College basketball value in large markets

[whaler11]

The A-10 gets 5 million a year for 8 years.

For the whole league.

 

[freescooter]

Which is why when people say the Big East will get $5 million a team for basketball, I say nonsense. The league is good but not that good and could be replaced with an A-10 type league with a major marketing effort and a slight raise and you'd still be ahead of the game.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

the A-10 is also still weighted down by woeful programs like LaSalle, Duquense, Fordham, URI, and St. Bonaventure that bring absolutely positively nothing to the table in terms of market value.

 

[whaler11]

It's like 375k a team. It may as well be zero.

 

[Jericho]

I think people already knew this with the ACC. By their own calculations, they're getting less than $4 million per school. They have schools located in big cities too (Boston, Pitt, DC, Atlanta, Miami, Raleigh/Durham) plus lots of "name" programs. The Big East is still a great basketball conference, but it lost 4 good programs in Pitt, Syracuse, ND, and West Virginia. Memphis and Temple offset that a little, but not enough.

 

[Pudge]

When was the Contract done?

What is the content? How many games per year?

See .... markets move. You can cite that all you want. But, we have entered an entirely new age. Marketing, btw, is not going to help with Saint Bonaventure & URI etc etc. You can't just roll out the balls; there has to be some Value. If the BE positioned the Big Monday to be UCF versus SMU today, that's not worth much. But, I expect that we still will have 4-7 top 25 teams. With Brand Names.

 

[UConnJim]

Apples and oranges. A-10 essentially has no name programs and is made up of mostly Seton Hall/Providence type schools. Second, the A-10 contract covers fewer games than the BE existing contract. This year, 56% of BE games are on national TV and every game is televised. Third, women's basketball in A-10 has almost no value. Tier 3 for UConn women's basketball is worth $1 million on a standalone basis! Fourth, ACC basketball is estimated to be worth $3.5 million per year in its current contract.

Most interesting about this deal is that the A-10 signed with ESPN (30 games), CBS Sports Network, AND NBC Sports Network. If NBC is going to get serious with college sports, they need more content.

 

[Pudge]

I see NBC ... like ESPN ... behind the scenes on some of this Conference Realignment.

Seems like there is a greater strategy at work. The Money? If you can't make sense of the Pac12 Contract/Deal ... a Time Zone problem that limits their access to 40% of the US ... you seriously begin to wonder what these Networks are building towards.

 

[whaler11]

Of course the teams are very different but the idea that just having lots of winter content is a hoax. It has to be of quality. 4 top 25 teams is possible for the Big East. 6-7 is a serious stretch.

 

[UConnJim]

Of course the teams are very different but the idea that just having lots of winter content is a hoax. It has to be of quality. 4 top 25 teams is possible for the Big East. 6-7 is a serious stretch.

Disagree. New Big East will still have high quality basketball and 4 BE teams in top 25 will be an average year. Here are the stats:

Top 25 and also receiving votes:

2012: 4 Top 25, 2 receiving votes
2011: 3 Top 25, 4 receiving votes
2010: 1 Top 25, 1 receiving votes (Ugly year!)
2009: 5 Top 25
2008: 5 Top 25, 1 receiving votes
2007: 4 top 25
2006: 4 top 25, 1 receiving votes
2005: 4 top 25
2004: 4 top 25, 5 receiving votes.

 

[whaler11]

Disagree. New Big East will still have high quality basketball and 4 BE teams in top 25 will be an average year. Here are the stats:

Top 25 and also receiving votes:

2012: 4 Top 25, 2 receiving votes
2011: 3 Top 25, 4 receiving votes
2010: 1 Top 25, 1 receiving votes (Ugly year!)
2009: 5 Top 25
2008: 5 Top 25, 1 receiving votes
2007: 4 top 25
2006: 4 top 25, 1 receiving votes
2005: 4 top 25
2004: 4 top 25, 5 receiving votes.

Isn't that pretty much agreeing me with? 4 sure - 6-7 stretch.

They are going to also lose some of the hype with the losses of the four schools and a lot of quality games against each other.

It's a good league but the A-10 shows it's not quantity that gets a payday and no one is paying for the potential of a UCF or Houston - they are paying for the known quantities. There are a lot of mouths to feed that bring almost nothing to the table in basketball.

