^
Absolutely right.

Big East is a major basketball conference, not a "mid major"...and if UConn went back, that puts them in top 3 with ACC and B10.

But nevertheless, power basketball conference, zero doubt.

CFB has P5, CBB has P6.

The nnBE is a major conference. If they can get home and home's with teams like Cuse...they are a big boy conference in Hoops.

(09-11-2015 12:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 08:38 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 08:36 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 08:16 AM)orangefan Wrote:  You are absolutely correct that the TV ratings have been disastrous on FS1, however, the network finally seems to be finding an audience as evidenced by recent MLB and CFB ratings. Last Thursday, Michigan-Utah on FS1 tied TCU-Minnesota on ESPN, setting an all time best CFB rating for FS1. http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-...v-ratings/ MLB ratings have been strong, with a recent Yankees-Rangers matchup getting similar ratings on FS1 as ESPN http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2015/07/...cord-july/

No more excuses. Viewers seem to know where the channel is now. This season will be a real measure of how the Big East can do on FS1.

I agree with this. For two years now, as a Big East fan, I've wondered whether the awful FS1 ratings for BE hoops has been because of the obscurity of FS1 or just the lack of appeal of BE hoops. I've been able to use the former as a cover for the latter.

But clearly, sports fans do now "know" where FS1 is, as proven by ratings for the sports you mention. There still is a lag there - i am sure that the ratings for those games would have been even higher if on ESPN - but we should expect that Big East hoops ratings rise significantly this year.

If they don't, it is because of the Big East, not FS1.

To be fair, the appeal of the Michigan-Utah game was a combination of Michigan's national fan following (which neither TCU nor Minnesota have) and non-Michigan fans wanting to see Harbaugh in his first game.

If the casual fan wants to see a specific game/competition, they will find whatever station it is on and tune in, which is why I think the Big East's poor numbers on FS1 are more a result of the product. We shall see this year.

Agreed. Also, playing on the opening night of CFB has historically been good for a little push in the ratings as well. CFB fans are so starved for the game after 8 months they will watch anyone with a pulse.

I also look at it another way: if the Michigan-Utah game was on ESPN instead of FS1, there is absolutely NFW that it draws a lower rating than the North Carolina-South Carolina game that same evening (which is what occurred). To me, that actually showed a limitation of FS1 compared to ESPN - we're talking about the debut of the biggest offseason coaching hire in years featuring a marquee football program playing another P5 school in an opening night game. That Michigan-Utah game was high by FS1 standards, but it would have blown the ratings numbers out of the water if it was on ESPN instead.

FS1 is getting better in drawing viewers (mainly because it has better events than it did 2 years ago), but they basically have a 20-30% reduction in ratings compared to if the exact same game was on ESPN. No one can credibly tell me that the Big East wouldn't be drawing the highest numbers out of any non-P5 league if their games were on ESPN. We've already seen that with ESPN non-conference games that have featured Big East teams. You can't tell me that non-Gonzaga WCC and non-UConn AAC games have more value than the average Big East game for a national audience. The mere placement of a game on ESPN elevates the viewing numbers for that game, whereas no such boost comes from being on FS1.

Case in point: the Pac-12 basketball games on FS1 have generally had lower ratings than the Big East games on FS1, while the ratings for the Pac-12 generally double simply by being on ESPN. That's evidence that the *underlying* media value for Big East basketball is actually as much as or more than Pac-12 basketball (and certainly much more than any of the G5 conferences or WCC). The media people aren't dumb: they know that comparing ESPN ratings to FS1 ratings isn't apples-to-apples.

Once again, FS1 has specific individual events that have drawing power (i.e. World Cup, U.S. Open, MLB playoffs, UFC, etc.), but it doesn't have the multi-platform 24/7 promotional cycle that ESPN has on TV/Internet/radio that elevates the run-of-the-mill college basketball game of the week. So, it has nothing to do with the Big East product at all. I know that a lot of people here seem to want the Big East to not succeed, but it has the most valuable top-to-bottom collection of brand names and markets in college sports outside of the P5 (and that's why it is being paid as such). It's fair to criticize the Big East for completely leaving ESPN in the first place (which I have done plenty of times), but the underlying basketball product, brand value and demographics of the Big East are perfectly fine.

