Yormark confirms that the big 12 was in expansion talks with Connecticut and Gonzaga but indicates neither program is being pursued any longer. | Page 10 | The Boneyard

Yormark confirms that the big 12 was in expansion talks with Connecticut and Gonzaga but indicates neither program is being pursued any longer.

Unpopular as some of my posts may be for basketball centric schools, they may have relevance...

As NCAA executives and TV executives (it’s difficult to tell the two apart anymore) were shaking college football until every nickel fell out, it was telling how little regard they paid to anything else. Men’s and women’s basketball are generally the second- and third-highest revenue-producing college sports, but they’re so far behind football that they’re all but irrelevant in the eyes of executives. Of the top 50 revenue-producing college sports teams last year, only one — Duke men’s basketball, No. 48 — wasn’t a football team. (University of Illinois football, which this alum will tell you has been consistently both awful and unwatchable for nearly 40 years, brought in more revenue last year than every college basketball team in the country.) The executives made every decision with only one sport in mind. And that approach has left college basketball largely in tatters, trying to figure out how to put itself back together.
 
A relentless focus on the bottom line has forced college basketball to justify its existence to networks in ways that seem profoundly damaging to the sport. The one true money-maker in college basketball is the NCAA Tournament, a.k.a. March Madness, a.k.a. the thing everyone pays attention to even if they haven’t watched a game all year. The NCAA Tournament’s appeal has long been driven by underdogs and upsets; the primary appeals of the event are (a) its bracket and (b) the fact that a from-nowhere school like Fairleigh Dickinson or Northwestern State can have a moment on the national stage. The new world, where television ratings are the only thing that matters, may well screw with both. The super conferences that have emerged amid the great college-athletic realignment have begun pressuring the NCAA not just to expand the tournament to 96 teams — to provide more television inventory, of course — but also to focus on more bids for the larger leagues rather than the smaller ones, in an effort to promote bigger brand names. (The current fight about the NIT, the consolation tournament, is largely over that issue.) These are self-serving moves meant only to juice the supposedly all-important ratings.
 
billybud said:
What Yormack might believe is that basketball is undervalued....the numbers show up in the tournament. And there may be more value to squeeze out.

But the A4 is betting that the expanded CFP will increase ratings over the four team CFP plus bowls...

I think that the dance is safe from a break away...basketball has the better teams spread more through out the conference structures.
Expand ...
You've totally neglected the fact that the annual payout for the NCAAT is $1.1b. If you take that money and dole it out to the schools, the value of basketball triples.
 
billybud said:
Unpopular as some of my posts may be for basketball centric schools, they may have relevance...

As NCAA executives and TV executives (it’s difficult to tell the two apart anymore) were shaking college football until every nickel fell out, it was telling how little regard they paid to anything else. Men’s and women’s basketball are generally the second- and third-highest revenue-producing college sports, but they’re so far behind football that they’re all but irrelevant in the eyes of executives. Of the top 50 revenue-producing college sports teams last year, only one — Duke men’s basketball, No. 48 — wasn’t a football team. (University of Illinois football, which this alum will tell you has been consistently both awful and unwatchable for nearly 40 years, brought in more revenue last year than every college basketball team in the country.) The executives made every decision with only one sport in mind. And that approach has left college basketball largely in tatters, trying to figure out how to put itself back together.
Expand ...
??

Whoever wrote this is making serious errors. He keeps saying "the executives" because in the first sentence he claims the NCAA execs and the TV execs are the same.

They are NOT.

The TV execs don't value basketball? They value it enough to dole out $1.1b to the NCAAT. That's a serious commitment.

How are the NCAA execs different than the TV execs? They want to keep as much of that $1.1b for themselves as possible.

These two sets of execs have competing interests, and they are not aligned with the interests of colleges, necessarily.
 
For the NCAA, one of the most lucrative contracts connected with the tournament is for broadcasting rights. Across the 2023 tournament, $873 million will be earned from these rights.

According to the NCAA, about 90% of the money that it collects immediately flows out to the member schools. It’s the only system in place that assigns a monetary value based on athletic performance.
 
billybud said:
For the NCAA, one of the most lucrative contracts connected with the tournament is for broadcasting rights. Across the 2023 tournament, $873 million will be earned from these rights.

According to the NCAA, about 90% of the money that it collects immediately flows out to the member schools. It’s the only system in place that assigns a monetary value based on athletic performance.
Expand ...
This language is specious since the money that flows out to the ember schools is not directed to the tourney teams or conferences. It is in NCAA administration and championships. This is very easy to prove since we already know the value of the total NCAA units.

The NCAA distributes $220m of the $1.1b it takes in from the TV networks to the schools/conferences in the tournament.

That leaves more than $800m in the pot.

