Butler Xavier and Creighton are great additions. Why can't we stay at 10? Fox may be pushing for 12, but I don't understand why. More content? This is an all-sports channel, not the Big East channel so I don't get the 'more content' argument. Couldn't we stay at 10 teams and leave our schedule open for greater flexibility with non-conference games? Why doesn't Fox want this? (or do they, but it conflicts with the non-con opponent's TV deal?)
I'd rather have 10 teams and schedule awesome noncon games (eg Vandy, Florida, TN, etc) than play Dayton or even SLU once or twice a year. Besides, by not adding them, where else are they going to go? In other words, those teams will always be there whenever (if ever) we want them (sorry SLU fans, I know that sounds arrogant).
So true.
I know it sounds arrogant but it's not disparaging St. Louis, it's just stating the fact of the TV dollars. It's not that St. Louis will come running because they're dying to play in Marquette's league. It's that St. Louis would come running because they'd like a TV contract that pays them several times more than the A-10 deal will. As Bubba Clinton said: "It's arithmetic."
It's all about the number of games we have to offer for programming. If we play an 18 game schedule, 10 teams only gives you 90 games. If you go to 12 teams, you have 126 games to offer. Two teams provides you with 40% more games.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 16, 2013, 09:48:19 AM
It's all about the number of games we have to offer for programming. If we play an 18 game schedule, 10 teams only gives you 90 games. If you go to 12 teams, you have 126 games to offer. Two teams provides you with 40% more games.
That makes sense.
I think they do stay at 10 at least for a year or two. Expansion may be on the table, but I would imagine that the next order of business is getting a commissioner and getting the league rolling with the ten teams it has. Unless there is a hurry, I don't see a need to make a snap judgement on further expansion and in my mind we yoinked the three best available teams.
I have no problems offhand with adding the other teams but honestly...The other expansion targets will probably still be there in two years if we need to expand for the tv contract. If they are not...oh well. It just makes sense to stand put for a while.
I see your point. However, a great non-conf game to me doesn't involve Vandy. Of all the teams not in our conf.........Vandy?
Quote from: MU82 on March 16, 2013, 09:30:25 AM
So true.
I know it sounds arrogant but it's not disparaging St. Louis, it's just stating the fact of the TV dollars. It's not that St. Louis will come running because they're dying to play in Marquette's league. It's that St. Louis would come running because they'd like a TV contract that pays them several times more than the A-10 deal will. As Bubba Clinton said: "It's arithmetic."
Would you change your mind on SLU if they made a deep run in the tourney? They are having a great year and are very capable of an Elite Eight. Wouldn't be suprised if they knocked off Butler later today to win the A-10. MU's BEast invite was (partially) based on a strong run in 2003, VCU upgraded to A10 as a result of recent success, and Butler jumped up two notches because of their play the past few years. Just saying, SLU has had some recent success and could make a deep run this year -- and it seems like they are committed to keeping that program at a high level. Would a S16 or E8 change your mind? Dayton on the other hand............
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 16, 2013, 09:48:19 AM
It's all about the number of games we have to offer for programming. If we play an 18 game schedule, 10 teams only gives you 90 games. If you go to 12 teams, you have 126 games to offer. Two teams provides you with 40% more games.
You are correct again!
The Fuel Tv channel will be Fox Sports 2. So, there will be two cable channels.
Quote from: ElDonBDon on March 16, 2013, 09:23:12 AM
Butler Xavier and Creighton are great additions. Why can't we stay at 10? Fox may be pushing for 12, but I don't understand why. More content? This is an all-sports channel, not the Big East channel so I don't get the 'more content' argument. Couldn't we stay at 10 teams and leave our schedule open for greater flexibility with non-conference games? Why doesn't Fox want this? (or do they, but it conflicts with the non-con opponent's TV deal?)
I'd rather have 10 teams and schedule awesome noncon games (eg Vandy, Florida, TN, etc) than play Dayton or even SLU once or twice a year. Besides, by not adding them, where else are they going to go? In other words, those teams will always be there whenever (if ever) we want them (sorry SLU fans, I know that sounds arrogant).
