Non-Big East Conference Realignment Thread v. 2017

[kayako]

And I thought the Big 5 were the games against local cupcakes. . .

Heh, that's how Nova fans tease fans of other Big 5 schools. But Temple and St. Joe's are in most years teams you gain little from playing against. Even if they were cupcakes, half of the games are away games.

[stever20]

And I thought the Big 5 were the games against local cupcakes. . .

Heh, that's how Nova fans tease fans of other Big 5 schools. But Temple and St. Joe's are in most years teams you gain little from playing against. Even if they were cupcakes, half of the games are away games.

Yeah, playing a team in Temple that in the 15 years of Ken Pom has finished outside the top 100 exactly 2x- with 7 NCAA spots- isn't a bad team at all by anyone's standards. Hell even St Joe's has only 3 seasons outside the top 100 with 5 NCAA spots. And in RPI- Temple has finished in the last 23 years with a top 100 RPI all but twice, and a top 50 RPI in 16 times. So how is Temple hurting Nova's schedule at all whatsoever? Yeah, Nova has owned Temple recently- but that makes it better- Temple helps Nova's resume.

[trephin]

Downtown Zag Nation – The Gonzaga Bulletin - April 17, 2014

Unfortunately for GU, the Big East programs were not willing to fly their sports teams five or six hours to Spokane dozens of times every year, even if Roth was.

Thanks for finding that article. It basically states what I recall the Nebraska paper said. Truthfully it might have just a few paragraphs maybe in the OWH or something.

My one question remains though: does Gonzaga charter their other sports? I would think commercial vs charter does make a difference if Roth really considered the Big East.

[mpwalsh8]

Downtown Zag Nation – The Gonzaga Bulletin - April 17, 2014

Unfortunately for GU, the Big East programs were not willing to fly their sports teams five or six hours to Spokane dozens of times every year, even if Roth was.

Thanks for finding that article. It basically states what I recall the Nebraska paper said. Truthfully it might have just a few paragraphs maybe in the OWH or something.

My one question remains though: does Gonzaga charter their other sports? I would think commercial vs charter does make a difference if Roth really considered the Big East.

I travel quite a bit for work and have for 20+ years. I encounter college sports teams, usually, but not always women's teams, in the airport on a pretty regular basis. I've never run into a football team and only seen a few, smaller schools, men's basketball teams (although there was a group of University of Washington basketball players at SFO going to Sydney when I was going to Taipei) last fall. But I've seen tons of teams from soccer, lax, women's basketball, and other sports. They aren't flying charter and they aren't flying first class. They are flying in the back of the bus on the cheapest flights their schools can find. I've landed in Chicago on a red-eye and seen several teams all sleeping in the terminal because they were on a red-eye as well and are waiting on connecting flights. A women's soccer team taking a red-eye probably saves 20 hotel rooms.

IMHO it isn't about basketball making the trip to Spokane, it is the other teams it would suck for. I don't see how or why Gonzaga continues to come up. I don't think it is practical.

I

[NJRedman]

Andy Katz/ESPN

Yeah I think Andy Katz was pulling that out his butt.

Why?

Because around that time everyone was throwing around whatever rumor they heard. How would an ESPN writer know about how Fox was thinking during it negotiations with the Big East? It also clearly wasn't true since we didn't add Gonzaga and Fox is still paying us a hefty sum. Did Fox bring it up when talking about potential new additions? Sure, i'm sure SLU and Dayton were also brought up along with the 3 schools we did end up inviting. I don't think Fox was pushing hard for them. That time was a crazy whirlwind with all sorts of rumors floating around. Some were we were just going to stay at 9 with just Butler and X coming on, some said 12 with the 3 plus Dayton and SLU. Lots of speculation back then.

[Bill Marsh]

Yeah I think Andy Katz was pulling that out his butt.

Why?

