball as AAC gets for everything.

Not all Big East games are on FS1. During OOC play i saw many on ESPN and other networks.

(03-21-2015 08:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  More concern by AAC fans for Big East basketball, LOL.

Just remember that Big East gets paid twice as much $$$ for basketball as AAC gets for everything.

Quo really. Geez dude you are a smart guy. Don't be the troll feeding the troll

(03-21-2015 08:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Not all Big East games are on FS1. During OOC play i saw many on ESPN and other networks.

Of course they aren't only on FS1. When they play schools from other conferences with ESPN contracts they end up there. Otherwise they end up on FS1 or whomever they sell the rights to games... I believe that included CBSSN.

Well that was my point. Folks act like Big East is buried on FS1 and never seen on ESPN. Not so.

(03-21-2015 09:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well that was my point. Folks act like Big East is buried on FS1 and never seen on ESPN. Not so.

Once conference season started they didn't get much ESPN coverage. Even Villanova didn't get a lot of coverage on ESPN, especially compared to the other highly ranked schools.

(03-21-2015 08:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  More concern by AAC fans for Big East basketball, LOL.

Just remember that Big East gets paid twice as much $$$ for basketball as AAC gets for everything.

The AAC got the tourney credits to close that $ gap on the short term deal and the ESPN exposure.

All things considered, I'd rather have the exposure. I understand the concept of leverage on a conference that didn't even have a name yet.

At least the AAC has football in the first place. The NBE will be going dark in a matter of days.

(03-21-2015 10:19 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-21-2015 09:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well that was my point. Folks act like Big East is buried on FS1 and never seen on ESPN. Not so.

Villanova didn't get a lot of coverage on ESPN, especially compared to the other highly ranked schools.

Villa-who?

This guy?

(03-21-2015 08:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Not all Big East games are on FS1. During OOC play i saw many on ESPN and other networks.

Lol. During OOC?

The general public is hardly paying attention until football season ends... and attention to basketball intensifies going into the tournaments.

What was the rating for the NBE Championship game?

(03-21-2015 08:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

Why do you even parade around with this sig, dufus?

Fox Sports 1 is a start up network whose long term goal is to be a Fox network alternative to ESPN. As a start up network, FS1 was desperate for programming and for that reason it wrote a big check to the Big East. But the trade off for all of that money is that as a new channel, FS1 doesn't have much viewership. Ratings for Big East basketball are going to continue to be low until FS1 is put on the main tier of channels by major cable providers as opposed to being bundled as part of a "sports package".

It is certainly debatable as to which is better to have, the money of a FS1 deal or the exposure on an ESPN deal. I would argue the exposure from the ESPN deal is only as good as the number of games played on ESPN or ESPN2, since games relegated ESPN3, ESPNU, or ESPNnews garner similar viewership numbers to games played on FS1.

As for the Big East TV deal, I think it is great as long as Fox remains committed to making FS1 a rival to ESPN. If Fox is willing to invest the resources, the potential for exponential growth is there and there will continue to great developments like the Big East - Big Ten Challenge . However, if Fox a some point in the future decides that attempts to promote FS1 to a main tier channel is a lost cause, then the Big East deal becomes significantly worse. But as of right now, the jury is still out.

(03-21-2015 08:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  More concern by AAC fans for Big East basketball, LOL.

Just remember that Big East gets paid twice as much $$$ for basketball as AAC gets for everything.

You have to be joking. Most of us could care less what the BE does. Yes, they got paid because of a need of inventory. No one has watched or will watch the BE. We made less but have significantly increased our exposure and that has paid off. Not too mention we have a negotiating window coming up. I wouldn't trade places with the BE because we got the better deal in the long run.

(03-21-2015 11:35 AM)Know Nothing Wrote:  Fox Sports 1 is a start up network whose long term goal is to be a Fox network alternative to ESPN. As a start up network, FS1 was desperate for programming and for that reason it wrote a big check to the Big East. But the trade off for all of that money is that as a new channel, FS1 doesn't have much viewership. Ratings for Big East basketball are going to continue to be low until FS1 is put on the main tier of channels by major cable providers as opposed to being bundled as part of a "sports package".