Absolutely more content. They need programming. Two extra teams means a lot of extra games. They have a massive number of hours they have to fill.
Remember, takes two to tango. We need a programming partner and they need a conference. Ideally, 10 would be great but our television partner who is paying the bills needs more content.
Quote from: We R Final Four on March 16, 2013, 10:02:23 AM
I see your point. However, a great non-conf game to me doesn't involve Vandy. Of all the teams not in our conf.........Vandy?
Vandy is poor this year, but has been a very, very solid program for quite some time.
Quote from: mupanther on March 16, 2013, 10:07:19 AM
You are correct again!
The Fuel Tv channel will be Fox Sports 2. So, there will be two cable channels.
Actually, three...though the third one is very much up in the air how it will be developed and if any sports will be on it. Think FX right now and how for years it had no sports but then started randomly carrying football (though there was nothing random about it. ;) )
Chicos, do you think Fox would air some games on the FOX network ala ESPN/ABC?
The main report so far said Fox would pay $500M for 10 teams and $600M for 12 teams. They'll pay the same amount per team. Assuming it's split evenly, there's no advantage going to 12. They may want more content, but they aren't willing to incrementally pay more per team for it. If we go to 12 we'd get the same amount of TV money, but we'd have to split NCAA credits with 2 more teams, and we'd lose a perfect round-robin schedule to help develop rivalries. They only beneficiaries would be the last 2 schools in.
**edited with cven's correction
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 16, 2013, 09:48:19 AM
It's all about the number of games we have to offer for programming. If we play an 18 game schedule, 10 teams only gives you 90 games. If you go to 12 teams, you have 126 games to offer. Two teams provides you with 40% more games.
This is incorrect. Even if the Big East goes to 12 teams, it would likely continue to have a 18 game conference schedule (like we do currently), yielding a schedule of 7 home & home's (14 games), 2 away only's (2), and 2 home only's (2). This ends up at 108 games total for the league, a 20% increase in game volumes proportional to the increase in conference membership.
Since it's reported that Fox is offering the exact annual revenue per team if we have 10 or 12 teams ($500M/12years/10teams vs. $600M/12years/12teams), there's no added television revenue from adding two more teams now. You could make the argument that there's added value from adding two more teams other than just television revenue, but there's also potential damage to the brand due to the comparative profiles.
Regardless, SLU, Dayton, Richmond, or VCU aren't going to get an offer from an equivalent or better conference than the Big East, so there's no need to rush to 12. Once a team is let in, they are awfully hard to kick out, so they need to choose wisely.
Quote from: cven7 on March 16, 2013, 11:15:48 AM
Regardless, SLU, Dayton, Richmond, or VCU aren't going to get an offer from an equivalent or better conference than the Big East, so there's no need to rush to 12. Once a team is let in, they are awfully hard to kick out, so they need to choose wisely.
Agree. And if the financial incentive isn't overwhelming, let's wait that year, maybe two. Make sure the wheels don't fall off at SLU and they continue on their upward trend, see if all that money floating around Richmond is good enough to field a team good enough for this conference. Unless the dollars are too good to pass up (which at least one report says probably not), you get to have auditions.
Question: Couldn't FOX be the partner for some (all) of the B7's non-conference games as well?
So instead of 90 vs. 126 .. FOX gets to pick up all 90, plus, say the 5 best OOC games per each of the 10 teams.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 16, 2013, 11:20:42 AM
Question: Couldn't FOX be the partner for some (all) of the B7's non-conference games as well?
So instead of 90 vs. 126 .. FOX gets to pick up all 90, plus, say the 5 best OOC games per each of the 10 teams.
I think Fox will have the rights to those OOC IF those games are played at home.
Quote from: Litehouse on March 16, 2013, 11:14:27 AM
The main report so far said Fox would pay $500M for 10 teams and $600M for 12 teams. They'll pay the same amount per team. Assuming it's split evenly, there's no advantage going to 12. They may want more content, but they aren't willing to incrementally pay more per team for it. If we go to 12 we'd get the same amount of TV money, but we'd have to split NCAA credits with 2 more teams, and we'd lose a perfect round-robin schedule to help develop rivalries. They only beneficiaries would be the last 2 schools in.
