(04-16-2010 02:56 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 02:49 PM)ecu92 Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 02:38 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  ECU92 imagine what the BE could do for you, you're already good at football, maybe basketball could actually gets players and compete for the first time since they were in the CAA.

Thanks for the encouraging words. Unfortunately, I think the die has probably been cast already. TV market is apparently the name of the game....butts in seats is only a secondary factor.

Yes but if they need 3 who else you gonna get. Temple won't be allowed in unless they split, Nova covers Philly. Split works too because they could go to 9,10,12 where ECU is back on the list. If there's a split you gotta think Houston and TCU get looks if they want to go that far west.

If such a scenario were to take place that teams from the BE were looking to join with others then a Big East/ Big Twelve merger would get looks if their league also was depleted, some version of a MWC/BE merger would be considered, Navy and Army would get looks, teams like TCU and Houston probably would be investigated (although with the leadership at the institutions so far this may not ever happen) , Villanova would get a look, Temple would get a look, more than likely Buffalo, UMass and possibly Delaware would get looks. ECU isn't above the USM's, UAB's, Marshall's, etc. except for some on these boards.

(04-16-2010 04:19 PM)HowardD11 Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 03:22 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 03:04 PM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  I don't think you will see football only invites inot whast ever happens with the Big East. I see teams only invited as a whole to participate in ALL sports not just football. I also think once the announcement is made about WHO the Big Ten decides to invite we will see the Big East split into two conferences. I personally think the FB schools should move ASAP to 10 teams and then wait to see who else pans out say after the first TV contract is up for the picking then should be better than it will be now. Also after moving to 10 teams I would like them to go ahead and form two divisions since you can not play a TRUE round robin with more than nine teams. I believe that the rule to have a conference championship game will more than likely get changed on the behalf of the Pac-10 for I do not see Standford voting for expansion unless someone threatens them into voting a particular way. If so this will benefit not only the Pac-10, but also the Big Ten if they have not already decided on WHO they are inviting, and alos help out the Big East, but not with 8 teams for I am hoping the rule is changed from 12 teams down to 10. Back to the topic or at least onthis page there will not be a football only invite IMO for the all sports conference plan is looking to be in full effect not just putting teams together in order to have a certain number.

Tell us when you get back to the real world. Pac10 does not have that much pull to force a change in NCAA rules like that.

If there is a big push for ECU I can see the football schools voting yes on them but the basketball school will not let it happen because they add no value from a basketball perspective. If you just add ECU as a football school you solve the scheduling issues and you get everything out of ECU that they offer. They are already running at max capacity as far as market goes what their location offers as far as attendance goes. It doesn't have much upside but it's still a quality add.


The only reason UCF doesn't get another fooball only invite is because of market and a travel partner for USF games.

ECU's 8,000 seat upgrade to their stadium would seem to suggest otherwise (and the 27,000 season tickets they are on pace to sell, that's compared to last years 22,000).

I've said this before and I'll say it again. ECU has a statewide following, a growing one. Why else would they play home games in Charlotte?

What's funny Howard is that one day ECU will be expanding to a 60k stadium and someone will post that we have maxed out. In the right conference, ECU has the potential to have a Clemson like following.

(04-16-2010 02:06 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  Subtract WNY and the lower Hudson Valley as well. Army has a strong draw down there. That leaves less than 6 Mil. Is that really a negative, ONLY a mere 6 Mil? I give SU all the credit for becoming the biggest athletic program in the state, and a private school at that. But, there is no proof it is dominant in WNY above UB football and Big 4 basketball.

If you wish to define WNY as the city of Buffalo, perhaps. But WNY is larger than that and considering the history of the actual sports channels involved, a case can definitely be made that SU is the dominant college sports program above the mid-Hudson region - which includes Syracuse, Binghamton, Rochester, and Buffalo.

What is now the Times Warner Sports Cable Net started out as the Empire Sports Network in upstate New York which was owned and operated by Adelphia. When budget cuts in the ESN back in 2003 made it difficult to televise any games "outside of Buffalo" Syracuse University severed its ties with ESN and went with Time Warner Sports.

