Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell. | Page 777 | The Boneyard

Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.

Drew said:
Here’s your Big East tv data to flip through by network- I’ll use 2022 FS1 as an example: 2022 Big East TV Ratings

BE: 32 games averaging 286k viewers

Here’s your comp to the Big Ten by network: What are Big East TV Rights worth?

View attachment 93320

Going back to our TV numbers, the B10 drew in 79.9 million viewers for 100 non-Big Ten Channel games last season, averaging 807K per game. If you just take conference games to nullify external opponent impacts and focus on just the FS1 numbers that average was 526K (and 1.2M on big FOX).

Adding the Big East conference ratings back in, the rated games drew in about 49% of Big Ten averages on FS1, and about 59% on big FOX. A reasonable inference here would be that Big East rights are about half as valuable as Big Ten basketball rights.
Expand ...
I have seen this article. I like this chart which illustrates the point I was making:
1700678582398.png

I don't love the comparison to MLS but, interestingly enough, it works out almost identically to the equalized comparison of the Big Ten basketball rights.

The author concludes that the big east rights are worth roughly double what they are now, which would be equivalent to $8M - 9M per school. That number gets thrown around a lot, but I think this article may have been the genesis of it.

It is in someways ironic that $8M - 9M per school is both an excellent result for the Big East and yet is completely insufficient.
 
CL82 said:
I have seen this article. I like this chart which illustrates the point I was making:
View attachment 93321
I don't love the comparison to MLS but, interestingly enough, it works out almost identically to the equalized comparison of the Big Ten basketball rights.

The author concludes that the big east rights are worth roughly double what they are now, which would be equivalent to $8M - 9M per school. That number gets thrown around a lot, but I think this article may have been the genesis of it.

It is in someways ironic that $8M - 9M per school is both an excellent result for the Big East and yet is completely insufficient.
Expand ...

What the author of that blog fails to account for in comparing MLS to the Big East is that the MLS Media Deal then included the USMNT and USWNT matches. This actually inflated or hid MLS's true value because those actually have mainstream appeal.

It's not a good comparison.
 
Ha Who said:

Census profile: Northeast Region

Census data for Northeast Region (pop. 56,983,516), including age, race, sex, income, poverty, marital status, education and more.
censusreporter.org censusreporter.org
Expand ...
This would be a great point if all of the Big East teams were large public schools located in the northeast and the Big Ten and ACC didn’t have any alumni living there but, alas, that is not the case
 
ZooCougar said:
No. I just decided to make you my special project.

The premise of argument is baseless. Call it a strawman or whatever. I don't care, whatever makes you feel better.
Expand ...
Lol, really? Because I thought you were just embarrassed that you were so stunningly wrong on the value of basketball rights that now you're flailing around trying to find an argument that makes you feel better about yourself. It's OK, it's not particularly unexpected.

Happy Cracking Up GIF by Regal
 
Drew said:
This would be a great point if all of the Big East teams were large public schools located in the northeast and the Big Ten and ACC didn’t have any alumni living there but, alas, that is not the case
Expand ...
Gentrification?
 
noeynox said:
So is Marquette beating Kansas. No one cares. I only watch UConn mens BB, so i was totally unaware of Marquette beating Kansas.
Expand ...
This is a weird take. They are both opponents of UConn this season. First off, plenty care, and secondly why wouldn’t you be interested in how future opponents are playing?
 
Drew said:
This would be a great point if all of the Big East teams were large public schools located in the northeast and the Big Ten and ACC didn’t have any alumni living there but, alas, that is not the case
Expand ...

And College sports in the northeast just aren’t as important culturally as they are in the other regions of the country.
 
CL82 said:
Lol, really? Because I thought you were just embarrassed that you were so stunningly wrong on the value of basketball rights that now you're flailing around trying to find an argument that makes you feel better about yourself. It's OK, it's not particularly unexpected.

Happy Cracking Up GIF by Regal
Expand ...

Well. Nobody here seems to even agree with you and we barely rake in $4M in TV with the Bug East sooooo….
 
Platt81 said:
This is a weird take. They are both opponents of UConn this season. First off, plenty care, and secondly why wouldn’t you be interested in how future opponents are playing?
Expand ...
Its in the post you quoted. I ony follow UConn men's BB, then the tournament. I honestly don't care who their opponents are playing. Plenty of people care about Boise State FB results too. They're called Boise State fans.
 
One of the major reasons the BE TV ratings are worse is because they are on FOX and not ESPN.
 
noeynox said:
No one cares about the Big East schools not named UConn/Nova. Marquette and Creighton may be good now but those team successes tend to be cyclical or related to the head coach like Wichita State a few years back. No one is going to call the entire tournament "fraudulent" cause UConn and Nova got shafted. It will simply be seen as a consequence of change.
Expand ...
 
noeynox said:
More like Fox overpaid for content when they were getting FS1 and FS2 off the ground. They have more content now, and less available slots because of it. Less incentive to over pay also.
Expand ...
I’m fascinated to see how this next go-round goes. The Big East is the perfect cheap filler content for a cable sports network- can stick it on FS1/FS2 without worrying about a conference network since they aren’t a big enough deal to have one, daily content in two time slots, and doesn’t cost you a lot of money.

They have to put SOMETHING on during December, Jan, Feb when their college football coverage ends, as long as the BE remains cheap enough to make $ on the ad revenue then it makes sense for FOX to continue the relationship in (relatively) its current format. The question becomes, when inevitably the BE asks for more money, does FOX say yes or do they say “we have other content that can also get 286k views nightly for a fraction of the cost” and walk away.
 
Drew said:
I’m fascinated to see how this next go-round goes. The Big East is the perfect cheap filler content for a cable sports network- can stick it on FS1/FS2 without worrying about a conference network since they aren’t a big enough deal to have one, daily content in two time slots, and doesn’t cost you a lot of money.

