Big East Football Meetings Underway

[ge1974]

Interesting read from Eric Crawford of the Louisville Courier on brainstorm ideas on how Big East football could become stronger. Some of his thoughts are not bad.

http://www.wdrb.com/story/19139013/crawford-five-steps-to-a-reinvented-big-east

First thing to me is get the new commissioner hired, asap...and get somebody with some clout.

[TheSultan]

None of these actually address their major problem....fan bases of significantly smaller sizes than those in the other four BCS conferences. That is the root of their money problem...their TV problem...etc. Being in major markets doesn't mean much if the people in the major markets don't watch the games.

[Halo]

None of these actually address their major problem....fan bases of significantly smaller sizes than those in the other four BCS conferences. That is the root of their money problem...their TV problem...etc. Being in major markets doesn't mean much if the people in the major markets don't watch the games.

Did you actually read the article? It had ideas for all of your problems. Leverage the large cities to get more people watching the games, getting a better media partner, give more access to the players/locker room, etc. At least there are some ideas. Right now it seems like there is no vision at all for the league to survive. I hope they know what they are doing and are just keeping it close to the vest.

[TheSultan]

I read the article. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of college football that exists. Point by point...

1. Pick a fight with the ACC. Not exactly sure what that will do to help the BE.

2. Forget ESPN. Pluses and minuses here. No doubt that the BE is low on their totem pole, but NBC Sports is a wasteland that no one watches. The NHL abandoned ESPN and it has widely been considered a terrible move on their part. Perhaps as part of a double-header with Notre Dame would work, but ND is only on NBC 7 or so weeks a year.

3. Become the entertainment league. This is at least an idea, but I'm not sure it is going to drive numbers to the BE. Fans are going to watch their teams...and then they are going to watch the big games. Unless the BE gets some games that are important to the landscape of college football, this isn't going to make a difference.

4. Leverage locations. They have been trying (and failing) at doing this for years. This is hardly a new idea.

5. Beat somebody. EXACTLY. None of the goofy ideas will mean anything unless they produce a quality product on the field. Win games...be relevant.... That is part of their problem now.

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

#5 is the best and really only important point... If the BE gets good teams that start beating people then the games will be watched, until then it is what it is. Winning more means more recruits, more exposure, better TV agreement, better perception... And I don't just mean winning against each other, they have to win against other big time foes and start putting teams in the playoff system that is about to start

[Goose85]

I think he had many a good point and it was an interesting read. Two things about the article. First, at least he has some ideas, and some very good ones too. Second, perception is reality.

1. Other teams are using the perception that the ACC is better and the Big East is about done against Big East teams when recruiting. The Big East is not the SEC, Big 12 or Big 10 in football at this point, no one is disputing that point. But it sure shouldn't take a back seat to the ACC, and making an effort to point that out is a good idea.

2. While ESPN is king, leveraging the idea that NBC needs content into more money in the next TV contract is a very good thing, even if the Big East becomes the NBC conference. More money, especially if it is near ACC money, means more stability for the conference. Two games on NBC on a Saturday, with others on the old versus is fine. Sounds like the Big 10 to me, with ESPN picking two games and the others on the Big 10 network which is somewhere else on the dial.

3. More 'miked up' type segments and more all access pass type features is a very good idea. Any new content that helps draw viewers is good. I know many a high school football playing kid, and they absolutely love that kind of programming. The key is also helping to put Big East coaches (football) into the spotlight and helping them get more exposure. Basketball coaches already have that, football needs it. This is more about selling programing in addition to the football games. On Tuesday night you have a 'miked up' segment from the prior weeks games, etc.

4. No reason not to keep trying. Keep in mind new cities like Houston, Dallas, Memphis, Boise, San Diego are all very excited about joining.

5. Losing WVU does hurt for football. It is right that now Lousiville, Cincy, South Florida, Boise, San Diego, SMU, Houston, etc all need to try and schedule big time games and win them. That would make 1-4 very and conference stability much easier.

