Who actually brings value

[upstater]

And I am not sure about your "guarantee"...we all see through our fan glasses.

I see UConn and BC as pretty interchangeable on the TV schedule...but that is also, hnestly, from my perspective.

And this is why UConn is on 40 times, while BC is on 3.

Because they are interchangeable.

Do you know how crazy that sounds?

 

[upstater]

Are you sure that if you switched BC and UConn on the football schedule, that the results would be different? That UConn would appear on the "marquee networks" at a higher rate.

The weaker programs in a conference get TV time when playing the stronger programs....and UConn may not get any more time than BC or Wake did this year if switched....that was my point, although not strongly made.

You just ignored everything.

 

[JeepCSC]

No, they look at the bottom line.

If ESPN did it any other way, they would be showing the properties they pay more on the network.

ESPN wants ratings.

Again, Wake Forest isn't the one getting paid. The ACC is the one getting paid. ESPN is paying for the ACC content, Wake Forest is merely the beneficiary.

 

[JeepCSC]

If the XFL got more viewers than the Browns, they would have a big contract with ESPN.

Again, we are talking about 40 games to 3. HUGE difference.

Unfortunately networks don't pay for individual teams. So one XFL's teams ratings being better than the Browns is irrelevant if the NFL's rating collectively are still 50 times bigger than the XFL's collectively.

 

[CTMike]

UConn's value is not in a vacuum. In a basket of deplorables, UConn is undervalued. In the ACC, UConn would be in a position to maximize value to a conference. From a TV network standpoint too, UConn would drive viewers to an ACCN. However ESPN seems to feel "why by the cow when we get the milk for free".

 

[upstater]

The whole AAC is currently scheduled for fewer than 20 games on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPNU....UConn is not scheduled for 40 football games on these channels...

Are you talking basketball?

Brainless

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Again, Wake Forest isn't the one getting paid. The ACC is the one getting paid. ESPN is paying for the ACC content, Wake Forest is merely the beneficiary.

This is very true but aside from the overarching point (which you are either deliberately ignoring or unable to comprehend) the ultimate end result of what you stated (in this environment where pursuit of further dollars takes precedent) will be schools like FSU asking themselves why schools like Wake & BC are getting the benefit of FSU's success. The next domino to fall here will be the P-5 schools who can't carry their own weight. The move to a P-4 world will be through cherry picking the best of the ACC & B-12.

 

[upstater]

Unfortunately networks don't pay for individual teams. So one XFL's teams ratings being better than the Browns is irrelevant if the NFL's rating collectively are still 50 times bigger than the XFL's collectively.

Wrong. If an XFL team were being shown 40 times, it would be making huge sums of money.

 

[lne001]

ESPN meanwhile is in the business of getting ratings. From their point-of-view, they are going to show the most valuable properties on TV more.

Actually ESPN is in the business of making money. Thus they show their best properties on their best channels at the best time slots. This is what drives advertising revenue. Football is thus the king, with a nod to men's basketball. Women's basketball draws little and makes little money. Putting UConn women's basketball on ESPN3 at 7:00 PM EST with 10 other women's games is not a significant revenue generator, no matter how many times they are on.

Any analysis which does not show advertising dollars generated is meaningless to ESPN.

 

[upstater]

Again, Wake Forest isn't the one getting paid. The ACC is the one getting paid. ESPN is paying for the ACC content, Wake Forest is merely the beneficiary.

It is about inventory for ESPN. ESPN wants high ratings. So it chooses the games that are most valuable to give it high ratings. That's the entire point. Don't Wake Forest us. UConn bball is shown 15 times on the marquee networks, which is more than anyone not named Kansas, Kentucky, UNC and Duke. When you add women's basketball to it, which gets as high ratings as the men, UConn's inventory doubles.Nothing to do with Wake Forest.

 

[upstater]

Actually ESPN is in the business of making money. Thus they show their best properties on their best channels at the best time slots. This is what drives advertising revenue. Football is thus the king, with a nod to men's basketball. Women's basketball draws little and makes little money. Putting UConn women's basketball on ESPN3 at 7:00 PM EST with 10 other women's games is not a significant revenue generator, no matter how many times they are on.

Any analysis which does not show advertising dollars generated is meaningless to ESPN.

You apparently have not been paying attention to the ratings. UConn women's is a big deal.

So let me get this straight. You think ESPN is showing UConn bball 33 times because it doesn't value it? Crazy.

 

[JeepCSC]

It is about inventory for ESPN. ESPN wants high ratings. So it chooses the games that are most valuable to give it high ratings. That's the entire point. Don't Wake Forest us. UConn bball is shown 15 times on the marquee networks, which is more than anyone not named Kansas, Kentucky, UNC and Duke. When you add women's basketball to it, which gets as high ratings as the men, UConn's inventory doubles.Nothing to do with Wake Forest.

I agree Wake Forest has nothing to do with this, which is why I don't understand the notion in the first post that UConn is subsidizing Wake. You aren't. UNC is. You have your own mouths to feed. The problem becomes when UNC has more outside assistance to feed Wake, because FSU and Clemson and Louisville and Duke pitch in. UConn has Houston helping them with Tulane et al, but clearly that isn't the same. Just as clearly, football pays more than basketball when the biggest basketball game of the year (UNC/Duke) gets less viewers than the normal College GameDay with Lee Corso.

