Tulane to the Big East

[Groin_pull]

SLU is already part of the A10.

Temple has football and will be leaving next year for the Big East. Charlotte starts playing football and leaves next year for CUSA.

So its really a 14 team league. 

What I find hard to understand is why a bunch of teams we couldn't wait to get away from (Xavier & Butler from the MCC, Dayton from the GMC, St. Louis from CUSA) and another bunch we never wanted anything to do with (the rest of the A10) will now welcome us with open arms because our own conference strategy has turned to crap.   

Perhaps we should come up with a new nickname--the Prodigal Sons.

Because MU brings a ton to the table. There's no place for pride or hurt feelings. Adding MU would be huge for the A-10.

[The Equalizer]

Too many poor speculations and assumptions here to cover them all, but there are several worth pointing out:

- You falsely argue that adding the likes of G'town, Villanova, Marquette and St. John's would "dilute" A-10 television appearances. The reality is, the addition of those teams would make for a more attractive television package and, therefore, more television appearances for everyone. The notion that there's only a "game of the week" to be divvied up among all programs is silly. A minimum of 75 Big East games are on national TV this year. i'm pretty certain the season doesn't last 75 weeks.
And with the CBS Sports Network and NBC Sports Network both eager for programming, there will be no shortage of television opportunities in the future ... especially for a league that will have at least 11 programs in the nation's top 25 markets.

- A seven-team conference won't be worth anything close to $2 million a team because it's too small/not exposed to enough viewers. Networks want to be in as many markets as possible, one of the major drivers of the current expansion craze. If "old-style" scheduling and non-conference flexibility mattered one iota to anyone, or produced any real revenues, conferences wouldn't be sitting at 14 teams and growing.

The bottom line here is you seem to admit that adding hoops only Big East teams would make the A-10 TV contract more valuable, and the only downside is supposed loss of games on TV by individual members because there's apparently only one weekly appearance to be had for the entire conference. My guess is a) that loss of appearances doesn't happen as more and more games will be televised every year and b) most programs, especially the lower-tier ones, would sacrifice an appearance or two - as unlikely as that would be  - for the benefit the likes of G'Town, MU, St. John's, etc. would bring.

Ultimately, though, expanding the A-10 to 21 is less than ideal. The best option remains swiping their better programs.

You make just as many poor speculations and assumptions.

--First, you falsely imply that that all airtime is created equal.  Not all of those 75 national games give a team equal exposure--the Big Monday game on ESPN is far more valuable from an exposure standpoint than a midnight apperance on ESPN-U.  We have only so many monday night games--more teams means less exposure per team.

--If the networks are so desperate to fill time, why do we only have 75 games nationally?  There's a pratical limit and we've reached that in the Big East--75 games amounts to only 5 games/team.  

--The number of teams has nothing to do with the size of the televsion contract or value per team--its a factor of the size of the market, popularity and then a sum of the parts.   If you could magically create more revenue just by having more teams and more markets, then we wouldn't see a handful of teams moving leagues--we'd see entire conferences merge.  For example, an ACC/Pac10 would give you coast-to-coast coverage, multiple top 10 markets, etc.  The fact of the matter is that a 7 team league of the Basketball-only big east teams would immedeately be more valuable on a per-team basis than probably all but 7 or 8 leagues.

--Biggest reason of all you ignore--the value of the conference tournaments.  Each league's conference tournament is independently valuable--possibly worth as much or more than all regular season games combined. One conference=only one tournament.  Two conferences would have two money-making tournaments.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence to suggest that a combined Big East/A10 would be any more valualbe on a per-team basis than two separate leagues.  

[GGGG]

BTW, here is the new Big East map...

https://mobile.twitter.com/NOTSportsCenter/status/273787655228100611/photo/1

[Pakuni]

You make just as many poor speculations and assumptions.

--First, you falsely imply that that all airtime is created equal.  Not all of those 75 national games give a team equal exposure--the Big Monday game on ESPN is far more valuable from an exposure standpoint than a midnight apperance on ESPN-U.  We have only so many monday night games--more teams means less exposure per team.

You're moving the goalposts. You went from total appearances to some nebulous and subjective concept of "exposure."
But that being the case, don't you think a conference involving the likes of MU, St. John's, Georgetown, etc., is far more likely to get television appearances in those quality time slots than, say, a Richmond vs. St. Bonaventure contest?
Or, I'll put it to you this way, which is more likely to land Richmond a game in prime time, a contest against Georgetown or one against LaSalle? Xavier-Fordham probably isn't going to wow many TV producers. Xavier-Marquette, though, is an attractive tilt.
Actually, you don't even need to speculate here.
ESPN networks are showing exactly three A-10 conference matchups in prime time all season. Three.
NBC Sports is showing one.
CBS Sports Networks, the least viewed of the three A-10 partners, is showing about 16.
20 prime time games all season, 80 percent of them on the smallest network with which the A-10 partners.
You don't think that improves with Big East members? you don't think LaSalle's got a better chance at a prime time game playing Villanova instead of Duquesne?

