Northwestern Players file to join labor union

[EdgewoodNHV]

1. Minor league sports do not make much money. The interest generated in college hoops, for example, is largely because of the university itself.

2. Colleges lose money on sports.

Do they lose money on sports like college football and basketball? Even if you count television money? And endorsement deals from the likes of Nike and IMG? And licensing deals with local radio affiliates? And increase endowment?

I understand schools lose money on field hockey and soccer, but I suspect the big sports generate more money than they lose if you really track all of the indirect revenue.

 

[ZooCougar]

Do they lose money on sports like college football and basketball? Even if you count television money? And endorsement deals from the likes of Nike and IMG? And licensing deals with local radio affiliates? And increase endowment?

I understand schools lose money on field hockey and soccer, but I suspect the big sports generate more money than they lose if you really track all of the indirect revenue.

Good point. Let's pay every football player 50k a year on top of the scholarship and let's charge the Field Hockey and Cross Country players to play.

 

[upstater]

Do they lose money on sports like college football and basketball? Even if you count television money? And endorsement deals from the likes of Nike and IMG? And licensing deals with local radio affiliates? And increase endowment?

I understand schools lose money on field hockey and soccer, but I suspect the big sports generate more money than they lose if you really track all of the indirect revenue.

It's not like the budgets are secret. Look them up. Yes, they lose money. Endorsement deals and donations are all part of athletic budget revenues. I've only said this a thousand times. There are also expenditures that are not AD expenditures, like building facilities. And then there is the direct institutional support and student fees which are counted as revenues for the AD side. Yes, schools lose money.

 

[businesslawyer]

Can they go on strike if they don't get enough playing time, carries, etc?

Yes. You see those strikes in the NFL weekly.

Or, maybe, the issue can be discussed without ridiculous comments.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

Yes. You see those strikes in the NFL weekly.

Or, maybe, the issue can be discussed without ridiculous comments.

Damn, and I was gonna discuss a coach's daily trip to the Union Hiring Hall.

 

[Sportsman5]

If the passage above (in red) reflects reality, it is 100% the fault of UCONN's management; specifically the Managers responsible for keeping counselors informed about UCONN. If fleeting, resolved BB issues are being allowed to taint the continuing reputation of a top-20 Public Research University, everyone involved in creating the "perception of UCONN" should be marched down range from a firing squad. Thankfully, recent statistics having to do with incoming Freshmen would indicate that counselors, somewhere, see UCONN's value. Sorry, but UCONN's seeming inability or unwillingness to sell itself is maddening. Why hide such a great product.----- {RANT FINISHED.}

No question that there are a number of factors affecting the reputation scores and I think that the scores will increase a lot over the next 3-5 years. By 2020 the university should move up in perceived ranking as well as statistical ranking for organizations such as U.S. news and world report. UConn has been on a consistent upward trend and is currently ranked 57. If you analyze all the metrics and consider where UConn stands compared to the schools 10-20 spots ahead of them, than it is looking good for UConn. Based on the continued improvements to the University, increased research money, improved statistics such as SAT scores, smarter students which leads to better 4 and 6 year graduation rates etc. The University should move up in many metrics including reputation and put itself in the top 10-12 private schools in the country and an overall ranking of 35-45. After that it is difficult to predict. I think hybrid courses of online and offline as well as a certificate based system will start to become more popular and important in a global economy and the entire notion of the purpose of a University will start to see dramatic changes in the 2020s and 2030s. Free education or VERY cheap education that is given a lot of respect will become the norm in certain industries where it is easy to measure performance and past work/ projects are much more indicative of knowledge and abilities than a certain GPA or degree. As computer learning and AI improve measuring knowledge and ability will become even easier for companies making a degree even less important. and eventually AI and robots will take most of the jobs that are currently studied for while in school. This doesn't mean that AI takes over and it's sky net for real. But it means that Universities as we know them may either not exist or be WAY different. Some of this will take a while, but other things will come so much sooner than many people think. Look at our world 10 and 20 years ago. 20 years ago the internet didn't exist. 10 years ago smart phones basically didn't exist. the world has changed faster than almost any one predicted and the university system is in for a very fast and significant changes. 3 billion more peopel who currently aren't online will come online in the next 10 years. there is moores law progressing technology, but there is also reeds law. Reeds law as it relates to this basically means that there is extreme exponential growth in ideas and innovation. So the more ideas, solutions, and knowledge exist in the world and the more minds (not including machine learning and AI which will completely change everything) are contributing the more exponential growth there will be. There could be as much progress and innovation from say 2020-2023 as there was progress and innovation from the beginning of humanity until say 2007. that type of exponential progress is pretty crazy. I don't think in this type of world of khan academy and other online learning tools that traditional universities will even exist 15 -20 years from now. So the short answer is don't worry about uconn reputation, lol

