FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Post by FLHoya on Dec 7, 2014 19:26:45 GMT -5
Did I watch more of the Big Ten Network this year than last? Sure. Wasn't that the whole point?
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,807
|
Post by njhoya78 on Dec 7, 2014 19:28:18 GMT -5
FLHoya, my three visits to the Big Ten Network probably didn't move the meter a whole lot.
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,807
|
Post by njhoya78 on Dec 7, 2014 20:07:08 GMT -5
Nebraska leads Creighton at the half in Lincoln, 28-27. Moses Abraham (nee Ayegba) with 4 points off the bench for the Huskers. Creighton would be ahead, but for ten first-half turnovers.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Dec 7, 2014 20:33:28 GMT -5
FLHoya, my three visits to the Big Ten Network probably didn't move the meter a whole lot. Off topic a bit, but re:ratings, aren't the only people that affect the tv ratings the ones in Nielson's sample size? I've always been hazy about that.
|
|
|
Post by matersammich on Dec 7, 2014 20:47:57 GMT -5
Creighton up 5 late.
|
|
|
Post by matersammich on Dec 7, 2014 20:57:20 GMT -5
Creighton up 9, 1 minute, Nebraska fouling.
|
|
Just Cos
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Eat 'em up Hoyas
Posts: 1,509
|
Post by Just Cos on Dec 7, 2014 20:57:41 GMT -5
Big game for Creighton on the road. Big East looks strong.
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,807
|
Post by njhoya78 on Dec 7, 2014 21:02:10 GMT -5
Creighton took much better care of the ball in the second half, and pulled away for a 65-55 win over Nebraska. Nice win for the Big East over the B1G.
|
|
|
Post by matersammich on Dec 7, 2014 21:02:20 GMT -5
It's over, Creighton by 10.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,578
|
Post by tashoya on Dec 7, 2014 21:12:47 GMT -5
Thanks for the updates.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Dec 7, 2014 21:52:49 GMT -5
The B1G thought, surprisingly to those of us who reside in the metropolitan New York area, that bringing Rutgers into the conference would bring New York City and its environs as well. Here's a secret for Jim Delaney and his associates at B1G headquarters in Chicago: nobody in New York who did not go to Rutgers cares about Rutgers football and basketball. What's more, very few New Jerseyans care about Rutgers football and basketball. With all due respect to those of you in the heartland, but this is not Iowa City, Columbus or Ann Arbor. There is too much competition for the athletic sports dollar in New York to care at all about a team that plays 45 minutes outside of the city. Did I watch more of the Big Ten Network this year than last? Sure. I enjoyed watching NJIT beat Michigan yesterday. That doesn't mean I'll choose to watch Rutgers against another B1G school if there's something else on of interest. All he had to do was a little research or visit the barren desolate campus and the RAC. New Jersey Nets basketball never was successful either. Rutgers does have a decent wrestling program which fits into the Big10 plans but other than that they are basically stuck with worthless Rutgers. They would have been much better off going after UVA or Clemson first instead of Rutgers. Maryland was also a weak pickup. Just shows me that they had a windfall of money from the Big Network and really don't know what they are doing. The whole legends and leaders conference names were just another example of their general incompetence and lack of vision.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 8, 2014 9:56:21 GMT -5
Great week for the league. Going into this coming week, we are the second rated league in the land in terms of RPI. Only three top 50 teams (same as we finished with last year), but a whopping nine top 100 teams currently. It'd be nice to enter league play with a couple more top 50 teams (which is certainly possible; we'd likely be top 50 with a win over Kansas, for example). But, I'm not sure there's been too many leagues that have entered conference play over the past decade with 90% of their league in the top 100. (I'm sure there were some, and I'm not suggesting this is the best league ever or anything close to that, but I'm simply pointing out how well it sets us up if all the teams can finish their out-of-conference schedule strongly). Statistically, we even have an outside chance to be the top RPI league this year (if things go wrong, we certainly could finish far lower than second, too).
