10 Questions for the BE in 2014

[TheBall]

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.

Meanwhile, #13 notre dame's game wasn't even televised at all....

(And gtown, seton hall, nova and the johnnies all played in channels in the single digits in most cable boxes)

There are worse things than having to search for a game between two of our three worst teams this year.

[TheBall]

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.

Exatly. Anyone who would rather have our games buried in espnu and espn news while the talking heads employed by our media distribution partner explain to everyone that we are buried in those secondary stations because we are not as good as their more prized content is crazy.

Fox is our best asset right now. They are putting forth a serious commitment. The long term potential is outstanding. Fox respects the big east as the premiere conference in the most populated region of the nation, and treats us with respect. The recruits are loving it. The viewership, which is increasing consistently, is a secondary concern right now.

[gosports1]

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.

Hey dont you knockmy girl Doris Burke!
otherwise spot on!

[stever20]

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.

Meanwhile, #13 notre dame's game wasn't even televised at all....

(And gtown, seton hall, nova and the johnnies all played in channels in the single digits in most cable boxes)

There are worse things than having to search for a game between two of our three worst teams this year.

That's Notre Dame with the ACC's love affair with Raycom.

[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 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.

It IS a similar position to the Big East on FS1. That's the point. For 30% of the AAC games, they lack the exposure advantage that you claim by being on ESPN. As for either being a rip on anyone, you're the one who made the rip, so son't ask me to explain it.

If you think that the Big East would have gotten $20 million per year, you're going to have to explain why ESPN deducted only $4 million from the total of the original 7 year contract when the C7 left. You're saying that the C7+3 would have been worth more to ESPN than AAC basketball + football combined even when Louisville football + basketball was still part of the AAC, but ESPN did nothing to indicate that they valued C7+3 basketball alone over AAC football + basketball when it included Louisville.

[stever20]

I don't think we ever broached ESPN at all. I think our leaders were infatuated with the Fox $$$ right from the get go. They took that over the greater exposure on ESPN.

[TheBall]

Cbs isn't putting forth the marketing effort for the AAC games that the big east is getting from fox. You don't seem to grasp just how valuable that is.

Fox's effort in marketing the big east as the best conference is more valuable than any short term ratings quest.

I love the inside the big east show. I know it probably draws less than 100k viewers, but the player profiles, the team breakdowns, it is great and a huge recruiting asset. Those efforts are far more important right now for the new league than whether we get 120k viewers or 340k viewers for a Tuesday night game in January.

[stever20]

About me...

I never went to Georgetown but I did have Georgetown season tickets. Back when Mourning and Mutombo were around blocking everything. I remember doing a paper in High School about Prop 48 and got so much info from a friend who worked in the SID office of Georgetown. Always been a T-Shirt fan of Georgetown- liked them so much more than Maryland- guess never really cared for Lefty that much and then the period in the late 80's Maryland was so bad after the Bias death. I still remember all the games at the old Cap Centre.

I guess I'm more of a general college basketball fan 1st/Georgetown 2nd. I have been too harsh on here about the Big East- think it's got a ton of potential but still a ways to go. I still remember back in the 80's/90's where a good year would be yeah 5 of 9 in the tourney- but the seeds be 1,2,3,6,6 like in 1987(with PC being one of those 6's). That's what I think of when I think of dominant Big East Basketball. I'm sorry, but Big East of 2015 just not to that level. Maybe I have unrealistic expectations for that- but that's what I think of. When I hear folks saying the Big East is back, I'm just like being back isn't having 1 top 4 seed in the tourney. It's having 3 or 4 of those that I want to see before I say it's back.

I don't think Fox long term is all that viable of an option- just think it's going to take WAY too long to get FS1 to the point where it's a viable option- large part of that is the fact there is no Pro sports out there to get. I think Fox really was blind-sided to some degree that they didn't even get a shot to bid on the NBA. I think large part of everything is timing-as it is in life- and Fox had lousy timing when they started their network- right after NHL and NFL had signed their deals, along with all the major conferences with the exception of Big Ten. While fox has a great track record for other things, I just think sports is a completely different nut to crack. I think it's fair to say that it was a gamble to go with Fox. If FS1 develops the way you all think it will- the gamble pays off. If FS1 though can't crack thru- and becomes even weaker than they are now- which could happen- yeah getting money for the next 10 years- but at what costs?

[RDinNY]

We should have 3 teams in the Final Four every year. Then we would be back!

[mpwalsh8]

I don't know how Fox's NFL schedule works but could Fox put "out of market" NFL games on FS1?

I bet if they did that the general public would figure out pretty quickly where FS1 is on their channel line up and if they don't get FS1, they would figure out how to pretty quickly.

Here in Raleigh, North Carolina we have two options: AT&T Uverse and Time-Warner Cable (although Google Fiber is slated for my area fairly soon). On Uverse you need U200 to get any of the ESPN channels and all of the Fox Sports (FS1, FS2, FS South) are also included in U200. On TWC "Standard" includes ESPN/ESPN2/FS1 and "Preferred" includes "Standard" plus ESPNNews/ESPNU/FS2. As near as I can tell, access to FS1 is basically the same as ESPN/ESPN2 and FS2 is same or better as access to ESPNU/ESPNNews.

I know things are different in other parts of the country but Uverse is a national provider (although their current pissing contest with Fox means NO ACCESS TO FS1 for BigEast tournament) - not sure what the comparison of DirectTV or Dish is. The Google Fiber channel lineup is basically the same as Uverse 200.

It has been a while since I had TWC but when I did have it, you could get ESPN and ESPN2 without a cable box but only in Standard Definition. If you wanted HD, you needed to have a cable box. That may still be the case, I don't know but I cannot imagine being happy watching basketball in SD. Bleh. As much as I'd like to get rid of the cable box, I don't see that as an option. The slowness of the TWC cable box was one of the primary reasons I switched from TWC to AT&T.