**edited with cven's correction
You may also gain some additional credits by putting 1 or more teams into the mix that make the tournament. Also provides you some stability to have 12 in the event a few schools have some really crappy seasons. It can work both ways.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 16, 2013, 09:48:19 AM
It's all about the number of games we have to offer for programming. If we play an 18 game schedule, 10 teams only gives you 90 games. If you go to 12 teams, you have 126 games to offer. Two teams provides you with 40% more games.
Sorry man, but I still don't get why we can't fill that 40% with non-conference games.
In 2011-12 season, when the SEC had 12 teams (before TAMU and Mizzou joined), they played 31 regular season games and 15 were out of conference. This year, however, they still played 31 reg season games but only 13 were out of conference. So to accommodate TAMU and Mizzou, they gave up two noncon games.
Make the parallel to our new league: to accommodate SLU and Dayton, we have to give up noncon games (or playing one of the original 10 members twice) and those foregone games could have been against vastly superior opponents, which boosts our SOS, profile of the league, and to some extent (however small) our geographical footprint.
Now I can see why the B10 needs to expand like crazy--they have a whole network devoted to B10 and only B10, but our new network isn't exclusively Big East, so I don't see the need to go to 12 UNLESS Fox has to pay the B10 network to televise a noncon game between Gtown and, say, MSU.
Quote from: ElDonBDon on March 16, 2013, 09:23:12 AM
Butler Xavier and Creighton are great additions. Why can't we stay at 10? Fox may be pushing for 12, but I don't understand why.
Let me list the reasons for you:
I think it will be easier to make NCAA tournament with 12 teams as the league should get at least one more bid with 12 vs. 10.
Quote from: ElDonBDon on March 16, 2013, 12:02:06 PM
Sorry man, but I still don't get why we can't fill that 40% with non-conference games.
It's 20%, cven was right. I knew that but was doing quick math on the way out the door and miscalculated. 108 games vs 90.
And it's impossible to fill it with non-conference games because we will likely be playing an 18 game schedule regardless. With an 18-game schedule, every team is going to only be able to play 13 non-conference games. Whether the league provides 108 games or 90 games to Fox, the individual universities still only play 13 non-con games. None of those games are guaranteed to Fox.
We need to provide as much content as possible, and that means 12+ teams. It's more likely we'll end up going to 14 or 16 than ever staying at 10. If we do go 10, I would be absolutely shocked if it's for more than 1 year.
90 games in 63 days... 45 Saturday and Sunday games during 9 weekends... 45 games spread over the remaining 45 days... Why are more games needed?
FX will not have sports on that network anymore.
Quote from: Mufflers on March 16, 2013, 02:51:31 PM
90 games in 63 days... 45 Saturday and Sunday games during 9 weekends... 45 games spread over the remaining 45 days... Why are more games needed?
How many of those games will be desirable? I'd guess you'll see both a Saturday triple-header and Sunday double-header. If you have 5 games per weekend, there's no flexibility to allow you to show something other than DePaul/Seton Hall. I'd also guess they'll want to play games at least 3 times per week, most likely Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday. If you have 45 weekend games, you also only have 45 weekday games over 9 weeks. That's 5 games per week. Not that much.
That's why I think we'll expand beyond 12. 108 is a starting point, but they'll want more if they can get them.
Why do we need to provide as much content as possible if Fox isn't going to pay any more per school for it?
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 16, 2013, 01:56:37 PM
It's 20%, cven was right. I knew that but was doing quick math on the way out the door and miscalculated. 108 games vs 90.
And it's impossible to fill it with non-conference games because we will likely be playing an 18 game schedule regardless. With an 18-game schedule, every team is going to only be able to play 13 non-conference games. Whether the league provides 108 games or 90 games to Fox, the individual universities still only play 13 non-con games. None of those games are guaranteed to Fox.
We need to provide as much content as possible, and that means 12+ teams. It's more likely we'll end up going to 14 or 16 than ever staying at 10. If we do go 10, I would be absolutely shocked if it's for more than 1 year.