The station which once served the area from Albany to Buffalo went on doing regional sports programming which included Buffalo Sabres and Buffalo Bills. The only collegiate sports programming of significance that was shown on the network was SU sports and when SU signed with TW it lost those sports fans in Buffalo interested in college athletics at that time.

With Adelphia having financial problems and the NHL going on strike/lockout in 2004, the ESN went belly-up in Buffalo in 2005. TW and Comcast divvied up Adelphia, TW getting the upstate New York region. MSG bought the rights to show Sabres game in Buffalo at that time.

Meanwhile, TWSN was initially only offered in the Syracuse area. Eventually it expanded to Binghamton and in 2006 went into Rochester, still showing all Syracuse programming but adding in Rochester regional sports coverage as well.

Finally, in November of 2007 it went into Buffalo and started operating out of the former ESN studios for Channel 13, again showing all of Syracuse University programming the Syracuse and Rochester stations had in addition to local Buffalo programming.

Please note that SU sports is the only individual college athletics programming that is shown in all four areas.

Another tidbit on this is that TW is part owner of SNY.

And lastly, at the same time the Big Ten was having difficulty getting off the ground in their home states ESPN was having difficulty getting ESPNU subscribers. TW officials credited Syracuse University and Rutgers University fans for getting ESPNU on in New York and New Jersey which resulted in doubling the number of then ESPNU subscribers from 10 million to 20 million.

Think the Bulls could do that.

Quote:I posted the Butler-SU ratings. If SU were ever going to get great ratings in an area, it would certainly be for a Sweet 16 game. Are you not satisfied that they were so low in Buffalo?

"Butler's upset of Syracuse had a preliminary rating of 7.9 on Channel 4"

Buffalo News: Sports on the Air

A 7.9 share for SU/Butler vs a 5.1 share for Cornell/Kentucky is great for a Sweet 16 game.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-16-2010 02:49 PM)ecu92 Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 02:38 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  ECU92 imagine what the BE could do for you, you're already good at football, maybe basketball could actually gets players and compete for the first time since they were in the CAA.

Thanks for the encouraging words. Unfortunately, I think the die has probably been cast already. TV market is apparently the name of the game....butts in seats is only a secondary factor.

Uhhh ... I'm not sure about that ecu92 ....

With regard to Big Ten expansion, markets are a driving force. But for a Big East expansion (or replacement) I'm not sure that markets will be as big a deal, since there's no TV network driving the deal.

Strong support for the program, meaning strong fan base attendance, meaning strong bowl game support, probably means as much as market size.

ECU is at the top of the list in this regard. And the argument for market is strong too, in my opinion.

I think ECU is a no brainer addition to the Big East. Because of your expanded stadium, and avid fanbase. I expect to be hating you guys again real soon as conference foes. You'd be a credit to the conference, in my opinion.






.

I think ECU, UCF, Memphis, Houston and TCU would all made positive additions.

(04-16-2010 10:06 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  ...Think the Bulls could do that. ...

A 7.9 share for SU/Butler vs a 5.1 share for Cornell/Kentucky is great for a Sweet 16 game.

Cheers,
Neil

Thanks Neil. I'm not trying to sound condescending, but, I'm fully aware of that history, having lived here through the Adelphia mess. The points you argue I do not debate. SU is big time in most of Upstate. I never claimed UB could "do all that [SU can do]". I only argue the claim that SU is the dominant program in the Buffalo Neilson market (which is what I mean by WNY. Pardon if what we in Buffalo call WNY is not what others see it as). SU events being shown in every upstate market does not correlate to SU dominating the Buffalo market. These are the facts I contend:

*Local sports media (tv, radio, print) give the most attention to UB sports
*UB has tens of thousands of local alumni, while SU numbers are much smaller
*UB football and basketball ratings beat SU ratings locally

Cuseroc was looking to 'prove me wrong' about SU ratings. The ratings are good IMO as well. But, UB Basketball games on ESPN/ESPN2 have drawn better ratings (I recall double-digits). The UB-BSU football championship was the most watched MAC title game ever by national rating; The effect of local viewership. The I-Bowl was the most watched college football game ever in the Buffalo market, drew the 2nd best ESPN2 bowl rating ever, and was one of the most-watched MAC bowls ever; All the effect of local viewership interest.

