Is Homogeneity Of Membership Good Or Bad?

[billyjack]

I don't know about you guys, but I never watch Big Ten games. I have enough trouble keeping up with Big East games and still having a life. I assume that Big Ten fans are the same with regard to their league. So, I don"t know why the move of 50 Big Ten games to Fox is going to turn Big Ten fans into Big East watchers. Big Ten fans are still going to watch Big Ten games regardless of who broadcasts them.

Hey Bill, I'm like you in that watching Big East games consumes most of my sports-viewing hours in the winter. But the only conference i won't watch is the ACC cuz they're a-holes. I often will keep a Pac-12 FS1 game on late on a weeknight while I'm doing some other activity, work or whatever.

I think the key with Big Ten games on FS1 is to continue to build FS1 into typical fans' channel surfing rotations.

[billyjack]

Yep all of us that watched a conference expand itself right out of existence know nothing... All you johnny come lately geniuses have it all figured out. Numbnuts.

Your brand of progress is exactly what lead to the OBE's collapse in the first place. Strange that you would try to flip it on its head.

I am grateful to know that the ONLY reason the OBE collapsed is that it added teams. There was no conflict with football vs. non-football schools. Sounds like revisionist history. Unfortunately for the B1G, ACC, SEC and Pac, they are all destined to a ruinous end like the OBE was. They've all expanded in the past few years. Earlier I said there was a paradigm shift going on in college athletics, but it's even bigger than I feared--the whole system is about to collapse!

GTMO-Take heart that we have these experienced stewards of conference success in our corner, protecting us from ourselves. And we're the numbnuts. (Mic drop)

By the way, i agree with Sciencejay and others here who are saying that football killed the old BE. If anything, our expansion to 16 saved the OBE in 2005. The 16 team arrangement was fantastic and dominated college hoops, and would have continued into the future as a juggernaut.

The original 1981 and 1983 expansion was excellent cuz it added 2 great programs with Villanova and Pitt.

The 1991-thru-2001 expansion, generally, sucked, cuz we invited football schools who at hoops were either dregs (Virginia Tech, Miami of Fla) or mediocre (West Virginia, Rutgers) or on a total downswing (Notre Dame). Each of these schools rebounded except for Rutgers, due to the Big East being a builder of programs. But we took on too many reclamation or horrible programs all at once. 2 mediocre programs, 1 collapsing program, and 2 dregs.

Again, the 2005 expansion was great cuz 4 of the 5 were at a minimum solid... a couple elite, a couple solid, and only 1 dreg.

I'm not saying jump to 16 now or ever necessarily, especially with dregs, but here in 2017, simply adding 1 with Gonzaga for example would be like adding Louisville or Marquette of 2005. Also, when we broke geographical barriers with Miami of Fla, and then DePaul, Marquette and South Florida, it worked, though there was initial criticism.

[Bill Marsh]

I don't know about you guys, but I never watch Big Ten games. I have enough trouble keeping up with Big East games and still having a life. I assume that Big Ten fans are the same with regard to their league. So, I don"t know why the move of 50 Big Ten games to Fox is going to turn Big Ten fans into Big East watchers. Big Ten fans are still going to watch Big Ten games regardless of who broadcasts them.

Hey Bill, I'm like you in that watching Big East games consumes most of my sports-viewing hours in the winter. But the only conference i won't watch is the ACC cuz they're a-holes. I often will keep a Pac-12 FS1 game on late on a weeknight while I'm doing some other activity, work or whatever.

I think the key with Big Ten games on FS1 is to continue to build FS1 into typical fans' channel surfing rotations.

Yes, Billy Jack, I too hope that bringing more eyes to FS1 and FS2 will boost Big East ratings.

My take on it is that the challenge the Big East faces is that it's just hard for a smaller conference of relatively small colleges to attract the viewership to command the kind of dollars that will be necessary to compete going forward. Ignoring the problem or denying that it exists, as some here are prone to do, will not make it go away. The conference leadership needs to have a plan to improve the ratings drastically in spite of the limitations on enrollment and alumni.

