|
Post by Ranch Dressing on Oct 10, 2011 15:02:20 GMT -5
Couple questions/comments for DFW.
1) Thanks for writing the article. It definitely adds to our discussion and focuses us on fundamentals and facts about the situation.
2) As has been mentioned above, no one has proposed a CYO league. Since we are heading to a hoops-only league at some point, I personally think it is counter-productive to refer to the proposed new league as such.
3) How is the Big East football television contract revenue shared among the 16 conference schools? Does every school receive an equal share, or do football schools receive more than non-football schools?
4) Is it possible in 2013, when the current 6-year football contract runs up, that the Big East will be unable to negotiate as lucrative a television contract? It remains to be seen which teams will join the conference to replace Pitt and Syracuse, but given the current turmoil and instability inherent in participating in a relaitvely weak football conference that is prone to losing its best teams to the premier football conferences, will networks discount the current television contract in some meaningful way? Or shorten the length of the deal? Or make a portion/all of the economics dependent on conference stability?
5) I do not agree with the A10+20% premium estimate for revenue potential for a hoops-only Big East conference that will feature historically relevant teams in major television markets like Chicago, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York, and Boston with a conference tournament in MSG. Unfortunately, I have no way of predicting what a hoops-only Big East can command from a network seeking to broadcast the league, but my suspicion is that A10+20% is a gross underestimate.
6) For the same reason, I think the A10+20% assumption grossly underestimates the number of television appearances Georgetown can command in a hoops-only league, as envisioned.
7) Do you know the revenue generated for the Big East/Georgetown under the basketball portion of its television contract? I'd perhaps set that as target television revenue for the new hoops-only league, with a discount because of the Syracuse and Pitt departures.
Thanks again. I look forward to your responses and reading your future articles.
|
|
|
Post by Ranch Dressing on Oct 10, 2011 15:10:21 GMT -5
Just to piggyback on EasyEd's post to challenge FLHoya's thinking, if we envision a hoops-only league, we cannot limit ourselves to the standardized ESPN distribution of basketball.
Leadership and vision for a new hoops-only league, as EasyEd says, needs to think outside the box by selling the concept to competitor broadcasters, whether they be network, cable, internet streaming, or otherwise.
We are going through a major technology shift in the world in how content is distributed and consumed. Any new conference formed, if it has the appropriate leadership in place, should be at the forefront of this wave of innovation.
This is another reason I believe we should shed our existing structure and sell the world on a better mousetrap starting today.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Oct 10, 2011 15:20:30 GMT -5
Referring to it as a Catholic League is intellectually dishonest so I won't waste my time reading the other distortions. Call it the five NCAA bids out of ten teams league and then compare it to a basketball league with ECU and UCF and other nobodies with anonymous football teams and then ask which league would be worth watching. ESPN would be a lot more interested in televising Georgetown, Nova, St Johns, Marquette playing twice a year than in showing ECU or UCF or the other minor programs that would drag down the level of basketball and add nothing of interest in football.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 10, 2011 15:24:27 GMT -5
I think part of the problem is that people are looking at schools like Georgetown, Villanova, Marquette, etc. as they stand now in the Big East. Sure a basketball only conference with the current slate of basketball schools would be a fairly impressive bunch.
The bigger question is, if we are relegated to an A-10 on steroids basketball conference, will that continue? Would Georgetown and the other schools maintain enough television time, prestige and revenue to maintain on-court success? Would the school make enough money to pay John Thompson III the salary he commands?
The problem is not where things stand now. Sure, the basketball schools + Xavier, Butler, etc. are an impressive group...NOW. But would the Big East basketball schools maintain the same level of success outside the Big East in a smaller, less profitable conference? I doubt it.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 10, 2011 15:28:37 GMT -5
I don't get your argument bmartin, Georgetown, Nova, St Johns, Marquette will be playing together regardless of whether its basketball only or if its a BCS conference. Being "proactive" as RD suggests amounts to little more than stating that publicly and cutting off all other solutions.
And honestly, RD, are you suggesting we should cut ties with UConn, Louisville, Notre Dame, WVU and Villanova right now just because they play football? Seems really short sighted and emotional reaction to the current situation, no?
Nobody is saying we shouldn't have a contingency plan if/when this happens again, but why not keep this consortium together as long as possible and collect the tv revenue while we can?
It just seems ridiculously immature and impractical to sacrifice money on the table for the optics of seeming like we are "seizing our destiny" or "taking control."
