(02-22-2013 04:07 PM)RobUCF Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 11:55 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 11:40 AM)stever20 Wrote:  great find.

The popular narrative now is that the Big East is essentially on even footing with the Mountain West, as the two leagues emerge as the primary combatants to be No. 6. No, the Big East didn't get the big television deal it once sought, but it has a deal with ESPN, which the MWC doesn't have. In this ESPN-dominated college sports environment, that's not a bad consolation prize.

But wasn't it just 2 days ago that BE supporters were all about NBC Sports and how much better that situation would be and to hell with ESPN?

I think most of the concern with ESPN was related to the potential of being relegated to mid-week games and games on ESPN3. If that was the case, then NBC would likely be better. According to the McMurphy article "Big East commissioner Mike Aresco must be satisfied ESPN's deal matches NBC Sports Network's offer in all facets." If the ESPN offer does offer the same coverage as NBC (and that is still an if until approved), then ESPN would be better. Basically, the NBC offer may not have brought more money to the table, but it may end up bringing the nBE more guarantees in coverage.

Thanks for the rational response. Good points. I do think that since ESPN practically owns college football it's a good idea to have at least a small part of your inventory signed with them. If all in for ESPN means prime time on any of their cable products then that is better exposure than NBC Sportsnet or CBS Sportsnet for that matter.

(02-22-2013 01:49 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 12:31 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  This deal is a nightmare. It's the worst case scenario of all the options. No money and a pile of joke mid week football games.

let them play their midweek games. ECU will refuse to play home games during midweek , guaranteed.

We got away with that stuff in C-USA under their old ESPN deal, but we had a lot more power in C-USA and we weren't being jackasses about it we made it clear we'd play as many road midweek games as the league wanted to ensure we didn't play home ones. I'm assuming that's what we'd try again, but I'm concerned the league won't be as accommodating to us on this as C-USA was. Hopefully I'm wrong.

(02-22-2013 04:07 PM)swash Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 02:22 PM)dogma Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 01:49 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 12:31 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  This deal is a nightmare.

l

Exposure is one thing...fiscal responsibility is another. We shall see....but I doubt seriously you'll see ECU on Tuesday or Wednesday night in Greenville.

Time to go back to CUSA.

One question I have, is Do we have enough inventory left to do a tier 2 type deal, small or large. The answer to that question could go a long ways in making things better. If we had enough left to put together another smaller package for even 2 to 5 mil this deal looks a lot better. And do we have the right to sell a champ game if we expand and go after one.

None of us has any idea what really is or isn't in the deal.

(02-22-2013 12:31 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  This deal is a nightmare. It's the worst case scenario of all the options. No money and a pile of joke mid week football games.

Explain to us why East Carolina should be on primetime Sat. night football or truthfully any other member of the NBE including Cincy. Win some games on the off nights and look good and maybe some day the Pirates will get a primetime slot.

(02-22-2013 04:44 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 12:31 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  This deal is a nightmare. It's the worst case scenario of all the options. No money and a pile of joke mid week football games.

Explain to us why East Carolina should be on primetime Sat. night football or truthfully any other member of the NBE including Cincy. Win some games on the off nights and look good and maybe some day the Pirates will get a primetime slot.

Fu*k that I'd rather be on no TV on a Saturday in Greenville then play in some joke midweek game that I may or may not even be able to go to depending on my work schedule.

In the MWC, playing all games on Saturday was something I really enjoyed as a fan. Actually, it was even better than what we have with the Big 12 now, when you don't know the actual gametime until the week before. I would make plans/ buy plane tickets well in advance of the games because we already knew exacly when we were playing on each Saturday. As a travelling fan, it was great.

This is going to be funny when you commuter school fans are proven wrong.

Everybody blasted us in the past saying we only draw 50K b/c there's nothing else to do in Greenville. The reality of the situation is the vast majority of our fans are driving from Raleigh, Durham, Charlotte, Norfolk, Richmond, etc. Tuesday and Wednesday games in Greenville won't be happening.

(02-22-2013 04:13 PM)RobUCF Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 04:07 PM)swash Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 02:22 PM)dogma Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 01:49 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 12:31 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  This deal is a nightmare. It's the worst case scenario of all the options. No money and a pile of joke mid week football games.

let them play their midweek games. ECU will refuse to play home games during midweek , guaranteed.

lol if you actually believe ECU will have a say in this... ESPECIALLY during conference games.

