10 Questions for the BE in 2014

[billyjack]

All signs pointed to the Big East having a great year, so I'm not surprised things have turned out so well for all of us. And all the pieces are in place for continued success in the coming years too. But I'm glad my predictions came out pretty accurately, that's pretty wild.

The key in predicting, i think, is to focus on probabilities, not possibilities, and especially to disregard any crazy negatively that doesn't make sense or is overblown or is completely out of proportion.

So, while it's cool that Stever found this old thread, at the same time he has deliberately waged a relentless 2-year 24-hour non-stop ridiculously negative psy-ops campaign against our conference. With so much pessimism thrown at us daily, no matter how illogical most of it is, it's only natural for people to start doubting the conference and doubting themselves, even if it's a just a small amount...

Pretty soon, blanket negative out-of-context statements can take hold like a Lyme Disease deer tick. For example, the cherry-picking in the FS1 thread, the moving of goalposts, the fabricated sense of urgency in viewership or attendance or whatever possible pessimist thought hatches day to day. So the key is to look at things logically. And if something about the BE does start going off kilter, then the conference will come up with solutions... we're not a frozen statue that can't adjust at times if necessary... leave that to the dinosaurs running college football.

In my opinion, these early years of our 10-team Big East should be a time for complete optimism and we should just enjoy the ride and watch the conference improve. There are so many intangibles in our favor that the probability of sustained success is extremely high. Outstanding coaches, great recruits, great fanbases, competitive games all in great cities, balanced standings, world-class schools who graduate their students and are scandal-free, and nationally televised games with awesome announcers including some legends.

And I'm telling you this as a middle-aged guy who has been following the game since around 1977 (great year Marquette), so I've kinda witnessed a whole range of events (in all sports) and I've seen the pendulum swing back and forth several times in terms of conferences, programs, who's dominant, who's awful, what tv/cable station sucks, which ones are good, espn ignores these guys, espn pampers these other guys, etc etc etc... and again, while nothing is a sure thing, based on the BE framework and what the 10 of us have put together, the probability of a sustained return to dominance of the Big East is extremely high. Unlike the dimwit football conferences, we have very smart people running our conference, believe me.

So this year we're guaranteed 6 bids, locked in. Our Big East Tourney will be fantastic. We can just sit back and enjoy the games. Exciting hoops in the world's greatest city, in the world's most famous arena... man, what could be better than this...?

[stever20]

The thing is billyjack- FS1 right now is probably by far the biggest question the league has right now. You may be happy with us regularly having games on FS1 drawing barely over 100k, but I'd be pretty sure that our leaders aren't. I do think we made a HUGE mistake in taking what would have been maybe 2 million more per year in going with a start up in Fox over ESPN.

I just don't watch things with rose-colored glasses like you do. When I see a spade I call it a spade. Fox is a major spade right now to me pure and simple. It's to me the ONLY thing holding the conference back from being already truly back.

I think one thing that you are absolutely wrong on is that we have balanced standings. Our 7th place teams finished 3 games behind our 6th place team. How in the hell is that balanced??? Or 1st place being 4 games up on 2nd place. That's not balanced at all. Not that it's a bad thing at all. I would like to say that separation helped St John's and Xavier get in the tourney- but those 2 teams were only 5-3 against those bottom 4 teams- so much for a big hand there- kind of a weird thing.

thing is lets go thru some things-
I poo-poo'd last years recruiting saying that this years recruiting would be much more telling. It has been successful, and I've said that is huge. consistant
I said exactly what I thought St John's and Xavier needed to do to make the tourney- and when they did that- not a second before- but when they did it I said they were locks. That's not moving the goal-posts at all.
I've said from day 1 that FS1 is a major problem. I think we went for the more money vs more true exposure. That's constant. I would be curious if Ackerman had been with the Big East when we were doing the TV deal if she would have gone with Fox or ESPN. I kind of see a scenario where if we had gone with ESPN, they don't resign the AAC, and the AAC is no where near as viable as they are now because of the ESPN exposure. Which I think would have helped us even more in recruiting.

you can look at things thru your rose colored glasses, that's fine. But when I see something not right- i'm going to call it. period. And if you are saying that the projections on here were low because of me- I think you are crazy.

[XU85]

All signs pointed to the Big East having a great year, so I'm not surprised things have turned out so well for all of us. And all the pieces are in place for continued success in the coming years too. But I'm glad my predictions came out pretty accurately, that's pretty wild.

The key in predicting, i think, is to focus on probabilities, not possibilities, and especially to disregard any crazy negatively that doesn't make sense or is overblown or is completely out of proportion.