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Oct 10, 2011 15:40:08 GMT -5
A watered down 20-team basketball league would be awful. If the Big East can keep UConn, Louisville, WVU, Cincinnati in the league without adding a bunch of dogs then that is the best option, but if not a 10-team basketball centered league would be better than adding weak basketball teams for their unremarkable football programs.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Oct 10, 2011 15:55:19 GMT -5
maybe from a fans perspective, but from a money and relevancy perspective anything with football is better than something with out football no matter who is involved.
|
|
|
Post by Ranch Dressing on Oct 10, 2011 16:02:48 GMT -5
Cambridge, I recognize that we have a fundamental disagreement here. Kind of like Congress right now. But I do respect our thoughtful discourse, hope it continues in a productive fashion, and wish that posters do not resort to ad hominem attacks against the minority dissenters.
I'm sure 95% of the posters on here side with you, but I am completely honest with you when I say that I think staying hitched to football schools, including UConn, Louisville, etc. is the short-sighted approach to take right now. My plan would include Notre Dame and Villanova in the hoops-only league.
I also feel that board members have been misled by those who exaggerate the differential between revenue received by Georgetown under the current Big East television contract and potential revenue generated by a hoops-only league television contract.
By their recent voting, I can only surmise that the hoops-only conference members are also undervaluing what could be made of a hoops-only conference. To me, that is unfortunate.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 10, 2011 16:09:12 GMT -5
Cambridge, I recognize that we have a fundamental disagreement here. Kind of like Congress right now. But I do respect our thoughtful discourse, hope it continues in a productive fashion, and wish that posters do not resort to ad hominem attacks against the minority dissenters. I'm sure 95% of the posters on here side with you, but I am completely honest with you when I say that I think staying hitched to football schools, including UConn, Louisville, etc. is the short-sighted approach to take right now. My plan would include Notre Dame and Villanova in the hoops-only league. I also feel that board members have been misled by those who exaggerate the differential between revenue received by Georgetown under the current Big East television contract and potential revenue generated by a hoops-only league television contract. By their recent voting, I can only surmise that the hoops-only conference members are also undervaluing what could be made of a hoops-only conference. To me, that is unfortunate. Notre Dame has said they are not coming along in a hoops only league and Villanova just spent a decade and a significant amount of money/capital/sweat/goodwill to build a football program...I doubt they will be very happy ditching the possibility of DIA status. Without those two programs, I think even you have to admit this "basketball-only" conference would be a hard sell to the networks.
|
|
|
Post by williambraskyiii on Oct 10, 2011 16:09:26 GMT -5
Cambridge, I recognize that we have a fundamental disagreement here. Kind of like Congress right now. But I do respect our thoughtful discourse, hope it continues in a productive fashion, and wish that posters do not resort to ad hominem attacks against the minority dissenters. I'm sure 95% of the posters on here side with you, but I am completely honest with you when I say that I think staying hitched to football schools, including UConn, Louisville, etc. is the short-sighted approach to take right now. My plan would include Notre Dame and Villanova in the hoops-only league. I also feel that board members have been misled by those who exaggerate the differential between revenue received by Georgetown under the current Big East television contract and potential revenue generated by a hoops-only league television contract. By their recent voting, I can only surmise that the hoops-only conference members are also undervaluing what could be made of a hoops-only conference. To me, that is unfortunate. So, let me get this straight: Georgetown, Villanova, Notre Dame, etc., all of whom have access to financial data, projections and other relevant information, and have been involved in negotiations and discussions from the get-go, are wrong, and Ranch Dressing, furiously pounding away at his keyboard from his mother's basement while munching on oreos and 2% milk, is right. The Hoops-only league is economically viable and the only path to survival. Got it. Just wanted to make sure I understood your argument.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,607
|
Post by guru on Oct 10, 2011 16:37:03 GMT -5
Cambridge, I recognize that we have a fundamental disagreement here. Kind of like Congress right now. But I do respect our thoughtful discourse, hope it continues in a productive fashion, and wish that posters do not resort to ad hominem attacks against the minority dissenters. I'm sure 95% of the posters on here side with you, but I am completely honest with you when I say that I think staying hitched to football schools, including UConn, Louisville, etc. is the short-sighted approach to take right now. My plan would include Notre Dame and Villanova in the hoops-only league. I also feel that board members have been misled by those who exaggerate the differential between revenue received by Georgetown under the current Big East television contract and potential revenue generated by a hoops-only league television contract. By their recent voting, I can only surmise that the hoops-only conference members are also undervaluing what could be made of a hoops-only conference. To me, that is unfortunate. So, let me get this straight: Georgetown, Villanova, Notre Dame, etc., all of whom have access to financial data, projections and other relevant information, and have been involved in negotiations and discussions from the get-go, are wrong, and Ranch Dressing, furiously pounding away at his keyboard from his mother's basement while munching on oreos and 2% milk, is right. The Hoops-only league is economically viable and the only path to survival. Got it. Just wanted to make sure I understood your argument. Hey, I think RD is off base on this argument too, but the mother's basement rebuttal? Really?