Back in the early days of the conference and the early days of ESPN, the viewing public was used to getting the "game of the week". Then "Big Monday" was added to the weekend lineup. Fans didn't expect their school to be on TV. If a conference had compelling drama like Ewing, Mullin, etc, that could draw a big audience. Patrick was a generational player who was at Georgetown for 4 years. They were a threat to win the national championship every year with him there. It was "must-see-TV". That was a rare opportunity that fueled the Big East's meteoric rise. We don't have 4 year players of Patrick's caliber any more. And the number of cable networks has exploded, so fans can be much more selective in what they watch. The Big Ten and its ilk with enrollments of 40-50,000 and a comparable alumni base have an enormous advantage. What the Big East has done is miraculous under those circumstances. I don't know if it will be enough.

"Expansion" is a solution begging for a problem to solve. It is only one option. Val talks about "growing the brand". I truly don't know what that means. It sounds like marketing-speak. Hopefully an honest discussion of the problem and it's challenges has been taking place at HQ.

Schools like, Providence, St John's, Xavier, and Creighton will always have a local fan base beyond just their immediate college community for a variety of reasons. Marquette has done a magnificent job in a challenging environment. But the rest of the conference members have lots of competition in their markets and have a harder time building numbers that kind of culture.

I don't have the answers. I have to think that expansion with the right additions will eventually be part of a successful strategy, but I think it has to be more than that. I hope the brain trust does have the solution.

[gtmoBlue]

In reference to: Growing the Brand.

Thanks Bill for your intelligent, informed, and sage opinions on the Big East.

As for Val and growing the Brand. There are a couple of things the readily come to mind, which I and others have mentioned before.

1) Grow the BEDN. The league's digital network needs to grow ASAP. Yes, I know that the BE Office is doing so, but more is needed. This will take advantage of the so-called shifting viewership from cable to online streaming platforms.

Put all sports games on the BEDN as an alternative to merely watching on the telly. Improve the output on mobile platforms (Android, iOS, tablets, etc.). Improve access by partnering with online hosts, develop our own isp-type online broadcast capability, and provide multi-language support for wider audience capture. Develop non-game programming (talking heads shows, sports instruction, HOF and coaching shows, BE history & re-run the classic contests, interactive fan input formats, interactive sports games, community outreach, BE Int'l. outreach-when promoted and tied to our overseas summer trips, etc.) to augment live game outputs, increase ad space, and to promote the BE and trumpet what the conference achieves in sports and the community, across the network. Instead of fighting in China, the BE should be teaching, partnering, promoting with potential international organizations and teams.

Growing the BEDN has major potentials in becoming the conferences' primary income stream, as it has a worldwide reach and the possiblity of becoming an multi-language online international sports brand.

2) Most of our schools are small as many frequently point out. Only a few have the cache and name recognition to garner individual Rights Marketing/Signage marketing packages...Georgetown, Marquette, Nova, etc. Therefore the Big East should negotiate with marketing corporations to field a Big East sports marketing package (similar to what they have with MSG).

Such a package deal would not only include a conference marketing plan, but also include the remaining universities in the conference that don't have such plans in place. That way, rather than say a Creighton or other school not having a marketing plan getting "lowballed" by marketing companies, when coupled with the conference and other individual schools, would be able to get fair market value for their properties and the BE negotiates along with the schools for additional leverage. The conference and the individuals bundled together negotiate a fair split.

These 2 ideas have long legs - as such can be contributors to the growth of the brand, have potential to become major income streams, and place the conference amongst the forward thinking leadership within the major conferences.

[Xudash]

Bill,

Xavier's competition in its market includes, among others, two professional teams, the Ohio State University, the University of Kentucky, and obviously the University of Cincinnati. The Buckeyes and Wildcats are in there due to their size, proximity to Cincinnati, and their local fan bases.

I certainly agree that teams located in New York City, Philadelphia and Washington DC face very stiff competition from across the sports board, but let's be clear that Xavier is not camped out in a space where it rules over other options; we have plenty of competition. Thankfully, as you pointed out, we are doing quite well in terms of building a solid Fanbase.

Otherwise,I presume everyone here understands that the Big East holds an annual offsite meeting every year, just as other major conferences do. It will be taking place not too long from now. I assume that they will be coming back to the Ponte Vedra Inn & Club in Ponta Vedra Beach, Florida.

They don't come down here to play golf and take long walks on the beach. They are not "fat and happy" and of the opinion that the Big East is magically set up to go through time without facing disruption or change.

Absent clear choices right now and given the conference's performance to date, it seems clear that nothing will be happening in the immediate future.

