Big East worth substantially less than $155 million per year

[zls44]

W/Boise&UConn&Louisville: $11m
without Boise: $9m

 

[IthacaMatt]

THe interim big east commissioner, this week, called it "authentic content television". Television networks are scrambling left and right to create it, American Idol, etc.etc.....SImon Cowell is one of the international leaders in this. It's television, where people are compelled to watch live, because they outcome is undetermined, and people will talk about it after. It's the only thing that people watch live anymore, and no one is predicting that will change, as technology continues to rocket forward.

Sport - is the only natural, non-contrived - authentic content television. It's exploding nationwide in value and internationally because of it. Nobody was interested in broadcasting soccer in the U.S., until the invention of DVR. But people will pay to broadcast soccer now, because no matter how big the audience, the broadcasters know that people are watching - LIVE.

So - I'm not buying this thing that the big east football programs don't have value in their markets. THey have a TON Of value to the television industry. Most importantly, every other major sporting league is locked up with television companies for the next decade, and in some cases longer.

The big east is in a very good position. You don't have a guy like Joe Bailey, saying he wishes he was 20 years younger so he could run this thing, if the situation isn't looking very good.

It's going to take leadership though, and a plan, and that transition in leadership, and plan formation is happening as I type. I have no doubt about it.

To support your proposition, I read an article recently that talked about how competitive Big East football games were compared to other conferences (specifically, the SEC), and it mentioned how many games were decided by less than a touchdown, how close teams were in the standings, etc. The idea was that the Big East has to do a much better job educating the media about how competitive and entertaining the product is.

SEC games, in comparison, resulted in far more blowouts. The writer said that the games were essentially a reason for tailgating; just a backdrop, because most of the games were non-competitive, except for a few among the top tier teams.

 

[Carl Spackler]

To support your proposition, I read an article recently that talked about how competitive Big East football games were compared to other conferences (specifically, the SEC), and it mentioned how many games were decided by less than a touchdown, how close teams were in the standings, etc. The idea was that the Big East has to do a much better job educating the media about how competitive and entertaining the product is.

SEC games, in comparison, resulted in far more blowouts. The writer said that the games were essentially a reason for tailgating; just a backdrop, because most of the games were non-competitive, except for a few among the top tier teams.

Thank you.

Anyone out there think that ESPN has been a promoter of what we all know about Big East football?

 

[Jericho]

To support your proposition, I read an article recently that talked about how competitive Big East football games were compared to other conferences (specifically, the SEC), and it mentioned how many games were decided by less than a touchdown, how close teams were in the standings, etc. The idea was that the Big East has to do a much better job educating the media about how competitive and entertaining the product is.

SEC games, in comparison, resulted in far more blowouts. The writer said that the games were essentially a reason for tailgating; just a backdrop, because most of the games were non-competitive, except for a few among the top tier teams.

I would think that would hrt the Big East. Not the individual games but, although there's no specific reason to believe that will continue, but the standings bit. Having no dominant team is the biggest reason why people dump on the Big East and the ACC. People want to see teams that can fight for a national title.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

Let's face it, BE does a horrible job promoting itself. Marinatto rarely if ever do interviews in the media promoting the league. BE ads are horrible and second rated in production. Meanwhile, guys like Selvie, Delany and Swofford are doing interviews regularly. Hopefully, the new commissioner will do a better job in this department than Marinatto.

I can't believe ESPN BE blogger actually wrote about this today: http://espn.go.com/blog/bigeast/post/_/id/32766/big-east-must-begin-to-sell-itself

That being said, people that think BE will get a horrible deal don't understand the market. Here are some facts:

1. ACC had to negotiate with ESPN only to improve their rights. There was no competitive bids. They were locked to ESPN. ESPN only gave them the raise from $13M to $17M because of the following:

a. ACC had to provide 9 conference FB games vs. 8. ESPN gets more inventory.
b. ACC had to play on FRI nights.
c. ACC had to commit to longer years (there is a huge cost to that with rising value of sports properties). 4 years is a long time.

In the end, it was a horrible deal vs. other conferences. ACC value is under valued but they had no choice in order to get that $4M per team raise. They also had to give up a lot.

2. B12 just lost Nebraska, Colorado, A&M and Missouri. All those are big markets BTW other than Nebraska, which is a huge FB name. They added TCU in a market they already covered and WVU. B12 just got a $5M per school per year raise in their deal. Are the TV people stupid? Some people on this board would think so.

3. PAC-12 basketball is horrible. PAC-12 just got paid. They used to have a horrible package when their old commissioner was in charge.

4. Some people here are looking at BE's worth by looking at BE's horrible TV package. It is simply totally outdated like PAC-12's old package.