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,638
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Oct 10, 2011 17:34:41 GMT -5
A couple weeks ago I was having a conversation about the TV coverage issue should the Big East eventually split off into whatever we're calling the CYO/Catholic/basketball-only/no-futbalz-allowed conference. Good news, I did some handiwork running one particular stat. Bad news, I only shared it w/ the one friend I was conversing with and my Twitter followers, and I ditched the notes. So, extrapolating, from 280 or less characters: If you take the 2011-12 Big East basketball TV schedule, and look at games between two "football" schools vs. those between two "basketball" schools (I include ND in this category) that might form the new "basketball-only" league: 58.8% of football matchups are on nat'l TV (ESPN/2/U/CBS) 48.5% of basketball matchups are on nat'l TV BUT...when you dig deeper into that: 9 of the 17 "basketball" nat'l TV matchups are actually on ESPNU, and only 5 are on ESPN/CBS. Meanwhile, 11 of the "football" matchups are on ESPN/CBS and only 2 on ESPNU. (The total number of football nat'l TV games, IIRC, was in the high teens as well). I just don't think a "basketball-only" league is attractive enough to command prime TV spots from ESPN. The "basketball" schools aren't commanding them as much right now vs. the "football" counterparts in the Big East. Even if you added Xavier, Butler, Temple, and Dayton, let's say...what are the marquee matchups that demand a Big Monday? What are the matchups that even demand ESPN coverage, vice ESPN2 or most likely ESPNU? I'll throw in my data point to add to FLHoya's calculations (yes, I posted this in one of the other threads, but it is relevant here as well): Out of all of the non-football Big East teams, the only non-conference games being nationally televised that aren't against BCS teams are Georgetown vs. Memphis, Villanova vs. Temple, and St. John's vs. Detroit-Mercy. Only the last of these three - only one! - is against a non-FBS school. I think people are forgetting two crucial variables: 1. Size matters. The 'Catholic' aspect may strike some as irrelevant because religion is not a motivating factor in the realignment, but it does speak to a common trait of all the institutions being discussed - their relatively small size. Yes, ECU and UCF basketball are poor at the moment, but "with a Fall 2010 enrollment of 27,816 students, (ECU) is the fastest-growing campus in the University of North Carolina system for six consecutive years," while UCF "is the second-largest university in the United States by enrollment." Central Florida produces more undergraduate alumni in one year than Georgetown has total students in every single program combined. From a TV network perspective, which fanbase has the higher ceiling and looks like a growth sector - a massive football-playing state school like ECU/UCF or non-football playing small-medium school like Providence or Xavier? 2. Brand strength is heavily dependent on TV exposure. It's all well and good to say that "Georgetown basketball is a brand unto itself, and that's bankable in this new world" or to play up the rich basketball history at DePaul and Providence. The fact is, though, that perceptions of prominence and relevance are strongly shaped by how often you're on national TV and on what channels. It's a two-way street, in which "Georgetown is a prominent program because it is on TV a lot" is as true as "Georgetown is on TV a lot because it is a prominent program." We have been shielded by the bundling of football and basketball TV rights from having to learn what Big East basketball's 'market value' might be. Looking at the non-conference TV coverage the non non-football Big East teams get, though, does nothing to make me think that that value is closer to what they get now than to A-10 type money.
|
|
Eurostar
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,094
|
Post by Eurostar on Oct 10, 2011 17:43:45 GMT -5
FLHoya et al: I think the "football" vs "non football" schools argument makes sense, but its not so much about whether these schools have football. Its more simply about the sheer size and fanbase of these schools. Syracuse and Pitt are huge state schools. They have a lot of alumni and fans. Georgetown, Nova, St Johns are smaller and have less alumni and fans. Other basketball only schools ie Xavier, Depaul, Seton Hall, Butler have much smaller enrollments and less alumni. Although we can take on some good basketball schools, who knows how good these schools and this league will be 5,10,20 years from now without competition again larger state schools.