This is why I say that the value of college bball would skyrocket if they cut out the NCAA
 
.-.
Who's fibbing ?

There’s plenty of criticism of the funding model used by the NCAA. The colleges see very little, while the players, who actually create the income, see none at all. Still, in the case of the NCAA, the organization isn’t pocketing most of the cash that it takes in. Only what’s left over, according to the NCAA’s financial disclosures, goes to its own operating expenses.
 
ESPN, beginning in 2024, is paying $350 million annually to broadcast the SEC game of the week....sports spending for Big Ten/SEC rights is like my sister with a new credit card.
 
It reminds me of a cost accounting scenario where a manufacturer makes two products. Product A is a very expensive, low volume product which they believe is extremely profitable. Product B is a cheap, high volume product which has a low profit margin. They decide to focus only on the high profit product, do away with the cheap product, and then go belly up. At least it seems to be somewhat similar.
 
And you know that Sankey, Pettitit, and Yormack just might be thinking...."How can we pry some of that NCAA tournament money away from the NCAA ? "

"Big changes coming...you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows (apologies for an anthem of my generation).



A sitting Big Ten AD vocalized publicly what’s been privately whispered for months: Within five years — and most say much sooner — the Power Five conference schools will operate from under a new governance structure that features an athlete revenue-sharing model, a shift often described by many within the industry as “The Great Split.”

“I do believe five years from now that we will be at a point where we are sharing revenue with student-athletes,” Evans told leaders of the Knight Commission, a group of mostly former and current college athletic administrators promoting educational reforms in college sports.

“To think we are not going to be sharing some of those revenues… we are going to be there. It would not surprise me to see some sort of different type of governance structure in place that separates the A5 out from the current structure.”

Insiders say the case will require the industry to reshape itself. In fact, according to former Duke and Notre Dame athletic director Kevin White, such conversations are transpiring at the highest level of the industry, he told Knight Commission leaders at their meeting on Friday.

After the meeting, White spoke more to Yahoo Sports about the models, some of which would have the power conference schools “leave and take their resources with them,” he said. That’s something he believes will negatively impact college athletics’ broad-based, Olympic sport system.

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.

“If we are going to pay the freight for House,” Evans said, referencing the power leagues, “then why are we sharing the revenue to that extent?”

Evans is “hopeful” that whatever new model is created preserves competition among all Division I schools competing together in the NCAA men’s and women’s basketball tournaments — two of the most successful NCAA-operated events.

But he suggests that basketball could eventually go the way of football, whose postseason is controlled by the independent CFP.

In an interview that aired Sunday on "Meet The Press," Baker, in his ninth month as NCAA president, alluded to the creation of a new model for “50-70” programs that are “dramatically different than the rest.”
 
.-.
Kolumbo said:
It reminds me of a cost accounting scenario where a manufacturer makes two products. Product A is a very expensive, low volume product which they believe is extremely profitable. Product B is a cheap, high volume product which has a low profit margin. They decide to focus only on the high profit product, do away with the cheap product, and then go belly up. At least it seems to be somewhat similar.
Expand ...

It all comes down to "what is most profitable ?"

Is it profitable to pay $350 million a year for one SEC football game a week ? Maybe, if more people watch that one game than the whole basketball schedule that week. Tennessee-Alabama was a game of the week and averaged 8.013 viewers with a peak of close to 10 million.

The Buckeyes and Penn State pulled in 9.95 million viewers...

It comes down to numbers vs cost...and how much advertisers pay to have their ads seen.
 
Last edited:
billybud said:
It all comes down to "what is most profitable ?"

Is it profitable to pay $350 million a year for one SEC football game a week ? Maybe, if more people watch that one game than the whole basketball schedule that week. Tennessee-Alabama was a game of the week and averaged 8.013 viewers with a peak of close to 10 million.

The Buckeyes and Penn State pulled in 9.95 million viewers...

It comes down to numbers vs cost...and how much advertisers pay to have their ads seen.
Expand ...
Perhaps. But it's always more complicated than "what is most profitable," measuring profitability and what helps support and deliver the product.

 
nelsonmuntz said:
...to a second tier minor league that the NBA and NFL could easily replace with their own minor league.
Expand ...
Why would that happen for football? The billions made by CFB wouldn't transfer, that money comes from rooting for laundry not players.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
If the P4 split off, the damage to college athletics would be so profound and permanent that every school would have been better off dropping major sports. College athletics would go from a multi billion dollar a year business to a second tier minor league that the NBA and NFL could easily replace with their own minor league.
Expand ...
That seems like an exaggerated overreaction. It's happening regardless.

Its' needed. You can't have broke ass MAC schools in the same division as teams with a quarter billion $ AD's.

