Is Homogeneity Of Membership Good Or Bad?

[Sactowndog]

lol at folks who think the RR is such a sacred cow that is untouchable. 2 things- 1 I don't think the presidents don't think it is, and 2- I don't think Fox thinks it is.

You better believe they will take note of what happens with the AAC. If the AAC starts getting a lot more bids than they have been due to not having close to a round robin, they will take note.

The Presidents should be paying attention to the ratings on TV because that will ultimately drive the revenue. Success on the court is valuable but it is a Pyrrhic Victory if it doesn't translate to ratings. The last two years ratings numbers for a championship game that included the #1 team in the nation (in one of you top markets) should be sending off major warning bells through the conference.

[billyjack]

After another 6 months passing, this is still the argument from the Wichita people:

1. FS1 and Fox OTA ratings need to get better. Their solution is to add Wichita State, to diversify, because they're public and they'll boost ratings by attracting bigoted 19th-century anti-Catholic nutjobs. Also, somehow, a school in a small isolated town in the middle of the south-central Kansas wheat fields is going to boost viewership by hundreds of thousands per game.

Ok...

In reality, a major ratings boost will happen when:

A. Each of these 3 programs improves, which should happen within the next several years: St John's, Georgetown, and DePaul. Resurgence of any 2 of these 3 programs will boost Fox ratings 1000 times more than adding Wichita.

B. Add Gonzaga today, to diversify in an East-West manner. And add a steroid shot of intrigue by placing the 2017 runners-up in our 7-bid conference.

.

[Hall2012]

This link is why homogeneity is bad....

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2017/03 ... iewership/

You can't maintain top 5 performance with 9-10 level ratings. You simply won't have the money to maintain your coaches and facilities. Not adding Wichita State/VCU was a massive failure of vision when the league had a chance to add them as a pair. I am not a Wichita fan and I don't know if we could poach them from the AAC but it will be seen in the future as a major missed opportunity.

And I'm sure having VCU and Wichita State in the conference would have made those ratings sooooo much better

In fact they would. The current brand identity relates to a very narrow section of the population. That brand identity is tied closely to the homogeneity of the conference. Add two or even four top basketball only schools that aren't the current 'institutional fit" and you start to change the brand identity. That new brand identity would appeal to a much broader segment of the population.

Or you can chose to do nothing to address the issue and find yourselves in deep water 5-7 years down the road. Each data point just further reinforces the problem is significant. The conference Presidents, Commissioner and Fan continue to ignore it and pretend nothing can be done which is absolutely false.

The only additional viewers those two programs are going to attract are fans of those two programs. If our goal is to improve local ratings in Virginia and Kansas, then yes, they'll be great choices. However, both schools face the same limitations as much of the Big East - they done resonate enough nationally to make people go out of their way to watch games. Unfortunately, being on Fox, going out of their way is what people have to do to find the Big East. Nobody is going to start watching Big East games when they didn't previously just because some public school was added to the league.

[stever20]

but a question then becomes- which is a viewer more likely to watch.

A- Wichita vs Villanova
B- DePaul vs Villanova

By adding the 2 teams, Villanova wouldn't have to see DePaul twice. You better believe that Wichita playing Nova would be a lot more likely to get a good tv number than DePaul vs Nova.

[Hall2012]

but a question then becomes- which is a viewer more likely to watch.

A- Wichita vs Villanova
B- DePaul vs Villanova

By adding the 2 teams, Villanova wouldn't have to see DePaul twice. You better believe that Wichita playing Nova would be a lot more likely to get a good tv number than DePaul vs Nova.

Today? Of course. 5 years from now? Who knows. If in a few years those schools are winning at the exact same rate, the DePaul game will likely draw more viewers.

[Jet915]

but a question then becomes- which is a viewer more likely to watch.

A- Wichita vs Villanova
B- DePaul vs Villanova

By adding the 2 teams, Villanova wouldn't have to see DePaul twice. You better believe that Wichita playing Nova would be a lot more likely to get a good tv number than DePaul vs Nova.