[BLT]

You mean like how NBC/COMCAST sucks for the Olympics? Read this article on how NBC/COMCAST is using all its digital assets to reinvnet their business model for these games...mainly by accident as they put their business plan together for traditional media and are now finding surprises elsewhere that are taking them from a loss leader to a profit for these games. Comcast is wired in urban centers where there are established infrastructures of cable boxes and mobile towers, just like the BE. As is occurring by accident rather than design in these Olympics, NBC/COMCAST is finding new audiences and advertisers in these Olympics. THE BE has nothing but opportunity ahead of them if, and I say if, they have the vision. The BE football line-up could air live content in four different time zones over multiple TV, mobile and internet channels--locally and nationally.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bal-nbc-olympics-lazarus-profits-20120802,0,5814033.story

[TheSultan]

BLT, this is fine and good, but none of this matters if the customers don't want to watch the product.

NBC is doing well with the Olympics because people want to watch them and because NBC is the only place it is available. There is a lot of college football on television. On any given Saturday I can probably catch a dozen games or more. And most college football fans aren't going to watch Rutgers v. UConn if they have a choice to watch Alabama...LSU...Ohio State...or USC. Big East football is played by schools with small fan-bases, and has lately had a tradition of not being very good. That has to change.

And it doesn't matter if Comcast is wired in the cities, because Comcast also carries ESPN, ESPN2, ABC and CBS....all of which will be airing games at the same time.

[BLT]

Comcast is wired with mobile, cable and internet...the difference with Comcast vs. ESPN is they control the access as an integrated provider. Does ESPN/ABC provide better content today than NBC? Yes, ESPN is a stronger today on live content but NBC is hungry and the BE is the only conference available to court. What is important about urban settings is that their infrastructure is on the telephone lines...they own the distribution. Think about the B1G Network...yes it is about set tops and that continuous battle with providors, but it is also more about satelite with their large rural poluations--thus the DirectTV partnership. Comcast's access footprint better matches the urban BE markets. Where NBC has a leg up on ESPN is their local tv proporties like CSN Sportsnet in Chicago where they can devote and build local programming around BE teams (in this case, ND and DePaul maybe MU).

You talk about football product on the field...yes, others have advantages which is obvious or else the BE wouldn't be scrambling...however, the NBC/Comcast deal with the BE has the most potential as it is the best strategic fit for both. Exposure like in the article for a minor sport like archery, can dial up a full potential of success using ALL the Comcast media assets. Which is better for the BE, the fourth rung at ESPN or the first rung at NBC/Comcast? BE football has a lot to sell, coast to coast live content and eyeballs in all time zones, which means potential. I don't see the risk like you do, but see the potential to broaden like archery. Why? Access more than content.

[CaribouJim]

Comcast is wired with mobile, cable and internet...the difference with Comcast vs. ESPN is they control the access as an integrated provider. Does ESPN/ABC provide better content today than NBC? Yes, ESPN is a stronger today on live content but NBC is hungry and the BE is the only conference available to court. What is important about urban settings is that their infrastructure is on the telephone lines...they own the distribution. Think about the B1G Network...yes it is about set tops and that continuous battle with providors, but it is also more about satelite with their large rural poluations--thus the DirectTV partnership. Comcast's access footprint better matches the urban BE markets. Where NBC has a leg up on ESPN is their local tv proporties like CSN Sportsnet in Chicago where they can devote and build local programming around BE teams (in this case, ND and DePaul maybe MU).

You talk about football product on the field...yes, others have advantages which is obvious or else the BE wouldn't be scrambling...however, the NBC/Comcast deal with the BE has the most potential as it is the best strategic fit for both. Exposure like in the article for a minor sport like archery, can dial up a full potential of success using ALL the Comcast media assets. Which is better for the BE, the fourth rung at ESPN or the first rung at NBC/Comcast? BE football has a lot to sell, coast to coast live content and eyeballs in all time zones, which means potential. I don't see the risk like you do, but see the potential to broaden like archery. Why? Access more than content.