If the networks are so desperate to fill time, why do we only have 75 games nationally?  There's a pratical limit and we've reached that in the Big East--75 games amounts to only 5 games/team.  

Because the BE is exclusive to ESPN.
The A-10 actually will have more games broadcast nationally (103) because they have deals with three networks.

--The number of teams has nothing to do with the size of the televsion contract or value per team--its a factor of the size of the market, popularity and then a sum of the parts.   If you could magically create more revenue just by having more teams and more markets, then we wouldn't see a handful of teams moving leagues--we'd see entire conferences merge.  For example, an ACC/Pac10 would give you coast-to-coast coverage, multiple top 10 markets, etc.  The fact of the matter is that a 7 team league of the Basketball-only big east teams would immedeately be more valuable on a per-team basis than probably all but 7 or 8 leagues.

So I'm clear here, you're arguing the number of markets involved "has nothing to do with the size of the television contract?"
Not sure how to argue with someone who thinks a television network would see the seven-team league just as valuable as one that also includes Cincy, Indy, Pittsburgh, Dayton, etc.

--Biggest reason of all you ignore--the value of the conference tournaments.  Each league's conference tournament is independently valuable--possibly worth as much or more than all regular season games combined. One conference=only one tournament.  Two conferences would have two money-making tournaments.

Ignoring a subject you never raised? OK.
First, no, conference tournaments are not worth more than all regular season games combined.
Second, conference tournaments are not independently valuable, at least not in the TV sense. The value, as with the rest of the package, is derived entirely by the participants and the markets they attract. The Horizon League and MEAC tournaments are not worth more than the Big East tournament simply because they're two money-making events to one.
Secondly, the value of a tournament is going to be determined by the value of its participants, not merely the fact it's happening.
If two tournaments are always worth more than one, will the Big 10 soon be holding separate Legends and Leaders tourneys?

The bottom line is that there is no evidence to suggest that a combined Big East/A10 would be any more valualbe on a per-team basis than two separate leagues.  

True, there is no evidence for the exact value of a hypothetical entity. You've mastered the obvious.
But there is plenty to indicate that television networks want larger conferences with more exposure in larger markets, and that's exactly what a combined BE/A-10 would provide. Nobody can say with certainty what the end result would be until it actually happens, but if what we're seeing elsewhere is any indication, it's pretty certain the revenues would not shrink.

[The Equalizer]

You're moving the goalposts. You went from total appearances to some nebulous and subjective concept of "exposure."

No.  I'm making the point that there are a limited number of weeks in a season, and if you have more teams appearing in the same number of games, each team gets less exposure.

You tried to make the case that all games are alike, but you recall the bellyaching on this board when we had to play a day game on MLK day last year instead of prime time.  Just wait until we're bumped from Primetime so St. Boneventure can get their annual evening game. 

Sorry, but not all timeslots are created equal.  That was my point.  If you want to claim we can always find airtime elsewhere, that's a different argument. 

But that being the case, don't you think a conference involving the likes of MU, St. John's, Georgetown, etc., is far more likely to get television appearances in those quality time slots than, say, a Richmond vs. St. Bonaventure contest?

Well which is it?  Should we stick with the other BE teams alone, or should we try to get in a conference that includes Richmond and St. Boneventure.

Or, I'll put it to you this way, which is more likely to land Richmond a game in prime time, a contest against Georgetown or one against LaSalle? Xavier-Fordham probably isn't going to wow many TV producers. Xavier-Marquette, though, is an attractive tilt.

Well, you just made the case as to why Fordam and LaSalle will oppose expansion!

Actually, you don't even need to speculate here.
ESPN networks are showing exactly three A-10 conference matchups in prime time all season. Three.
NBC Sports is showing one.
CBS Sports Networks, the least viewed of the three A-10 partners, is showing about 16.
20 prime time games all season, 80 percent of them on the smallest network with which the A-10 partners.
You don't think that improves with Big East members? you don't think LaSalle's got a better chance at a prime time game playing Villanova instead of Duquesne?

If the Big East teams are so attractive, why would a network want to be forced to take Duquesne and LaSalle in order to get MU and GU? 

You effectively make the case for a 7-team league.  Networks would rather show MU, GU and Villanova more frequently--not MU, GU and Villanova on off weeks, interspersed with the random Fordam, St. Boneventure or George Washington game. 

So I'm clear here, you're arguing the number of markets involved "has nothing to do with the size of the television contract?"
Not sure how to argue with someone who thinks a television network would see the seven-team league just as valuable as one that also includes Cincy, Indy, Pittsburgh, Dayton, etc.

Not sure if you're being obtuse here, or you really don't grasp the point.