What if Gregg Marshall leaves in a year or two? You never know, Wichita is a nice program that supports basketball but they are one coach away from becoming an average team.

[marquette]

lol at folks who think the RR is such a sacred cow that is untouchable. 2 things- 1 I don't think the presidents don't think it is, and 2- I don't think Fox thinks it is.

You better believe they will take note of what happens with the AAC. If the AAC starts getting a lot more bids than they have been due to not having close to a round robin, they will take note.

The Presidents should be paying attention to the ratings on TV because that will ultimately drive the revenue. Success on the court is valuable but it is a Pyrrhic Victory if it doesn't translate to ratings. The last two years ratings numbers for a championship game that included the #1 team in the nation (in one of you top markets) should be sending off major warning bells through the conference.

I try not to be a grammar Nazi but Google pyrrhic victory and get back to me about how winning on the court costs us in the long run

[Sactowndog]

After another 6 months passing, this is still the argument from the Wichita people:

1. FS1 and Fox OTA ratings need to get better. Their solution is to add Wichita State, to diversify, because they're public and they'll boost ratings by attracting bigoted 19th-century anti-Catholic nutjobs. Also, somehow, a school in a small isolated town in the middle of the south-central Kansas wheat fields is going to boost viewership by hundreds of thousands per game.

Ok...

In reality, a major ratings boost will happen when:

A. Each of these 3 programs improves, which should happen within the next several years: St John's, Georgetown, and DePaul. Resurgence of any 2 of these 3 programs will boost Fox ratings 1000 times more than adding Wichita.

B. Add Gonzaga today, to diversify in an East-West manner. And add a steroid shot of intrigue by placing the 2017 runners-up in our 7-bid conference.

.

Obviously I am not a Wichita fan or I would be on the AAC board whooping it up and not posting here about another dismal ratings effort on FOX OTA by the Big East. The Big East was the number 2 rated conference in performance and the number 9 rated conference in ratings. How much evidence does it take for you to get the problem is not performance related.

Gonzaga only reinforces your homogeneity and oh by the say is in a much smaller market than any public team mentioned.

[Sactowndog]

And I'm sure having VCU and Wichita State in the conference would have made those ratings sooooo much better

In fact they would. The current brand identity relates to a very narrow section of the population. That brand identity is tied closely to the homogeneity of the conference. Add two or even four top basketball only schools that aren't the current 'institutional fit" and you start to change the brand identity. That new brand identity would appeal to a much broader segment of the population.

Or you can chose to do nothing to address the issue and find yourselves in deep water 5-7 years down the road. Each data point just further reinforces the problem is significant. The conference Presidents, Commissioner and Fan continue to ignore it and pretend nothing can be done which is absolutely false.

The only additional viewers those two programs are going to attract are fans of those two programs. If our goal is to improve local ratings in Virginia and Kansas, then yes, they'll be great choices. However, both schools face the same limitations as much of the Big East - they done resonate enough nationally to make people go out of their way to watch games. Unfortunately, being on Fox, going out of their way is what people have to do to find the Big East. Nobody is going to start watching Big East games when they didn't previously just because some public school was added to the league.

Perhaps a marketing program about brand and brand messaging would be helpful for you. Quite honestly posting on the HolyLandofHoops what this brand message you think the Big East sends to the marketplace.

The Big East brand message is failing in the marketplace. It is worse than the MWC and AAC. Think about what the brand message is and why it is failing. And you can't blame FOX when then put you on FOX OTA and you lose to a league game on a cable channel.

[Sactowndog]

but a question then becomes- which is a viewer more likely to watch.

A- Wichita vs Villanova
B- DePaul vs Villanova

By adding the 2 teams, Villanova wouldn't have to see DePaul twice. You better believe that Wichita playing Nova would be a lot more likely to get a good tv number than DePaul vs Nova.

Today? Of course. 5 years from now? Who knows. If in a few years those schools are winning at the exact same rate, the DePaul game will likely draw more viewers.

Again if it just about performance than the ratings should approximate the rankings on the court. They don't come close. Viewership is about who feels an affinity for the team/league they are watching and what the teams and league represents to the viewers.