Let's be real. The only brands in the Big East are Georgetown and Nova. Top to bottom?

If we are making the comparison between the Big East and AAC, which is pretty dumb to begin with, one could say that the AAC was "Major" while the Big East was "Mid Major" in the 2013-2014 season. Conversely, the Big East was "Major" while the AAC was "Mid Major" in the 2014-2015 season.

Your bias gets old Frankie boy.

(09-11-2015 12:01 AM)stever20 Wrote:  it seems odd to me that they are doing this after only 2 years. Not enough of a sample size. Also, lets see all the teams that have moved get integrated in the new conference with the recruiting etc. and then be able to see what the new normal is.

Exactly. The dishonesty at ESPIN makes me sick. No cheers to this "analysis" by ESPIN

(09-11-2015 03:56 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 12:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 08:38 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 08:36 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree with this. For two years now, as a Big East fan, I've wondered whether the awful FS1 ratings for BE hoops has been because of the obscurity of FS1 or just the lack of appeal of BE hoops. I've been able to use the former as a cover for the latter.

But clearly, sports fans do now "know" where FS1 is, as proven by ratings for the sports you mention. There still is a lag there - i am sure that the ratings for those games would have been even higher if on ESPN - but we should expect that Big East hoops ratings rise significantly this year.

If they don't, it is because of the Big East, not FS1.

To be fair, the appeal of the Michigan-Utah game was a combination of Michigan's national fan following (which neither TCU nor Minnesota have) and non-Michigan fans wanting to see Harbaugh in his first game.

If the casual fan wants to see a specific game/competition, they will find whatever station it is on and tune in, which is why I think the Big East's poor numbers on FS1 are more a result of the product. We shall see this year.

Agreed. Also, playing on the opening night of CFB has historically been good for a little push in the ratings as well. CFB fans are so starved for the game after 8 months they will watch anyone with a pulse.

I also look at it another way: if the Michigan-Utah game was on ESPN instead of FS1, there is absolutely NFW that it draws a lower rating than the North Carolina-South Carolina game that same evening (which is what occurred). To me, that actually showed a limitation of FS1 compared to ESPN - we're talking about the debut of the biggest offseason coaching hire in years featuring a marquee football program playing another P5 school in an opening night game. That Michigan-Utah game was high by FS1 standards, but it would have blown the ratings numbers out of the water if it was on ESPN instead.

FS1 is getting better in drawing viewers (mainly because it has better events than it did 2 years ago), but they basically have a 20-30% reduction in ratings compared to if the exact same game was on ESPN. No one can credibly tell me that the Big East wouldn't be drawing the highest numbers out of any non-P5 league if their games were on ESPN. We've already seen that with ESPN non-conference games that have featured Big East teams. You can't tell me that non-Gonzaga WCC and non-UConn AAC games have more value than the average Big East game for a national audience. The mere placement of a game on ESPN elevates the viewing numbers for that game, whereas no such boost comes from being on FS1.

Case in point: the Pac-12 basketball games on FS1 have generally had lower ratings than the Big East games on FS1, while the ratings for the Pac-12 generally double simply by being on ESPN. That's evidence that the *underlying* media value for Big East basketball is actually as much as or more than Pac-12 basketball (and certainly much more than any of the G5 conferences or WCC). The media people aren't dumb: they know that comparing ESPN ratings to FS1 ratings isn't apples-to-apples.

Once again, FS1 has specific individual events that have drawing power (i.e. World Cup, U.S. Open, MLB playoffs, UFC, etc.), but it doesn't have the multi-platform 24/7 promotional cycle that ESPN has on TV/Internet/radio that elevates the run-of-the-mill college basketball game of the week. So, it has nothing to do with the Big East product at all. I know that a lot of people here seem to want the Big East to not succeed, but it has the most valuable top-to-bottom collection of brand names and markets in college sports outside of the P5 (and that's why it is being paid as such). It's fair to criticize the Big East for completely leaving ESPN in the first place (which I have done plenty of times), but the underlying basketball product, brand value and demographics of the Big East are perfectly fine.

