Xudash wrote:If we have to expand in the next year, or if we have to expand in the next two or three years, and we have to do that by picking from A10 schools, does anyone believe Fox would true-up the revenue per school by adding such schools? Is the presumption that, assuming our existing 10 schools are failing at generating some needed ratings benchmark, that adding some combination of two A10 schools is going to get us over the hump such that Fox would true it up? If Fox has to expand for INVENTORY, would they pay an additional approx. $9.4 million per year for those two schools for the balance of the Fox Agreement?
Otherwise, is the presumption here that, with Fox demanding a solution for more INVENTORY through the Big East, that they would somehow modify what apparently is a fixed agreement, diluting the payouts to the existing 10 members by adding the two schools, but at the same $500 million overall effective bucket over the original 12 year period: 10 schools at about $4.2 million per year would adjust to 12 schools at about $3.5 million per year. Even that dilution would probably not be enough, because any two A10 schools would not be accretive enough to make the numbers work.
If the question becomes one focused on INVENTORY, why solve that through the existing Big East Agreement? Why not offer the A10 a package that sufficiently exceeds its existing paltry $300k'ish per school? You could pay the A10 about $10 million per year, doubling their existing TV package, while picking up 14 teams worth of inventory in the process. Perhaps Fox could look at the Mountain West Conference instead, assuming they believe that would be a more attractive option. Of course, the issue is whether or not some other conference is in any position to break its existing television deal, while otherwise making the numbers work for Fox.
marquette wrote an excellent, balanced post. Fox does care about viewership. College basketball is so abundant that high ratings are hard to come by. It's just that, if our existing 10 schools are having trouble with viewership numbers on a go-forward basis, is that because of the schools, is that because of FoxSports1 still growing out of its startup mode, or is that because of a combination of those two things. It gets back to the basic timing premise: not enough of that has expired yet to know where this is headed. The Big East has work to do. Fox has work to do. Two years is too soon to pass judgement on performance. Fox and the Big East probably need about 4 or 5 years to assess their position, which also gives them time to continue to watch developments on the football side of things.
Fox cares about viewership. The existing 10 schools care about viewership primarily as well, because that is what Fox cares about. Other program attributes are secondary. In fact, they would come with any program that does deliver viewership in a meaningful, accretive way. That gets us back to expansion solutions that don't exist today. Otherwise, if Fox believes it has to solve for INVENTORY, its probably can create options for doing that beyond having to pursue adjustments to the existing Big East, which touches upon that brand management thing again.
Xudash wrote:If we have to expand in the next year, or if we have to expand in the next two or three years, and we have to do that by picking from A10 schools, does anyone believe Fox would true-up the revenue per school by adding such schools? Is the presumption that, assuming our existing 10 schools are failing at generating some needed ratings benchmark, that adding some combination of two A10 schools is going to get us over the hump such that Fox would true it up? If Fox has to expand for INVENTORY, would they pay an additional approx. $9.4 million per year for those two schools for the balance of the Fox Agreement?
Otherwise, is the presumption here that, with Fox demanding a solution for more INVENTORY through the Big East, that they would somehow modify what apparently is a fixed agreement, diluting the payouts to the existing 10 members by adding the two schools, but at the same $500 million overall effective bucket over the original 12 year period: 10 schools at about $4.2 million per year would adjust to 12 schools at about $3.5 million per year. Even that dilution would probably not be enough, because any two A10 schools would not be accretive enough to make the numbers work.
If the question becomes one focused on INVENTORY, why solve that through the existing Big East Agreement? Why not offer the A10 a package that sufficiently exceeds its existing paltry $300k'ish per school? You could pay the A10 about $10 million per year, doubling their existing TV package, while picking up 14 teams worth of inventory in the process. Perhaps Fox could look at the Mountain West Conference instead, assuming they believe that would be a more attractive option. Of course, the issue is whether or not some other conference is in any position to break its existing television deal, while otherwise making the numbers work for Fox.
marquette wrote an excellent, balanced post. Fox does care about viewership. College basketball is so abundant that high ratings are hard to come by. It's just that, if our existing 10 schools are having trouble with viewership numbers on a go-forward basis, is that because of the schools, is that because of FoxSports1 still growing out of its startup mode, or is that because of a combination of those two things. It gets back to the basic timing premise: not enough of that has expired yet to know where this is headed. The Big East has work to do. Fox has work to do. Two years is too soon to pass judgement on performance. Fox and the Big East probably need about 4 or 5 years to assess their position, which also gives them time to continue to watch developments on the football side of things.