So, while it's cool that Stever found this old thread, at the same time he has deliberately waged a relentless 2-year 24-hour non-stop ridiculously negative psy-ops campaign against our conference. With so much pessimism thrown at us daily, no matter how illogical most of it is, it's only natural for people to start doubting the conference and doubting themselves, even if it's a just a small amount...

Pretty soon, blanket negative out-of-context statements can take hold like a Lyme Disease deer tick. For example, the cherry-picking in the FS1 thread, the moving of goalposts, the fabricated sense of urgency in viewership or attendance or whatever possible pessimist thought hatches day to day. So the key is to look at things logically. And if something about the BE does start going off kilter, then the conference will come up with solutions... we're not a frozen statue that can't adjust at times if necessary... leave that to the dinosaurs running college football.

In my opinion, these early years of our 10-team Big East should be a time for complete optimism and we should just enjoy the ride and watch the conference improve. There are so many intangibles in our favor that the probability of sustained success is extremely high. Outstanding coaches, great recruits, great fanbases, competitive games all in great cities, balanced standings, world-class schools who graduate their students and are scandal-free, and nationally televised games with awesome announcers including some legends.

And I'm telling you this as a middle-aged guy who has been following the game since around 1977 (great year Marquette), so I've kinda witnessed a whole range of events (in all sports) and I've seen the pendulum swing back and forth several times in terms of conferences, programs, who's dominant, who's awful, what tv/cable station sucks, which ones are good, espn ignores these guys, espn pampers these other guys, etc etc etc... and again, while nothing is a sure thing, based on the BE framework and what the 10 of us have put together, the probability of a sustained return to dominance of the Big East is extremely high. Unlike the dimwit football conferences, we have very smart people running our conference, believe me.

So this year we're guaranteed 6 bids, locked in. Our Big East Tourney will be fantastic. We can just sit back and enjoy the games. Exciting hoops in the world's greatest city, in the world's most famous arena... man, what could be better than this...?

Nice post and great predictions BJ! Ordinarily I do not have the attention span to ready multi-paragraph posts, but yours was one of the few exceptions. My only criticism is that you give Stever too much credit, and that most see our favorite attention-starved, doomsday poster for what he is.

[gosports1]

Did ESPN even offer the BE a contract? When i say "BE" I mean our BE. We are technically a NEW conference. The American is the "old BE" , at least for legal purposes.
Im not that sure ESPN would have wanted a non fb BE. They offered a deal that included the C7 and the FB schools. FOX came in and offered a deal to the C7 to breakaway. I cant imagine ESPN would offer adeal that was anywhere near as good as the one they offered when the FB schools were around (including the newbies). IMO we'd be no better off than the A10.

At least with FOX we have the $$ to grow our programs and get in on the ground floor of a branch of a netowork that has beaten the odds and
silenced all the critics since its inception ( FOX TV build itself basically on the SImpsons and the sunday night lineup. Look at it now)

The recruits seem to still be coming. we have 60% of out teams projected to make the tourney. 70% were ranked in top 25 at one time or another. we have a projected number 1 seed.

all in year 2

A few more games on FOX network i think would be very helpful. Id like to see more promos run during the NFL games on fox . As well as their other more popular shows

we are onboard with FS1 now. lets enjoy the ride collect the $ we wouldnt be getting from ESPN, and invest it into building our schools and athletic programs

[stever20]

Did ESPN even offer the BE a contract? When i say "BE" I mean our BE. We are technically a NEW conference. The American is the "old BE" , at least for legal purposes.
Im not that sure ESPN would have wanted a non fb BE. They offered a deal that included the C7 and the FB schools. FOX came in and offered a deal to the C7 to breakaway. I cant imagine ESPN would offer adeal that was anywhere near as good as the one they offered when the FB schools were around (including the newbies). IMO we'd be no better off than the A10.

At least with FOX we have the $$ to grow our programs and get in on the ground floor of a branch of a netowork that has beaten the odds and
silenced all the critics since its inception ( FOX TV build itself basically on the SImpsons and the sunday night lineup. Look at it now)

The recruits seem to still be coming. we have 60% of out teams projected to make the tourney. 70% were ranked in top 25 at one time or another. we have a projected number 1 seed.

all in year 2

A few more games on FOX network i think would be very helpful. Id like to see more promos run during the NFL games on fox . As well as their other more popular shows

we are onboard with FS1 now. lets enjoy the ride collect the $ we wouldnt be getting from ESPN, and invest it into building our schools and athletic programs

You see I think they would have offered at least as good of a deal as they gave the AAC if we had offered it to them. And also quite frankly a contract that would have been shorter, which would have allowed us time to grow and then at the 6-7 year mark renegotiate.