The most important thing going for the BE is marketing momentum. We are simply in a bull market for live sports media rights. Timing is good for the BE. In addition, BE added bunch of new media markets. People will say those teams suck. The irony is no one knows the potentials of these teams. Did anyone here believe UCONN football would be at where we are today? How about UL? They used to CUSA. Cincy sucked when they were in CUSA. Do people really think teams like Memphis, UCF, Houston, SMU and SDSU have no upside?

I am predicting BE should get $15M per year for all-sports members for Tier 1 and 2 rights only. We will all find out soon enough.

 

[UConnJim]

Don't forget the TV rights to home out of conference games, which are valuable. Look at the games in 2012: UConn/NC St, Boise St/BYU, Cincinnati/Virginia Tech, Louisville/Kentucky, Louisville/UNC, Navy/Indiana, Rutgers/Army, Temple/Maryland, SMU/Texas A&M, USF/Florida St., UCF/Missouri.

In 2013: UConn/Maryland, UConn/Michigan, Cincinnati/Purdue, Houston/BYU, Rutgers/Arkansas, Temple/Army, SMU/Texas Tech, SMU/Baylor, USF/Miami, UCF/South Carolina, SD St/Oregon St.

Also, if the BE goes to NBC and ND stays, NBC would keep the Navy/ND game every year and perhaps ND can modify their schedule for adding a BE game or two per year that would also stay on NBC.

 

[RS9999X]

Don't forget the TV rights to home out of conference games, which are valuable. Look at the games in 2012: UConn/NC St, Boise St/BYU, Cincinnati/Virginia Tech, Louisville/Kentucky, Louisville/UNC, Navy/Indiana, Rutgers/Army, Temple/Maryland, SMU/Texas A&M, USF/Florida St., UCF/Missouri.

In 2013: UConn/Maryland, UConn/Michigan, Cincinnati/Purdue, Houston/BYU, Rutgers/Arkansas, Temple/Army, SMU/Texas Tech, SMU/Baylor, USF/Miami, UCF/South Carolina, SD St/Oregon St.

Also, if the BE goes to NBC and ND stays, NBC would keep the Navy/ND game every year and perhaps ND can modify their schedule for adding a BE game or two per year that would also stay on NBC.

If each team added 2 BCS conference games to the schedule (with a 9-game schedule) then Versus would have enough content for one time slot a week and a couple games for NBC to supplement ND and Army. Note the ACC locking up SU and BC at Thanksgiving on a Friday.

So at best 15 games (a BE game of the week on Tier 2 Versus and 3 other cherry picks get Tier 1 NBC ) and the conference game get National NBC . The rest flood the regionals like SNY with BE content--in SNYs case up to 6 Rutgers and 6 UConn games a year. A Div II game from each and 5 regular season games each.

That's best case IMHO.

 

[whaler11]

The ACC deal is horrible compared to the other conferences because what they are selling is less valuable. What the Big East is selling is two steps in class below that. The Big East has nothing as valuable as FSU, Clemson or VPI football. It has nothing as valuable as Duke or North Carolina basketball.

Mock their deal all you like. Wake Forest and North Carolina State is still much more appealing than Houston and UCF.

The only football fanbase in the Big East that is even as big as NCSU's is Louisville.

 

[whaler11]

Navy/IU, RU/Army and Maryland/Temple are valuable? I cant even comprehend a reason why I'd consider watching Navy and Indiana.

 

[NEforceUConn]

This is a news flash in advance of the eventual newsflash....

The new television contract will be about two miles behind the ACC's contract which was one mile behind the Big 12's contract.

Networks are not going to claw each others' eyeballs out for the right to show a Thursday night UCF-Rutgers game - it's just not going to happen. We're not an appealing product in football and networks don't hand out blank checks for basketball content.

You piss on the NNBE like this?? Yet almost everybody on the Boneyard thinks UConn FB will be very successful 10 years from now. I agree, and I also think Cincy and UL have a damn good chance of being VERY good within 5 years. Who knows how successful Houston and SMU may be? Hell even Temple (the team you hate) has made HUGE strides in 3 years and maybe they beat Penn State in a couple years.

Do not forget the very large hype that the RU/UL game drew years ago, or the national coverage of that WVU/Pitt game 5 years ago. The NNBE has potential - that's a FACT. Stop paying attention to these ESPN Dbags who glorify the ACC and trash BE fb. But the BE needs something special this year and UConn having a run would be timely and special.

So, sir, please stop pissing on the NNBE. Try to think that the league will grow just as fast as UConn fb will grow. $15m is in the cards. Graham Stewart is on board. It's our time. Maybe UL will stay, they certainly will be a big fish here and ND can use their influence to keep the stepchild alive.

ps Consider this. we know the ACC killed BCU, and many think the ACC may kill Cuse and Pitt too. What effect will the demise of Cuse and Pitt have on UConn FB? Think about that. And believe you me, the ACC does not give a rats ass about Cuse and Pitt.

