Fox Sports 1 Update

[marquette]

And Clemson's guy said 80%. Swofford said 70-80%.

Also- the numbers you quoted are OVERALL revenue per school, not the TV money.......

Bottom line, if the 80% is right, the Big East is doing very well for themselves money wise in basketball.. I've never doubted that. But look at the exposure the others get. Sorry but being on ESPN at least some means a LOT. Do you think the ACC would trade the exposure they get on ESPN vs what we get on FS1? I sure as hell don't think so....

If the tv numbers are less, then our numbers look even better. The ratings comparison between the Pac 12 and the Big East back up the value. Are we having an argument or agreeing? Sometimes it's hard to tell with you.

[stever20]

And Clemson's guy said 80%. Swofford said 70-80%.

Also- the numbers you quoted are OVERALL revenue per school, not the TV money.......

Bottom line, if the 80% is right, the Big East is doing very well for themselves money wise in basketball.. I've never doubted that. But look at the exposure the others get. Sorry but being on ESPN at least some means a LOT. Do you think the ACC would trade the exposure they get on ESPN vs what we get on FS1? I sure as hell don't think so....

If the tv numbers are less, then our numbers look even better. The ratings comparison between the Pac 12 and the Big East back up the value. Are we having an argument or agreeing? Sometimes it's hard to tell with you.

I agree with you on the money....... But, Money isn't everything......

The ratings comparison with the Pac 12 and Big East- yeah it's great to have the Big East outdraw them on FS1, but a lot of the Pac 12's better games are on ESPN still and get a lot of viewers there.

[MUPanther]

Hey MU panther, I appreciate this thread but is there any way to make an "Annotated Fox Sports 1 update" that explains what the hell any of those numbers actually mean, I don't understand them and have no intention of understanding them, as I really hate the television industry.

BTW, I have stever turned off so I would also ask not to quote him so I don't see his biased anti-Big East and anti-Fox Sports 1 posts on this thread.

THANKS!

http://sportstvratings.com/

This is the site where the numbers come from. Click on any day. The headers show above each column. Then at the very bottom there is a brief explanation.

I also like to look at the entire data. For Wednesday, it appears that the UFC lead in to the Butler - Seton Hall game kept a lot of dials on FS1. There was not much local buzz for the game, and attendance was weak. So it is hard to assume very many in Indy tuned in. But with the ever popular UFC Flashback lead in, perhaps we road their coattails.

I thought the crowd was great and they did have over 7,000 for the game. Wouldn't say weak for a 8:30 time start? Not sure if Indiana changes timezone or not.

[Omaha1]

But it is very likely that significant portions those TV's tuned into FS1 for UFC remained on the channel for the Butler game. Maybe any BB game ads peaked the interest of viewers, maybe the watched or maybe they left the room with the TV on, but the lead in WAS significant in the rating. The game didn't draw well at Hinkle, so there is an ancillary reason for the nice ratings. The previous day Villanova only drew 108K.

I just can't fathom how the biggest game of your season with an NCAA bid maybe on the line didn't have any local buzz and didn't draw well at the game. I think I have overestimated Butler.

[MUPanther]

Wait, the Pac-12 has not been a good draw for ESPN and even way worse on ESPN2.

[Jet915]

And Clemson's guy said 80%. Swofford said 70-80%.

Also- the numbers you quoted are OVERALL revenue per school, not the TV money.......

Bottom line, if the 80% is right, the Big East is doing very well for themselves money wise in basketball.. I've never doubted that. But look at the exposure the others get. Sorry but being on ESPN at least some means a LOT. Do you think the ACC would trade the exposure they get on ESPN vs what we get on FS1? I sure as hell don't think so....

ESPN is better than FS1 but u cant discount the exposure we get on FOX national. Our conference is on national broadcast television more than any other conference.

[MUPanther]

And Clemson's guy said 80%. Swofford said 70-80%.

Also- the numbers you quoted are OVERALL revenue per school, not the TV money.......

Bottom line, if the 80% is right, the Big East is doing very well for themselves money wise in basketball.. I've never doubted that. But look at the exposure the others get. Sorry but being on ESPN at least some means a LOT. Do you think the ACC would trade the exposure they get on ESPN vs what we get on FS1? I sure as hell don't think so....

ESPN is better than FS1 but u cant discount the exposure we get on FOX national. Our conference is on national broadcast television more than any other conference.

Tell that to the fans looking for Louisville at Miami on the ACC REGIONAL Networks as the 2nd game in regional coverage behind NC State at Syracuse

[MUPanther]

Live Primetime Thursday on FS1
STANFORD/ARIZONA ST 11:00 PM 1:01 AM 39

USA/ENGLAND 7:30 PM 10:00 PM 293

[MUPanther]

Ranked teams in Cal/Arizona on ESPN, only got 530k. Low number for an ESPN game. Pac-12 has been low all year. Arizona/Utah last Saturday got over 700k after the lead in game was over a million on ESPN.

[Jet915]

Ranked teams in Cal/Arizona on ESPN, only got 530k. Low number for an ESPN game. Pac-12 has been low all year. Arizona/Utah last Saturday got over 700k after the lead in game was over a million on ESPN.

PAC-12 fans are pretty fairweather in general. Only Arizona really packs their arena game in and game out. If you watch other Pac-12 games, most of the time, the arena is like half full. They just don't generate the same amount of interest as the other power conferences IMO. This is probably also why the PAC-12 network is a flop.