A Few Additional Points:

1. Fox BE Media Agreement

Does the true-up provision still exist? If it is not reality or even if it is reality, but Fox wants no part of paying additional money in this media environment (similar to the point that was made about the pressure the Big 12 came under with its expansion attempt) then the expansion argument is DOA at this time. Why would the existing 10 schools take the dilution, especially if adding mid-majors were involved?

2. Gonzaga

I will presume/accept that they were interested when the Big East initially reformed. Are they still interested now? There are compelling reasons for them to stay where they are and there are compelling reasons for them to join the Big East. We can continue to babble about it through the rest of the summer, but what do they really want to do from here?

3. Expansion priorities-when expansion is perceived to be a necessity

Homogeneity versus bringing in public schools with big fan bases to help with the eyeballs issue. Look at it this way: we are presently focused on building the brand, so to speak through our 10 private schools. If we cannot build the brand on that basis, then bringing in a couple more private schools, with the exceptions of Notre Dame and Gonzaga, probably, isn't going to work. We would have to break the private mold and pursue such larger public schools. At least logic would suggest that.

Overall, at least in my opinion, it brings us back to the idea that our current success and the fact that we are only four years through the existing deal allows us more time to move this thing forward as it is, while continuing to monitor developments with respect to conference reshuffling and changes in media.

One last point: before Xavier joined the Big East, I would never watch other A10 basketball games. Now I find myself constantly watching fellow BE teams playing each other when Xavier isn't involved. Of course, to be fair, if the right additions were made, I would watch them, too.

[paulxu]

1. Fox BE Media Agreement

Does the true-up provision still exist? .

If it was in the original agreement as generally was accepted, I would think it would not suddenly be dropped.
The provision (as I remember) was to allow for expansion to 12 with all 12 getting the same amount as the original 10.
That would indicate both parties knew there was a possibility to add 2 teams over the life of the agreement, and wanted no dilution.
Who might those have been (in their minds) at formation, let alone now?

Beats me. I would not think it was any of the usual suspects, like some members of the A10 are thought to be, or WSU.
What would be the point of waiting? The demographics won't change on those schools, only perhaps their improvement on the court.
Why not just included them from the get-go. Are they waiting for SLU to get better to get that potential large market?

it would seem more likely that the expansion clause for 2 teams with no dilution was a forward looking preparation for 2 candidates whose "situation" might change that it would be acceptable to the 10 members. Maybe that was a ND, or a Connecticut without FBS football, or a Gonzaga plus one.

[sciencejay]

Now this is great dialogue: no sound bite f--- you comments trying to shut down discussion. Excellent points abound. Most overlap with what I have been trying (unsuccessfully and apparently unclearly) to argue. We are currently in a great position, but we need to be proactive to maintain our status. Talking about adding a few schools (I have only advocated for 12, possibly 14, never 16 schools) that can help grow the brand isn't trying to blow the thing up. I don't recall myself or anyone else saying we needed to expand immediately. But we should be looking aggressively so that if/when the powers that be decide we need to expand, we have good candidates lined up.

Love the idea about expanding BEDN, GTMO. I agree that this will be the platform of the future. How 'eyes on phone screens' generates revenue is a huge question for providers. I hope they can come up with a good structure. I feel fortunate knowing our current contract lasts another many years. The online vs. traditional cable subscription arena should be better clarified by the time we are up for renegotiation. I know I would pay a few bucks/month to have excellent streaming access.

[Xudash]

1. Fox BE Media Agreement

Does the true-up provision still exist? .

If it was in the original agreement as generally was accepted, I would think it would not suddenly be dropped.
The provision (as I remember) was to allow for expansion to 12 with all 12 getting the same amount as the original 10.
That would indicate both parties knew there was a possibility to add 2 teams over the life of the agreement, and wanted no dilution.
Who might those have been (in their minds) at formation, let alone now?

Beats me. I would not think it was any of the usual suspects, like some members of the A10 are thought to be, or WSU.
What would be the point of waiting? The demographics won't change on those schools, only perhaps their improvement on the court.
Why not just included them from the get-go. Are they waiting for SLU to get better to get that potential large market?

it would seem more likely that the expansion clause for 2 teams with no dilution was a forward looking preparation for 2 candidates whose "situation" might change that it would be acceptable to the 10 members. Maybe that was a ND, or a Connecticut without FBS football, or a Gonzaga plus one.