They have to put SOMETHING on during December, Jan, Feb when their college football coverage ends, as long as the BE remains cheap enough to make $ on the ad revenue then it makes sense for FOX to continue the relationship in (relatively) its current format. The question becomes, when inevitably the BE asks for more money, does FOX say yes or do they say “we have other content that can also get 286k views nightly for a fraction of the cost” and walk away.
Expand ...
And FOX just stretched its budget by paying for a piece of the B12 expansion & is paying for most of the Oregon Washington move to the B1G.

How much money do they have left to spend in college sports?
 
In the article Drew posted there was something that struck me:

The Great Split is no longer a far-fetched idea or a long-shot theory. It is instead a looming reality in light of legal challenges facing college athletics, most notably the costly House antitrust case against the NCAA and the power conferences.

The case, seeking as much as $3 billion in retroactive name, image and likeness (NIL) and broadcasting revenue payments, is the latest lawsuit expected to chip away at the NCAA’s bedrock of amateurism. The case will, undoubtedly, force the organization to distribute more revenue to athletes like those legal losses before it (think: cost-of-attendance payments in 2015 and Alston academic-related stipends in 2021).


However, the House case is much more significant, as it opens the door for direct pay to athletes by seeking the elimination of the NCAA’s NIL rules. One SEC president describes its outcome as financially “catastrophic.” There is talk of FBS schools each chipping in upwards of $5-10 million in potential settlement payments.
Expand ...

But it is the House case that may drive the final wedge between the haves and have-nots of college sports. The Power Five shares CFP and NCAA tournament revenue with other schools.

A dividing line is forming between the schools and conferences that can and cannot afford to contribute to payments if the House case is settled or lost.
Expand ...
It seems like it's going to be a case of if you can afford to be in the game or not. Can you afford to pony up the bill for the outcome of the House case? If you can, then you have got yourself a piece of the revenue. If you can't, thanks for your interest in playing what was once NCAA football.

This is one area where I kinda feel like we can play the game. As a large state university, I have to hope we have the funds to stay in this if it is just a financial game. If they can get a way through this gate, they can share the insane revenue that will come in with the new CFP, which the article projects to be in the $1.7-2 billion range annually.

The whole thing scares me because it really seems like the gig is up. The ship is actually sinking and the last life boat is actually gone. We keep hoping the next thing will come but it is looking like it's almost too late.
 
UCFBfan said:
In the article Drew posted there was something that struck me:




It seems like it's going to be a case of if you can afford to be in the game or not. Can you afford to pony up the bill for the outcome of the House case? If you can, then you have got yourself a piece of the revenue. If you can't, thanks for your interest in playing what was once NCAA football.

This is one area where I kinda feel like we can play the game. As a large state university, I have to hope we have the funds to stay in this if it is just a financial game. If they can get a way through this gate, they can share the insane revenue that will come in with the new CFP, which the article projects to be in the $1.7-2 billion range annually.

The whole thing scares me because it really seems like the gig is up. The ship is actually sinking and the last life boat is actually gone. We keep hoping the next thing will come but it is looking like it's almost too late.
Expand ...
To be honest- in no way shape or form do I see the state ponying up any money at all to support UConn football at the future state “power” level. They can’t even get money to run the program currently- the last HC had to pay an OC out of his own pocket and the current HC can’t afford to hire a DC with the existing budget. The basketball staff of 4 makes more money than the football staff of 11. Think about how hard that is to do from a sheer numbers standpoint. Then, on top of it, the coach is complaining publicly (and has been for weeks) that we have essentially zero donor support for NIL. There is no existing football NIL group to support UConn (although I am hearing rumblings this is finally in the works). Do you know how insane it is we still don’t have a dedicated football collective? The rules came out 3 years ago. It’s preposterous.

The state (and donor base) will absolutely pay through the nose to participate in what is “big time” college basketball. The question is- how much $ is that cost? Because if 20% of media deals are being rationed to basketball and teams in the B1G are taking 20% of their $100M/annual TV money and allocating a portion of that $20M to their players, that’s going to be really difficult to compete against factoring in the additional NIL money that will continue on top of these future revenue sharing payments to athletes.

We don’t even have the money to fix or rebuild our existing decrepit facilities and previously tried to go cheap out of paying the Kevin Ollie buyout because of the cost. I don’t know how much $ it will take to compete in future state high major basketball but there is a non-zero chance that (eventually) we are priced out if we don’t see a significant change in future revenues
 
UCFBfan said:
In the article Drew posted there was something that struck me:




It seems like it's going to be a case of if you can afford to be in the game or not. Can you afford to pony up the bill for the outcome of the House case? If you can, then you have got yourself a piece of the revenue. If you can't, thanks for your interest in playing what was once NCAA football.

This is one area where I kinda feel like we can play the game. As a large state university, I have to hope we have the funds to stay in this if it is just a financial game. If they can get a way through this gate, they can share the insane revenue that will come in with the new CFP, which the article projects to be in the $1.7-2 billion range annually.

The whole thing scares me because it really seems like the gig is up. The ship is actually sinking and the last life boat is actually gone. We keep hoping the next thing will come but it is looking like it's almost too late.
Expand ...
It will be about who can opt in. If you are willing to opt in, and the big boys try to shut you out, that opens up an anti-trust lawsuit.

I firmly believe when revenue sharing comes into play that there will be about 90-100 FBS football schools that opt in and an additional 50-60 basketball-first schools that opt in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
251
Guests online
1,582
Total visitors
1,833
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,068
Messages
4,380,888
Members
10,177
Latest member
silver fox


.
..
Top Bottom