http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8756418/former-big-east-commissioner-says-big-east-defections-were-inevitable
"Blame me" isn't really what he's saying. What he's saying is it makes as much (non)sense to blame him as it does to blame former commissioner John Marinatto and/or current commissioner Mike Aresco.
It's clear that he puts the blame for the league's demise on the inability of the football members to match the "cachet" (and therefore the money making ability) of the football teams in the top five conferences.
"The thing the Big East didn't have was a football leader -- a Florida, Alabama or USC -- a team that contended for the national championship every year or carried the league. It wasn't strong enough football-wise."
He has been saying this since the wheels started to come off the BE. What the hell more could Miami have done in the 90's? Did he forget what that program accomplished? It wasnt that the BE didnt have a football leader - it DID - it was that the BE front office had no idea how to market the sport or leverage it for more money. Blaming football is nothing more than a way for him to deflect attention from his incredibly poor leadership and vision as a commissioner. It's amusing that some people actually believe what he says (those people dont follow football).
Maybe Tranghese is the guy to blame. The Big Ten network was announced in June of 2006 during Tranghese's reign as Big East commissioner. Had he awakened and put the Big East on the path to starting its own cable network, the potential revenue from that network very well may have kept The Big East football schools in the fold and potentially even allowed the league to poach a team or two from another league.
Mike, the job of commish is more than talking up the presidents, smoking cigars, and attending ballgames.
Quote from: LittleMurs on December 17, 2012, 11:21:57 PM
Maybe Tranghese is the guy to blame. The Big Ten network was announced in June of 2006 during Tranghese's reign as Big East commissioner. Had he awakened and put the Big East on the path to starting its own cable network, the potential revenue from that network very well may have kept The Big East football schools in the fold and potentially even allowed the league to poach a team or two from another league.
Mike, the job of commish is more than talking up the presidents, smoking cigars, and attending ballgames.
I don't know...I was involved with the Big Ten Network from the start. There were plenty of concerns back then whether that one would work and it was the only one that anyone gave even a modest expectation to have a chance. Huge universities, huge alumni bases, top academic schools, etc. The Big East would have no chance at a network, none of us were going to buy it. Half of us aren't even buying the Pac 12 which has plenty of big schools, more championships than any other conference in history.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 17, 2012, 11:55:26 PM
I don't know...I was involved with the Big Ten Network from the start. There were plenty of concerns back then whether that one would work and it was the only one that anyone gave even a modest expectation to have a chance. Huge universities, huge alumni bases, top academic schools, etc. The Big East would have no chance at a network, none of us were going to buy it. Half of us aren't even buying the Pac 12 which has plenty of big schools, more championships than any other conference in history.
If ESPN believes in God (and not that it is God), then ESPN is praying that you and the half that you hang with are right. For a chicken in every pot and a cable network for every league would lead to a significant drop in ESPN's influence. Especially if those networks are partnering with ESPN's competition (Fox, for example).
Just out of curiosity, at its inception, what chance did you think that a single school would have starting its own cable channel, i.e. Texas and the Longhorn Network?
Is he trying to put his name in the hat for the new commish job??? No thanks.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 17, 2012, 11:55:26 PM
I don't know...I was involved with the Big Ten Network from the start. There were plenty of concerns back then whether that one would work and it was the only one that anyone gave even a modest expectation to have a chance. Huge universities, huge alumni bases, top academic schools, etc. The Big East would have no chance at a network, none of us were going to buy it. Half of us aren't even buying the Pac 12 which has plenty of big schools, more championships than any other conference in history.
My general feeling about the PAC-12 is that their fans take a somewhat casual attitude toward the game as fans... sort of the whole West Coast mentality. There is so much more to do out on the West Coast than there is in the Midwest... it doesn't entirely surprise me that the B1G Network is more successful than the PAC-12 network (or whatever). That being said, IMO there is about a 5% chance that a BEAST network would have worked. As CBB said, smaller markets, and less rabid fan bases... Yes, the markets are there, but could the BEAST strong arm providers like the B1G Network did? No way.