I don't see it being a big deal if SU is not dominant anyway; Buffalo's 2 hours away, has many pro teams, 4 D-1 teams, one being an FBS football program. There is a lot going on here, unlike the remainder of Upstate, so it stands to reason SU would grab the headlines elsewhere. It'd be like an tOSU fan saying to a Bearcat fan they dominate the Cincinnati market; They don't, and does it matter since they are the 800 lb gorilla in the state anyway?

(04-17-2010 12:47 AM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 10:06 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  ...Think the Bulls could do that. ...

A 7.9 share for SU/Butler vs a 5.1 share for Cornell/Kentucky is great for a Sweet 16 game.

Cheers,
Neil

Thanks Neil. I'm not trying to sound condescending, but, I'm fully aware of that history, having lived here through the Adelphia mess. The points you argue I do not debate. SU is big time in most of Upstate. I never claimed UB could "do all that [SU can do]". I only argue the claim that SU is the dominant program in the Buffalo Neilson market (which is what I mean by WNY. Pardon if what we in Buffalo call WNY is not what others see it as). SU events being shown in every upstate market does not correlate to SU dominating the Buffalo market. These are the facts I contend:

*Local sports media (tv, radio, print) give the most attention to UB sports
*UB has tens of thousands of local alumni, while SU numbers are much smaller
*UB football and basketball ratings beat SU ratings locally

All well and good, but while St. John's bb dominate local sports media coverage for NYC bb teams, they don't outdraw either SU or UConn games in the NYC area.

The same is true of the number of alums in NYC who are from those respective schools. I'm quite sure St. John's has far more than SU's 38,187 alums in the NYC DMA. Having a larger number of alums doesn't seem to be helping them, does it?

And I'll wager on average, the ratings for SU bb games during an entire season shown on Channel 13 dominate the UB bb ratings shown on Channel 13. Logic and common sense would say so considering the difference in the caliber of programs each team faces and the difference in stature of the two programs.

UB football on the other hand may have the upper hand at this moment because it is starting to play well (a novelty effect that may or may not continue), but if SU gets mid-90s good they will get better ratings than Bulls games despite the Bulls being the local team and despite the larger number of alumni.

As for your ratings analysis on Bulls football games, the data is basically meaningless since SU football hasn't been good for a while so setting record highs is meaningless since the locals haven't had any team to truly root for in a long, long time.

Finally, if there was that much of a buzz about the Bulls as you want us to believe why is it that in metro area of over a million people and at a university with close to 30k students do the Bulls have difficulty filling half of a football stadium which at capacity seats 29K?

Cheers,
Neil

(04-17-2010 01:27 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Cheers,
Neil

You're making many guesses and assumptions, with an air of superiority. What happens in NYC does not correlate to what happens in Buffalo. Whether SU has a higher stature of program does not mean a lot in Buffalo with all the UB, Canisius, and Niagara fans who loathe SU and turn the channel. That's the thing; It's not a vacuum like most of Upstate. Most have no interest in college sports, or a connection to one of the local D-1 schools. So, no, SU's TW13 games do not dominate the ratings I've seen for some UB games (Ratings I've seen as high as the 5-6 range). And the number of SU games shown last season were fewer than UB (13 games), and even Canisius (10 games), contests broadcast.

And what do you mean by "SU football hasn't been good for a while so setting record highs is meaningless since the locals haven't had any team to truly root for in a long, long time"? That is truly a snobbish statement devoid of evidence. Even when SU did well under Coach P., Buffalo yawned. There wasn't any great clamor of media excitement for SU football so long as I've lived here. Only when a Buffalo guy like Mike Williams plays is SU attention raised. Buffalonians see Syracuse as a rival town, and don't cheer for things 'Syracuse' so willingly. It's not like Utica or Watertown where they view Syracuse as the primate city in CNY. Buffalonians pull for all things Buffalo first, and UB is its state university with 'Buffalo' across the jersey.