It is certainly debatable as to which is better to have, the money of a FS1 deal or the exposure on an ESPN deal. I would argue the exposure from the ESPN deal is only as good as the number of games played on ESPN or ESPN2, since games relegated ESPN3, ESPNU, or ESPNnews garner similar viewership numbers to games played on FS1.

As for the Big East TV deal, I think it is great as long as Fox remains committed to making FS1 a rival to ESPN. If Fox is willing to invest the resources, the potential for exponential growth is there and there will continue to great developments like the Big East - Big Ten Challenge . However, if Fox a some point in the future decides that attempts to promote FS1 to a main tier channel is a lost cause, then the Big East deal becomes significantly worse. But as of right now, the jury is still out.

ESPNU has better ratings than fs1 by a wide margin for basketball ...

in football espnu on average does better but not much but FS1 has had dramatically higher rated games than espnu which is carrying their average (on fs1 has some power games on the channel and espn doesn't put on of it's great games on espnu)

in my opinion the big 10 deal next year will decide the faith of fs1..being able to catch ohio state/michigan etc only fs1 will be huge for them and in the midwest will probably get as big as espn...

in the long run, if changes aren't made, i think both the BE/FS1 will regret their deal...the big east is a good product that thrives where there already viewers. the big easy is made up of a ton of small private schools is a tiny section of america...they arent the type to bring you vieweers despite the product.. aka if GTOWN is on espn, the general sports fan will check espn see its Gtown realize it mmight be a good game and decides to watch...no one in the general national sports world is going out of there way to find the Gtown name no matter what

and people dont realize the affects of exposure is long term..not short, people are pointing to this season as why theyll be fine, most of the players they are using were recruited while with ESPN and 100% of the new recruits were brought in off the repuations they had built from being on ESPN... playing in front of 70-80k viewers will eventually decrease the value of that reputation

(03-20-2015 11:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-20-2015 10:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-20-2015 05:16 AM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 09:32 PM)ivet Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 09:15 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Fox had to offer you more money because nobody is watching fox sports channels especially for small religious schools.

So lack of exposure comessage with a price for Fox

So the Fox Execs had a meeting...hey guys, no one is watching fox sports. Here is an ideas. Let's give a ton of money to these group of religious schools that no one cares about. Then we'll go outside, dig a pit, and bild a fire using the remaining cash we have left over. We are so smart with our money...

Yup, you should definitely write them a letter.

Why don't you write the folks at fox and ask them if they project the payout under the next contract to increase or decrease? Be sure to ask them why absolutely nobody is watching their product, and from their perspective if they are happy with the contract. I predict their answers will be 1. Substancial decrease, 2. Because it's a group of small religious schools that no one cares about, we needed inventory and we were hoping we could capitalize on the "big east" name, 3. Hell no, the person responsible for that contract has been fired.

Let's take a step back for a moment and actually look at context (which sooooooo many people fail to do on message boards). Anyone that has any knowledge about the TV industry whatsoever knows that ratings between ESPN and FS1 aren't anywhere close to apples-to-apples comparisons. The platform of ESPN itself substantially raises the ratings of the average game, while the platform of FS1 itself substantially lowers the ratings of that exact same game.

Here's the point: does anyone here seriously believe that the better Big East games (i.e. the ones featuring Villanova/Georgetown/etc.) wouldn't get great ratings on ESPN? I can buy that most ACC, Big Ten, Kentucky and Kansas games would get better ratings than the Big East on ESPN. However, I absolutely believe that they would be on par with the Pac-12, non-KU Big 12 and non-UK SEC games.

Just look at last year: both the Big East and Pac-12 title games were on FS1, and the Big East title game got a higher rating (0.5 to 0.4). That also featured the best brand name matchup possible for the Pac-12 (Arizona vs. UCLA), whereas the Big East had Providence vs. Creighton.

The Pac-12 title game switched over to ESPN this year and that rating went up to 1.1 (a 175% increase) even with a worse matchup (Arizona vs. Oregon). Basically, you can bank on almost tripling your ratings simply by moving from FS1 to ESPN (or alternatively, look at a haircut of around 2/3rds of your ratings if you move from ESPN to FS1).