[GoldenWarrior11]

I think the debate between having our Big East conference on Fox or ESPN doesn't come down to how many viewers we are getting right now. It's much bigger than that.

Let's assume that ESPN offered us the exact same deal they gave the AAC (I forget specifics - I think it's $2-$2.5 million per school per year). ESPN would be sticking us on ESPNEWS, ESPNU, ESPN2 and ESPN360 (like the AAC) with very limited (if any) advertising and/or promotion on the network. In the several AAC football and basketball games I've watched this past year, I can count the number of AAC ads run on ESPN on one hand (It's the same one that flashes all the schools logos with #AmericanRising at end). We would be fifth fiddle to the Big 10, ACC, Big 12 and SEC. The Big East schools didn't need exposure (proving to the world they belong at the big table conversation) like the AAC did/does. We needed to be continued to be promoted like a top basketball conference (which we most certainly are). We were never going to get that from ESPN, especially after the numerous attempts the corporation tried to kill the old conference.

With Fox, we have consistent advertising and marketing opportunities with the conference - not to mention more money we have received. Numerous Big East Tournament ads have run on Fox, FS1 and FS2 over the past few weeks. Numerous plugs are on Fox Sports Live. We get prime-time slots on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Saturdays (including some on FOX). We can get announcers like Gus Johnson and Bill Raftery and Tim Brando calling games for us (compared to Doris Burke, Dan Schulman, Dave O'Brien, etc. on ESPN for the AAC).

On Fox, the Big East is treated like a valued asset. On ESPN, the AAC (and possibly the Big East if still on the network) are nothing more than fillers and stopgaps. I'd rather be with a partner that actually values us, not one that settled for us and gives no potential for growth.

[stever20]

I think the debate between having our Big East conference on Fox or ESPN doesn't come down to how many viewers we are getting right now. It's much bigger than that.

Let's assume that ESPN offered us the exact same deal they gave the AAC (I forget specifics - I think it's $2-$2.5 million per school per year). ESPN would be sticking us on ESPNEWS, ESPNU, ESPN2 and ESPN360 (like the AAC) with very limited (if any) advertising and/or promotion on the network. In the several AAC football and basketball games I've watched this past year, I can count the number of AAC ads run on ESPN on one hand (It's the same one that flashes all the schools logos with #AmericanRising at end). We would be fifth fiddle to the Big 10, ACC, Big 12 and SEC. The Big East schools didn't need exposure (proving to the world they belong at the big table conversation) like the AAC did/does. We needed to be continued to be promoted like a top basketball conference (which we most certainly are). We were never going to get that from ESPN, especially after the numerous attempts the corporation tried to kill the old conference.

With Fox, we have consistent advertising and marketing opportunities with the conference - not to mention more money we have received. Numerous Big East Tournament ads have run on Fox, FS1 and FS2 over the past few weeks. Numerous plugs are on Fox Sports Live. We get prime-time slots on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Saturdays (including some on FOX). We can get announcers like Gus Johnson and Bill Raftery and Tim Brando calling games for us (compared to Doris Burke, Dan Schulman, Dave O'Brien, etc. on ESPN for the AAC).

On Fox, the Big East is treated like a valued asset. On ESPN, the AAC (and possibly the Big East if still on the network) are nothing more than fillers and stopgaps. I'd rather be with a partner that actually values us, not one that settled for us and gives no potential for growth.

No conference games are on ESPN3. None. You say they would be sticking us on ESPN2. You do understand ESPN2 is very much ahead of FS1. EVERY AAC conference game was on one of the ESPN's or CBSSN. No games on RSN's or FS2. And yes, ESPNU and ESPNews are light years better than FS2 or RSN's that not everyone can get. And you don't think we would have gotten prime time slots on ESPN? That's crazy.

The big problem is that for a lot of folks, ESPN is the gold standard. And fox isn't doing anything to change that. And part of it is the fact they're relying so much on UFC and Nascar. They went yesterday from Butler/PC to Nascar- while X/Creighton was on FS2 and not even sure where Marquette/DePaul was.

[Bill Marsh]

You see I think they would have offered at least as good of a deal as they gave the AAC if we had offered it to them. And also quite frankly a contract that would have been shorter, which would have allowed us time to grow and then at the 6-7 year mark renegotiate.

What would a deal "at least as good as the deal they gave the AAC" actually be?

ESPN gave the AAC $126 million for 7 years, or $18 million per year, for BOTH football and basketball games. The breakdown of football vs basketball has never been revealed AFAIK.