The ACC to get 4 million has to sell their tier 3 rights - which in the case of say UConn are almost more valuable than the balance since SNY can get themselves a half a state of subscribers they wouldn't have access to otherwise.

If the Big East is selling only Tiers 1 & 2 that number is coming in south of 4 million.

 

[Pudge]

Won't we all find out in weeks ... I LOVE these shoot-from-the-hip Hedge Fund kings here on the Boneyard.

 

[freescooter]

I haven't looked at who's top 25 or not, but if you look at the A-10 they have Xavier who is seemingly always top 20, They've recently added Butler and VCU. They have St Joes who has good history and while they have fallen off lately have been good in the recent past (not 1980, Pudge). they've got teams in major cities up and down the East Coast. They have some teams with history. They typically get 3 or 4 bids most years and I could see that going to 4-5 now with Butler and VCU. My view is that if a network wanted to market them as the up and coming conference, there is certainly something there to work with. And obviously they came cheap, so even if you spent money marketing them, you'd still be ahead of the game. And given that the Big East lost some well know programs, irrespective of what you think of their quality, and it faces a downgrade, the A-10 could get a bit of new life.

 

[freescooter]

Won't we all find out in weeks ... I LOVE these shoot-from-the-hip Hedge Fund kings here on the Boneyard.

Says the man predicting Houston will be the next Big East power...

 

[HuskyHawk]

the A-10 is also still weighted down by woeful programs like LaSalle, Duquense, Fordham, URI, and St. Bonaventure that bring absolutely positively nothing to the table in terms of market value.

And they just lost Temple.

 

[businesslawyer]

It's like 375k a team. It may as well be zero.

I don't understand your point. If it's more than the A Ten had been getting, which it is, and the A Ten has consistently been able to compete with the lower tier BCS conferences, which it has, why may it well as be zero? If less money hasn't kept them from fielding competitive teams and programs, why would more money do so?

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Which is why when people say the Big East will get $5 million a team for basketball, I say nonsense. The league is good but not that good and could be replaced with an A-10 type league with a major marketing effort and a slight raise and you'd still be ahead of the game.

Sorry that's just ridiculous. I'm not arguing here about how much the Big East basketball conference is worth to a tv partner, but it sure as hell isn't the A-10 with a 'major marketing effort'.

If we have realized anything throughout conference realignment it's that on-field performance matters very little and national brand name cache is king.

The Big East has national brand name powers and the A-10 doesn't. That matters.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

I don't understand your point. If it's more than the A Ten had been getting, which it is, and the A Ten has consistently been able to compete with the lower tier BCS conferences, which it has, why may it well as be zero? If less money hasn't kept them from fielding competitive teams and programs, why would more money do so?

Well they had been competing with all the BCS Conference teams, but now the BCS conferences all just signed $16-$22M media rights deals? That's a huge gap.

 

[businesslawyer]

Well they had been competing with all the BCS Conference teams, but now the BCS conferences all just signed $16-$22M media rights deals? That's a huge gap.

So the $0 to $12M gap was no sweat, but $0.5M to $20M keeps you from competing? Why?

 

[ConnHuskBask]

So the $0 to $12M gap was no sweat, but $0.5M to $20M keeps you from competing? Why?

I mean, that's an extra $8M a year. I don't think you can minimize the impact that can have on BCS teams in terms of poaching away mid-major coaches, financing recruiting budgets and capital projects like practice facilities.

Sure, the BCS leagues have always had a huge monetary value, but I think at some point it just becomes too much to overcome.

 

[whaler11]

I don't understand your point. If it's more than the A Ten had been getting, which it is, and the A Ten has consistently been able to compete with the lower tier BCS conferences, which it has, why may it well as be zero? If less money hasn't kept them from fielding competitive teams and programs, why would more money do so?

My point is that college basketball generates very little in television revenue for the schools. A constant refrain on the Boneyard is that networks want a high quantity of content. I like the A-10 and think it's a pretty good league - their quantity of content generated income that is a rounding error in a budget. Much of the content the Big East will generate in the future is similar to the quality of the A-10. The idea that someone is going to blow the Big East away with a huge offer because of the quantity of basketball generated with so many teams is a joke. The A-10 has a lot of bottom feeders who generate no incremental revenue - so does the Big East.