We need to keep together some sort of Big East with football, right the ship for now, and hope some sort of college football NCAA legislation comes into play that stops the incentive for these leagues to poach more schools and become mega conferences. This is the only way the random pairing of schools that will be the new look Big East will ever stay together in the mid to long term.
|
|
|
Post by FromTheBeginning on Oct 10, 2011 17:52:10 GMT -5
Although it has a total enrollment of just over 20,000, Syracuse is a private school, not a state school.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,638
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Oct 10, 2011 17:56:43 GMT -5
Although it has a total enrollment of just over 20,000, Syracuse is a private school, not a state school. Technically, Pitt is "state-related" - the same status as Temple. For most of its history Pitt was a private institution, until it became part of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education in 1966... Universities in the Commonwealth System of Higher Education are considered public universities, but are under independent control rather than that of the state. Because of their independent status, universities in the Commonwealth System tend to have higher tuition costs compared to the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. They are exempt from Pennsylvania's Open Records law except for a few minor provisions.
|
|
|
Post by Ranch Dressing on Oct 10, 2011 18:00:34 GMT -5
I have never said that hoops-only is the only path to survival (if I did, I was being hysterical - see Gene Wilder in The Producers). We obviously have several options right now, as long as the Big East remains in existence. I have said that my strong preference is that Georgetown form a hoops-only league now.
From what I have read, I think there is a good chance that BE schools are overvaluing future Big East television revenue. I think the conference will continue to be unstable, lose football teams to the elite conferences, and see their television contract revenue drop significantly, or even disappear altogether. When it comes time to negotiate a new deal, I am not confident that ESPN or another network will pay market value for a league in such turmoil and susceptible to periodic dissertion.
I also believe that schools are undervaluing the potential revenue that could be brought in by a new paradigm, hoops-only conference. We need the right leader at the top to convince schools like Villanova and Notre Dame to be a part of it. Yes, Cambridge, without Notre Dame and Villanova, the hoops-only idea takes a big hit.
I'm certain that the financial projections being reviewed demonstrate conclusively that Georgetown will stand to lose a good chunk of revenue in the short-term if it switches to a hoops only league right now. There's no real debate in that. But I don't believe, in the long-term, the difference in television revenue share for Georgetown will be nearly as dramatic as some on this board say it will be.
Perhaps most importantly for me is that there are dynamics other than economics that tip the balance in favor of going hoops-only right now. I do not prefer Georgetown play the types of schools in basketball that are being considered to keep the football conference afloat. I'd rather us join together with schools that are geographically and academically (I admit academics may be a stretch in some cases) aligned and will form natural rivalries over time. I harp on the Waco reference for a reason. It's a ridiculous place for Georgetown to travel each year for a game.
Change is scary. But change can lead to some pretty great things. As an example, we didn't have what I would call a great rivalry with St. John's in 1979. But in 5 short years, it was one of the top rivalries in the game. Great rivalries can develop quickly if teams with natural rivalries are conferenced together.
I also prefer that we be conferenced with schools that have an aligment of athletic interests and thus can be expected to display loyalty to each other going forward. Obviously, Notre Dame will need to be massaged here. Football independence maintained, while selling them on a new and improved Big East hoops conference.
As I have stated all along, my sense is that we are pushing back the inevitable. We might as well get on with the business of building and selling a better mousetrap.
I admit, I was very glad to read DFW's article today. I was not swayed by it in the least because it was dreadfully prejudiced in its presentation, but I leave open the chance to change my mind after reading his next few installments.
|
|
FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Post by FLHoya on Oct 10, 2011 18:07:07 GMT -5
FLHoya et al: I think the "football" vs "non football" schools argument makes sense, but its not so much about whether these schools have football. Its more simply about the sheer size and fanbase of these schools. I wouldn't get too caught up in this point. I was merely trying to distinguish between teams that would and would not be around if the Big East went to a "basketball-first" approach (call it the Ranch Dressing Conference). As it happens, the presence of a FBS football program would be the splitting point, save for ND. I agree that size of the alumni base, market share, etc. all matter. We have to remember this thread is speculating about a specific scenario where the current BE FB schools are no longer in the conference. In this scenario, the Ranch Dressing Conference would have, roughly: GU, ND, PC, SJU, SHU, DEP, VU, MU, and potential additions like Xavier, Butler, Temple, and Dayton, let's say. You have to also remember, though, that the other BE FB schools went somewhere else. Perhaps the Big XII took Louisville and Cincy, the SEC took WVU, and the ACC took RU and UConn. I know, some of those moves are more likely than others right now, but the BE FB schools would be somewhere other than the Ranch Dressing Conference. And we need to keep that in mind. For instance, an ACC basketball league with Duke, UNC, Pitt, Cuse, and UConn? Any game involving two of those teams is instantly ESPN marquee coverage, College Gameday, Dickie V stuff*. Honestly, any of those five plus Maryland likely moves the TV needle more than ANY RDC team. Same thing with the SEC and Kentucky, Florida, and West Virginia (UK-WVU worked well in the NCAAs last two years). That's your east coast competition...even a Big East basketball conference that is good on paper (8 of 12 teams above were in the NCAAs last season) gets crushed for any number of reasons when it comes to TV rights and visibility. (*You know what'll be a kick in the nuts, but I bet happens: one of the first UNC or Duke at Cuse games at the Carrier Dome breaking the NCAA on-campus attendance record, which I believe is currently held by a GU-Cuse game).