It will be interesting to see how we handle home games...it is the stance we've taken for the past two years, and I'd be surprised if we deviated from it. With attendance of 50,000 per game on a Saturday, you have to take into consideration that our gate+concession revenue is actually more than the @ 1.8 million we'll receive in an ENTIRE YEAR from this media payout. At the end of the day, ECU is expected to make money to support it's student athletes...not lose money by playing on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Friday. Exposure is one thing...fiscal responsibility is another. We shall see....but I doubt seriously you'll see ECU on Tuesday or Wednesday night in Greenville.

Yes, but this is a deal between the conference and the network. ECU has agreed to join the nBE and will sign a contract with the conference. The conference will sign a contract with the TV network providing a certain amount of weekday games. So, if the network wants ECU on Wednesday night, then they are playing. None of the teams in the conference would prefer to play on weekdays, and I don't see ECU (especially as one of the newest teams) being given any special privileges over the others.

Your are probably right. Although, there isn't a chance in hell that a team like UCF, Houston, etc. would be given those "special priviledges" ahead of ECU because they were not as new. That isn't how it works.

Let's just all get along and realize it's valid not to like some or all of the TV deal. That many are going to complain about changes. That is normal. It's easy for UCF fans to get their ears bent back. You guys have always been willing to do the Sunbelt/MAC-like mid-week games even though others saw/felt how bad it hurt attendance...things that pay the bills. One shouldn't think ECU fans are holier than thou because they don't want to do something that they haven't done alot of before.

I think the ECU fans are taking this a bit too personally.

First keep in mind ECU joins in July 2014, so your weekend games are secure this year. No worries.

The conference signed a deal with ESPN and the scheduling of games on Tues, Wed, Fri will happen. So in 2014, I suspect the misery will be shared across the board. ESPN will want the better FB teams on TV, so if MEMPHIS and Tulane get more than one each, I'll be surprised. Most of the games will involve Cincy, UConn, USF, UCF, SMU, Houston, Temple, and ECU.

Basically all teams will do TWO midweek/Fri games. One at home and the second one on the road.

I can assure you ESPN will NOT say "Oh, ECU wants all their home games on Saturday. We'll just have UConn and UCF do BOTH of their midweek games at home; they won't mind." Seriously, get a grip. Be a trooper and give up that "Sat only mentality".

Damn.

(02-22-2013 11:40 AM)stever20 Wrote:  great find.

The popular narrative now is that the Big East is essentially on even footing with the Mountain West, as the two leagues emerge as the primary combatants to be No. 6. No, the Big East didn't get the big television deal it once sought, but it has a deal with ESPN, which the MWC doesn't have. In this ESPN-dominated college sports environment, that's not a bad consolation prize.

The MWC will have games on ESPN family. How many remains to be seen. remember CBS only has 12- 15 of our football games under contract and the rest are out to bid. I would argue having a mix of networks in play is a good position to be in frankly

(02-24-2013 04:37 PM)boss man Wrote:  I think the ECU fans are taking this a bit too personally.

First keep in mind ECU joins in July 2014, so your weekend games are secure this year. No worries.

The conference signed a deal with ESPN and the scheduling of games on Tues, Wed, Fri will happen. So in 2014, I suspect the misery will be shared across the board. ESPN will want the better FB teams on TV, so if MEMPHIS and Tulane get more than one each, I'll be surprised. Most of the games will involve Cincy, UConn, USF, UCF, SMU, Houston, Temple, and ECU.

Basically all teams will do TWO midweek/Fri games. One at home and the second one on the road.

I can assure you ESPN will NOT say "Oh, ECU wants all their home games on Saturday. We'll just have UConn and UCF do BOTH of their midweek games at home; they won't mind." Seriously, get a grip. Be a trooper and give up that "Sat only mentality".

Damn.

We've seen what Memphis attendance looks like on a Tuesday. I don't give a damn about being a "trooper." Those games are a joke so let the jokes programs that don't sell tickets in the first place have them. I'm sure ECU would be willing to have one of our marque home games against VT, USC, BYU, WVU, etc be on a Thursday night, we've made that compromise in the past. I'm also certain we'd tell the league we'd be willing to play 3 road mid week games in trade for not having to host any. We'd even be willing to be on TV less to avoid them, same as we did in C-USA. We make about 4 times this new crap TV deal in ticket revenue, so sorry if we don't think we should start messing around with that to be ESPN's *****.

NBCSN is easy to find because it is located near ESPN channels. I don't agree with Dan about ESPN. College football is still a regional sports and if I was a nBE supporter, I would have rather been with NBC than ESPN. It is brand name and the nBE would have been the only fish in the NBC football pond. And it's not like NBCSN is part of a sports package deal.