"The Big East's football schools currently receive $3.12 million annually. The league's football deal expires after the 2013-14 season. Last year, the Big East turned down a $1.4 billion media rights offer from ESPN that would have earned each football member about $13 million annually."
Can someone explain why it was turned down? I mean, $13m -- a 400% raise -- is pretty good if the "big boys" were getting $17m. I mean, sure, $4m difference isn't chump change, but how could they hold out for a better offer?
Quote from: LittleMurs on December 18, 2012, 12:04:47 AM
If ESPN believes in God (and not that it is God), then ESPN is praying that you and the half that you hang with are right. For a chicken in every pot and a cable network for every league would lead to a significant drop in ESPN's influence. Especially if those networks are partnering with ESPN's competition (Fox, for example).
Just out of curiosity, at its inception, what chance did you think that a single school would have starting its own cable channel, i.e. Texas and the Longhorn Network?
We knew about Longhorn for a long time....afterall BYU has had it's own network for much longer. We suspected Notre Dame may try it's own network as well. Longhorn Network has been a miserable failure up to this point. ESPN is having to front most of the money because the carriage is so weak.
Look, there is a reason why there isn't a channel for every league, it won't work. You need distribution and massive revenues to make it a go and if no one is buying your network, then it won't work. It's not so much about weakening ESPN, they aren't worried about that. They know capacity is limited and dollars aren't there for everyone. Look how hard it was for the Lakers to get carriage...we're talking the Lakers!!
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on December 18, 2012, 08:02:41 AM
"The Big East's football schools currently receive $3.12 million annually. The league's football deal expires after the 2013-14 season. Last year, the Big East turned down a $1.4 billion media rights offer from ESPN that would have earned each football member about $13 million annually."
Can someone explain why it was turned down? I mean, $13m -- a 400% raise -- is pretty good if the "big boys" were getting $17m. I mean, sure, $4m difference isn't chump change, but how could they hold out for a better offer?
Pitt was one of the schools that voted against it....then they bolted. Yes, it was a big increase but in comparison to the other leagues it was not enough in their eyes.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 18, 2012, 08:22:16 AM
We knew about Longhorn for a long time....afterall BYU has had it's own network for much longer. We suspected Notre Dame may try it's own network as well. Longhorn Network has been a miserable failure up to this point. ESPN is having to front most of the money because the carriage is so weak.
Look, there is a reason why there isn't a channel for every league, it won't work. You need distribution and massive revenues to make it a go and if no one is buying your network, then it won't work. It's not so much about weakening ESPN, they aren't worried about that. They know capacity is limited and dollars aren't there for everyone. Look how hard it was for the Lakers to get carriage...we're talking the Lakers!!
The history you provide for the Longhorn Network is really interesting, given what Texas was/is willing to risk to avoid having to ever share its future revenues. If Texas were willing to let others in, Texas could be in the Big Ten, or it could have made the Big 12 a very solid league and avoided the deflections of Texas A&M and Missouri. Hell, It probably would have held the Big 12 together just by sharing with Texas A&M. Texas must still have great hopes for the future. I'm guessing that Texas must think that if they keep it out there long enough, its gonna eventually catch on. For Texas to be right, ESPN will have to be willing to stick it out.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on December 18, 2012, 07:08:31 AM
My general feeling about the PAC-12 is that their fans take a somewhat casual attitude toward the game as fans... sort of the whole West Coast mentality. There is so much more to do out on the West Coast than there is in the Midwest... it doesn't entirely surprise me that the B1G Network is more successful than the PAC-12 network (or whatever). That being said, IMO there is about a 5% chance that a BEAST network would have worked. As CBB said, smaller markets, and less rabid fan bases... Yes, the markets are there, but could the BEAST strong arm providers like the B1G Network did? No way.