Very good post BLT - pretty much agree with all your points. Sultan, I don't get your utter disdain for NBC Sports - you've posted that multiple times in different threads over the last few weeks - they certainly have better content than ESPN when they started out and the tie-in to Comcast is huge and NBC is hungry as hell - ESPN is showing kinks in their armor, including talent leaving and don't forget that the Big East was a huge help for ESPN to jump to the next level - don't see why the Big East, with b-ball taking the lead, can't help do the same for NBC Sports.

[TheSultan]

If there is one network in this country that has shown that it has no idea what the American people want, it is NBC. I have no idea what you mean by "they're hungry." What they are is desperate. Outside of the Olympics, they have no sports product that significant numbers of people actually care about. But even if I give them the benefit of the doubt, and they throw a bunch of money at the conference, there is still a significant problem.

The Big East is an inferior football product. Of the major conferences, it rivals the ACC for the poorest results, but lags all of them when it comes to eyeballs. You can say it has all of these markets, but SMU and Houston are not the top teams in their respective cities. Neither is Memphis. Neither is UCF. This has been the fallacy of Big East football from the beginning. Markets don't matter if there is no demand for the product. The Big East has to get good at football. They have to be compelling. Those late season top five match ups that mean something in the national title picture have to come back around for the first time since Miami and Virginia Tech were members of the conference. That is why adding Boise was important...but outside of them, who do you have???

That being said, I do agree that the BE might be better off on NBC Sports rather than ESPN - I just have no faith in NBC to pull it off. The have had the NHL for years, and it certainly hasn't helped them at all. It is risky...because of your product moves to a barren wasteland that draws no eyeballs, you all of the sudden become less relevant than you would otherwise. Not only are you not on ESPN, but now their talking heads will barely mention you. And that does make a difference.

[MUMac]

I had a conversation with a young IT guy today. He commented about the delivery of media in the future. Commenting that traditional TV and Cable may be a thing of the past in the not too distant future. Everything will be internet based or through phone lines. That perked my interest in this NBC/Comcast discussion a bit more.

NBC may be the network that has not understood it's clients. That does not mean they will be the network that does not understand it's clients. At one time they were the leader. It was not that long ago that CBS was the dominant one and then went to an also ran status. Fox was nothing and now a giant. The players change. Being on the leading edge of a hungry partner may not be a bad move.

[BLT]

Well, NBC also owns NFL rights including the rotating Super Bowl, NHL, Notre Dame, and a bunch of local rights, which does leave a nice block of time for the Big East. They have top announcers like Costas, Patrick, Michaels. Maybe they are desperate, but i see it as hungry to get back into sports. In fact, the Comcast part and their properties makes it imperative. More so, I agree that BE football is not a good product. NBC/Comcast will get back into sports programming faster than the BE will be a great football conference. However, all the other major conferences are tied into decades long media partnerships, while the BE is renewing theirs. A good fit as both need live programming.

Don't underestimate Comcast being a carrier. What happens to the B1G network or the B12 or ACC when Comcast drops them or deemphasizes them to promote their own properties? The B1G network has little ad revenue and Comcast will play dirty. Why would Comcast want to carry the ESPN Longhorn Network on their cable sets in Chicago? Or ACC network? Comcast will limit the number of ESPN channels or PPV them. Subscribers in many parts of the US don't want to pay for these stations. On the other hand, subscribers in many urban cities of the BE will have access via Comcast already.

In the end, we really agree more than we disagree...but this may be a marriage of accidental success.

[2013UnleashTheBeast]

I hope the Big East signs with Comcast/NBC Sports and then Comcast/Xfinity drops ESPN3.com from their internet service & makes most of the ESPN channels PPV. That could level the playing field for the Big East, if not give it a clear competitive advantage. It could (I stress could) turn out to be like the Big East's original sweetheart deal with ESPN back in the day, or the Braves with TBS, Cubs with WGN, etc. in terms of promotion and household recognition, which would obviously be huge for MU. Time for the Big East to make a bold move!

[TheSultan]

I hope the Big East signs with Comcast/NBC Sports and then Comcast/Xfinity drops ESPN3.com from their internet service & makes most of the ESPN channels PPV. That could level the playing field for the Big East, if not give it a clear competitive advantage.


So you want the BE to get a "clear competitive advantage," not by free market forces, but by having Comcast engaging in anti-competitive behavior and essentially forcing it to become the only product available?