Couldn't Fox take the money that they were going to give for the two new members ($50M each) and spend that on airing the non-conference games of the other 10? I'm sure Fox has thought of this, I'd just like to know why it's seemingly been ruled out.
Quote from: ElDonBDon on March 16, 2013, 09:28:48 PM
Couldn't Fox take the money that they were going to give for the two new members ($50M each) and spend that on airing the non-conference games of the other 10? I'm sure Fox has thought of this, I'd just like to know why it's seemingly been ruled out.
Heck, you could almost buy the rights to the America 12 for that money.
Quote from: Litehouse on March 16, 2013, 09:05:58 PM
Why do we need to provide as much content as possible if Fox isn't going to pay any more per school for it?
It's more than just the pure cash, it's the exposure, etc. More games, equal more pushing of the brand, the conference, etc. That's what additional content gives you. Fox can be a great partner and I think we have to weigh how important it is to make the partner that will be absolutely bar none our biggest single promoter...happy. And if they want to throw $100 million into the coffers for that happiness, even more reason to do so even if it doesn't change the per school receivable. It means more Big East games on television and that's a good thing.
Quote from: ElDonBDon on March 16, 2013, 09:28:48 PM
Couldn't Fox take the money that they were going to give for the two new members ($50M each) and spend that on airing the non-conference games of the other 10? I'm sure Fox has thought of this, I'd just like to know why it's seemingly been ruled out.
The only way that works is if Fox is scheduling those non-conference games. Have you seen the way some of these teams schedule? You have to remember to throw out any games that are non-conference tourney affiliated because those all already have television deals in place.
Providence: They played one team in the RPI top-150, away to #113 Boston College. The highest profile game they actually scheduled was #158 Bryant. They also played #230 Mississippi State, though that was in the made-for-TV Big East/SEC Challenge.
Seton Hall: Do you think the sponsors will line up for RPI #81 Stony Brook? The Pirates played no one. From a name recognition perspective, they did play at ACC team Wake Forest, but they had a RPI of 170 and have been obviously down for a couple years now.
DePaul: The Blue Demons played at RPI #88 Arizona State. Beyond that, the biggest names are Fairfield and Gardner-Webb.
Quite simply, not everyone schedules like Marquette and Georgetown. And my guess is Fox will already be trying to get a series going between the NBE and either the Pac-12 or Big 12, so you'd need two made-for-TV high-major matchups after the non-con tourneys and the annual series. And when you're down, teams just don't want to schedule like that.
I know some people may not like it, but 12 teams is the way we are going to go. If not the first year then definitely the second. There is really no use hoping and praying that we stay at 10 because it simply isn't going to happen. Better to look at which teams will be the best fits for 11 and 12 because I guarantee you they are coming.
Question to Chicos: Do you think ESPN will make it difficult for any of their conferences to schedule games with a Fox sponsored BE?
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on March 17, 2013, 12:15:37 PM
Question to Chicos: Do you think ESPN will make it difficult for any of their conferences to schedule games with a Fox sponsored BE?
I'm not CBB, but while ESPN might, Fox also has rights to the Big 12 and Pac-12. We probably won't end up with the same non-con affiliations, but there are options there.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on March 17, 2013, 12:15:37 PM
Question to Chicos: Do you think ESPN will make it difficult for any of their conferences to schedule games with a Fox sponsored BE?
No.
Quote from: MUunderpants on March 16, 2013, 10:07:00 AM
Would you change your mind on SLU if they made a deep run in the tourney? They are having a great year and are very capable of an Elite Eight. Wouldn't be suprised if they knocked off Butler later today to win the A-10. MU's BEast invite was (partially) based on a strong run in 2003, VCU upgraded to A10 as a result of recent success, and Butler jumped up two notches because of their play the past few years. Just saying, SLU has had some recent success and could make a deep run this year -- and it seems like they are committed to keeping that program at a high level. Would a S16 or E8 change your mind? Dayton on the other hand............
Even if SLU makes a run, it's not like they're going to get an offer from another conference. Why not wait a year or two to see if they can keep it up without Majerus? History shows the school is not committed to the basketball team, especially with Biondi at the helm.
Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on March 16, 2013, 10:18:42 AM
Vandy is poor this year, but has been a very, very solid program for quite some time.
Vandy has had two 4,5, and 6 seeded NCAA teams in recent memory. A few years back they were a basket away from the elite 8 losing to eventual Final Four team Georgetown. They won the 2012 SEC Tournament title. They lost their top 6 players, 7 overall this past year. 3 of those were lost to the NBA, including one that left school early. No Seniors on this past year's team which was mostly Fr and So. Good player coming in too. They'll be fine. Lots of money and improvement going on there the past decade. Elite baseball program, (#2 in country this year so far, 19-2) and up and coming football program that won 9 games and a bowl game this past year.
Quote from: slingkong on March 20, 2013, 07:00:24 AM
Even if SLU makes a run, it's not like they're going to get an offer from another conference. Why not wait a year or two to see if they can keep it up without Majerus? History shows the school is not committed to the basketball team, especially with Biondi at the helm.
I'm not sure you can say they're not committed. They paid Majerus over $1M and Chaifetz Arena is about five years old. They are definitely at a crossroads right now, both as a basketball program and as an institution, but I think basketball is important to SLU.
And if they don't get a BE invite, they likely will lobby to get into the MVC. If Dayton ends up in the NBE, their closest conference rival in the A10 will be Duquesne. OTOH, they would be smack dab in the middle of the MVC.
SLU would never lobby to get into the MVC. They were in the MVC a long time ago. They have no interest in returning. They chose the A-10 when they didn't get in the Big East. Marquette fans can relate to the notion that SLU wanted and wants something much different than the MVC. The A-10 is a much different culture than the MVC. It's also a better basketball league, then and now. Some people only think of geography and nothing else. Similar to Marquette, that's not their thinking.
As for on the court success, Creighton has made the NCAA's 9 times in the past 20 years, making it past the first game a fee times, never the second, all while playing in the MVC, which hasn't had the same strength most of that time as SLU's leagues. SLU has made it 6 times during that 20 year span. There are differences, but not as great after a deeper look. And keep in mind during much of this time SLU did not have a commitment to hoops, and nowhere near what they have now. SLU will also be very good next year, and eill need to jeep it going after that. Majerus lobbied and battled fr assistant coach pay, strength coach, charter flights, etc...or he wouldn't have taken the job. They also have new money boosters too. Chaifetz flies from Chicago to their games. When they are competitive, all of top 20ish media market of Stl takes notice and watches and attends games. And, Biondi won't be there forever.
SLU is not a culture fit for a league like the MVC, and that is why they haven't had any interest in playing in it in recent memory and won't be returning in the future.
Many SLU fans believe that they are already in the new Big East and that it hasn't been announced yet. We'll see.
OK, I probably should have hedged my bets a little better. I understand where you are coming from, and a quick review of their message boards pretty much supports a lot of what you say here.
It's an easy thing in which to jump to a conclusion without deeper exploration. Happens to many. I kid you not when I say that philosophically speaking, SLU people, the majority, want a bigger Northeast footprint for students, media etc...hoops, just like Marquette fans. This upsets MVC people, and has been perceived to be arrogant. Many people outside of a Marquette or SLU don't understand the thinking. They just think geography. Just like college hoops rivalries. College hoops rivalres, or many sports rivalries are built on repeated competitive play over time, not necessarily geography. MU fans know this well. SLU fans understand this concept too.
Interesting nugget is when Majerus took the job, he very quickly settled on a flat $1 million compensation. He could have tried for more. He smartly knew the real battle with Biondi was resources such as assistant coaches pay, strength coach, charter flights, budget, and those types of things. And let me tell you, it was a battle. Biondi went back on multiple promises and Rick fought with him a lot. He liked and respected Biondi too. He knew he was a mirror image in some ways. Biondi is every bit as tough and stubborn as Rick was.
The on campus arena was already in the works before Majerus' arrival. It was over $80 million. It's now one of the most used arenas for its size nationally. Majerus lobbied for a fee changes in the arena plans before its completion.