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Dec 8, 2014 10:00:14 GMT -5
The B1G thought, surprisingly to those of us who reside in the metropolitan New York area, that bringing Rutgers into the conference would bring New York City and its environs as well. Here's a secret for Jim Delaney and his associates at B1G headquarters in Chicago: nobody in New York who did not go to Rutgers cares about Rutgers football and basketball. What's more, very few New Jerseyans care about Rutgers football and basketball. With all due respect to those of you in the heartland, but this is not Iowa City, Columbus or Ann Arbor. There is too much competition for the athletic sports dollar in New York to care at all about a team that plays 45 minutes outside of the city. Did I watch more of the Big Ten Network this year than last? Sure. I enjoyed watching NJIT beat Michigan yesterday. That doesn't mean I'll choose to watch Rutgers against another B1G school if there's something else on of interest. All he had to do was a little research or visit the barren desolate campus and the RAC. New Jersey Nets basketball never was successful either. Rutgers does have a decent wrestling program which fits into the Big10 plans but other than that they are basically stuck with worthless Rutgers. They would have been much better off going after UVA or Clemson first instead of Rutgers. Maryland was also a weak pickup. Just shows me that they had a windfall of money from the Big Network and really don't know what they are doing. The whole legends and leaders conference names were just another example of their general incompetence and lack of vision. I think it's pretty clear they knew what they were doing--they cared more about quality of TV markets over quality of programs/schools. Adding Rutgers and Maryland means that the Big 10 Network is part of the basic cable package in the New York metro area and the DC Metro area. It wasn't about spending/using Big Ten network money, it was about growing the revenue from the Big Ten network.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 8, 2014 10:18:31 GMT -5
All he had to do was a little research or visit the barren desolate campus and the RAC. New Jersey Nets basketball never was successful either. Rutgers does have a decent wrestling program which fits into the Big10 plans but other than that they are basically stuck with worthless Rutgers. They would have been much better off going after UVA or Clemson first instead of Rutgers. Maryland was also a weak pickup. Just shows me that they had a windfall of money from the Big Network and really don't know what they are doing. The whole legends and leaders conference names were just another example of their general incompetence and lack of vision. I think it's pretty clear they knew what they were doing--they cared more about quality of TV markets over quality of programs/schools. Adding Rutgers and Maryland means that the Big 10 Network is part of the basic cable package in the New York metro area and the DC Metro area. It wasn't about spending/using Big Ten network money, it was about growing the revenue from the Big Ten network. There was no reason why they needed Rutgers to be a regular network in New York. That's kind of the point. There are a ton more Michigan, Penn State and Ohio State fans in New York than Rutgers. They are splitting their revenue there for no real reason. They will never notice the mistake -- too much money is rolling in right now -- but it is one. Real schools are giving 1/14th of essentially the same revenue away to Rutgers for no good reason.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 8, 2014 10:50:34 GMT -5
I think it's pretty clear they knew what they were doing--they cared more about quality of TV markets over quality of programs/schools. Adding Rutgers and Maryland means that the Big 10 Network is part of the basic cable package in the New York metro area and the DC Metro area. It wasn't about spending/using Big Ten network money, it was about growing the revenue from the Big Ten network. There was no reason why they needed Rutgers to be a regular network in New York. That's kind of the point. There are a ton more Michigan, Penn State and Ohio State fans in New York than Rutgers. They are splitting their revenue there for no real reason. They will never notice the mistake -- too much money is rolling in right now -- but it is one. Real schools are giving 1/14th of essentially the same revenue away to Rutgers for no good reason. It's turned out that way, SF, but it was not clear at the time, based on what I know from people directly involved in those TV negotiations. For example, right now, B10 is part of the standard package at my relative's house in Western Massachusetts (not the basic, basic package, but you don't need the special sports tier for it). So, they're getting significant carriage presumably around the country including in markets in which they have no team. I suspect the SEC Network is the same way. But at the time expansion occurred, the NYC-area media companies were taking a hard line against adding additional sports-specific programming, particularly since NY already had three sports-specific cable channels that they felt they had to carry (YES, MSG, and SNY). I don't know about the DC area, but at least in NY, the people negotiating with the cable companies were given very specific targets to reach and the addition of Rutgers allowed them to meet them. It may not have been rational negotiating by the cable companies, but that was the card they played. Now, as it turned out, there has been significant subsequent pressure on cable companies to add sports channels and they've largely caved (though not for Fox Sports 2!!!), and the Big 10 likely didn't have to do it in retrospect. And that may well impact what leagues do in the future in terms of adding teams. (There'd be no need for the B10 to add UConn when they're already on in Connecticut, for example).
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Dec 8, 2014 11:01:37 GMT -5
For what it's worth, the Big 10 Network is still not available on Cablevision/Optimum (which services much of NJ/NY, and some of Connecticut) unless you get the sports package (which is also necessary to get Fox Sports 2, which isn't even available in HD).