Think about it per team--not as a whole.    The 14 teams of the A10 might make more TV money combined, but when you split it 14 ways it would generate less per team.  The 7 BE teams might make less overall, but more per team.

Put them all together in a single 21 team league, and the A10 teams lose exposure and the Big East teams lose potential TV dollars.

First, no, conference tournaments are not worth more than all regular season games combined.
Second, conference tournaments are not independently valuable, at least not in the TV sense. The value, as with the rest of the package, is derived entirely by the participants and the markets they attract. The Horizon League and MEAC tournaments are not worth more than the Big East tournament simply because they're two money-making events to one.

The nets show more MEAC and Horizon tournament games than regular season games.  In those cases, they're only interested in the tourney--they begrudgingly give the league 4 regular season games in order to get the tournament.  Yes, theres some value, but the networks want those tournaments.

Secondly, the value of a tournament is going to be determined by the value of its participants, not merely the fact it's happening.

You tell me which is more valuable to a network:

One Xavier/Georgetown game with an NCAA bid on the line?

A Championship Doubleheader, with the A10 championship between Xavier/Butler, followed by
the BigEastBasketball championship game between Marquette/Georgetown game?

I'm guessing theres more money to be made with the latter.

If two tournaments are always worth more than one, will the Big 10 soon be holding separate Legends and Leaders tourneys?

If one tournament is worth more than two, will the Big Ten soon be merging with the Big 12?

But there is plenty to indicate that television networks want larger conferences with more exposure in larger markets, and that's exactly what a combined BE/A-10 would provide. Nobody can say with certainty what the end result would be until it actually happens, but if what we're seeing elsewhere is any indication, it's pretty certain the revenues would not shrink.

Outside of the Big Ten (who operates their own cable network) there is no evidence the networks actually want bigger conferences with more exposure.  If they did, CUSA as the prototype would have been a huge success. 

No, it was the league and teams themselves that wanted to grow--first because you need 12 teams for a football championship game and second as teams scramble to get into a stable situation for their football team. 

Don't confuse football with basketball. There is no national regular season basketball audience--except maybe for teams like UK or Duke or Indiana. The nets show the games becaue a) they have to to get the rights to the tourneys and b) they have nothing better to show in January and February.   

[Blackhat]

[Benny B]

No.  I'm making the point that there are a limited number of weeks in a season, and if you have more teams appearing in the same number of games, each team gets less exposure.

You tried to make the case that all games are alike, but you recall the bellyaching on this board when we had to play a day game on MLK day last year instead of prime time.  Just wait until we're bumped from Primetime so St. Boneventure can get their annual evening game. 

Sorry, but not all timeslots are created equal.  That was my point.  If you want to claim we can always find airtime elsewhere, that's a different argument. 

Well which is it?  Should we stick with the other BE teams alone, or should we try to get in a conference that includes Richmond and St. Boneventure.

Well, you just made the case as to why Fordam and LaSalle will oppose expansion!

If the Big East teams are so attractive, why would a network want to be forced to take Duquesne and LaSalle in order to get MU and GU? 

You effectively make the case for a 7-team league.  Networks would rather show MU, GU and Villanova more frequently--not MU, GU and Villanova on off weeks, interspersed with the random Fordam, St. Boneventure or George Washington game. 

Not sure if you're being obtuse here, or you really don't grasp the point.

Think about it per team--not as a whole.    The 14 teams of the A10 might make more TV money combined, but when you split it 14 ways it would generate less per team.  The 7 BE teams might make less overall, but more per team.

Put them all together in a single 21 team league, and the A10 teams lose exposure and the Big East teams lose potential TV dollars.

The nets show more MEAC and Horizon tournament games than regular season games.  In those cases, they're only interested in the tourney--they begrudgingly give the league 4 regular season games in order to get the tournament.  Yes, theres some value, but the networks want those tournaments.

You tell me which is more valuable to a network:

One Xavier/Georgetown game with an NCAA bid on the line?

A Championship Doubleheader, with the A10 championship between Xavier/Butler, followed by
the BigEastBasketball championship game between Marquette/Georgetown game?

I'm guessing theres more money to be made with the latter.

If one tournament is worth more than two, will the Big Ten soon be merging with the Big 12?


Outside of the Big Ten (who operates their own cable network) there is no evidence the networks actually want bigger conferences with more exposure.  If they did, CUSA as the prototype would have been a huge success. 

No, it was the league and teams themselves that wanted to grow--first because you need 12 teams for a football championship game and second as teams scramble to get into a stable situation for their football team. 

Don't confuse football with basketball. There is no national regular season basketball audience--except maybe for teams like UK or Duke or Indiana. The nets show the games becaue a) they have to to get the rights to the tourneys and b) they have nothing better to show in January and February.   

Heck, I'm surprised I have enough characters left to write this after quoting that.

[NersEllenson]

Heck, I'm surprised I have enough characters left to write this after quoting that.

Just another manifesto that no one will read from 84/Equalizer.  Wow.