I can tell you there was a buzz about UB football like no other college event, except NCAA tourny games and the Frozen Four. At that time, Buffalo News writers declared UB football alone was 'bigger' in town than the Bisons, a team that has drawn over a million fans in years past. The amazing ratings locally opened their eyes. Yes, people don't come out to UB football as they should, but it's pretty simple; 1) Because we are still getting over being so bad for so long, and 2) The casual fan would rather see bad NFL football while drinking, rather than watch more affordable college football in a dry stadium. Time, success, and marketing has to change that (and the Bills leaving), as well as UB breaking ground on our field-house, and seeing the UB2020 expansion plan through to grow to look more like our AAU, Midwestern-flagship peers.

(04-16-2010 02:46 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  I can't believe this is 5 pages long, the source is a message board for crying out loud.

At best ECU is looking at a FB only invite, UCF and Memphis are competing for the full membership.

I am glad you are the one person who has it all figured out... Get back to us when UCF actually does something noteworthy in athletics.....Ummm, like actually win a Bowl Game or beat a OOC Top 25 team. Also for a school in such a great market and with so many students it amazes me that you guys can not sell-out your stadium on a regular basis...

(04-16-2010 02:20 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  Eh...I dunno about that one being a certainty. None of those 3 are at the level of what Louisville and Cincy were as programs back then.

No disrespect intended toward our old (and probably future) conference mates, but Memphis beat them both in football in 2003 (and had equal or better attendance). With the BCS label and additional $6 or 7 million, we will most certainly become a force.

(04-17-2010 09:35 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 02:20 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  Eh...I dunno about that one being a certainty. None of those 3 are at the level of what Louisville and Cincy were as programs back then.

No disrespect intended toward our old (and probably future) conference mates, but Memphis beat them both in football in 2003 (and had equal or better attendance). With the BCS label and additional $6 or 7 million, we will most certainly become a force.

[/b]

Wouldn't you think that just becoming relevant would be better choice of words than becoming a force? I don't see Memphis becoming a force any time soon, but relevant amongst the BCS yes. I personally think once Memphis gains access to either the Big East or the Big Twelve with in 5 to 7 years if not sooner Memphis will be relevant amongst it's peers, but a force no way. Now that sound much better than claiming Memphis to be a force in football.

(04-17-2010 01:27 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  All well and good, but while St. John's bb dominate local sports media coverage for NYC bb teams, they don't outdraw either SU or UConn games in the NYC area.

I'm not sure that St. John's dominates the coverage anymore. They may get the first or second billing on the TV news reporting when they play but they don't get any more time than Cuse, UConn, Seton Hall or Rutgers. Heck since Villanova's been on their run of good years they often get talked about nearly as extensively as those others. From where I'm sitting there's kind of a tier of who gets covered with real interest on there:
Tier 1 - St. John's, Cuse, UConn, Seton Hall, Rutgers
Tier 2 - Villanova, other local D-1 programs
Tier 3 - Other Big East programs, National programs
Tier 4 - "Its only because its huge news or March Madness"

In the papers obviously something similar goes on. In the Jersey based papers you'll see Rutgers get top billing followed by Seton Hall in a nearly equal fashion. After those the other Jersey D-1 programs will get mentioned. And after those the other local Big East schools aka Nova, St. Johns, Cuse, UConn and sometimes Georgetown as well given the number of alums in the NY Metro. In the NYC papers it'll be St. Johns, Cuse, UConn, Rutgers in that order basically.

It appears to me the Big 10 will take one of Cuse, Rutgers, Notre Dame or Missouri. I hope its Notre Dame or Missouri. But if it has to be Rutgers or Cuse, I hope it is Rutgers. The only reason is Rutgers basketball has no value.