 

[Husky25]

Yes. You see those strikes in the NFL weekly.

Or, maybe, the issue can be discussed without ridiculous comments.

There'd be subject to collective bargaining. Any deal that helps the few (regardless which end of the spectrum), hurts the many. That runs exactly and directly counter to what a union is supposed to do.

 

[Husky25]

If college sports were a free market, many college athletes would be getting paid a whole heck of a lot more than their free education. And given the anti-competitive nature of the NFL/NBA (what other profession refuses to hire you at 18?), it should be interesting to see how this shakes out.

It's pretty funny how many free market capitalists I know who suddenly start screaming, "Oh, these coddled students! A free education isn't good enough?!" when students want to get paid what they're actually worth to the Universities they generate millions of dollars for.

MLB is the only sport with an anti-trust exemption. The NFL and NBA are not necessarily anti-competitive any more than they know (and have proven) that they have the best product on the professional level in North America.

Don't kid yourself, though. The NBA and NFL instituted those rules for purely selfish reasons. The fact that they help the college game is purely ancillary. The NBA rule doesn't state anything about requiring one year of college ball. It states that a potential player is not eligible for the draft until they are 19 (I thought there was also a provision about one year removed from high school or prep school but I could be mistaken. I am 99.4% certain that rule exists in the NFL). The overall effect is that players go to college for a year, but they can also try and enter the D-League or play in a Non-NBA league in a different country, However, these routes risk exposure and quality completion (Brandon Jennings is the exception that proves the rule). That's neither here nor there. The real reason for the rule is On the Job training at the tune of $3 Million/year. Then the player hits the free agent market following his rookie deal and stars for another team.

The NFL's rule is similar. They don't necessarily take college into account, either. I believe their rule is 20 years old or three years removed from high or prep school. This has to do with mostly with physical body development. The average 18-19 year old football player, even with all the talent in the world, would get lit up verse an NFL veteran in the prime of his life. It would be a PR and goodwill nightmare. It would also dilute the product.

 

[BC1978]

Probably both.

The NCAA puts a limit on the weekly hours an athlete can be required to interact in team activities (20 hours per week in season, I believe). If "College" teams divorce themselves from the NCAA Member university, and go the semi-pro route, those limits are subject to relaxation and eventual extinction over time, leaving less time for the "student"-athlete to be a student. As that erosion advances, so does the TV money. College sports still hold a certain innocence. Professional feeder systems do not. So as a league leans semi-pro, less people (outside of hotbeds) will be inclined to tune in. At that point the FSUs of the would will start to have a problem with their own conference members (WF, BC,) because they are not pulling their weight. No viewers = no advertising dollars. No advertising dollars = no huge TV payouts. Why? For the same reason the NBDL, WLAF (later the World League), AAA baseball, AHL, and UFL, don't have lucrative contracts, if at all.

Not pulling their weight? Methinks they are:
http://www.goodbullhunting.com/2013...ge-football-tv-ratings-2014-texas-am-missouri

 

[Husky25]

Context please?

...