|
|
miamihoya
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 698
|
Post by miamihoya on Oct 10, 2011 18:08:10 GMT -5
1. Size matters. The 'Catholic' aspect may strike some as irrelevant because religion is not a motivating factor in the realignment, but it does speak to a common trait of all the institutions being discussed - their relatively small size. Yes, ECU and UCF basketball are poor at the moment, but "with a Fall 2010 enrollment of 27,816 students, (ECU) is the fastest-growing campus in the University of North Carolina system for six consecutive years," while UCF "is the second-largest university in the United States by enrollment." Central Florida produces more undergraduate alumni in one year than Georgetown has total students in every single program combined. From a TV network perspective, which fanbase has the higher ceiling and looks like a growth sector - a massive football-playing state school like ECU/UCF or non-football playing small-medium school like Providence or Xavier? 2. Brand strength is heavily dependent on TV exposure. It's all well and good to say that "Georgetown basketball is a brand unto itself, and that's bankable in this new world" or to play up the rich basketball history at DePaul and Providence. The fact is, though, that perceptions of prominence and relevance are strongly shaped by how often you're on national TV and on what channels. It's a two-way street, in which "Georgetown is a prominent program because it is on TV a lot" is as true as "Georgetown is on TV a lot because it is a prominent program." We have been shielded by the bundling of football and basketball TV rights from having to learn what Big East basketball's 'market value' might be. Looking at the non-conference TV coverage the non non-football Big East teams get, though, does nothing to make me think that that value is closer to what they get now than to A-10 type money. I agree 100% with this point about size mattering and brand strength being related to tv exposure. Yet it is important to note the massive elephant-in-the-room exception to this rule: Notre Dame. Notre Dame enrollment: 11,733 Georgetown enrollment: 16,437 ND's independent status and decision to not join the Big East or Big 12 in football is arguably the catalyst for this entire conference realignment. One could argue the Georgetown basketball brand was once (1980s) as strong as the ND football brand. Despite a now long sustained period of competitive irrelevance in football, ND continues to command singular influence on the economics of the sport. The "Georgetown brand" carries no such power (unless we are measuring it in terms of Justin Beiber hat appearances.) Again, this is probably mostly attributable to a) the dominance of football and b) ND's exclusive contract with NBC. But worth pointing out that alumni base is not the only relevant factor.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Oct 10, 2011 18:15:01 GMT -5
I think a point you miss RD is that what you're proposing is for us to align with schools that do not have the same athletic interest as us. Georgetown Athletic department operates on the level of the BCS football schools. So does ND and Nova. The rest on the non football schools do not. We'd be tying ourselves to a group that does not share our athletic interests.
Even assuming the non football league you propose is inevitable why would you forfeit what you admit will be more money in the short term just for stability. I do not believe it is necessarily inevitable but even assuming it is, you make as much money as you can in the short term with the mixed model and then when it's forced upon you then you make the non football league and you're exactly in the same spot, but with extra money that you wouldn't have if you quit the BE early.
Again starting a non football league means losing the rights to MSG and the BE name. Whereas if we were to form the same league as a result of the football teams all leaving we at least keep the BE brand name.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 10, 2011 18:24:19 GMT -5
I think a point you miss RD is that what you're proposing is for us to align with schools that do not have the same athletic interest as us. Georgetown Athletic department operates on the level of the BCS football schools. So does ND and Nova. The rest on the non football schools do not. We'd be tying ourselves to a group that does not share our athletic interests. Even assuming the non football league you propose is inevitable why would you forfeit what you admit will be more money in the short term just for stability. I do not believe it is necessarily inevitable but even assuming it is, you make as much money as you can in the short term with the mixed model and then when it's forced upon you then you make the non football league and you're exactly in the same spot, but with extra money that you wouldn't have if you quit the BE early. Again starting a non football league means losing the rights to MSG and the BE name. Whereas if we were to form the same league as a result of the football teams all leaving we at least keep the BE brand name. Bingo.
|
|