Yes, that is definitely part of the stigma with Pac 12 fans. Ultimately it comes down to cost, if the channel was cheaper it would justify, they would be on the air on many more distributors then they are. They had penciled in a lot of carriers that didn't sign up, so they are going to under achieve on their revenue projections.
And you are correct on the success of the Big East as a network....remember that there were a boatload of providers that wouldn't take the Big Ten at the time. Eventually most succumbed to the pressure, but it took some time at that price point.
Quote from: LittleMurs on December 18, 2012, 01:03:18 PM
The history you provide for the Longhorn Network is really interesting, given what Texas was/is willing to risk to avoid having to ever share its future revenues. If Texas were willing to let others in, Texas could be in the Big Ten, or it could have made the Big 12 a very solid league and avoided the deflections of Texas A&M and Missouri. Hell, It probably would have held the Big 12 together just by sharing with Texas A&M. Texas must still have great hopes for the future. I'm guessing that Texas must think that if they keep it out there long enough, its gonna eventually catch on. For Texas to be right, ESPN will have to be willing to stick it out.
Here's what is happening with Longhorn. There are a number of ESPN deals that are coming up for renewal in the next 2 years from major players. So far, it's been a bomb. When the ESPN \ Disney deals come up they will require these distributors to take Longhorn or lose their ESPN carriage rights. I guarantee that is what will happen. So you're going to see some distributors start to carry it knowing full well they have absolutely no desire to do so because they cannot afford to be without ESPN. There will be a lot of back and forth, a lot of screaming (literally) on that one. Texas doesn't really care in all this, they're guaranteed the checks from ESPN. It's ESPN that is sitting with a channel right now that distributors don't want to carry for any number of obvious reasons.
This was our response: "We've had discussions with ESPN about Longhorn Network, but we have no plans right now to carry it. We understand Longhorn has other programming that may be of value to a small segment of our customers, but two UT football games do not constitute a network. We're happy to carry those two games under the considerable fees we already pay ESPN for programming that includes the Big 12. Given the dynamic situation in college football conferences today, we'll wait and see how it all shakes out before we decide what we will or won't carry."
Time Warner, DIRECTV, Dish, Comcast, Charter, etc all do not carry the channel. FIOS and Uverse do, mostly because of their presence in the Texas market...Uverse was forced to take it this year in August.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 18, 2012, 02:22:15 PM
Yes, that is definitely part of the stigma with Pac 12 fans. Ultimately it comes down to cost, if the channel was cheaper it would justify, they would be on the air on many more distributors then they are. They had penciled in a lot of carriers that didn't sign up, so they are going to under achieve on their revenue projections.
And you are correct on the success of the Big East as a network....remember that there were a boatload of providers that wouldn't take the Big Ten at the time. Eventually most succumbed to the pressure, but it took some time at that price point.
Exactly. And if I remember correctly, the B1G Network was fairly expensive for providers when it came out (I'm sure it still is) compared to a lot of other programming. The main cable provider in the Madison area refused to carry the channel for at least a year until they realized they were quickly losing customers to Dish and DirecTV. Their argument was that to carry the B1G Network they would have to raise rates... and here they are already the most rapacious rates of any provider. In the end, the B1G network ended up on the standard cable package.
Quote from: honkytonk on December 17, 2012, 11:09:13 PM
"The thing the Big East didn't have was a football leader -- a Florida, Alabama or USC -- a team that contended for the national championship every year or carried the league. It wasn't strong enough football-wise."
He has been saying this since the wheels started to come off the BE. What the hell more could Miami have done in the 90's? Did he forget what that program accomplished? It wasnt that the BE didnt have a football leader - it DID - it was that the BE front office had no idea how to market the sport or leverage it for more money. Blaming football is nothing more than a way for him to deflect attention from his incredibly poor leadership and vision as a commissioner. It's amusing that some people actually believe what he says (those people dont follow football).
Andrea Adelson uses facts to rip Tranghese's comment:
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigeast/post/_/id/40718/plenty-of-blame-for-all-in-big-east-breakup