BC had 4 rated games (As a matter of fact, so did UConn in an "inferior" conference), what are the odds that those rated games were vs. FSU, Clemson, North Carolina, and USC? My guess is pretty darn low. Further, each of those games was during the MLB stretch run and playoffs. Logic would indicate that the fine residents inside 128 didn't really contribute to a significant move of the needle.

 

[BC1978]

Context please?

...

BC had 4 rated games (As a matter of fact, so did UConn in an "inferior" conference), what are the odds that those rated games were vs. FSU, Clemson, North Carolina, and USC? My guess is pretty darn low. Further, each of those games was during the MLB stretch run and playoffs. Logic would indicate that the fine residents inside 128 didn't really contribute to a significant move of the needle.

Well, BC was #38 in the rankings and finished well ahead of schools in the ACC who also played the opponents you listed above so it wasn't just the opponents that drove the ratings. The fact that some of these games occurred during the stretch run of the MLB playoffs involving the Red Sox is even more impressive.

You don't think people were watching locally? Really? Then who was watching? And how come others didn't pull equal or better numbers for their rated games??

How come Maryland, for example, that also played FSU and Clemson, and only played one more rated game then BC, finished #55 to BC's #38?

BC has always had solid ratings - despite what you would like to believe. This data only confirms this.

Bottom line, the ACC looks at this data and draw its own conclusions (which, by the way, is one of the reasons BC gets more than its share of nationally televised games).

 

[Husky25]

I didn't say that no one watches BC. I said no enough watch to significantly move the needle on BC's behalf. 4/12 = 33%. which is only good in baseball. BC had 8 games that did not rate. Again it stands to reason that BC benefited from games vs teams with national appeal and/or virtually exclusive appeal in their regional area. These games were probably not vs Wake Forest, NMST, or Maryland for example.

Boston is a pro town, BC gets almost no mention on NESN, and since Meter left WEEI, very little non-game radio coverage.

Well, BC was #38 in the rankings and finished well ahead of schools in the ACC who also played the opponents you listed above so it wasn't just the opponents that drove the ratings. The fact that some of these games occurred during the stretch run of the MLB playoffs involving the Red Sox is even more impressive.

You don't think people were watching locally? Really? Then who was watching? And how come others didn't pull equal or better numbers for their rated games??

How come Maryland, for example, that also played FSU and Clemson, and only played one more rated game then BC, finished #55 to BC's #38?

BC has always had solid ratings - despite what you would like to believe. This data only confirms this.

Bottom line, the ACC looks at this data and draw its own conclusions (which, by the way, is one of the reasons BC gets more than its share of nationally televised games).

 

[Woof 101]

I posted this in the Conference Realignment thread, but it may be more applicable here:

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...cats-football-players-trying-join-labor-union

Ramogi Huma, president of the National College Players Association, filed a petition in Chicago on behalf of football players at Northwestern University, submitting the form at the regional office of the National Labor Relations Board.

Backed by the United Steelworkers union, Huma also filed union cards signed by an undisclosed number of Northwestern players with the NLRB -- the federal statutory body that recognizes groups that seek collective bargaining rights.

"This is about finally giving college athletes a seat at the table," said Huma, a former UCLA linebacker, who created the NCPA as an advocacy group in 2001. "Athletes deserve an equal voice when it comes to their physical, academic and financial protections."​

NU player on Reddit:

NU player here on a throwaway. This isn't about getting paid. What it is about is protection. Many of us will have numerous injuries throughout our playing careers. A group of those players will continue to feel the effects of those injuries long after their playing days are over. The goal is to have some sort of medical protection if we need surgeries stemming from injuries sustained while playing for our university. Another goal is graduate school for those who were fortunate enough to play as a true Freshman. Most student-athletes get redshirted in their first year, and receive one year of grad school payed for in their fifth year of eligibility. We feel as though it is fair to ask for the same investment from the university all around. It isn't about getting an extra $200 a month for spending. We have our stipend, and if we budget correctly we are able to make it stretch for the month. Would it be nice to have some part of jersey sales or memorabilia sales? Absolutely. But that is not the goal as of right now.