Let's be real. The only brands in the Big East are Georgetown and Nova. Top to bottom?

If we are making the comparison between the Big East and AAC, which is pretty dumb to begin with, one could say that the AAC was "Major" while the Big East was "Mid Major" in the 2013-2014 season. Conversely, the Big East was "Major" while the AAC was "Mid Major" in the 2014-2015 season.

Your bias gets old Frankie boy.

There was a few years ago (maybe 3?) when the MWC had only 8 teams and got 4 or 5 teams in the NCAA tourney, and ESPN power rankings and the RPI rankings were having them listed #1. My point? These things change year to year and it's a very fluid thing. To use a determination that has conferences listed as major and mid-major that constitutes a whopping 2 year sample is pretty ridiculous. My guess is ESPN's criteria is as fluid as the conferences from year to year. They'll rank the conferences where they want using changing formulas and different criteria to back up what THEY WANT. Cheers!

(09-11-2015 02:50 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 02:33 AM)toddjnsn Wrote:  IMO, you can't say a conference is a "Major Conference" or a "P-Level" conference, unless it is so in football. Lacking that very Major Sport, ya can't say that with FCS teams in it.

Otherwise, if the Missouri Valley conference, say, rose near the top and was the #4 conference for 2 years, would you say the Missouri Valley conference was a "Major Conference" in sports altogether? Which implies a P-Level conference, when they're D1AA/FCS in football? Of course not. :)

"A major conference in BBall" does not imply a P-level conference in football. If the MVC rose to the #4 BBall conference in the country, then, yeah, they'd be a major conference in BBall.

No they wouldn't. ESPN would NEVER allow that. Cheers!

It wouldn't be a thread about the Big East without a majority of the posts being by AAC fans. And that doesn't count the thread they started on their own board.

The ESPN guy didn't make any bold predictions about the future. He just said that after the Old Big East split up (with its members going to 5 different conferences) the New Big East is still playing basketball at a high level. That's about it.

Big East<Sun Belt Conference

Without football, the Big East will just fall. Since football is the major selling points, the Big East should be considered a lower minion of the FBS and FCS conferences. There have been also talks that the football playing schools except for Villanova and Georgetown, break away from the basketball only schools to form two D1 in basketball. Big East would be 1AA in basketball while East Carolina be 1A in basketball. There seems to be football playing members not too happy that the basketball playing schools dictate how rules for the football playing schools. MVC non-football schools voted everybody needs to spend the same amount. Since football needs more money? The football playing schools have their hands tied, and want to get away. Could the MVC schools that play basketball break away formed a new FCS conference, and then invite Western Illinois, North Dakota State, South Dakota, South Dakota State, Youngstown State and North Dakota for all sports? There could be an agreement between the Summitt and MVC by moving all the basketball schools over to the Summitt and the football schools over to MVC. That way, nobody will lose credits. I think Wichita State will restart football just to stay with Missouri State.

(09-11-2015 07:54 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Big East<Sun Belt Conference

Without football, the Big East will just fall. Since football is the major selling points, the Big East should be considered a lower minion of the FBS and FCS conferences. There have been also talks that the football playing schools except for Villanova and Georgetown, break away from the basketball only schools to form two D1 in basketball. Big East would be 1AA in basketball while East Carolina be 1A in basketball. There seems to be football playing members not too happy that the basketball playing schools dictate how rules for the football playing schools. MVC non-football schools voted everybody needs to spend the same amount. Since football needs more money? The football playing schools have their hands tied, and want to get away. Could the MVC schools that play basketball break away formed a new FCS conference, and then invite Western Illinois, North Dakota State, South Dakota, South Dakota State, Youngstown State and North Dakota for all sports? There could be an agreement between the Summitt and MVC by moving all the basketball schools over to the Summitt and the football schools over to MVC. That way, nobody will lose credits. I think Wichita State will restart football just to stay with Missouri State.

you are insane. The Big East is bare minimum better than CUSA, MWC, SBC, and MAC. At least now, better than the AAC. Being good (errrr- participating) in football doesn't mean squat about basketball. There's not going to be a break away that splits between football and basketball. If there's a breakaway it'd be between P5 and the rest- and the P5 would likely bring along with them conferences like the Big East.

