Is Homogeneity Of Membership Good Or Bad?

[Xudash]

BTW, the answer to the homogeneity question is that it is proving to be good. We're succeeding, according to the people that matter in all this.

The BE leadership is pleased with our performance and direction and it loves the composition and size of the conference.

MSG is pleased as well.

BTW, so is Fox.

The chances for BE conference expansion are so remote for the foreseeable future that it isn't even funny. Zero interest in non-P5 schools. No exertion of energy towards considering P5 and AAC schools that aren't close to being "available" anyway. And the subject of FOOTBALL is a negative - and obstacle - for any discussion that may occur down that road.

And on a final note, ESPN is most likely around the corner from having to go through some additional major talent cuts. Mickey is worried. The subscription business model is a road to hell in a land with technological advances and increasing streaming.

I've asked this before with regard to statements like the above, but what evidence do you have that these are true? Public statements are often made with a PR purpose in mind. Of course, school presidents, conference execs and TV execs will trumpet what a great thing we've got going because to indicate any less would be tantamount to admitting failure (and besides, we have the 2014 NPOY and the 2016 National Champs). I'm not saying we're in a bad place, but I also agree that TV contracts will look dramatically different going forward. Do we really know that the presidents prefer small, private schools? They may, but the conference execs and Fox execs surely are more interested in national profile and eyes on the tube--because it's all about the money. Those two players in this equation may very well care less about school size and public/private status. They want to grow the brand, and expanding the conference (I'm a fan of a 12 team conference, but could be convinced that 14 is better) may help them get there. It's all about money, and we will never have a TV contract that brings in the kind of money that the FBS schools get from football. So we have to stay as relevant on a national basis as we can without that fall football season exposure and $$.

So I say homogeneity is not necessarily good (although I think Gonzaga would be great) or bad. I think it's not the real questions. The longevity of this conference is dependent on increasing our brand. That could come with DePaul, St. Johns and G'town all becoming top 20 programs, but history would suggest that is unlikely. I expect our ratings will continue to improve over the next several years as we continue to have many teams make the tourney and ultimately challenge for the throne. But will they increase enough for Fox to want to maintain or increase their financial support? We don't know, but I argue that adding schools with good basketball programs can further enhance the 'brand' and better our chances of remaining relevant nationally for years to come.

I don't have a need to come off as being "that guy" who has or believes he has some relevant connectivity to his school. What I will tell you is that I do happen to have relevant connectivity to my school. I will not name names, and I also refuse to comment on everything that is shared with me. The ability to keep quiet at the right time directly benefits, in this specific case, my school, and it certainly keeps me from getting left out of the loop.

With all that noted, everything you wrote is perfectly fair and logical.

Now for my response to what you wrote:

1. Our collective leadership is very pleased with what the Big East has accomplished to-date. Our accomplishments are clear and substantial.

2. The accomplishments allow them to work from a position of strength; they do not feel compelled to be reactive at this point.

3. Our leadership is watching and understands technology advancements and the changes in media coming down the road.

4. You are spot on with your comment about brand management:

- We're working to increase our brand through the existing core.
- Increasing the brand through expansion would require strong expansion brands (at the BE level) - they aren't presently available, and football is an issue.

5. In short, it's way beyond not being broke; there is absolutely nothing to fix at this time.

6. But that doesn't mean that the leadership is asleep at the switch. We're under excellent management, and they're attuned to ongoing developments.

Is homogeneity of membership good or bad? Because of how we've performed since the rebirth of the Big East, the answer is that homogeneity and the ten schools in the mix are perceived to have been good for the Big East. It presently is safe to say that our leadership is inclined - I guess I have to write it that way, since you can truly never know - to continue to manage from a position of strength; that they'll move forward without feeling the need to be reactive (i.e. with respect to expansion).

Now for an aside comment from me: I am personally looking forward to Ewing (Georgetown) versus Mullin (St. Johns) as I believe that dynamic will add a level of spice and a nice tether to the Big East's past, assuming they both move their programs in the right direction.

Take a deep breath. Imagine for a moment a Big East that came out of the gate that then averaged 3 or 4 NCAAT bids per year and no more than one S16 appearance. Think about that. Think about where we might be under such a scenario. Now shake that thought off and quit shivering while you come back to where we actually are now.

I don't believe I'm being fed "corporate speak". At least the people I know aren't in a habit of kidding themselves. Frankly, beyond that, and respecting that we have to continually keep our eyes on developments in collegiate sports and in media technology and economics moving forward, it doesn't take much whispering in one's ear to see that it is in our best interests to continue to emphasize progress from and through the core group of ten schools - for now.

[Bill Marsh]

XU Dash, if what you posted is accurate, then it absolutely suggests that the leadership is asleep at the switch. I expect that you haven't been given the whole story and will cut the leadership some slack.

A position of strength? When it comes to TV contracts, it's not about national championships or number of tournament bids. I don't care how broadcast technology changes, revenue generation is still going to be a function of number of viewers and percent of market.