 

[UConnJim]

whaler11 - you must not understand college football ratings. Slightly more than 1 million viewers is acceptable and valuable. Would Navy/Indiana draw that kind of viewership? Probably.

 

[Chin Diesel]

The ACC deal is horrible compared to the other conferences because what they are selling is less valuable. What the Big East is selling is two steps in class below that. The Big East has nothing as valuable as FSU, Clemson or VPI football. It has nothing as valuable as Duke or North Carolina basketball.

Mock their deal all you like. Wake Forest and North Carolina State is still much more appealing than Houston and UCF.

The only football fanbase in the Big East that is even as big as NCSU's is Louisville.

I disagree. A mid-November match up of an 8-2 Houston and a 9-1 UCF will outdraw a match up of NCSU and WFU with them having similar records.

The Big East's problem is the same as its always been. They have the smallest number of die hard fans who will watch no matter what. On the flip side, the BE school's have the largest number of potential new fans. Let's be honest there isn't an untapped market for 500,000 WFU fans waiting for an exciting team.

Big East has to sell potential. I don't know how well they can sell it, but it's the strongest argument the conference has going forward.

 

[whaler11]

whaler11 - you must not understand college football ratings. Slightly more than 1 million viewers is acceptable and valuable. Would Navy/Indiana draw that kind of viewership? Probably.

Oh I don't understand ratings. If you think your OOC games are valuable if they have a million viewers.... You better play Indiana and Navy at a time with no other games as nobody other than some Navy vets are watching that game when they have 6 better options at the same time.

Air Force and Navy on CBS had 1.577 million viewers. On frigging network CBS. Nobody is watching Indiana and Navy on cable.

The same day Iowa/Michigan got 4 million viewers on cable.

In 2010 CBS averaged 6,944,000 viewers. The only network that didn't average more than 1.4 million viewers (ESPN 2's number) was ..... Versus - shocking. They averaged 411,000.

 

[huskypantz]

I have no idea what the Big East will get. The idea that it will get close to the ACC's $17 million per school per year seems laughable to me.

The ACC did not get $17 million on the open market. Their deal was an exclusive renegotiation of an existing contract. If they went on the open market, they would have gotten much more. The Big East will get interest from multiple outlets. I don't think that means $17 million, but I think they can get close.

 

[uconnbill]

I don't really disagree with you, but you're making a bit of a straw man argument here. No one's disputing that live sports sell well. The question becomes, why pay the Big East tons of money? Because those same networks could buy sports content from places like Conference USA at a much cheaper rate.

Some of the same arguments made about the Big East, like big markets, applies to Conference USA as well. Even after losing a few schools to poaching, Con-USA still has schools in Houston, New Orleans, Birmingham, Charlotte, Tulsa, El Paso (a suprisingly big city), San Antonio, and Miami. But I don't think anyone here is arguing that Con-USA is going to get a big money deal.
Yeah and those schools are not on the level of the schools coming to the Big East or equal to those schools already in the Big East.. Then you miss the point completely. Rice, Tulane, and UAB are not big even in their own cities. I mean UAB even talked about in SEC conference. Then you mention Tulane which has some following but in LSU country they are second rate at best. Then Rice which is a private school never has compared to Houston in the last 30 years or so.

The question becomes, do you give the Big East $14 million per year if you can get Con-USA for say $5 million. Only if the Big East can nearly triple the viewers. I'm just not sure it can.
Again they are not the same or even close to the same. I get headaches reading your post. Sorry but you are wrong.

Big East basketball is still great. But basketball is an afterthought in these deals. It's dwarfed dramatically by football money wise. So the overwhelming question to any network will be how many people will actually tune if for Temple, Memphis, Rutgers, UConn, UCF, Houston, and USF football (and others schools I did not take the time to list)? That's the question I do not know. And that's why I am curious to see what the final number is. But I cannot say with a straight face that I really think Temple, USF, Rutgers, and Houston will draw fans at the same level of GT, FSU, VT, and Clemson. And that's why I can't see the Big East getting all that close to the ACC dollar wise.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

The ACC did not get $17 million on the open market. Their deal was an exclusive renegotiation of an existing contract. If they went on the open market, they would have gotten much more. The Big East will get interest from multiple outlets. I don't think that means $17 million, but I think they can get close.

Exactly. People need to stop using ACC's numbers because they are not market value. B12 just lost Nebraska, A&M, Colorado and Missouri to other conferences. They added WVU (small market) and TCU (in a market they already got) and yet they got $5M raise per team. B12 is more the real market value as well as the PAC-12. ACC is undervalued since they signed a horrible deal to start with and they only got ESPN to negotiate with for the 2nd round. BE should only use B12 and PAC-12 deals as comparisons.