Just wanted to add in that I am extremely thankful for the opportunity I have been given to not only play football, but to attend a world class university such as Northwestern. It is an opportunity millions dream of having. We are treated well at Northwestern, but unfortunately that is not the case at many other schools. Hopefully we can create a voice for the players and clean up these issues. ​

Obviously the union hands have guided you on this. I am not anti union, but do realize once your school becomes part of this you are no longer an amateur. You and your team are now professionals, this leaves you with no NCAA teams to play.
NU is over $45,000 a year and some think the players are getting nothing? How are the other 18 sports at the school going to be compensated under this new idea? These of which play their ,* off and get little or no compensation but still suffer injuries.

This has to be coming from a law student, apologies to Bizz............

 

[SAMCRO]

If anything comes of this, it is just the beginning. If these "student"-athletes think they're being exploited by the Universities,the NCAA, the television networks, etc... just wait until the unions get their hooks in them.

 

[BC1978]

I didn't say that no one watches BC. I said no enough watch to significantly move the needle on BC's behalf. 4/12 = 33%. which is only good in baseball. BC had 8 games that did not rate. Again it stands to reason that BC benefited from games vs teams with national appeal and/or virtually exclusive appeal in their regional area. These games were probably not vs Wake Forest, NMST, or Maryland for example.

Boston is a pro town, BC gets almost no mention on NESN, and since Meter left WEEI, very little non-game radio coverage.

"BC Gets almost no mention on NESN"?? What are you talking about?? NESN carries the ACC Regional Network in New England. This past season, BC's games against UNC, NC State, MD, and SU were all carried on NESN throughout New England!

The NESN games, and the game against USC, which was carried on the PAC12 network, were not included in this ranking. It had nothing to do with whether or not those games would have "rated".

Yes, Boston is a pro sports town, no question. But its a huge market and BC has a very nice niche. Always has. This data helps prove that point.

 

[Husky25]

Yes, Boston is a pro sports town, no question. But its a huge market and BC has a very nice niche. Always has. This data helps prove that point.

Niche, by definition, is not mainstream and the data proves a point that you should not be interested in proving.

Good evening, Sir.

 

[BC1978]

Niche, by definition, is not mainstream and the data proves a point that you should not be interested in proving.

Good evening, Sir.

All depends on the size of the niche. To have a large niche in the 7th largest, and one of the wealthiest, markets in the country's often trumps a larger share in a smaller, less affluent market. Pretty basic.

 

[Husky25]

I have no idea why it is so important for you to convince me. You appear to be one of those BC fans that takes the most innocuous comment (out of context) as an unfathomable slight. Alas, I'll humor the notion a tad further.

"BC Gets almost no mention on NESN"?? What are you talking about?? NESN carries the ACC Regional Network in New England. This past season, BC's games against UNC, NC State, MD, and SU were all carried on NESN throughout New England!

BC got virtually no play on the D&C simulcast in the mornings when their flash boy was BC's play by play radio announcer. Now that Meter is gone, BC gets even less. There is also almost no mention of Boston College on NESN Daily, Sports Today, or any of their other shows. On WEEI, There is barely a commercial and your lucky if you hear the time for an upcoming game.

All depends on the size of the niche. To have a large niche in the 7th largest, and one of the wealthiest, markets in the country's often trumps a larger share in a smaller, less affluent market. Pretty basic.

That's the whole point. B.C.'s niche is not large in their "home" market and is even smaller on a national level. You're referenced link works against you. BC opponents drive national attention of their games.

For the season, BC averaged 33,006 fans for home attendance That is 3rd from the bottom of the ACC. While Alumni Stadium has a larger capacity than Rentschler Field, 44,500 is still small and 3rd from the bottom in the ACC. BC filled Alumni (On campus stadium and easy to get to via the green line) to 74.2% capacity and couldn't sell out when #8 Florida State came into town. (Incidentally, this is a bowl team with a Heisman Trophy candidate.). Consider that Andre Williams was always on the list, but he was not really a bona fide Heisman Trophy hopeful until at least the second half of the year. It stands to reason that this fact alone would provide even a nominal boost to attendance. It actually went down by 3,000, on average. Disregarding the FSU game as an outlier that inflates the average, attendance still decreased by 100.