Fox cares about viewership. The existing 10 schools care about viewership primarily as well, because that is what Fox cares about. Other program attributes are secondary. In fact, they would come with any program that does deliver viewership in a meaningful, accretive way. That gets us back to expansion solutions that don't exist today. Otherwise, if Fox believes it has to solve for INVENTORY, its probably can create options for doing that beyond having to pursue adjustments to the existing Big East, which touches upon that brand management thing again.
Bostonspider wrote:Hoyas wrote:And I definitely think Georgetown is going to balk at adding 2 more Midwestern schools. Think Richmond has a shot there. Then it becomes Dayton vs SLU- and Dayton should win that easily.
This is what I had heard from UR's President. Also that Nova was on the same page as Georgetown, but again that was 18 months ago. As to the Robin Center being too small, UR could always play a few games down at the Richmond Coliseum if needed. It is not as nice as the stunning on campus arena, but it seats 12,000 for basketball.
But as I said I don't think it is near as nice, nor looks as good on TV as UR's own arena
Hoyas wrote:
1 thing about the A10 is that their tv deal is only 2 years old in a 8 year deal. So it's not up for bid for another 6 years.
I know the MVC is coming up for bid pretty soon.
marquette wrote:WARNING OPINION POST TO FOLLOW
WHY NOT...?
Gonzaga: Nothing has changed since the last round of expansion. Gonzaga had the reputation, success, visibility, and best resume of any of the original candidates. They were not added because it is too far to Spokane, they don't have a large arena, their fans won't travel to MSG, and we won't get much of a recruiting boost by playing in Washington.
Know Nothing wrote:
The Big East is a Catholic basketball league. I don't know why you see that as a bad thing. Catholic schools have a great sports tradition at both the high school and college level and have large fan bases in major urban cities. The new Big East provides stability and partnership that never existed when we were aligned with public universities. This conference is designed to last into perpetuity, not just until the next round of realignment by the football conference. When the Big East looks to expand(and I agree the conference is in no hurry to do so) they will look to other successful Catholic Universities with great sports traditions to maintain our institutional cohesiveness.
Bill Marsh wrote:marquette wrote:WARNING OPINION POST TO FOLLOW
WHY NOT...?
Gonzaga: Nothing has changed since the last round of expansion. Gonzaga had the reputation, success, visibility, and best resume of any of the original candidates. They were not added because it is too far to Spokane, they don't have a large arena, their fans won't travel to MSG, and we won't get much of a recruiting boost by playing in Washington.
Marquette, I have heeded your caveat that you are posting your opinion. Having noted that, I'll post mine with regard to Gonzaga in reply.
1. No one who was not involved in the discussions back in 2012 knows why Gonzaga or anyone else was not taken at that time. No one knows why they stopped at 10 but leaked that they were seriously considering expanding to 12 within a few years.
2. Nothing has changed? Actually circumstances have changed. Only 5 of the 7 decision makers at the time remain in their positions. There are 5 new decision makers at the table, so the dynamic can be completely different. Furthermore, ratings need a boost, so there may be a different motivation to overcome obstacles like geography.
3. Gonzaga has a 6000 seat on campus arena which is sold out for every game and for which there is a waiting list of 1000 for tickets. In addition they have access to Spokane's Veteran's Memorial Coliseum, which seats 12,600 where they have played games in the past. I don't see any difference between their situation and schools like St. John's or Villanova who split their games between a smaller on-campus arena and a larger downtown arena, which is what Gonzaga likely would do if they were a member of the Big East,
4. How do you know that their fans won't travel to MSG? NYC is the #1 tourist destination in the country. That's the whole point of playing a tournament there. Fans come for more than just the basketball games. Gonzaga obviously has a dedicated following and they might well travel to the tournament. If you have more information about how well their fan base travels, please post it. The same thing could have been speculated about Creighton's fan base, but they ere selected anyway. Such speculation would have been wrong about Creighton fans and may well be wrong about Gonzaga's as well.
5. The Big East needs a recruiting base? News to me. With the conference's already existing recruiting territories, the Big
East is in as good shape as anyone in the country. Regardless, recruiting is national these days. Despite being in NYC, I don't think that St. John's had a single NYC player who saw significant minutes this year. Maybe one? A recruiting base is anon-issue.
marquette wrote:Xudash wrote:If we have to expand in the next year, or if we have to expand in the next two or three years, and we have to do that by picking from A10 schools, does anyone believe Fox would true-up the revenue per school by adding such schools? Is the presumption that, assuming our existing 10 schools are failing at generating some needed ratings benchmark, that adding some combination of two A10 schools is going to get us over the hump such that Fox would true it up? If Fox has to expand for INVENTORY, would they pay an additional approx. $9.4 million per year for those two schools for the balance of the Fox Agreement?
