Is Homogeneity Of Membership Good Or Bad?

[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.

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.

Wichita is gone at this point so who cares. The Big East missed their opportunity and still has a huge ratings problem.

[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.

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

I am quite aware of a Pyrrhic (capitalized) victory means and it is exactly what I meant.

If you win on the court and still can't deliver ratings you end up proving even more definitively that the league has a ratings/branding problem. In the case of the Big East they have taken it to an extreme: they are the #2 rated league, they have the defending National Champ and #1 ranked team in the nation playing, and they still draw a .7 rating. The frigging league has such a huge branding problem they can't even draw bandwagon fans.

All our success and poor ratings has done is cemented any lingering perception that no one beyond a small core group cares about this league. It is the text book definition of a Pyrrhic victory. But too many associated with this league are looking down through their noses to see the curve in the road ahead.

[UD Flyer Fanatic]

Is Homogenity of Membership Good or Bad?

Been awhile since I posted. Just to share my 2 cents- Homogenity of membership is a very very good thing IMHO (even leaving my team out of the equation). A single clear, distinct national brand is critical to any product's success. The AAC does not have it. The B10, SEC, ACC and indeed BE do. I am convinced casual BB fans will watch a rivalry game between small/average size private universities with the stands filled with rabid fans, exciting energy in the venue, coaches coaching their butts off, NCAAT aspirations on the line, with the 2 teams on the court having some degree of name recognition. Team name recognition is not a probvlem with the BE- and if I can get political for a moment- adding those mid majors who fit the BE profile discussed here also do and will only enhance the league.

If the objective of expanding the BE is to simple choose random BB schools hoping to increase TV market share nationally forget it- that's a fool's errand and you will not achieve that. No university (even the one initialled ND) is capable of that. My sincere advice to the BE Presidents would simply be not to expand than follow that strategy.

In closing- I think it is in the BE 's best interest to expand at some point in time of their choosing for more inventory- even having 2 BE games on at same time on different networks. The only strategic question for the BE is to determine which platform to be on. FS1 despite the $$ may not be the platform to generate the ratings you all desire. But your all doing fine, stop worrying and enjoy your success and for the BE sake hope your Presdents are not tempted to throw away the incredible brand that the nation does recognize.

[Toronto Rapture]

I'm borrowing this quote from MUPanther in the FS1 thread.

Average Big East Viewership on FOX/FS1 by Season

2016-17: 192k
2015-16: 166k
2014-15: 143k
2013-14: 104k

Assuming those figures are correct, the ratings are improving, albeit incrementally. As for the BE title game ratings being down this year, could it be that Nova/SH the previous year was just a more appealing matchup?

Having said that, I agree that the league and Fox should always be looking at ways to improve the content and viewership. My question; is expansion the only thing that can improve ratings? If so, are there any expansion candidates that will bring more than small market viewership? If not, is it worth accepting these schools anyways (even more so if there are questions about the sustainability of their on court success)?

There is also the question of broadcasting in general. Many have rightly pointed out that the media landscape is always changing, people are increasingly cutting cable, who knows how people will be watching games down the line, and so on. Considering this, is it a good idea to add a questionable candidate primarily for ratings?

I also get that the current make up of the league might make it a challenge to appeal to more casual fans, but at least the league has a cohesive identity at this time. I think most would agree you do not want to have anything like the hybrid league from before.

There are good points on all sides and room for compromise, but I rather the league be proactive instead of waiting for years down the line. My compromise would be adding Gonzaga and SLU. Gonzaga is an established college basketball brand that immediately enhances (even more) the quality of the league. SLU would give the league a footprint in a bigger market. They might not be ideal candidates, but they do fit with the identity of the league. And adding them does not preclude the conference from adding other schools down the line (if the conference expands to 11 or 12, do people really think that will be the end of it's expansion?).

[gtmoBlue]

Excellent post Toronto Rapture. +1

[Sactowndog]

I'm borrowing this quote from MUPanther in the FS1 thread.