Don't you think that if BC had any larger appeal that some of their lesser games would be on a national channel? BCInterruption actually predicts BCs exposure for the 2014 football season. Brian Favat predicts 3 games on ESPN3 and 4 on the ACC network. Of their predicted national games (ESPN, ESPN2, and ABC), not one of them is because of BC's appeal, especially considering the loss of a Heisman trophy finalist who accounted for 45% of their offense.

Home vs. Pitt is a National Friday night game. Favat still predicts ESPN2 as opposed to the Mother ship.
Home vs. USC coincides with a, "not exactly stellar lineup of games in the ACC in week 3," or nationally.
BC is banking on the ND-FSU game to go primetime in order to open up the 3:30 slot for the game vs. Clemson, but Clemson is the driver. This game could certainly go ACC Network if ND-FSU is on in the afternoon.
There is a feeling of hope vs. hope that the VTech game will be on the Deuce.
The final national exposure game is vs. FSU, who, as the defending national champion, will be on national TV all season.

 

[BC1978]

I have no idea why it is so important for you to convince me. You appear to be one of those BC fans that takes the most innocuous comment (out of context) as an unfathomable slight. Alas, I'll humor the notion a tad further.

BC got virtually no play on the D&C simulcast in the mornings when their flash boy was BC's play by play radio announcer. Now that Meter is gone, BC gets even less. There is also almost no mention of Boston College on NESN Daily, Sports Today, or any of their other shows. On WEEI, There is barely a commercial and your lucky if you hear the time for an upcoming game.

That's the whole point. B.C.'s niche is not large in their "home" market and is even smaller on a national level. You're referenced link works against you. BC opponents drive national attention of their games.

For the season, BC averaged 33,006 fans for home attendance That is 3rd from the bottom of the ACC. While Alumni Stadium has a larger capacity than Rentschler Field, 44,500 is still small and 3rd from the bottom in the ACC. BC filled Alumni (On campus stadium and easy to get to via the green line) to 74.2% capacity and couldn't sell out when #8 Florida State came into town. (Incidentally, this is a bowl team with a Heisman Trophy candidate.). Consider that Andre Williams was always on the list, but he was not really a bona fide Heisman Trophy hopeful until at least the second half of the year. It stands to reason that this fact alone would provide even a nominal boost to attendance. It actually went down by 3,000, on average. Disregarding the FSU game as an outlier that inflates the average, attendance still decreased by 100.

Don't you think that if BC had any larger appeal that some of their lesser games would be on a national channel? BCInterruption actually predicts BCs exposure for the 2014 football season. Brian Favat predicts 3 games on ESPN3 and 4 on the ACC network. Of their predicted national games (ESPN, ESPN2, and ABC), not one of them is because of BC's appeal, especially considering the loss of a Heisman trophy finalist who accounted for 45% of their offense.

Home vs. Pitt is a National Friday night game. Favat still predicts ESPN2 as opposed to the Mother ship.
Home vs. USC coincides with a, "not exactly stellar lineup of games in the ACC in week 3," or nationally.
BC is banking on the ND-FSU game to go primetime in order to open up the 3:30 slot for the game vs. Clemson, but Clemson is the driver. This game could certainly go ACC Network if ND-FSU is on in the afternoon.
There is a feeling of hope vs. hope that the VTech game will be on the Deuce.
The final national exposure game is vs. FSU, who, as the defending national champion, will be on national TV all season.