Well it looks like were going to stay at 10, at least for now.
I understand the content issue but isn't FOX already talking with ESPN about sub-licencing our games?
Unless the expansion includes Gonzaga, aren't they just adding similar programming, of which they've decided they don't need 100% of it anyways. Maybe VCU is a sexy TV pick for Fox Sports to keep but won't a lot of SLU, Richmond, Dayton programming be just what we have now, or worse?
Quote from: The Lens on March 20, 2013, 12:03:18 PM
I understand the content issue but isn't FOX already talking with ESPN about sub-licencing our games?
Unless the expansion includes Gonzaga, aren't they just adding similar programming, of which they've decided they don't need 100% of it anyways. Maybe VCU is a sexy TV pick for Fox Sports to keep but won't a lot of SLU, Richmond, Dayton programming be just what we have now, or worse?
Exactly, 12 teams would mean more lower quality games and fewer higher quality games, since MU, Georgetown, Villanova wouldn't always play each other twice every year. It's quantity over quality.
12 teams seems of little benefit over 10 teams. Not only does it possibly lower quality of games, but it also adds little inventory for Fox beyond what 10 teams provide. I'm assuming a 12 team league would have divisions with a 16 game conference schedule (play 5 teams twice + 6 teams once). That seems the most logical solution with 12 teams. If so, you only add 6 additional games for Fox. However, if you went to 14 teams you would have a 19 game league schedule with divisions and add 43 more games for Fox. If game inventory is the driver then 14 teams seems like the logical move. I'm not sure you can get to 14 strong teams without adding Gonzaga or the ACC having defectors when that league starts to collapse. I would under no circumstances consider Dayton.
10 teams w/ 18 game schedule = 90 games
12 teams w/ 18 game schedule = 108 games
Now those 18 extra games are probably spread over 10 weeks or so? That means a night or two per week of additional programming. That isn't insignificant for a cable network looking for viewers.
Of course, Fox needs to make that worthwhile to divide the pie an extra two ways. I wouldn't be surprised if this contract may require them to bring in a couple teams within a specified period of time and/or includes some escalator of some sort should they do so.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 20, 2013, 02:34:11 PM
10 teams w/ 18 game schedule = 90 games
12 teams w/ 18 game schedule = 108 games
Now those 18 extra games are probably spread over 10 weeks or so? That means a night or two per week of additional programming. That isn't insignificant for a cable network looking for viewers.
Right but they're already talking about sub-licensing, so do they really want / need the inventory?
Quote from: The Lens on March 20, 2013, 02:38:07 PM
Right but they're already talking about sub-licensing, so do they really want / need the inventory?
I guess we will find out but honestly I have no idea.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 17, 2013, 12:24:17 PM
I'm not CBB, but while ESPN might, Fox also has rights to the Big 12 and Pac-12. We probably won't end up with the same non-con affiliations, but there are options there.
The Big-12 is women's basketball.
Quote from: ElDonBDon on March 16, 2013, 09:23:12 AM
Butler Xavier and Creighton are great additions. Why can't we stay at 10? Fox may be pushing for 12, but I don't understand why. More content? This is an all-sports channel, not the Big East channel so I don't get the 'more content' argument.
More QUALITY content. Have you seen the stuff on fox sports some nights?
Quote from: The Lens on March 20, 2013, 12:03:18 PM
I understand the content issue but isn't FOX already talking with ESPN about sub-licencing our games?
Unless the expansion includes Gonzaga, aren't they just adding similar programming, of which they've decided they don't need 100% of it anyways. Maybe VCU is a sexy TV pick for Fox Sports to keep but won't a lot of SLU, Richmond, Dayton programming be just what we have now, or worse?
VCU is not "sexy." Aside from the Holy Grail of Gonzaga and Notre Dame, there is no sexy out there to add to the NBE ... and those two ain't bursting through the door, it seems.
Quote from: The Lens on March 20, 2013, 02:38:07 PM
Right but they're already talking about sub-licensing, so do they really want / need the inventory?
You sub-license partly to get rid of the dead weight and partly to clear inventory for other content.