can someone please translate that last post? (not stever's the one b4 that)

(09-11-2015 07:54 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Big East<Sun Belt Conference

Without football, the Big East will just fall. Since football is the major selling points, the Big East should be considered a lower minion of the FBS and FCS conferences. There have been also talks that the football playing schools except for Villanova and Georgetown, break away from the basketball only schools to form two D1 in basketball. Big East would be 1AA in basketball while East Carolina be 1A in basketball. There seems to be football playing members not too happy that the basketball playing schools dictate how rules for the football playing schools. MVC non-football schools voted everybody needs to spend the same amount. Since football needs more money? The football playing schools have their hands tied, and want to get away. Could the MVC schools that play basketball break away formed a new FCS conference, and then invite Western Illinois, North Dakota State, South Dakota, South Dakota State, Youngstown State and North Dakota for all sports? There could be an agreement between the Summitt and MVC by moving all the basketball schools over to the Summitt and the football schools over to MVC. That way, nobody will lose credits. I think Wichita State will restart football just to stay with Missouri State.

Could you stop posting in this thread? That would be super.

(09-11-2015 07:54 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Big East<Sun Belt Conference

Without football, the Big East will just fall. Since football is the major selling points, the Big East should be considered a lower minion of the FBS and FCS conferences. There have been also talks that the football playing schools except for Villanova and Georgetown, break away from the basketball only schools to form two D1 in basketball. Big East would be 1AA in basketball while East Carolina be 1A in basketball. There seems to be football playing members not too happy that the basketball playing schools dictate how rules for the football playing schools. MVC non-football schools voted everybody needs to spend the same amount. Since football needs more money? The football playing schools have their hands tied, and want to get away. Could the MVC schools that play basketball break away formed a new FCS conference, and then invite Western Illinois, North Dakota State, South Dakota, South Dakota State, Youngstown State and North Dakota for all sports? There could be an agreement between the Summitt and MVC by moving all the basketball schools over to the Summitt and the football schools over to MVC. That way, nobody will lose credits. I think Wichita State will restart football just to stay with Missouri State.

(09-11-2015 06:52 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 12:01 AM)stever20 Wrote:  it seems odd to me that they are doing this after only 2 years. Not enough of a sample size. Also, lets see all the teams that have moved get integrated in the new conference with the recruiting etc. and then be able to see what the new normal is.

Exactly. The dishonesty at ESPIN makes me sick. No cheers to this "analysis" by ESPIN

Well if anything, given that ESPN doesn't have the Big East, them doing analysis like this kind of disproves dishonesty now, doesn't it? While I don't think the sample size is big enough yet, if the big east has years like last year again, going to be real tough to say that we aren't a major conference. And if the AAC has years like last year, going to be real tough to say that they are a major conference.

(09-11-2015 12:08 PM)MU88 Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 11:45 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  What exactly is your definition of a Major program? To me, Temple would also be counted as a Major program.

I think Temple is slipping. I would have considered them a major a few years ago, especially with Chaney. Now, I am not so sure. Their attendance has dropped below 6000 per game. They spend almost $2 million less on hoops than a school like Gonzaga and $1 million less than schools like Wichita State or Xavier. I don't think that number is going up, given the financial commitment they seemed to have made to the football program. I think they will remain competitive given their location in a basketball hotbed. Are they still a major? To me, they are starting to look more and more like the UABs and Charlotte's of the world, than the Memphis or UConns in their own conference. They haven't made a run in the tourney since 2001 and they are 2-6 since.

Temple knocked off Kansas last year. It was the sixth win over a top 10 team in the last seven seasons. It also kept alive an eight-year streak of wins over ranked teams. This slipping veteran team has four highly regarded recruits coming in, including a recent addition from Argentina's U17 national team.

The AAC hasn't earned respect yet from the selection committee. SMU and Temple both got snubbed.

The problem with the Big East is that they lose right away in the basketball tournaments. Once they lost U. Conn., West Virginia, Cincinnati, Louisville and others powerfull basketball schools. They product went down. Depaul have not been that great lately. Georgetown always make it into the tournament, but always seemed to get eliminated early. Marquette have made it far, but people hardly know who they are really.