 

[Pudge]

My point is that college basketball generates very little in television revenue for the schools. A constant refrain on the Boneyard is that networks want a high quantity of content. I like the A-10 and think it's a pretty good league - their quantity of content generated income that is a rounding error in a budget. Much of the content the Big East will generate in the future is similar to the quality of the A-10. The idea that someone is going to blow the Big East away with a huge offer because of the quantity of basketball generated with so many teams is a joke. The A-10 has a lot of bottom feeders who generate no incremental revenue - so does the Big East.

"Similar to the quality ..."

You just haven't been paying attention ... nor gone to MSG in March ... nor seen what the BE label has done for Program after Program. Including the dearly departed WVU & ND. It's a BOOST for each of these. And you either compete at a very high level ... or you get embarassed.

That's NOT what I see from the A-10. Some of those Programs are dishwater rinse.

 

[whaler11]

"Similar to the quality ..."

You just haven't been paying attention ... nor gone to MSG in March ... nor seen what the BE label has done for Program after Program. Including the dearly departed WVU & ND. It's a BOOST for each of these. And you either compete at a very high level ... or you get embarassed.

That's NOT what I see from the A-10. Some of those Programs are dishwater rinse.

What has the Big East label done for Providence, Seton Hall, Rutgers, USF and DePaul? The bottom half of the Big East is going to generate a parade of games that no one wants to watch.

When you lose Syracuse, West Virginia, Pittsburgh and Notre Dame - your label is no longer your label. It's like Mountain West trying to pretend they are the same league without Boise and TCU.

There seems to be an idiotic contradiction at play on this board. The NNBE is still some great league, UConn is a great basketball brand - but somehow there is no way that there would have been legitimate candidates for the head coaching job and there was no choice but Ollie. How are all three of those things true?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

What has the Big East label done for Providence, Seton Hall, Rutgers, USF and DePaul? The bottom half of the Big East is going to generate a parade of games that no one wants to watch.

When you lose Syracuse, West Virginia, Pittsburgh and Notre Dame - your label is no longer your label. It's like Mountain West trying to pretend they are the same league without Boise and TCU.

There seems to be an idiotic contradiction at play on this board. The NNBE is still some great league, UConn is a great basketball brand - but somehow there is no way that there would have been legitimate candidates for the head coaching job and there was no choice but Ollie. How are all three of those things true?

Your characterization of the Ollie situation is overly simplistic. I think many people's opinion, including mine, is that Manuel's public pissing match with Calhoun is a bad idea, not that Ollie is the program savior, and that Manuel's approach is just about the stupidest way to handle the coaching situation that anyone could come up with.

Houston has more Final Four's in my lifetime than Pitt, WVU and ND combined. Temple and Memphis are very high level programs in cities that generate tons of top hoop talent. UCF and SMU are completely dead weight, although I seem to remember UCF scoring a pretty big win over a top program in a hotel conference room recently. Marquette, Villanova and Georgetown are pretty good programs.

 

[whaler11]

Your characterization of the Ollie situation is overly simplistic. I think many people's opinion, including mine, is that Manuel's public pissing match with Calhoun is a bad idea, not that Ollie is the program savior, and that Manuel's approach is just about the stupidest way to handle the coaching situation that anyone could come up with.

Houston has more Final Four's in my lifetime than Pitt, WVU and ND combined. Temple and Memphis are very high level programs in cities that generate tons of top hoop talent. UCF and SMU are completely dead weight, although I seem to remember UCF scoring a pretty big win over a top program in a hotel conference room recently. Marquette, Villanova and Georgetown are pretty good programs.

My characterization is the summary of the the Pudge and Upstater posts. I am fine with Ollie - but I find the idea they wouldn't have other good candidates silly.

The Big East is still a good basketball league but there a ton of dregs who generate zero revenue for the package. Some of the schools coming in contribute some - none contribute what the schools leaving did.

Houston was good decades ago? So were Providence and DePaul. It's done wonders for them. I will believe the new schools contribute when they actually contribute - not based on rosy predictions of their rise from the dead.