Average Big East Viewership on FOX/FS1 by Season

2016-17: 192k
2015-16: 166k
2014-15: 143k
2013-14: 104k

Assuming those figures are correct, the ratings are improving, albeit incrementally. As for the BE title game ratings being down this year, could it be that Nova/SH the previous year was just a more appealing matchup?

Having said that, I agree that the league and Fox should always be looking at ways to improve the content and viewership. My question; is expansion the only thing that can improve ratings? If so, are there any expansion candidates that will bring more than small market viewership? If not, is it worth accepting these schools anyways (even more so if there are questions about the sustainability of their on court success)?

There is also the question of broadcasting in general. Many have rightly pointed out that the media landscape is always changing, people are increasingly cutting cable, who knows how people will be watching games down the line, and so on. Considering this, is it a good idea to add a questionable candidate primarily for ratings?

I also get that the current make up of the league might make it a challenge to appeal to more casual fans, but at least the league has a cohesive identity at this time. I think most would agree you do not want to have anything like the hybrid league from before.

There are good points on all sides and room for compromise, but I rather the league be proactive instead of waiting for years down the line. My compromise would be adding Gonzaga and SLU. Gonzaga is an established college basketball brand that immediately enhances (even more) the quality of the league. SLU would give the league a footprint in a bigger market. They might not be ideal candidates, but they do fit with the identity of the league. And adding them does not preclude the conference from adding other schools down the line (if the conference expands to 11 or 12, do people really think that will be the end of it's expansion?).

There is no question the Big East has a strong core of loyal fans that will find them on any channel. The question is can the Big East draw beyond that core. The answer when you look at games on Fox OTA channels is becoming clearer and it is not a healthy picture for the league. More worrisome is we have little upside. The league would be hard pressed to perform better than having the number 1 overall seed and 70% of your teams making the tournament.

[BEXU]

You say you went to pomona college, whatever the f that is. Why do you hang around the BE board? We have a deal with Fox for a long time. We're very happy with it and so are they. Cya in 2025.

[Bill Marsh]

Pomona College, whatever the f that is.

Was that a serious comment?

Pomona is one of the most elite liberal arts colleges in the country, ranked #7 nationally by US News this year.

[marquette]

I am quite aware of a Pyrrhic (capitalized) victory means and it is exactly what I meant.

If you win on the court and still can't deliver ratings you end up proving even more definitively that the league has a ratings/branding problem. In the case of the Big East they have taken it to an extreme: they are the #2 rated league, they have the defending National Champ and #1 ranked team in the nation playing, and they still draw a .7 rating. The frigging league has such a huge branding problem they can't even draw bandwagon fans.

All our success and poor ratings has done is cemented any lingering perception that no one beyond a small core group cares about this league. It is the text book definition of a Pyrrhic victory. But too many associated with this league are looking down through their noses to see the curve in the road ahead.

A Pyrrhic Victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. The only way you could possibly call winning on the court a Pyrrhic victory is if you believe we should lose on the court now to conserve resources for later because winning now isn't worth the resources expended. So, should we lose now to gain some advantage later? Is that what you are saying?

[billyjack]

Pomona College, whatever the f that is.

Was that a serious comment?

Pomona is one of the most elite liberal arts colleges in the country, ranked #7 nationally by US News this year.

I think the significance of Cal Poly Pomona in this discussion is that someone who graduated from there, and has his roots in Fresno, Sacramento and the San Joaquin Valley (but yes had a daughter at Butler), probably may not have the best advice for us or understanding of the Big East and our goals and perspective.

I'm not sure we get much interest in his area (not sure the Big East really ever did), which would be among the last places we'd penetrate, along with the Deep South i would guess. Kern County California i think is more similar to Boise or West Texas or Cheyenne or Wichita, than San Francisco or Los Angeles, but i might be off on that.

So if I'm right about Kern County, then from Sactowndog's perspective in his area of the country, Wichita would seem like a major draw. But to someone in New England or anywhere in the Big East footprint, Wichita might as well be Flin Flon Manitoba or Chibougamau in the upper Quebec north woods.

Anyway, I'm fine with his thoughts and i like getting a different perspective, but it's his repeating of the same talking points that is destroying this thread. He makes a point... several people explain the BE's thoughts on it... he repeats the same exact talking points.