Georgetown and Villanova people really know about. Everybody else are like nobodies that people never really heard about. Big East does not have the image like they once had when Notre Dame, Syracuse, Louisville, Cincinnati and others not part of them anymore. The Big East basketball schools shot themselves in the foot. If they added football and upgraded to be FBS? They would be there with the AAC and all that. Basketball is not the only thing that makes the money to pay the bills. Football is, and the value of the Big East will go down in time.

(09-11-2015 09:18 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem with the Big East is that they lose right away in the basketball tournaments. Once they lost U. Conn., West Virginia, Cincinnati, Louisville and others powerfull basketball schools. They product went down. Depaul have not been that great lately. Georgetown always make it into the tournament, but always seemed to get eliminated early. Marquette have made it far, but people hardly know who they are really.

Georgetown and Villanova people really know about. Everybody else are like nobodies that people never really heard about. Big East does not have the image like they once had when Notre Dame, Syracuse, Louisville, Cincinnati and others not part of them anymore. The Big East basketball schools shot themselves in the foot. If they added football and upgraded to be FBS? They would be there with the AAC and all that. Basketball is not the only thing that makes the money to pay the bills. Football is, and the value of the Big East will go down in time.

The tourney performance is a concern, no doubt, but the odds are pretty good that's going to change.

Football is interesting. The concussion issue isn't going away any time soon. You hear more and more folks saying they aren't letting their kids play football. Eventually, that's going to have an impact.

Bottom line, the Big East money isn't drying up for at least 10 years. That's how long the contract is left with Fox. At that point, who knows what happens.

(09-11-2015 09:26 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 09:18 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem with the Big East is that they lose right away in the basketball tournaments. Once they lost U. Conn., West Virginia, Cincinnati, Louisville and others powerfull basketball schools. They product went down. Depaul have not been that great lately. Georgetown always make it into the tournament, but always seemed to get eliminated early. Marquette have made it far, but people hardly know who they are really.

Georgetown and Villanova people really know about. Everybody else are like nobodies that people never really heard about. Big East does not have the image like they once had when Notre Dame, Syracuse, Louisville, Cincinnati and others not part of them anymore. The Big East basketball schools shot themselves in the foot. If they added football and upgraded to be FBS? They would be there with the AAC and all that. Basketball is not the only thing that makes the money to pay the bills. Football is, and the value of the Big East will go down in time.

The tourney performance is a concern, no doubt, but the odds are pretty good that's going to change.

Football is interesting. The concussion issue isn't going away any time soon. You hear more and more folks saying they aren't letting their kids play football. Eventually, that's going to have an impact.

Bottom line, the Big East money isn't drying up for at least 10 years. That's how long the contract is left with Fox. At that point, who knows what happens.

Why are the odds good? The Big East's two marquee programs haven't made it beyond the Round of 32 since 2007 (Georgetown) and 2009 (Nova). And they've had a good amount of Top 4 Seeds in that time span:

Georgetown: #2, #3, #6, #3, #2, #4
Nova: #2, #9, #9, #2, #1

(09-11-2015 03:56 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 12:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 08:38 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 08:36 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree with this. For two years now, as a Big East fan, I've wondered whether the awful FS1 ratings for BE hoops has been because of the obscurity of FS1 or just the lack of appeal of BE hoops. I've been able to use the former as a cover for the latter.

But clearly, sports fans do now "know" where FS1 is, as proven by ratings for the sports you mention. There still is a lag there - i am sure that the ratings for those games would have been even higher if on ESPN - but we should expect that Big East hoops ratings rise significantly this year.

If they don't, it is because of the Big East, not FS1.

To be fair, the appeal of the Michigan-Utah game was a combination of Michigan's national fan following (which neither TCU nor Minnesota have) and non-Michigan fans wanting to see Harbaugh in his first game.

If the casual fan wants to see a specific game/competition, they will find whatever station it is on and tune in, which is why I think the Big East's poor numbers on FS1 are more a result of the product. We shall see this year.

Agreed. Also, playing on the opening night of CFB has historically been good for a little push in the ratings as well. CFB fans are so starved for the game after 8 months they will watch anyone with a pulse.

