The flaw in this theory is that despite the above, no one doubts what college basketball conference is New York City's basketball conference, do they?
Of course not. The difference is simple. The Big East has the majority of the programs that NYC fans care about (minus Duke) , has a local team as part of the conference, plays its conference tournament at MSG, and wins.
NYC hasn't had those elements present in any single conference so it defaults to the all-over-the-map mentality you site above as being inherit and I assume unchangeable. When in fact, if a conference ever had in football those same factors the Big East has in basketball you'd see how wrong your theory is.
Cheers,
Neil
Good to see you here, Neil!
Yes, I would say that the Big East delivers the NYC market with respect to basketball for the reason that you stated. The combo of UConn and St. John's (and to a lesser extent, Seton Hall and Rutgers) will still give the Big East a real presence in the NYC market for basketball purposes. That being said, that current advantage is going to be chipped away with Syracuse leaving for the ACC. It's kind of like the effect of Texas A&M leaving for the SEC - that doesn't take away the fact that the Big 12 still owns the Texas market overall, but an important contingent just walked out the door that turns that market from a Big 12 monopoly to a Big 12/SEC duopoly. Similarly, NYC will still be a Big East basketball market, but Syracuse combined with Duke and other ACC bandwagon basketball fans is going to take a chunk of eyeballs.
Now, someone said above that "winners" are what deliver the NYC market, which I agree is really what it comes down to. When you have such a large population base with scattered college loyalties, then you need bandwagon fans to get market penetration (and bandwagon fans don't bother watching losers or even mediocrity). UConn and Syracuse are elite winners in basketball, so that's why they draw interest in the NYC market. None of the Tri-State teams are elite winners in football, so the NYC bandwagoners have gravitated toward Notre Dame and Penn State, and the issue is that this has been the case for so long that it would take a generation to undo (and that's assuming that one of the Tri-State teams starts winning big *immediately*).
So, sure, if Rutgers or UConn can win national championships in football, then you can see them get real traction in the NYC market. Casual fans will watch winners. (Of course, there's an intimation that "all you have to do is win" as if that's an easy thing to do in big-time college football. That's obviously not true at all.) The argument that I'm often seeing, though, is that proximity in and of itself gives them traction in the NYC market for football, which I don't believe to be the case (whereas proximity of schools in and of itself DOES give the Pac-12 traction in LA, the Big Ten traction in Chicago, the Big 12 traction in Dallas, etc.). There are already 9 pro sports teams constantly fighting for attention in the NYC market, so if you want to get onto the viewing plate of casual sports fans there, you need to win big early and win big often. So, on top of competing with other college conferences, the Big East is also competing with the most crowded pro sports market in the country that sucks up all of the media and fan attention.
Once again, I think the Big East can get a good TV contract simply because of overall sports TV rights market inflation. However, the Big East can't bank on the NYC market. The way that Louisville consistently draws people in its own smaller market is frankly more important to the Big East right now than trying to argue that it owns NYC in any shape or form.