The P-4 does not need the G-5 to have a FB, BB, etc playoff or tournament. They just don't as they are the TV draw, not the G-5. Why would they share once the NCAA is out of the way?
 
billybud said:
A relentless focus on the bottom line has forced college basketball to justify its existence to networks in ways that seem profoundly damaging to the sport. The one true money-maker in college basketball is the NCAA Tournament, a.k.a. March Madness, a.k.a. the thing everyone pays attention to even if they haven’t watched a game all year. The NCAA Tournament’s appeal has long been driven by underdogs and upsets; the primary appeals of the event are (a) its bracket and (b) the fact that a from-nowhere school like Fairleigh Dickinson or Northwestern State can have a moment on the national stage. The new world, where television ratings are the only thing that matters, may well screw with both. The super conferences that have emerged amid the great college-athletic realignment have begun pressuring the NCAA not just to expand the tournament to 96 teams — to provide more television inventory, of course — but also to focus on more bids for the larger leagues rather than the smaller ones, in an effort to promote bigger brand names. (The current fight about the NIT, the consolation tournament, is largely over that issue.) These are self-serving moves meant only to juice the supposedly all-important ratings.
Expand ...
College basketball is not irrelevant to TV execs. Look at the ratings last year for regular season college basketball games:

ESPN's 131 games averaged 955k viewers
ESPN2's 217 games averaged 299k viewers
FOX's 34 games averaged 963k viewers
CBS averaged 1.32 million for their games.
ABC averaged 938k for their games.

FOX/FS1 averaged 285k viewers for 15 games of Big East women's basketball

And, as any media exec will tell you, the conference networks, SECN, ACCN, and BTN are non-starters without basketball content.

Plus, we haven't even gotten into gambling yet. It has been estimated that $8 to $15 billion was bet on March Madness last year which is the most popular sports betting event in the US, easily beating the Super Bowl.

What Yormack is seeing is that college basketball ratings are solid, women's basketball ratings are surging, and the sport is undervalued. I think he will be proven right.
 
billybud said:
Just for perspective re football....add all of theses numbers together....and more people watched the Week 1 LSU-FSU game alone than the total sum of these Week 1 basketball games.
Expand ...
Yep.


The Big East TV #'s are terrible.

Anyone with business sense can see there is no path to relevance on FS1 and FS2 trying to average 100k viewers per game.


UConn is in trouble if they decide to try to make the Big East work while making 100k per FB game on TV. There is no way that works out long term.
 
.-.
Kolumbo said:
Perhaps. But it's always more complicated than "what is most profitable," measuring profitability and what helps support and deliver the product.

Expand ...


True enough...


Sports products may be regional...college football is heavily followed in the south and midwest, not as much in the upper east coast and, maybe, the far west. What is puzzling is the US map of population versus football watching...

The upper east coast is heavily populated as is the left coast...I know that basketball and pro sports are heavily watched in the more urban areas...so maybe we are seeing a differential formed in sports viewing by different poulations.

www.census.gov

2020 Population Distribution in the United States and Puerto Rico

This Population Distribution in the United States and Puerto Rico visualization is from 2020.
www.census.gov www.census.gov
 
B12 said:
Yep.


The Big East TV #'s are terrible.

Anyone with business sense can see there is no path to relevance on FS1 and FS2 trying to average 100k viewers per game.


UConn is in trouble if they decide to try to make the Big East work while making 100k per FB game on TV. There is no way that works out long term.
Expand ...
Virtually all Big East men's basketball games are on linear TV so they are rated. The vast majority of ACC/SEC/Big 10/Pac 12 men's basketball games are on conference networks so they generally are not rated. You can't compare the TV ratings of the Big East with other conferences as, for example, the low interest games of the Big East are on rated networks and the low interest games of other conferences are not rated. If we take the top 30 Big East games and compare them to the top 30 other conference games, the ratings are not that different.
 
ESPN, ABC, and ESPN2 had 350 BB games on in 2022..

Info on BB viewing on the ESPN/ABC platform 2022

espnpressroom.com

ESPN Platforms Score Their Most-Watched Men’s College Basketball Regular Season in Four Years

ESPN platforms scored their most-watched men’s college basketball regular season in four years in 2022-23
espnpressroom.com

www.sportsbusinessjournal.com

NCAA men's basketball viewership rebounds in 2022-23

College basketball enters March Madness with momentum, as regular-season viewership was up for most broadcasters.
www.sportsbusinessjournal.com www.sportsbusinessjournal.com

The Big East averaged 779,000 viewers..

ESPN averaged 955,000 over 131 games..