National brand? To the extent that it exists, it hasn't been sufficient to draw the needed level of viewership after 4 years. Given the size of the member institutions, this conference is highly dependent on attracting casual viewers. Where are they?

I'm not saying that expansion is the solution but conference leadership better have a plan to attract more interest. If that doesn't improve, the money will not continue to flow. Without money, the BE members will not be able to compete. I'd love to hear what the plan is. It better be something more than "growing the national brand."

We're going into year 5. No more excuses.

[NJRedman]

XU Dash, if what you posted is accurate, then it absolutely suggests that the leadership is asleep at the switch. I expect that you haven't been given the whole story and will cut the leadership some slack.

A position of strength? When it comes to TV contracts, it's not about national championships or number of tournament bids. I don't care how broadcast technology changes, revenue generation is still going to be a function of number of viewers and percent of market.

National brand? To the extent that it exists, it hasn't been sufficient to draw the needed level of viewership after 4 years. Given the size of the member institutions, this conference is highly dependent on attracting casual viewers. Where are they?

I'm not saying that expansion is the solution but conference leadership better have a plan to attract more interest. If that doesn't improve, the money will not continue to flow. Without money, the BE members will not be able to compete. I'd love to hear what the plan is. It better be something more than "growing the national brand."

We're going into year 5. No more excuses.

Or what? You going to fire the school presidents? We'll see how the B1G coming on board to Fox helps our ratings since we have a natural geographis overlap with each other. People in Wisconsin know Marquette and DePaul, people in Indiana know Butler and Xavier etc etc etc. If we can get more of those B1G fans to casually turn on our games then thats a win for us.

Down the road I wouldn't be shocked if we teamed up with the B1G to broadcast under whatever model they set up to distribute their content because of that geographic overlap. A BTN app or whatever would help them come winter with extra exciting BBall games.

[stever20]

the problem is that the Big Ten isn't going to have so many games that they're going to be all that helpful quite frankly. It's 50 games for the season. Roughly 3 a week. For perspective, Pac 12 had 20 games on FS1 last year that were P12 controlled. 2 on Fox that were Fox controlled. All 22 were conference games. I seriously doubt the Big Ten is going to have Fox getting all the conference games. So what we've seen from Fox and FS1 with the Pac 12- that's going to be pretty close to what we see with the Big Ten. Weeks with 1,2,2,1,4,2,4,4,1 games per week. I think you'd see the 4's become 3's and the 1's become 2's- so between 2-3 games each week.

Maybe this year a bit more only because they're playing the conference tourney earlier. But not normally.

1 thing just thinking about that. With Big Ten tourney going week earlier, Raft will be around for the BET. HOWEVER- he is not allowed to air on Fox due to CBS contract. Would that factor into Fox maybe having the BET final on FS1 so Raft could do that game? Would Fox try to buy the rights to Raft for network for that 1 game- then allowing Raft to be on CBS on Sunday for the selection show?

[Xudash]

XU Dash, if what you posted is accurate, then it absolutely suggests that the leadership is asleep at the switch. I expect that you haven't been given the whole story and will cut the leadership some slack.

A position of strength? When it comes to TV contracts, it's not about national championships or number of tournament bids. I don't care how broadcast technology changes, revenue generation is still going to be a function of number of viewers and percent of market.

National brand? To the extent that it exists, it hasn't been sufficient to draw the needed level of viewership after 4 years. Given the size of the member institutions, this conference is highly dependent on attracting casual viewers. Where are they?

I'm not saying that expansion is the solution but conference leadership better have a plan to attract more interest. If that doesn't improve, the money will not continue to flow. Without money, the BE members will not be able to compete. I'd love to hear what the plan is. It better be something more than "growing the national brand."

We're going into year 5. No more excuses.

Bill,

What is your benchmark target for an average number of viewers for an FS1 game?

What is it for the BET Championship Game?

Are you suggesting that we are at some form of make or break point once we get through Yr. 5?

[FriarJ]

In regards to the DMV, Providence has made it an absolute priority, right now they will have 12 players on ship next year with 5 from that area. You can beat out ACC schools for top talent their. All 5 had ACC offers. Watson had significant offers including Mayland.

[FriarJ]

Yes, VCU is in a nice recruiting area, but they're also 1 of 14 D1 programs in their state and at best the 3rd biggest program. That doesn't include all the North Carolina schools that they're directly competing with too. It'll take more than a Big East invite to consistently steal top recruits from the ACC schools in the area.

The idea of VCU taking over the area for the Big East sounds great but (maybe I'm being overly pessimistic), I don't think it's a reasonable expectation. The increased status may help VCU land a few more high rated local recruits, but the Big East simply doesn't resonate there. It's ACC country and there's not much we can do about it. I think trying to invade ACC territory would just be a waste of resources and we'd be much better off trying to strengthen our hold on the I95 corridor between Boston and DC.

I like VCU. It's a school I'd like to see SHU and other Big East schools regularly schedule OOC. I just don't see a fit as a Big East member school.