With all due respect Husky, you are arguing a point that I was not making. Go back and look at my inital response to you. My limited point was disputing your statement that BC was not pulling its weight in the ACC. You seem to be comparing BC against the elite teams in the ACC and elsewhere (e.g., comparing BC's "4 rated games" to the higher numbers elsewhere in the ACC and other places). The more relevant comparison is how is BC doing against its peer northeast schools, especially its peer northeast ACC schools. To this question, the data is quite illustrative. NONE of BC's northeast peers - Pitt, MD, Uconn, Rutgers or SU - had over 5 rated games. (Heck, Syracuse didn't even get 4 rated games!) That's not a coincidence. The fact is that northeast FB (PSU is, for all intents and purposes, a midwest team) is never going to be comparative to the South or Midwest. As a BC fan, I look at how BC is doing against its peers. Here are the "northeast peer" rankings from that survey:

#36: Pitt > 5 games > played FSU and Notre Dame
#38: BC > 4 Games > played FSU and Clemson
#55: MD > 5 games > played FSU and Clemson
#59: Uconn > 4 games > played Michigan and Louisville
#61: Rutgers > 5 games > played Louisville and UCF
??: SU > Below 4 rated games > played FSU and Clemson

By their very nature, none of these comparisons are perfect. Uconn was helped by the fact that one of its marquee (Michigan) games was in prime time. Pitt played ND. Which platforms carry specific games also has an influence. However, while these variables may impact the results at the margins, they do not minimize the basic overall results. As the data shows, BC stacks up very well against its northeast peers, in terms of eyeballs, especially its northeast ACC peers. (Also worth noting is that BC had virtually the same record this season as its northeast ACC peers so we are not talking about distortions resulting from comparing a "good" team to a "poor" team.)

Sure, BC's TV ratings in Boston are small compared to the Red Sox, Pats, etc. However, that's not a fair comparison. The fair comparison is how many eyeballs does BC get in pro-centric Boston compared to peer programs in the northeast who themselves play in pro-centric regions. As the data shows, BC compares very favorably. As I indicated above, no data set is going to be completely perfect, but, to be frank, it is much more credible than ad-hoc anecdotals such as "how many times BC is or is not mentioned on Dennis and Callahan!"

You want to talk about attendance? OK. Not sure what that has to do with the TV ratings (which is what the ACC cares about as TV ratings drive the value of future TV contracts), but I'll bite. Yes, BC's 2013 average attendance of 33,006 was lousy. But why should that number be surprising? They were coming off a 2 win season and had a dispirited fanbase. Sound familiar? Uconn's 2013 average attendance was 30,932 (and the differences in stadium sizes was irrelevant this year, as you well know). Like BC, Uconn had a dispirited fanbase. Sure, BC was better this year, but they were only a 7-6 team. Certainly good news for the die-hards, but not yet enough to bring back the casual fan who remembers the Matt Ryan days (again, sound familiar?). To your point about Andre Williams, as you correctly noted, the Heisman hype only started in the back half of the season.Unfortunately, BC played 4 of its 6 home games on or before October 5th so the "hype" really couldn't impact attendance all that much. As BC improves in the coming years (and they will! SA is proving to be a recruiting machine!), the attendance will rise, as it will for Uconn. Again, that's the nature of college FB in the northeast.

 

[Husky25]

With all due respect Husky, you are arguing a point that I was not making. Go back and look at my inital response to you. My limited point was disputing your statement that BC was not pulling its weight in the ACC.

This is getting old. It is pointless to have a discussion with someone who continually moves the goalposts and then argues that their opponent is, "arguing a point [they] were not making."

BC is not pulling their weight. They had 4 Nation games last year and are expected to have only 4 this year (one by virtue of a Friday night date). If BC were pulling their weight, games vs. their NE peers (as you put it) would be made available vs. on high exposure national outlets. I believe BC does just well enough to not be ejected from the ACC like Temple was from the Big East just prior to UConn climbing aboard.

I have not compared BC to any other school or market. Only to themselves and their own market. They only thing BC contribute (potentially) is that NESN carries ACC games, but NESN is already on a common cable tier. If the ACC actually does develop their own channel, I believe it will be difficult to get it on any more common of a tier than a devoted sports package. BC does not deliver Boston - at least not on its own - in any way shape or form.