(02-24-2013 07:51 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  NBCSN is easy to find because it is located near ESPN channels. I don't agree with Dan about ESPN. College football is still a regional sports and if I was a nBE supporter, I would have rather been with NBC than ESPN. It is brand name and the nBE would have been the only fish in the NBC football pond. And it's not like NBCSN is part of a sports package deal.

Both have advantages. That said, if you are trying to pick up new fans, being on a network that is the "go to" place for random channel surfing or when your in the mood to watch a little football while you have a beer and eat dinner can certainly be an advantage. We will know more by next week but I suspect we will have games sold to other networks--possibly national networks like Fox Sports-1, NBC-Sports (they still need content), CBS-Sports, as well as the regional networks. Im not crazy about the deal, but it will likely be a boon for recruiting. Coming from CUSA, I know the recruits always asked how often you were on ESPN. They dont care if you are on CBCS-Sports or NBC-Sports. lol...all that age group cares about is being on the ESPN family.

The deal would have been exactly the same if Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville had stayed in the Big East and UConn, Cincinnati, and USF had left for the ACC.

(02-24-2013 08:42 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The deal would have been exactly the same if Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville had stayed in the Big East and UConn, Cincinnati, and USF had left for the ACC.

I think that with Pitt and Syracuse, you have some interest from ESPN and FoxSports1. Pitt has 2 AP national championships, 9 major bowls, Tony Dorsett, Dan Marino, Mike Ditka and Pop Warner. Syracuse has 8 major bowls, Jim Brown, Larry Csonka and Donovan McNabb. Both have decades of solid attendance. That matters to TV networks.

Louisville has been good lately, much like Cincinnati, but their attendance is a lot better, indicating more fans which means more ratings. There's a reason that Louisville was runner-up for the Big 12 and not Cincinnati.

i doubt it, it would of been slightly higher with cuse,pitt and louisville still in acc maybe 40-50 more in the whole contract

Im getting the feeling that we will be seeing some ECU fans in bell towers with rifles very soon. haha

(02-24-2013 09:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 08:42 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The deal would have been exactly the same if Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville had stayed in the Big East and UConn, Cincinnati, and USF had left for the ACC.

I think that with Pitt and Syracuse, you have some interest from ESPN and FoxSports1. Pitt has 2 AP national championships, 9 major bowls, Tony Dorsett, Dan Marino, Mike Ditka and Pop Warner. Syracuse has 8 major bowls, Jim Brown, Larry Csonka and Donovan McNabb. Both have decades of solid attendance. That matters to TV networks.

Louisville has been good lately, much like Cincinnati, but their attendance is a lot better, indicating more fans which means more ratings. There's a reason that Louisville was runner-up for the Big 12 and not Cincinnati.

Due to BB, UConn is a better known national brand than Syracuse or Pitt. None of the three get a huge amount of respect in FB.

(02-24-2013 10:04 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 09:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 08:42 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The deal would have been exactly the same if Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville had stayed in the Big East and UConn, Cincinnati, and USF had left for the ACC.

I think that with Pitt and Syracuse, you have some interest from ESPN and FoxSports1. Pitt has 2 AP national championships, 9 major bowls, Tony Dorsett, Dan Marino, Mike Ditka and Pop Warner. Syracuse has 8 major bowls, Jim Brown, Larry Csonka and Donovan McNabb. Both have decades of solid attendance. That matters to TV networks.

Louisville has been good lately, much like Cincinnati, but their attendance is a lot better, indicating more fans which means more ratings. There's a reason that Louisville was runner-up for the Big 12 and not Cincinnati.

Due to BB, UConn is a better known national brand than Syracuse or Pitt. None of the three get a huge amount of respect in FB.

I purposely didn't mention basketball, because somehow you're not getting paid for it. But Syracuse's 1 NC, 5 Final Fours and 20 Sweet Sixteens match up with UConn's 3NC, 4 FF and 16 S16. You can argue 3NCs vs 1NC, but you're in the same conversation.

In football, UConn and Syracuse and Pitt aren't in the same conversation. Pitt and Syracuse don't get a ton of respect in football, but they get some, which is more than none. That's the residue of decades of being national powers. Jim Brown. Dan Marino. UConn has--a Fiesta Bowl that people said they didn't deserve.

I suspect that Aresco had to take short money to get guarantees that your football league would be on national-basic-cable and not used as FoxSports2 or CBS-SN fodder. With Pitt and Syracuse, I think Fox is willing to figure out a way to get some games on FoxSports1.