See my post above

[sciencejay]

I don't have a need to come off as being "that guy" who has or believes he has some relevant connectivity to his school. What I will tell you is that I do happen to have relevant connectivity to my school. I will not name names, and I also refuse to comment on everything that is shared with me. The ability to keep quiet at the right time directly benefits, in this specific case, my school, and it certainly keeps me from getting left out of the loop.

With all that noted, everything you wrote is perfectly fair and logical.

Now for my response to what you wrote:

1. Our collective leadership is very pleased with what the Big East has accomplished to-date. Our accomplishments are clear and substantial.

2. The accomplishments allow them to work from a position of strength; they do not feel compelled to be reactive at this point.

3. Our leadership is watching and understands technology advancements and the changes in media coming down the road.

4. You are spot on with your comment about brand management:

- We're working to increase our brand through the existing core.
- Increasing the brand through expansion would require strong expansion brands (at the BE level) - they aren't presently available, and football is an issue.

5. In short, it's way beyond not being broke; there is absolutely nothing to fix at this time.

6. But that doesn't mean that the leadership is asleep at the switch. We're under excellent management, and they're attuned to ongoing developments.

Is homogeneity of membership good or bad? Because of how we've performed since the rebirth of the Big East, the answer is that homogeneity and the ten schools in the mix are perceived to have been good for the Big East. It presently is safe to say that our leadership is inclined - I guess I have to write it that way, since you can truly never know - to continue to manage from a position of strength; that they'll move forward without feeling the need to be reactive (i.e. with respect to expansion).

Now for an aside comment from me: I am personally looking forward to Ewing (Georgetown) versus Mullin (St. Johns) as I believe that dynamic will add a level of spice and a nice tether to the Big East's past, assuming they both move their programs in the right direction.

Take a deep breath. Imagine for a moment a Big East that came out of the gate that then averaged 3 or 4 NCAAT bids per year and no more than one S16 appearance. Think about that. Think about where we might be under such a scenario. Now shake that thought off and quit shivering while you come back to where we actually are now.

I don't believe I'm being fed "corporate speak". At least the people I know aren't in a habit of kidding themselves. Frankly, beyond that, and respecting that we have to continually keep our eyes on developments in collegiate sports and in media technology and economics moving forward, it doesn't take much whispering in one's ear to see that it is in our best interests to continue to emphasize progress from and through the core group of ten schools - for now.

Thanks for the comments XUDash. I am grateful to know that you have some internal access upon which to base your comments. I fear that many posters speak in absolute terms about who will/will never get invited, etc. when they really know absolutely nothing other than their own opinions.

To be clear, I don't agree with Bill that the presidents have their heads in the sand. However, I equate increasing the brand with dollars as Bill stated. If viewership numbers don't increase satisfactorily in Fox's opinion, we don't get a great new deal next time around. What are the ideal numbers? I would love to know--I would love to hear from someone on this board who has actual understanding of Fox's opinion about where we are now, and where they want/expect us to be in a handful of years when it comes time to negotiate the next deal. That strikes me as the most crucial bit of missing data before us.

Lots of this is fluid. I think the B1G deal with Fox will help us (as others have stated), but we simply don't know how much. Parenthetically, the B1G may decide that an OOC 'challenge' helps us too much in terms of maintaining competitiveness. I am of the opinion that the FBS-5 will do everything they can over the next 15 years to separate themselves (could even be an FBS-4 by then) from the rest of NCAA athletics. And I think because we don't play football, they will work to push us out of any future super-NCAA division that may result. The NCAA is too weak and feckless to do anything but allow the FBS-5 to do what they want. Of course, Fox may push the B1G hard enough to do a challenge with us that they do and it ends up great for us in terms of quality non-con games/wins/exposure. We simply don't know.

But back to your main point, I think the presidents will go along with whatever Fox (or whatever TV package negotiator) has to say the next time negotiations begin. They want us to stay relevant, and the best way to do that is to maximize exposure and revenue--and that will be through some kind of media deal. I really believe conference expansion is a component of that (but again, I would LOVE for GT and SJ--and DePaul--to get back on their feet and lead the conference).

[stever20]

I think you can see what the Big Ten thinks of the challenge by the terms they have put in place. Going to see the top teams in the 8 years only 4 times almost certainly. 6 teams guaranteed off each year instead of just 4.

The problem with you saying that Fox might push the Big Ten into the challenge is Fox does NOT own the Big Ten exclusively. ESPN in there as well. By the time the Fox/ESPN deals are over- the current Gavitt games deal is over.

[_lh]

I think we can all agree on the following:

1.) The Big East does not need to expand.

2.) The Big East can expand if they want for the right (slum dunk candidate) like UCONN, ND or Kansas.

3.) VCU and UD fans really want the Big East to expand and invite them in.

4.) There is no value in adding VCU, UD, SLU, GW, Rhode Island, George Mason, WSU, St. Bonaventure, etc. from the A10.

5.) UD and VCU trolls will continue to create threads about expansion in order to talk up their two programs.

6.) Stever20 is a fan or a team trapped in the AAC and posts here to only stir the pot.