Because around that time everyone was throwing around whatever rumor they heard. How would an ESPN writer know about how Fox was thinking during it negotiations with the Big East? It also clearly wasn't true since we didn't add Gonzaga and Fox is still paying us a hefty sum. Did Fox bring it up when talking about potential new additions? Sure, i'm sure SLU and Dayton were also brought up along with the 3 schools we did end up inviting. I don't think Fox was pushing hard for them. That time was a crazy whirlwind with all sorts of rumors floating around. Some were we were just going to stay at 9 with just Butler and X coming on, some said 12 with the 3 plus Dayton and SLU. Lots of speculation back then.

I think that Katz is a solid reporter who isn't prone to throwing out unsubstantiated rumors. He would know? The same way that all reporters know things. Sources. The fact that it didn't happen doesn't mean that Fox wasn't pushing it. During negotiations, things change, concessions are made.

We really don't know what was discussed nor do we know what agreements were made. Perhaps Fox agreed to fund the 10 team league the BE presidents wanted with a "wait and see" agreement to revisit things after a certain number of years. If things work, fine; if not, we'll talk again. Perhaps the BE presidents convinced them to wait to see if an alternative to Gonzaga would emerge.

By all accounts, the prospects for Gonzaga are dead. What we don't know is how Fox regards the ratings and what they want to do about them if they're not satisfied. Will they want to see the league expand to 12 to increase the size of the audience? If so, who's on their short list of prospective candidates? We've seen reports in the past of a network dictating expansion choices to a conference (ACC).

Perhaps the league presidents will stand on principle. But unless there are other suitors ready to match Fox's dollars, that can be hard to do. Perhaps ratings will take off and it will be a non-issue. Perhaps they can agree on mutually acceptable choices.

Back in 2012-13, the speculation was that expansion would be revisited within 5 years. We're in year 4. The contract has 8 more years to go, so there's a lot of room for delay. But at some point, push will come to shove. Decisions will be made.

[Xudash]

Aside from all the speculation, and notwithstanding the thread concerning Fox's ratings, does anyone here have a true or at least reasonable read on how Fox views things at this point?

And before anyone cooks up a response to that, consider that "Fox" to Fox probably involves all their sports properties when it comes to them looking out at the horizon.

[HoosierPal]

Aside from all the speculation, and notwithstanding the thread concerning Fox's ratings, does anyone here have a true or at least reasonable read on how Fox views things at this point?

And before anyone cooks up a response to that, consider that "Fox" to Fox probably involves all their sports properties when it comes to them looking out at the horizon.

Here is an article that partially discusses your issue, from ESPN's viewpoint.

http://www.espnfrontrow.com/2017/01/fox-v-espn-anatomy-moving-target/

[sciencejay]

Aside from all the speculation, and notwithstanding the thread concerning Fox's ratings, does anyone here have a true or at least reasonable read on how Fox views things at this point?

And before anyone cooks up a response to that, consider that "Fox" to Fox probably involves all their sports properties when it comes to them looking out at the horizon.

Here is an article that partially discusses your issue, from ESPN's viewpoint.

http://www.espnfrontrow.com/2017/01/fox-v-espn-anatomy-moving-target/

Just read the article and it reeks of someone feeling pressured. With all the press about ESPN networks charging exorbitant prices to cable companies, getting pressure from Disney, not re-signing high-dollar talent and losing subscribers, they have to make it seem like they are still the $h!t. They are still on top, but my guess is that Fox knew it would take more than 2-3 years to get new networks in the lineup of cable/satellite companies' offerings and gain enough ratings to compete with WWL. Yes, some Fox rep made that comment to a reporter. The money guys knew there was no way they'd rise up that fast.

But it's not surprising that ESPN would publish something that looks like 'reporting' when it's propaganda pure and simple.

[hoopstar]

Fox has slowly over the past 5 years cut into ESPN and continues to gain viewers with its regional approach to baseball and its solid ratings on the NFL. They are also making very good inroads on the radio side. The Big East as a product for them will have to expand. This year is becoming an example, the inventory is flawed and ratings are sliding a bit form the last two years. Too many irrelevant teams, GW/St Johns/Providence/Seton Hall and now the slumping X and Creighton cause rating slips and may hurt attendance at the Garden. Contract has 8 more years I think Fox will push quicker than that.