So, that's how TV people will evaluate the value of Big East. They're not just going to look at FS1 ratings in a vacuum because they're completely crappy across the board, even when you're talking about Pac-12 football/basketball and Big 12 football. We've seen Big East basketball games pretty consistently beat Pac-12 basketball games on FS1. Can the AAC say the same thing about *consistently* beating Pac-12 basketball games on ESPN? That's where you'd get a true apples-to-apples comparison... and that puts the value of the Big East in a significantly better context (and TV executes aren't dumb - they know how much the ESPN platform in and of itself adds to viewership numbers).

I know lots of people here want to take every shot possible at the Big East, but Fox wasn't the dumb one here signing the contract. The only people that you can criticize is the Big East leadership that didn't maintain any type of relationship with ESPN at all - THAT was quite a mistake. (And you can look back at my posts from a few years ago where I consistently said that it would be a mistake for any league to leave ESPN entirely, yet I was knocked by some of the exact same posters here as being an "ESPN homer" when they were hoping for the old football Big East to get untold riches from NBC or another network.) The Big East is more than holding its own in the context of the overall depressing ratings on FS1 that make even Major League Baseball, the Pac-12 and Big 12 look terrible (and no one here seems to be doubting the TV value of those last 3 properties since it doesn't fit their narrative of how "irrelevant" the Big East is supposed to be).

I agree with virtually everything you are saying here---yet I have to reach a slightly different conclusion. The AAC championship basketball game rating this year was a 1.25 on ESPN. Using your earlier comparisons, the AAC rating would translate into roughly the same rating as the Big East scored on FS-1. Yet, ESPN owns all the rights to AAC basketball (plus an entire FBS league of filler football) for less than half of what Fox must pay for just Big East basketball. That means Fox has to pay another 7 million to get their filler FBS football from CUSA. All told, it costs Fox 47 million a year to replicate what ESPN gets for 20 millon. For the extra 27 million, Fox gets a product that draws the same for basketball and draws even lower ratings for filler football.

Given the above facts, one of the following MUST be true.

1) The Big East is significantly over valued at 40 million a year.

or

2) The AAC is significantly under valued at 20 million a year.

0r

3) Both 1 and 2 are true.

Of course my post is going to sound homerville but your view Attackcoog is very well viewed... In addition to your post, we can use ANY MATHEMATICAL formula to this facts and is quite CLEAR the AAC is grossly UNDERPAID.

I understand however, the blind will always remain blind or perhaps feeding everyone FULL OF BS.

Yes, the Big East got such little exposure that it only got 2 teams in the tournament while the AAC got such massive exposure that it got 6 in.

Oh wait a minute ...

(03-21-2015 01:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, the Big East got such little exposure that it only got 2 teams in the tournament while the AAC got such massive exposure that it got 6 in.

Oh wait a minute ...

read my response...exposure doesnt affect the court in the short term, it affects it in the long term....

put a great team and take away their exposure completely no games on tv or radio or anything, the next 2 or 3 years they are still going to be great team despite no one watching...it is years down the line when you'll start seeing it affect recruting and national fan interest

Problem is, while a 1.3 rating is 4x the exposure of a .3 rating, it is still so tiny that for practical purposes -recruiting, media presence, etc.- there is no exposure advantage.

I mean, if you had a 1.3" member and a girl you just met laughed at it, could you get her to think better of it by pointing out that it is 4x longer than a .3 inch one? I doubt that would make your actual 'exposure' mean any more to her. It's the difference between microscopic and atomistic.

(03-21-2015 01:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, the Big East got such little exposure that it only got 2 teams in the tournament while the AAC got such massive exposure that it got 6 in.

Oh wait a minute ...

If the two teams that got in the tourney were UConn and Memphis, I might be a little bothered.. but, I'm ok with the season, considering it happened during off years by the Huskies and Tigers.

UConn-SMU made for a great showcase on Selection Sunday. Both Temple and Tulsa made strong NCAA cases for the dance.

IMO, the AAC did its part. The snub of Temple was scrutinized enough in the media that the public wasn't fooled.

Unless, the NBE wins a Natty this year, you still have work to do, down 2 sets to love.

By the way (on that note), keep your eye on the UConn women in the tourney. I hear they're pretty good.