From Fox, the Big East receives $500 million for 12 years, or $41.6 million, per year ONLY for basketball. If we assume that basketball is as much as 50% of the value of the AAC/ESPN contract, "at least as good a deal as they gave the AAC" would be $63 for 7 years, or $9 million per year.

What does ESPN exposure mean to the AAC? It means 30 basketball games per year, or 30+% of the regular season schedule, on CBSSN, as fledgling a network as FS1. After signing the contract with the AAC, ESPN couldn't sell off that portion of the inventory fast enough, thereby discounting the exposure value by 30%.

Reasonable minds can disagree over the risk/rewards of taking the shorter 7 year deal vs the longer 12 year commitment, but there is no arguing the point that the ESPN deal that the AAC received was vastly inferior to the the lax keg that the Big East got from Fox.

If the best the Big East could have hoped for was "at least as good a deal as ESPN have the AAC", then taking the offer from Fox was a no brainer since it represents 4-5 times the value on an annual basis for basketball. The fact that ESPN immediately sold off content to CBS for exposure on its cable network further reduced any offsetting benefits that the league thought it might be getting from exposure.

Although I share your concern about the current ratings, I have not the slightest reservation about the conference having taken the Fox deal. Frankly the slow start in ratings suggests that the 12 commitment was the smart decision rather than gambling on increased value in a mere half dozen years. In a post-O'Bannon world in which players in the P5 will soon be getting paid, that 12 year commitment puts the Big East in an excellent position to compete with the P5 for years to come. Meanwhile, G5 schools like those in the AAC will be hard pressed to find the cash to match the P5 - especially with the burden of paying football players along with everyone else.

[stever20]

You see I think they would have offered at least as good of a deal as they gave the AAC if we had offered it to them. And also quite frankly a contract that would have been shorter, which would have allowed us time to grow and then at the 6-7 year mark renegotiate.

What would a deal "at least as good as the deal they gave the AAC" actually be?

ESPN gave the AAC $126 million for 7 years, or $18 million per year, for BOTH football and basketball games. The breakdown of football vs basketball has never been revealed AFAIK.

From Fox, the Big East receives $500 million for 12 years, or $41.6 million, per year ONLY for basketball. If we assume that basketball is as much as 50% of the value of the AAC/ESPN contract, "at least as good a deal as they gave the AAC" would be $63 for 7 years, or $9 million per year.

What does ESPN exposure mean to the AAC? It means 30 basketball games per year, or 30+% of the regular season schedule, on CBSSN, as fledgling a network as FS1. After signing the contract with the AAC, ESPN couldn't sell off that portion of the inventory fast enough, thereby discounting the exposure value by 30%.

Reasonable minds can disagree over the risk/rewards of taking the shorter 7 year deal vs the longer 12 year commitment, but there is no arguing the point that the ESPN deal that the AAC received was vastly inferior to the the lax keg that the Big East got from Fox.

If the best the Big East could have hoped for was "at least as good a deal as ESPN have the AAC", then taking the offer from Fox was a no brainer since it represents 4-5 times the value on an annual basis for basketball. The fact that ESPN immediately sold off content to CBS for exposure on its cable network further reduced any offsetting benefits that the league thought it might be getting from exposure.

Although I share your concern about the current ratings, I have not the slightest reservation about the conference having taken the Fox deal. Frankly the slow start in ratings suggests that the 12 commitment was the smart decision rather than gambling on increased value in a mere half dozen years. In a world in which players in the P5 will soon be getting paid, that 12 year commitment puts the Big East in an excellent position to compete with the P5 for years to come. Meanwhile, G5 schools like those in the AAC will be hard pressed to find the cash to match the P5 - especially with the burden of paying football players along with everyone else.

If CBSSN is such a bad thing, why isn't it a similar problem for the Big East? They can show up to 30 men's basketball games on CBS/CBSSN (with normally like 2-3 on CBS network)? Which is the EXACT same deal the AAC has. So if it's a rip on the AAC that they are on CBSSN, why isn't a rip on the Big East as well?

And I don't think we would have gotten 9 million per year. I think it'd be close to the 20 million per year.

[TheBall]

Tha AAC deal is terrible. This has to be a joke by Steven, right?

We are foxs top priority. It is going to take time for our ratings to catch espn2, and it will likely not catch espn, but I would rather be the top priority on fox where they treat us with respect than buried on espn3 and espn news and espnu like the AAC. Burying those AAC games on espnu is a clear message from espn that the AAC is a second rate conference with no future whose games are just filler for slots until the real teams that jay bilas roots for play.

Rather be the CEO of Pepsi or Burger King than work in the mail room for coke or mcdonalds.