(04-17-2010 09:35 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(04-16-2010 02:20 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  Eh...I dunno about that one being a certainty. None of those 3 are at the level of what Louisville and Cincy were as programs back then.

No disrespect intended toward our old (and probably future) conference mates, but Memphis beat them both in football in 2003 (and had equal or better attendance). With the BCS label and additional $6 or 7 million, we will most certainly become a force.

I agree. It worked in Ohio (UC), it worked in Kentucky (UL), it will work in Tennessee (UM).

(04-17-2010 03:13 AM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(04-17-2010 01:27 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Cheers,
Neil

You're making many guesses and assumptions, with an air of superiority. What happens in NYC does not correlate to what happens in Buffalo. Whether SU has a higher stature of program does not mean a lot in Buffalo with all the UB, Canisius, and Niagara fans who loathe SU and turn the channel. That's the thing; It's not a vacuum like most of Upstate. Most have no interest in college sports, or a connection to one of the local D-1 schools. So, no, SU's TW13 games do not dominate the ratings I've seen for some UB games (Ratings I've seen as high as the 5-6 range). And the number of SU games shown last season were fewer than UB (13 games), and even Canisius (10 games), contests broadcast.

And what do you mean by "SU football hasn't been good for a while so setting record highs is meaningless since the locals haven't had any team to truly root for in a long, long time"? That is truly a snobbish statement devoid of evidence. Even when SU did well under Coach P., Buffalo yawned. There wasn't any great clamor of media excitement for SU football so long as I've lived here. Only when a Buffalo guy like Mike Williams plays is SU attention raised. Buffalonians see Syracuse as a rival town, and don't cheer for things 'Syracuse' so willingly. It's not like Utica or Watertown where they view Syracuse as the primate city in CNY. Buffalonians pull for all things Buffalo first, and UB is its state university with 'Buffalo' across the jersey.

I can tell you there was a buzz about UB football like no other college event, except NCAA tourny games and the Frozen Four. At that time, Buffalo News writers declared UB football alone was 'bigger' in town than the Bisons, a team that has drawn over a million fans in years past. The amazing ratings locally opened their eyes. Yes, people don't come out to UB football as they should, but it's pretty simple; 1) Because we are still getting over being so bad for so long, and 2) The casual fan would rather see bad NFL football while drinking, rather than watch more affordable college football in a dry stadium. Time, success, and marketing has to change that (and the Bills leaving), as well as UB breaking ground on our field-house, and seeing the UB2020 expansion plan through to grow to look more like our AAU, Midwestern-flagship peers.

You just ruined it for me RecoveringHillbilly.

I was enjoying debating with you because you do not make personal attacks and you were a very reasonable poster, who could express himself without calling names. But anyway, I put a question to the Nielson Corporation regarding our debate. Hopefully, I will get an answer from them. But I am interested in what source that you get your ratings from. Maybe those sources could help us out in our debate.

Jurich and Ramsey have been right on target all along!

(04-17-2010 05:02 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  You just ruined it for me RecoveringHillbilly.

I was enjoying debating with you because you do not make personal attacks and you were a very reasonable poster, who could express himself without calling names. But anyway, I put a question to the Nielson Corporation regarding our debate. Hopefully, I will get an answer from them. But I am interested in what source that you get your ratings from. Maybe those sources could help us out in our debate.

What do you object to in my post? I think Omni's tone was very snobbish, saying what UB has done ratings-wise means little since SU has been down. That SU BB is so good, he would wager Buffalo people surely would not chose watching UB instead. Saying when SU football is up, it will blow away UB ratings in town. Well, when SU was awesome in the late 90's, their games still did not draw better ratings here than UB's MAC title and I-Bowl in '08-'09. When UB made their first MAC BB finals, they drew better ratings than big SU games.

My definate ratings, for bowls and title games, come from the MAC and ESPN. Other numbers are ones I recall or have cited from the Buffalo news "Sports on the Air" column which appears weekly.