I also look at it another way: if the Michigan-Utah game was on ESPN instead of FS1, there is absolutely NFW that it draws a lower rating than the North Carolina-South Carolina game that same evening (which is what occurred). To me, that actually showed a limitation of FS1 compared to ESPN - we're talking about the debut of the biggest offseason coaching hire in years featuring a marquee football program playing another P5 school in an opening night game. That Michigan-Utah game was high by FS1 standards, but it would have blown the ratings numbers out of the water if it was on ESPN instead.

FS1 is getting better in drawing viewers (mainly because it has better events than it did 2 years ago), but they basically have a 20-30% reduction in ratings compared to if the exact same game was on ESPN. No one can credibly tell me that the Big East wouldn't be drawing the highest numbers out of any non-P5 league if their games were on ESPN. We've already seen that with ESPN non-conference games that have featured Big East teams. You can't tell me that non-Gonzaga WCC and non-UConn AAC games have more value than the average Big East game for a national audience. The mere placement of a game on ESPN elevates the viewing numbers for that game, whereas no such boost comes from being on FS1.

Case in point: the Pac-12 basketball games on FS1 have generally had lower ratings than the Big East games on FS1, while the ratings for the Pac-12 generally double simply by being on ESPN. That's evidence that the *underlying* media value for Big East basketball is actually as much as or more than Pac-12 basketball (and certainly much more than any of the G5 conferences or WCC). The media people aren't dumb: they know that comparing ESPN ratings to FS1 ratings isn't apples-to-apples.

Once again, FS1 has specific individual events that have drawing power (i.e. World Cup, U.S. Open, MLB playoffs, UFC, etc.), but it doesn't have the multi-platform 24/7 promotional cycle that ESPN has on TV/Internet/radio that elevates the run-of-the-mill college basketball game of the week. So, it has nothing to do with the Big East product at all. I know that a lot of people here seem to want the Big East to not succeed, but it has the most valuable top-to-bottom collection of brand names and markets in college sports outside of the P5 (and that's why it is being paid as such). It's fair to criticize the Big East for completely leaving ESPN in the first place (which I have done plenty of times), but the underlying basketball product, brand value and demographics of the Big East are perfectly fine.

Let's be real. The only brands in the Big East are Georgetown and Nova. Top to bottom?

If we are making the comparison between the Big East and AAC, which is pretty dumb to begin with, one could say that the AAC was "Major" while the Big East was "Mid Major" in the 2013-2014 season. Conversely, the Big East was "Major" while the AAC was "Mid Major" in the 2014-2015 season.

Your bias gets old Frankie boy.

With all due respect, I'm not the one that's biased here. Every Big East school provides value either on-the-court or off-the-court, so yes, that's the definition of being strong top-to-bottom. That doesn't mean every school is a marquee one. Beyond Georgetown and Villanova, St. John's is in NYC and has MSG. Seton Hall provides further access to recruiting in New Jersey and Providence is the entree into New England. Butler had two recent national title game runs. Xavier has had 2 Elite Eight appearances in the past decade. Marquette is a top notch program with a Final Four, 2 Elite Eight and 4 Sweet Sixteen appearances in the 2000s along with winning the last 2 16-team Big East regular season titles. Creighton has ranked in the top 10 in the country in basketball attendance for the past several years. Even the worst program of DePaul is located in the country's best pound-for-pound basketball recruiting market of Chicago and is building a brand new state-of-art arena in the South Loop.

Even the worst Big East schools provide *something* of value to the conference. Please provide your "unbiased" view of how even the bottom feeders of the AAC provide similar value by comparison.

(09-11-2015 11:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 03:56 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 12:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 08:38 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-11-2015 08:36 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  To be fair, the appeal of the Michigan-Utah game was a combination of Michigan's national fan following (which neither TCU nor Minnesota have) and non-Michigan fans wanting to see Harbaugh in his first game.

If the casual fan wants to see a specific game/competition, they will find whatever station it is on and tune in, which is why I think the Big East's poor numbers on FS1 are more a result of the product. We shall see this year.