+1

Unless something crazy happens in the meantime, the expansion conversation probably will remain in the land of pure conjecture for another 5 years.

[Sactowndog]

I don't know about you guys, but I never watch Big Ten games. I have enough trouble keeping up with Big East games and still having a life. I assume that Big Ten fans are the same with regard to their league. So, I don"t know why the move of 50 Big Ten games to Fox is going to turn Big Ten fans into Big East watchers. Big Ten fans are still going to watch Big Ten games regardless of who broadcasts them.

Hey Bill, I'm like you in that watching Big East games consumes most of my sports-viewing hours in the winter. But the only conference i won't watch is the ACC cuz they're a-holes. I often will keep a Pac-12 FS1 game on late on a weeknight while I'm doing some other activity, work or whatever.

I think the key with Big Ten games on FS1 is to continue to build FS1 into typical fans' channel surfing rotations.

Yes, Billy Jack, I too hope that bringing more eyes to FS1 and FS2 will boost Big East ratings.

My take on it is that the challenge the Big East faces is that it's just hard for a smaller conference of relatively small colleges to attract the viewership to command the kind of dollars that will be necessary to compete going forward. Ignoring the problem or denying that it exists, as some here are prone to do, will not make it go away. The conference leadership needs to have a plan to improve the ratings drastically in spite of the limitations on enrollment and alumni.

Back in the early days of the conference and the early days of ESPN, the viewing public was used getting the "game of the week". Then "Big Monday" was added to the weekend lineup. Fans didn't expect their school to be on TV. If a conference had compelling drama like Ewing, Mullin, etc, that could draw a big audience. Patrick was a generational player who was at Georgetown for 4 years. They were a threat to win the national championship every year with him there. It was "must-see-TV". That was a rare opportunity that fueled the Big East's meteoric rise. We don't have 4 year players of Patrick's caliber any more. And the number of cable networks has exploded, so fans can be much more selective in what they watch. The Big Ten and its ilk with enrollments of 40-50,000 and a comparable alumni base have an enormous advantage. What the Big East has done is miraculous under those circumstances. I don't know if it will be enough.

"Expansion" is a solution begging for a problem to solve. It is only one option. Val talks about "growing the brand". I truly don't know what that means. It sounds like marketing-speak. Hopefully an honest discussion of the problem and it's challenges has been taking place at HQ.

Schools like, Providence, St John's, Xavier, and Creighton will always have a local fan base beyond just their immediate college community for a variety of reasons. Marquette has done a magnificent job in a challenging environment. But the rest of the conference members have lots of competition in their markets and have a harder time building numbers that kind of culture.

I don't have the answers. I have to think that expansion with the right additions will eventually be part of a successful strategy, but I think it has to be more than that. I hope the brain trust does have the solution.

Brand is all about what does your brand represent to the general populace. It would be worth a discussion of what the board thinks the outside perception of the brand is. Once you have established the brand perception the next question is how many people relate to that brand. Or put another way, have an affinity for what the brand represents and therefore are inclined to watch because the have a connection.

BTW, bringing it back to the question of the thread, the homogeneity of the league as a big impact on the brand image positively or negatively.

[_lh]

1. Fox BE Media Agreement

Does the true-up provision still exist? .

If it was in the original agreement as generally was accepted, I would think it would not suddenly be dropped.
The provision (as I remember) was to allow for expansion to 12 with all 12 getting the same amount as the original 10.
That would indicate both parties knew there was a possibility to add 2 teams over the life of the agreement, and wanted no dilution.
Who might those have been (in their minds) at formation, let alone now?

Beats me. I would not think it was any of the usual suspects, like some members of the A10 are thought to be, or WSU.
What would be the point of waiting? The demographics won't change on those schools, only perhaps their improvement on the court.
Why not just included them from the get-go. Are they waiting for SLU to get better to get that potential large market?

it would seem more likely that the expansion clause for 2 teams with no dilution was a forward looking preparation for 2 candidates whose "situation" might change that it would be acceptable to the 10 members. Maybe that was a ND, or a Connecticut without FBS football, or a Gonzaga plus one.

Well said. That's why discussing expansion with A10 teams/WSU is silly. You don't expand just for expansion sake. Are those in charge open to expansion if ND, UCONN or Kansas become available? Of course but there is no rush and no one should bemoan that WSU is "off the board".