Otherwise, is the presumption here that, with Fox demanding a solution for more INVENTORY through the Big East, that they would somehow modify what apparently is a fixed agreement, diluting the payouts to the existing 10 members by adding the two schools, but at the same $500 million overall effective bucket over the original 12 year period: 10 schools at about $4.2 million per year would adjust to 12 schools at about $3.5 million per year. Even that dilution would probably not be enough, because any two A10 schools would not be accretive enough to make the numbers work.
If the question becomes one focused on INVENTORY, why solve that through the existing Big East Agreement? Why not offer the A10 a package that sufficiently exceeds its existing paltry $300k'ish per school? You could pay the A10 about $10 million per year, doubling their existing TV package, while picking up 14 teams worth of inventory in the process. Perhaps Fox could look at the Mountain West Conference instead, assuming they believe that would be a more attractive option. Of course, the issue is whether or not some other conference is in any position to break its existing television deal, while otherwise making the numbers work for Fox.
marquette wrote an excellent, balanced post. Fox does care about viewership. College basketball is so abundant that high ratings are hard to come by. It's just that, if our existing 10 schools are having trouble with viewership numbers on a go-forward basis, is that because of the schools, is that because of FoxSports1 still growing out of its startup mode, or is that because of a combination of those two things. It gets back to the basic timing premise: not enough of that has expired yet to know where this is headed. The Big East has work to do. Fox has work to do. Two years is too soon to pass judgement on performance. Fox and the Big East probably need about 4 or 5 years to assess their position, which also gives them time to continue to watch developments on the football side of things.
Fox cares about viewership. The existing 10 schools care about viewership primarily as well, because that is what Fox cares about. Other program attributes are secondary. In fact, they would come with any program that does deliver viewership in a meaningful, accretive way. That gets us back to expansion solutions that don't exist today. Otherwise, if Fox believes it has to solve for INVENTORY, its probably can create options for doing that beyond having to pursue adjustments to the existing Big East, which touches upon that brand management thing again.
My post, much like every post in this thread, was based on certain assumptions. We each have our own that we work from, and that is perfectly legitimate. My assumptions were
(1) The BE doesn't feel the need to expand right now.
(2) If the BE expands it will be due to pressure from Fox. Probably due to missing out on B1G rights. If they decide to fill that inventory with the A10, then that changes this assumption. They might be willing to double the A10's current contract, or they might not. CBS/NBC/ESPN might be willing to give just a little bit more. We don't know. If they want more inventory, and the contract is written right, then they can simply demand the BE expand and get an extra 18 games for inventory. No messy negotiations.
(3) The original contract is written in such a way that it includes the increased payouts for 2 new schools. This is the shakiest of my assumptions, but without it we won't expand no matter how much pressure comes from Fox.
(4) Georgetown (and possibly Nova) is willing to give up the bargaining chip it got from the last round in exchange for 2 choices in the next round. Another shaky assumption, but a requirement for immediate expansion might necessitate extreme actions.
(5) We need large arenas. Big arenas look big-time. That's the image we want to project. This is based largely on the current membership, and the fact that Siena received serious consideration for playing in a 15,000 seat arena. That was their only qualification at the time. They didn't get in, but they got a look. Fan support in those arenas is also a major factor, which is why even before their success in the last couple of years Dayton was on the short list (not the first 3 short list, but not far out). I feel arena size is underrated by many fans here, but it should be taken very seriously.
(6) We want like-minded institutions. Speaks for itself.
(7) We want basketball success. Dayton brings recent success, moderate long-term success. SLU brings some recent success, slightly less long-term success. They are heavily investing in their program right now (thanks in no small part to Dr. Chaifetz). If they somehow wind up landing Jayson Tatum (long shot, but they are still alive), you will see one hell of a team in the near future. Even forgoing that (admittedly small) possibility, they are investing too much money to not right the ship eventually.
(8) We want recruiting ties. SLU gives a great recruiting area. The BE cares about markets, but not for the same reasons as other major conferences or Fox. They care about tv households, we care about recruits. Tv does play a role, but we aren't trying to support our own network. We are helping Fox build their brand, but St. Louis is a valuable recruiting ground no matter who we sign with next.
If all of these assumptions are correct, then my theory that the presidents will select UD and SLU stands. If things are different (most notably if Georgetown decides to stick to their guns), then things can change.
Once again, these are my OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS. They may or may not be accurate. I am taking a position based on these. If I wind up being wrong, or circumstances change, feel free to throw it in my face/give me a hard time about it. I will own it and take my punishment.
EDIT: There are several new decision-makers this time around. There could be new criteria
Return to Big East basketball message board
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 7 guests