[2013UnleashTheBeast]

So you want the BE to get a "clear competitive advantage," not by free market forces, but by having Comcast engaging in anti-competitive behavior and essentially forcing it to become the only product available?

That's what ESPN was essentially just trying to do to the Big East, because they thought they were the only game in town. Might as well fight back with even dirtier tactics. I hope the evil empire gets what's coming to it.

[TheSultan]

That's what ESPN was essentially just trying to do to the Big East,


Not really....but you can keep thinking that if it helps you sleep at night.

[BLT]

So you want the BE to get a "clear competitive advantage," not by free market forces, but by having Comcast engaging in anti-competitive behavior and essentially forcing it to become the only product available?

There is no law requiring a cable carrier to carry ESPN's 10 channels. A carrier charges users for every channel and it is dropped or not picked up if there is no interest. If Comcast makes money on ESPN 3 they will carry it. They may not carry ESPN's Longhorn network nationally. One of Comcast's big gripes with the B1G Network was Delany's anticompetitive stance with Comcast who only wanted football and basketball for their subscribers. Lastly, cable carriers are legally licensed and protected monopolies.

[TheSultan]

There is no law requiring a cable carrier to carry ESPN's 10 channels. A carrier charges users for every channel and it is dropped or not picked up if there is no interest. If Comcast makes money on ESPN 3 they will carry it. They may not carry ESPN's Longhorn network nationally. One of Comcast's big gripes with the B1G Network was Delany's anticompetitive stance with Comcast who only wanted football and basketball for their subscribers. Lastly, cable carriers are legally licensed and protected monopolies.


I didn't say it is necessary illegal, just "anti-competitive." But I have a hunch that if Comcast engaged in such practices to limit their ESPN audience for the sake of NBC programming, that you would very likely see DOJ involvement....especially with all the hurdles it had to jump over to get the merger approved in the first place.

[Halo]

http://www.bigeastcoastbias.com/2012/8/4/3220424/big-east-television-contract-nbc-espn-expansion


Sultan may not like this, but the BE has little choice. People can bitch all they want, but what other options does the BE have if ESPN won't pay them and is working to gut their league?

[TheSultan]

I never said taking an NBC deal wouldn't be their best option, but I will point out that this offer is slightly less than the one ESPN offered a couple years ago.

[Halo]

Correct. What happend then? Pitt Pres directed everyone to turn it down and then they bailed on the BE. So what should the BE do now?

[BLT]

I never said taking an NBC deal wouldn't be their best option, but I will point out that this offer is slightly less than the one ESPN offered a couple years ago.

From Back then: Using the figures the Big East reportedly turned down from ESPN -- $1.4 billion for nine years -- the league's nine football members (including TCU) would have earned between $14.5 million and $16.93 million a year, based on the football schools receiving 65 or 75 percent, respectively, of the media rights deal. The Big East's eight non-football schools would have received between $2.43 million (in a 25-75 percent split) and $3.2 million (35-65percent split) annually.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/15447626/big-east-preview-looming-tv-payday-could-lead-to-big-changes

So, the basketball schools would get more with this supposed NBC deal ($4mm)....and the now 12 vs. 9 football schools would get $500k to $3mm less per than the supposed ESPN offer...but the schools in the conference are different and this would be a bonanza for most of them from current (Boise, SDST, Temple, et al)...plus there would be a confernce championship and ND gets to keep their NBC sweetheart deal.

Just to note, I don't believe any of these released to the press offers as they tend to be posturing. There is a negotiation reason why NBC's supposed offer is leaked days in advance of the ESPN ticker to reup and why ESPN is trying to use their content to devalue the BE in advance of this deadline.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

That NBC deal, if legit (and I agree with BLT that much of it is likely posturing), would probably be worth taking, though I'd shop to CBS first just in hopes of having some level of competition for the offer. While it wouldn't quite be the money we'd all like to see for full members, I think it's very good for the football-only schools as none of them are anywhere near this now and definitely good for basketball-only as this is a sizable step up from even the original ESPN offer.