 

[JeepCSC]

Wrong. If an XFL team were being shown 40 times, it would be making huge sums of money.

I mean the football season is but only so long. Again, it would be an XFL squad shown 5 times on ESPN 2, the Browns showed 0 times anywhere, and the Cowboys/Pats/Steelers/etc shown 40 times everywhere. So while the XFL squad is shown more than the Browns, that is missing the forest for the trees. Browns are paid for who they play, not who they are.

 

[The Funster]

It's pretty simple: the teams that get aired more are worth more. They don't necessarily get paid more, and that is the rub.

 

[JeepCSC]

This is very true but aside from the overarching point (which you are either deliberately ignoring or unable to comprehend) the ultimate end result of what you stated (in this environment where pursuit of further dollars takes precedent) will be schools like FSU asking themselves why schools like Wake & BC are getting the benefit of FSU's success. The next domino to fall here will be the P-5 schools who can't carry their own weight. The move to a P-4 world will be through cherry picking the best of the ACC & B-12.

That's a possibility obviously, but just as possible that the current model continues on. Alabama wants Vandy in their conference, and Ohio State wants Northwestern, not simply because of the money those two bring (or not as the case may be) but because it keeps their conference stable and their schedule tolerable.

 

[HoopsFan21]

Damn ESPN. Trying to kill UConn using our own tax dollars. Then we the taxpayers have to give more tax dollars to make up the University's difference. Just so Wake Forest and BC are able to get a big enough cut of the ACC pie.

 

[JeepCSC]

It's pretty simple: the teams that get aired more are worth more. They don't necessarily get paid more, and that is the rub.

Yes, because teams aren't paid, conferences are. That isn't a new development.

 

[upstater]

I agree Wake Forest has nothing to do with this, which is why I don't understand the notion in the first post that UConn is subsidizing Wake. You aren't. UNC is. You have your own mouths to feed. The problem becomes when UNC has more outside assistance to feed Wake, because FSU and Clemson and Louisville and Duke pitch in. UConn has Houston helping them with Tulane et al, but clearly that isn't the same. Just as clearly, football pays more than basketball when the biggest basketball game of the year (UNC/Duke) gets less viewers than the normal College GameDay with Lee Corso.

Why do you persist in ignoring what we are saying?

I can't say it again cause I've already said it numerous times and it doesn't get through your thick head.

You are wrong about the ratings, by the way. UNC-Duke last year did a 2.6, while last week's college football did 1.9 ABC and .5 on Fox in primetime, while ESPN's Gameday did a 1.0: Saturday cable ratings: College football, playoff baseball rise to the top

 

[HoopsFan21]

That's a possibility obviously, but just as possible that the current model continues on. Alabama wants Vandy in their conference, and Ohio State wants Northwestern, not simply because of the money those two bring (or not as the case may be) but because it keeps their conference stable and their schedule tolerable.

You can kiss this idea goodbye when revenues stagnate or even start to contract. There's one thing Ohio State likes more than its conference, and that's money.

 

[The Funster]

I mean the football season is but only so long. Again, it would be an XFL squad shown 5 times on ESPN 2, the Browns showed 0 times anywhere, and the Cowboys/Pats/Steelers/etc shown 40 times everywhere. So while the XFL squad is shown more than the Browns, that is missing the forest for the trees. Browns are paid for who they play, not who they are.

The NFL media deal is collectively bargained by all participants. Conference sports is not. The Browns are irrelevant because they are a member of a SINGLE entity, not a member of one of 5 or 10 entities which bargain independently.

 

[upstater]

I mean the football season is but only so long. Again, it would be an XFL squad shown 5 times on ESPN 2, the Browns showed 0 times anywhere, and the Cowboys/Pats/Steelers/etc shown 40 times everywhere. So while the XFL squad is shown more than the Browns, that is missing the forest for the trees. Browns are paid for who they play, not who they are.

You're nuts if you think an XFL product that grabs time from an NFL product wouldn't be paid bigtime. In any hypothetical, they would. Especially if the XFLs ratings were as high as the NFLs.

 

[lne001]

You apparently have not been paying attention to the ratings. UConn women's is a big deal. So let me get this straight. You think ESPN is showing UConn bball 33 times because it doesn't value it? Crazy.

Like I said above, show me the money. Nothing you are spouting is of any value until you distill it to its true essence, how much does ESPN make showing each game.

 

[upstater]

Like I said above, show me the money. Nothing you are spouting is of any value until you distill it to its true essence, how much does ESPN make showing each game.

This is the OPs whole point. my god, how did you miss that?

Wait a minute: do you not know how ratings work?

 

[lne001]

It's pretty simple: the teams that get aired more are worth more. They don't necessarily get paid more, and that is the rub.

No, no no. A men's basketball game aired on Saturday afternoon on CBS is worth far more than 15 women's basketball games shown on weeknights on ESPN3 (just a guess, but you get the idea).

 

[husky210]

No, no no. A men's basketball game aired on Saturday afternoon on CBS is worth far more than 15 women's basketball games shown on weeknights on ESPN3 (just a guess, but you get the idea).

Your totally missing the mark. Those 15 wbb games were on ESPN and ESPN2 not ESPN3 (which is the home network of BC)