BTW, It's impossible to compare UConn's 2013 attendance to BC's because you were coming out of the doldrums. UConn was still in it. I am very interested to see what effect Coach Diaco's enthusiasm and exposure will have on season ticket sales for this upcoming season. I think it will be pronounced. Be that as it may, UConn brings a better overall package to it's local and extended markets than BC ever could dream. Case in point. SNY was immediately added to Connecticut cable systems (those that didn't already have it. Middletown Comcast did not) before the ink was dry on the agreement to broadcast games. If, Higher-powered Deity willing, UConn gets an invite to a P5 conference, cable subscribers would look for any potential premium broadcast channel to be added post haste.

Thank you and good day (I look forward to seeing how the goal posts shift.).

 

[BC1978]

This is getting old. It is pointless to have a discussion with someone who continually moves the goalposts and then argues that their opponent is, "arguing a point [they] were not making."

BC is not pulling their weight. They had 4 Nation games last year and are expected to have only 4 this year (one by virtue of a Friday night date). If BC were pulling their weight, games vs. their NE peers (as you put it) would be made available vs. on high exposure national outlets. I believe BC does just well enough to not be ejected from the ACC like Temple was from the Big East just prior to UConn climbing aboard.

I have not compared BC to any other school or market. Only to themselves and their own market. They only thing BC contribute (potentially) is that NESN carries ACC games, but NESN is already on a common cable tier. If the ACC actually does develop their own channel, I believe it will be difficult to get it on any more common of a tier than a devoted sports package. BC does not deliver Boston - at least not on its own - in any way shape or form.

BTW, It's impossible to compare UConn's 2013 attendance to BC's because you were coming out of the doldrums. UConn was still in it. I am very interested to see what effect Coach Diaco's enthusiasm and exposure will have on season ticket sales for this upcoming season. I think it will be pronounced. Be that as it may, UConn brings a better overall package to it's local and extended markets than BC ever could dream. Case in point. SNY was immediately added to Connecticut cable systems (those that didn't already have it. Middletown Comcast did not) before the ink was dry on the agreement to broadcast games. If, Higher-powered Deity willing, UConn gets an invite to a P5 conference, cable subscribers would look for any potential premium broadcast channel to be added post haste.

Thank you and good day (I look forward to seeing how the goal posts shift.).

Husky - I realize we are not going to agree on this, so with that in mind....

You support your premise that BC is not "pulling their weight" in the ACC by citing the number of "national" games they have. You indicate that BC having only 4 games supports your premise. By that logic, however, Pitt (5 games), MD (5 games) and SU (3 games) also did not "pull their weight" in the ACC as well. Is that what you are saying?

You indicated that you are not comparing BC to other programs - only to itself. With all due respect, in order to determine whether or not BC is pulling its weight, you have to have an objective standard to measure BC against, right? From your post above, you have determined that standard to be the number of "national" games covered on the ESPNs of the world. OK. But if that is your criteria, then you cannot measure just BC to that standard. You would have to measure all of the other programs as well, no? In that case, SU, Pitt, and MD would also fall into that category of "not pulling their weight." Am I correct?

You claim that BC does not "deliver Boston" (whatever that means!). I agree! But nobody at BC or the ACC has ever expected them to do that. What is expected of BC is that they provide the ACC with a presence in the 7th largest and one of the wealthiest markets in the country. That they have done. BC/ACC games are now carried throughout New England via NESN. BC's ratings when they are on "nationally" are very good as the data suggests - certainly as good if not better than their northeast peers. That you really cannot argue with. The data is the data. In the aggregate, more people watched BC's "national" games this past season then Maryland's "national" games - and Maryland is going to the BIG. BC bashers may not want to admit that - but that is exactly what happened according to the data!