Taking any longer-term deal should help solidify the conference and make it harder for schools to bail. While it won't necessarily settle things, it will help, and tying ourselves to NBC and in a smaller way Notre Dame isn't a bad plan going forward.

[TheSultan]

Correct. What happend then? Pitt Pres directed everyone to turn it down and then they bailed on the BE. So what should the BE do now?

They should probably take it. My involvement with this thread started with the article posted that had some pretty goofy ideas to help boost contract value. But it basically is going to be the same as what was offered earlier. I do worry about BE basketball no longer on ESPN however, and I hope that NBC Sports has a legit online option a la ESPN3.

[BLT]

They should probably take it. My involvement with this thread started with the article posted that had some pretty goofy ideas to help boost contract value. But it basically is going to be the same as what was offered earlier. I do worry about BE basketball no longer on ESPN however, and I hope that NBC Sports has a legit online option a la ESPN3.

Comcast has streaming capabilities...see the Olympics...they do own Hulu, VOD is well built out as a cable carrier.

[Goose85]

One area where the Big East has an advantage is they are in very large cities, and many of them.

Sure, as Sultan pointed out, that doesn't translate to more eyes than Alabama v LSU, but I pay every month for the Big 10 network and never watch it. If you have a cable tv, or satelite tv, etc you are paying for the channel if you watch it or not. By being in the viewing area of a huge percentage of the population in the east and central time zones, that means you can charge a higher rate in those areas.

The Big 10 network is not billed at the same rate to cable subscribers in Texas as it is in Columus Ohio. I'm sure the Longhorn network will be billed at a high rate to cable subscribers in Texas but little to nothing, if even provided, in Wisconsin.

The ability to charge a higher fee for NBC's sports outlet to cable and satelite providers in the Big East cities of New York, Philly, Milwaukee, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Memphis, Cincy, Louisville, DC, Tampa, Orlando, etc means despite the number of viewers initially, the number of households charged is far more. Let's assume all residents pay for cable tv. While the 1.8 million people in Nebraska may watch the state football team and be charged for ESPN cable, all 8.4 million in New York city will be charged for NBC's sports network because they are in St. John's basketball viewing area, even if none of them ever watch a Big East football game.

[TheSultan]

It isn't just about the numbers, but what they will be able to charge. The BTN can get away with charging a high rate in Nebraska, because everyone watches Nebraska football. If the numbers are bad, they aren't going to be able to charge an equivalent rate.

[BLT]

One advantage of Comcast/NBC is that all their cable channels will be on Comcast's base cable package (USA, MSNBC, CNBC, and their local sports networks, etc.) or internet (interactive) with no charges for a sports premium package or ESPN3. The BE deal would be more of an ad revenue model as instant distribution will be attained in Comcast market~`right off the bat, that is 25 million households with access. The B1G Network is a subscription based model that is very regionally driven so it was a ditch to ditch fight with the cable carriers to be put on the air and stay on the air.

[CaribouJim]

This is a timely article for this thread:

How television changed college football -- and how it will again


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/andy_staples/08/05/tv-college-football/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t11_a0

[CaribouJim]

Here is another good article from SI.com - these guys/gal were pretty frank. I particularly like this one:

Deitsch: I've been thinking a lot about the mythologizing of college football coaches in the wake of the Penn State scandal. Throughout the sport we see coaches enabled by broadcasters -- especially former players-turned-analysts -- and such deification is dangerous. Television is the worst culprit here, with print and online press accomplices as well. What I'd like to see changed -- and it will take some thoughtful adults in charge to do it -- is a fundamental shift in the language that broadcasters use about coaches. Enough with the over-the-top glorifying of coaching figures that led us down the JoePa Highway. Let's be better than that.

Doesn't just apply to football coaches - maybe Dickie V can back off some of his crap, but I doubt it.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/richard_deitsch/08/06/college-football-tv-roundtable/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t11_a1

[TheSultan]

Good luck. That happens even with NFL coaches... I mean Vince Lombardi was undoubtedly a great football coach, but he was also pretty much a jerk of a human being. But we want to overlook the latter and emphasize the former because it makes for a better story.