Agreed. Also, playing on the opening night of CFB has historically been good for a little push in the ratings as well. CFB fans are so starved for the game after 8 months they will watch anyone with a pulse.

I also look at it another way: if the Michigan-Utah game was on ESPN instead of FS1, there is absolutely NFW that it draws a lower rating than the North Carolina-South Carolina game that same evening (which is what occurred). To me, that actually showed a limitation of FS1 compared to ESPN - we're talking about the debut of the biggest offseason coaching hire in years featuring a marquee football program playing another P5 school in an opening night game. That Michigan-Utah game was high by FS1 standards, but it would have blown the ratings numbers out of the water if it was on ESPN instead.

FS1 is getting better in drawing viewers (mainly because it has better events than it did 2 years ago), but they basically have a 20-30% reduction in ratings compared to if the exact same game was on ESPN. No one can credibly tell me that the Big East wouldn't be drawing the highest numbers out of any non-P5 league if their games were on ESPN. We've already seen that with ESPN non-conference games that have featured Big East teams. You can't tell me that non-Gonzaga WCC and non-UConn AAC games have more value than the average Big East game for a national audience. The mere placement of a game on ESPN elevates the viewing numbers for that game, whereas no such boost comes from being on FS1.

Case in point: the Pac-12 basketball games on FS1 have generally had lower ratings than the Big East games on FS1, while the ratings for the Pac-12 generally double simply by being on ESPN. That's evidence that the *underlying* media value for Big East basketball is actually as much as or more than Pac-12 basketball (and certainly much more than any of the G5 conferences or WCC). The media people aren't dumb: they know that comparing ESPN ratings to FS1 ratings isn't apples-to-apples.

Once again, FS1 has specific individual events that have drawing power (i.e. World Cup, U.S. Open, MLB playoffs, UFC, etc.), but it doesn't have the multi-platform 24/7 promotional cycle that ESPN has on TV/Internet/radio that elevates the run-of-the-mill college basketball game of the week. So, it has nothing to do with the Big East product at all. I know that a lot of people here seem to want the Big East to not succeed, but it has the most valuable top-to-bottom collection of brand names and markets in college sports outside of the P5 (and that's why it is being paid as such). It's fair to criticize the Big East for completely leaving ESPN in the first place (which I have done plenty of times), but the underlying basketball product, brand value and demographics of the Big East are perfectly fine.

Let's be real. The only brands in the Big East are Georgetown and Nova. Top to bottom?

If we are making the comparison between the Big East and AAC, which is pretty dumb to begin with, one could say that the AAC was "Major" while the Big East was "Mid Major" in the 2013-2014 season. Conversely, the Big East was "Major" while the AAC was "Mid Major" in the 2014-2015 season.

Your bias gets old Frankie boy.

With all due respect, I'm not the one that's biased here. Every Big East school provides value either on-the-court or off-the-court, so yes, that's the definition of being strong top-to-bottom. That doesn't mean every school is a marquee one. Beyond Georgetown and Villanova, St. John's is in NYC and has MSG. Seton Hall provides further access to recruiting in New Jersey and Providence is the entree into New England. Butler had two recent national title game runs. Xavier has had 2 Elite Eight appearances in the past decade. Marquette is a top notch program with a Final Four, 2 Elite Eight and 4 Sweet Sixteen appearances in the 2000s along with winning the last 2 16-team Big East regular season titles. Creighton has ranked in the top 10 in the country in basketball attendance for the past several years. Even the worst program of DePaul is located in the country's best pound-for-pound basketball recruiting market of Chicago and is building a brand new state-of-art arena in the South Loop.

Even the worst Big East schools provide *something* of value to the conference. Please provide your "unbiased" view of how even the bottom feeders of the AAC provide similar value by comparison.

You track record on the Boneyard speaks for itself.

Not sure what you mean. I haven't been on Boneyard for months. If my past skepticism that UConn will get an invite to the Big Ten means that I'm biased, well, then I guess you've got me. I like UConn and think they're valuable in a vacuum. The issue is that conference realignment doesn't happen in a vacuum and there are number of reasons that I don't believe that UConn is getting a Big Ten invite any time soon. Of course that's going to be an unpopular opinion on a Uconn board - I don't blame them on that point.