That's the difference between the SEC and the Big 10. If you didn't have the SEC Network in a region where those schools play people would throw a fit. In NY/NJ/CT, I'm not sure anybody cares that they do not get the Big 10 network aside from fans of the schools playing in the Big 10.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,654
|
Post by guru on Dec 8, 2014 11:07:04 GMT -5
FLHoya are we allowed to call this St. John's win a good one for the conference? Because it is. What are you asking me for? Is the goodness of Syracuse losing ever up for debate? The answer is unquestionably no. But as I'm sure you realize, the point was about your good-natured mocking of those who belive that an improved St. John's is not important to the long term success of the New Big East.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 8, 2014 11:17:11 GMT -5
There was no reason why they needed Rutgers to be a regular network in New York. That's kind of the point. There are a ton more Michigan, Penn State and Ohio State fans in New York than Rutgers. They are splitting their revenue there for no real reason. They will never notice the mistake -- too much money is rolling in right now -- but it is one. Real schools are giving 1/14th of essentially the same revenue away to Rutgers for no good reason. It's turned out that way, SF, but it was not clear at the time, based on what I know from people directly involved in those TV negotiations. For example, right now, B10 is part of the standard package at my relative's house in Western Massachusetts (not the basic, basic package, but you don't need the special sports tier for it). So, they're getting significant carriage presumably around the country including in markets in which they have no team. I suspect the SEC Network is the same way. But at the time expansion occurred, the NYC-area media companies were taking a hard line against adding additional sports-specific programming, particularly since NY already had three sports-specific cable channels that they felt they had to carry (YES, MSG, and SNY). I don't know about the DC area, but at least in NY, the people negotiating with the cable companies were given very specific targets to reach and the addition of Rutgers allowed them to meet them. It may not have been rational negotiating by the cable companies, but that was the card they played. Now, as it turned out, there has been significant subsequent pressure on cable companies to add sports channels and they've largely caved (though not for Fox Sports 2!!!), and the Big 10 likely didn't have to do it in retrospect. And that may well impact what leagues do in the future in terms of adding teams. (There'd be no need for the B10 to add UConn when they're already on in Connecticut, for example). Interesting. Basically everyone's a dumbass, but since live sports are golden right now, you don't need to be overly smart.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 8, 2014 11:44:10 GMT -5
It's turned out that way, SF, but it was not clear at the time, based on what I know from people directly involved in those TV negotiations. For example, right now, B10 is part of the standard package at my relative's house in Western Massachusetts (not the basic, basic package, but you don't need the special sports tier for it). So, they're getting significant carriage presumably around the country including in markets in which they have no team. I suspect the SEC Network is the same way. But at the time expansion occurred, the NYC-area media companies were taking a hard line against adding additional sports-specific programming, particularly since NY already had three sports-specific cable channels that they felt they had to carry (YES, MSG, and SNY). I don't know about the DC area, but at least in NY, the people negotiating with the cable companies were given very specific targets to reach and the addition of Rutgers allowed them to meet them. It may not have been rational negotiating by the cable companies, but that was the card they played. Now, as it turned out, there has been significant subsequent pressure on cable companies to add sports channels and they've largely caved (though not for Fox Sports 2!!!), and the Big 10 likely didn't have to do it in retrospect. And that may well impact what leagues do in the future in terms of adding teams. (There'd be no need for the B10 to add UConn when they're already on in Connecticut, for example). Interesting. Basically everyone's a dumbass, but since live sports are golden right now, you don't need to be overly smart. Correct. And you can be sure that the bubble will burst. The industry will find a way to better monetize non-sports programming in this new age. They already do so through VOD by disabling fast forwarding and forcing commercials. They'll go to some sort of in-show advertising, for example (like how soccer does it), in their non-live programming. That, in turn, will necessarily decrease the value of sports programming, since advertising will regain value in other areas. And, one suspects, more and more people will start DVRing live sports. Many (like me) already DVR all sports anyway, but it's far less prevalent than it is in other TV areas, and hence the value bubble. It's also possible, of course, that the cable "bundling" model will collapse at some point under the weight of enormous carriage fees and revolts from non-sports fans, but my own opinion on that is that way too small a statistical number of customers have any sense for how their cable bill is allocated to ever catch on and make a fuss.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Dec 8, 2014 12:01:01 GMT -5
FLHoya, my three visits to the Big Ten Network probably didn't move the meter a whole lot. Off topic a bit, but re:ratings, aren't the only people that affect the tv ratings the ones in Nielson's sample size? I've always been hazy about that. I believe so, but that would be the same as saying the only people who affect the national Presidential polls are the ones who got the phone calls...
|
|