 

[Santini35]

I know this discussion has turned to BCU football and not Basketball, but i have to post this picture


Empty Seats Galore ‏@EmptySeatsPics 15h
Boston College hosting Virginia Tech tonight. #ACC (via @HokiesJournal) pic.twitter.com/MdjecMU9Q0

 

[BC1978]

I know this discussion has turned to BCU football and not Basketball, but i have to post this picture


Empty Seats Galore ‏@EmptySeatsPics 15h
Boston College hosting Virginia Tech tonight. #ACC (via @HokiesJournal) pic.twitter.com/MdjecMU9Q0

Won't argue that point, Santini. BC Men's BB is not in a good place right now. FWIW, if you posted the crowd scene at Conte for a hockey game, you would see a different environment, to say the least! Fortunately for BC, BB does not drive the bus in college sports.

 

[ZooCougar]

Won't argue that point, Santini. BC Men's BB is not in a good place right now. FWIW, if you posted the crowd scene at Conte for a hockey game, you would see a different environment, to say the least! Fortunately for BC, BB does not drive the bus in college sports.

I remember a time when that place was pretty much full. But that looks Rutgers empty.

 

[Husky25]

Husky - I realize we are not going to agree on this, so with that in mind....

You support your premise that BC is not "pulling their weight" in the ACC by citing the number of "national" games they have. You indicate that BC having only 4 games supports your premise. By that logic, however, Pitt (5 games), MD (5 games) and SU (3 games) also did not "pull their weight" in the ACC as well. Is that what you are saying?

I said "(Wake, BC,)..." There was supposed to be an etc. after that, in which suppose any number of teams could be included. That is what the term is for; For when time and inclination preclude their direct mention.

You indicated that you are not comparing BC to other programs - only to itself. With all due respect, in order to determine whether or not BC is pulling its weight, you have to have an objective standard to measure BC against, right? From your post above, you have determined that standard to be the number of "national" games covered on the ESPNs of the world. OK. But if that is your criteria, then you cannot measure just BC to that standard. You would have to measure all of the other programs as well, no? In that case, SU, Pitt, and MD would also fall into that category of "not pulling their weight." Am I correct?

No. The link in your original response introduced that. My response back was that the BC games that rated were vs. teams with national appeal (Without giving it much thought at the time, I listed the four team ahead of Boston College against whom they played), because again, you provided the link and a "Me thinks not," comment without context. Why do you think not? What does the information in the link say to you? How does your argument move the conversation forward? As it turned out I was pretty much correct. Not one game, IMO, was on a national platform due to a single BC attribute...why can't you debate BC on it's own (de)merit? Why do you continually revert back to playground diversionary games (Yeah, but look what they did.)?

You claim that BC does not "deliver Boston" (whatever that means!). I agree! But nobody at BC or the ACC has ever expected them to do that. What is expected of BC is that they provide the ACC with a presence in the 7th largest and one of the wealthiest markets in the country. That they have done. BC/ACC games are now carried throughout New England via NESN. BC's ratings when they are on "nationally" are very good as the data suggests - certainly as good if not better than their northeast peers. That you really cannot argue with. The data is the data. In the aggregate, more people watched BC's "national" games this past season then Maryland's "national" games - and Maryland is going to the BIG. BC bashers may not want to admit that - but that is exactly what happened according to the data!

First, if you don't know what it means, you can't very well argue for or against now can you? Secondly, go read a thread on the Conference realignment board. Delivering a market is what (at least the Big Ten round of) expansion is about. The ACC could be expanding for the sake of expanding. After all, it includes a mish-mash of public and private, big and small, high and low rated academia, host and parasitic programs. I, for one, think there should be an endgame. I thought delivering a major market would be it. Apparently not.

Secondly, the red and green contradict one another. Delivering a market is providing a presence. 1) You agree that they did not deliver a market, but they do provide a presence? Okay...I guess. I'd ask you to explain but I don't want you to go dizzy, talking yourself in more circles. 2) How is a presence being provided when no one (Oh, Sorry) the number of people watching does not move the needle?

As I said before, NESN is on a cable tier to which most people in New England readily subscribe. If the proposed standalone ACC Network comes to pass, I do not believe the demand will be high enough to get it the same placement. It will be on a Specialty Sports Tier...And there you go again comparing BC with other programs (They have their own problems).