ESPN2 averaged 299,000 over 217 games

The B1G on Fox averaged 1.22 million
 
UConnJim said:
Virtually all Big East men's basketball games are on linear TV so they are rated. The vast majority of ACC/SEC/Big 10/Pac 12 men's basketball games are on conference networks so they generally are not rated. You can't compare the TV ratings of the Big East with other conferences as, for example, the low interest games of the Big East are on rated networks and the low interest games of other conferences are not rated. If we take the top 30 Big East games and compare them to the top 30 other conference games, the ratings are not that different.
Expand ...
All that matters is how many people watch your best games. Same with FB. There were 19 million viewers for Michigan vs tOSU. That's why they make so much $.

Even BTN kicks the crap out of FS1/2 looking at the data.

IF you look at the data the Big east averages 50-200k for games on FS1/2. Other conferences are getting games up in the 200k+ range regularly.


The reality is FS1 does not do well for anything, even football. So this is not specific to the Big East, it's a FS1 issue more than anything.

But the reality is nobody is watching Big East BB games on FS1/2. The TV data proves is. FS2 is a complete disaster with less than 50k people watching.


The long term implications of that are not good for UConn and exposure as a flagship.
 
.-.
billybud said:
ESPN, ABC, and ESPN2 had 350 BB games on in 2022..

Info on BB viewing on the ESPN/ABC platform 2022

espnpressroom.com

ESPN Platforms Score Their Most-Watched Men’s College Basketball Regular Season in Four Years

ESPN platforms scored their most-watched men’s college basketball regular season in four years in 2022-23
espnpressroom.com

www.sportsbusinessjournal.com

NCAA men's basketball viewership rebounds in 2022-23

College basketball enters March Madness with momentum, as regular-season viewership was up for most broadcasters.
www.sportsbusinessjournal.com www.sportsbusinessjournal.com

The Big East averaged 779,000 viewers..

ESPN averaged 955,000 over 131 games..

ESPN2 averaged 299,000 over 217 games

The B1G on Fox averaged 1.22 million
Expand ...
Big East Averaged 779k viewers on FOX. That's OTA, that does not include FS1 or FS2.. Meanwhile the P-5 is beating that with games on ESPN which is cable.

FS1 games are likely around 100k for the Big East.
FS2 games are under 50k.
 
The real issue is FS1, not the Big East. But most Big East games are on FS1 and even worse FS2

Men's college basketball regular-season viewership (excludes conference tourneys)
NETWORK2022-23
(000)		2021-22
(000)		2020-21
(000)		2019-20
(000)		2018-19
(000)
CBS1,3221,2501,1901,2901,540
Fox963858795862894
ESPN9559287659601,199
ABC938665715445n/a
ESPN2299281230265330
FS1171183162180171
USA*686846n/an/a
 
B12 said:
The real issue is FS1, not the Big East. But most Big East games are on FS1 and even worse FS2

​
Men's college basketball regular-season viewership (excludes conference tourneys)
NETWORK2022-23
(000)		2021-22
(000)		2020-21
(000)		2019-20
(000)		2018-19
(000)
CBS1,3221,2501,1901,2901,540
Fox963858795862894
ESPN9559287659601,199
ABC938665715445n/a
ESPN2299281230265330
FS1171183162180171
USA*686846n/an/a
Expand ...
Now put up the basketball games on ACCN/BTN/SECN. What do you think they are averaging for viewers?
 
UConnJim said:
Now put up the basketball games on ACCN/BTN/SECN. What do you think they are averaging for viewers?
Expand ...
The BTN games are listed and beat the FS1/2 average. lol.

But again the worst games do not matter. What matters are the games on ABC, ESPN, FOX, etc. That's where the P-4 is getting 200k+ for some games and blowing away the Big East.

And when you look at the data the Big East is way behind when it comes to exposure.


There is no path for UConn to have good exposure with 150k watching FS1 and under 50k watching FS2.

Look at the data, it's very clear as to where the Big East is as far as TV exposure and viewers.

week1cbb.png
 
B12 said:
The BTN games are listed and beat the FS1/2 average. lol.

But again the worst games do not matter. What matters are the games on ABC, ESPN, FOX, etc. That's where the P-4 is getting 200k+ for some games and blowing away the Big East.

And when you look at the data the Big East is way behind when it comes to exposure.


There is no path for UConn to have good exposure with 150k watching FS1 and under 50k watching FS2.

Look at the data, it's very clear as to where the Big East is as far as TV exposure and viewers.

week1cbb.png
Expand ...
This is a network problem, not a content problem.

Fox paid the Big East to help ramp up FS1/FS2 as a sports destination, and a legitimate ESPN competitor. It hasn't really happened.

BTN has a clear audience and focus. FS* is somewhere between a streaming service and ESPN, and probably closer to the former.

The UConn women's game on ABC (on a football sunday!) is clear evidence of this. OTA>ESPN>FS*>Streaming.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,359
Messages
4,567,535
Members
10,469
Latest member
xxBlueChips


Top Bottom