Important to factor in everything for the Boise St. and SDSU deals with the Big East. While on a map, it makes little sense, there are still benefits of being in the Big East. We know that even if the Big East TV deal is low compared to the 5 BCS conferences, it will still be more than the MWC. Being that the MWC schools that were attractive to networks are no longer in the MWC, it's not like the MWC is going to pass the Big East in TV revenue. There are the markets to account for. And the Big East, even with partial penetration into those markets, will draw a larger TV paycheck due to simple population density. Goes back to that old comparison where if you have a game getting a 2 share in 2 or more large markets, that will be worth more to a network than a 5 share in the majority MWC markets (or a 20 share in Wyoming ).

There's also the Tv benefit of exposure for Boise St. and SDSU. They will have more national games (we assume) than MWC schools. That alone, the recruiting benefits, might be enough to make the Big East a better option.

There's also the basketball factor. We'll see as schedules develop...but we already know the Big East helped out with the Big West for both schools. If SDSU and Boise St. also get some OOC games on TV for basketball, well that will be a big help as well.

I for one would love to see SDSU and Boise St. back home in the regional conference that seems a great fit, the MWC. But I wouldn't be shocked if both schools were there for a long time...unless a BCS type of conference came calling.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Quinn, you're probably right. To put this in perspective, the "crazy travel" for Boise St. and SDSU really only amounts to 4-5 road FB games per year,
and those guys would probably have been jumping onto a charter flight for their road games regardless of conference.

We should see sometime this month what sort of TV money the BE is worth.
I would have been shocked if the BE had signed onto a deal with ESPN during the 60-day exclusive bargaining window.
What incentive would the BE possibly have had to ink a deal with ESPN, prior to seeing what the competition (NBC Sports, Fox, CBS) have to offer ? NONE !

CBS has SEC football and NFL AFC contract, however, they might really like BE basketball for Saturday / Sunday afternoon TV after football season is over (Jan-Feb-March).
If the BE wants to place FB and BB with the same entity, I think ESPN and NBC Sports are the 2 entities that MAY have open slots for all of this content.
NBC Sports has the NHL for a bit longer, Notre Dame home games (7 per year ?), and just signed a deal with the European Premier League Soccer.
Fox has regional networks. The attractiveness of BE sports to them would seem to depend on how well the BE schools line up with their regional coverage...

Interesting point about CBS. They have SEC and AFC like you said, but really nothing else. Problem is, their sports network is pretty far down the charts. Everyone expects ESPN or it it's not ESPN, it would be NBC overpaying for content for NBC Sports. On the primary network, they'd have a weekly 2fer with Notre Dame and a Big East game, back to back...and the 2 western schools give them some flexibility as to which game is at which time. For NBC Sports, they'd have plenty of content as well, even the chance for college basketball during the week. But you're right, the same opportunity exists for CBS and their sports network. For both, it comes down to being willing to spend a ton of money not just on the contracts, but on the marketing to get people to watch. Casual fans, the majority of the viewing public, are trained to just turn on ESPN or ESPN2 for content. Sure, a rabid fan will find their school playing on CBS or NBC sports-only networks, same with Fox Sports in their regional markets. But to get it to work to get viewers, NBC or CBS would need to retrain peoples thinking...by advertising and marketing the product.

It could work, but either would need to overpay. Because conferences still want the lock that is ESPN viewers for say basketball when games aren't on the big networks (primary CBS, NBC, Fox).

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

I'm going to take a moment and try to think about these contract negotiations as if I were the Networks---

ESPN/ABC--I'm the Worldwide Leader in Sports. I have more channels and time slots (and probably more money) than anyone else in play. Conferences should want to be on my family of networks for the exposure--the Big East needs me more than I need them and they've already witnessed how I can use my influence to manipulate the value of sports contracts. I should be able to name my price and I have no interest in overpaying.

CBS--I have lucrative deals in place already with the SEC and the NFL that deliver solid ratings. I also have a cable channel that isnt available in too many homes. Big East regular season basketball is appealing for my flagship station but as far as football goes the content the Big East provides isn't that appealing. I'd probably only be airing the BE game of the week (maybe 2 games: one at Noon and the other at 7:30 EST while I save the 3:30 time slot for the SEC most weeks) on my broadcast channel as and the rest of that inventory is not going to raise the profile of the CBS College Sports Channel.

FOX--I am an up and comer in college sports broadcasting but I've been airing NFL for some time. I also have a widely carried cable channel FX as well as regional sports networks. I already have deals with the Big 12 and Pac 12 (and a smaller one with C-USA). If I really wanted to, I am the best poised to challenge the worldwide leader. Big East basketball could make me a huge player as I could air whatever inventory I buy on my flagship as well as FX, and the regional networks. Taking on their football contract would give me some market penetration East of the Mississippi as my current contracts are both western conferences. This would mean expanding my football coverage big time and between all of my contracts airing 6 games nationally--3 on FOX and 3 on FX with possibly some tweaking here and there to account for local interest. I can always make the Big East play on Friday nights and I know they will do it. Many of these schools only have regional appeal so I can put some of this content on the regional sports networks. The question is do I want to pull the trigger and invest in a third big contract.

NBC--Thank God Notre Dame is good this year; I was beginning to think I was irrelevant in college sports. The Irish will continue to be my bread and butter but I could go for a double header on my broadcast channel with the Big East Game of the Week as a warm up for the real show. I've also got a Sports Channel on cable that I am kind of desperate for content for. I could offer these Big East schools a triple header and perhaps it might get people to pay attention to my cable channel. I am also intrigued by their basketball. I'm inclined to overbid because I need the content.

To me FOX would appear the best option as they offer the most exposure. But does FOX want to take on another big contract? Are they really interested in committing to making FX a legit alternative to ESPNs cartel?

On a separate note, I am almost hoping that Boise St and San Diego St bail out on the Big East and we get what someone on here has already suggested on here--an eastern oriented Big East with East Carolina, and possibly others, being added to the mix. I like the North/South orientation it would bring. Then again, I wouldn't be opposed to keeping the western outliers for as long as they will have us, adding ECU, and splitting East/West. There is nothing appealing to me about the zipper and I don't like the idea of forcing Temple to play in the West.

I don't know if the SEC would like CBS making a bid on the Big East. Being the only CFB (other than the SA's) "game in town" has its perks. The SEC has long enjoyed a monopoly up here...far more visible than the conferences sharing time on ABC-ESPN.

I, too, want to see the western fb-only schools bail, but they won't. Well, Boise won't. For SDSU, their football WILL make more money in the Big East no matter how pitiful it is because the MWC will be gutted as long as BYU is not a member. The Big West allows SDSU to run their other programs at a minimal cost, should they choose. If basketball can retain value, the situation is almost idyllic.

For Boise, considering how poorly they handled this whole move, were they to cower out of another arrangement, I don't know if they could afford it. I don't know how they can afford it now!

Right. And meanwhile, even in the Big 12, thanks to WVU being the selection with TCU, there seems to be more opportunity in that region than in going all the way west to Idaho for Boise St. If you're the Big 12 and you can go with Louisville and Rutgers for 12 and give yourself 3 schools in the general region, it might make more sense financially than Boise St. and another western school, even a BYU perhaps.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Article out of San Diego(previously posted in another thread)with comments from SDSU AD regarding BE tv and Bowl situations at http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/oct ... -up-in-air

C-USA had tried the "national" model, even coupled with hybrid elements; i. e. Army fb, Depaul & Marquette bb, etc. Over time, it's turned into a trans-sunshine/south all-sports contingent with schools coming and going.

Had BYU, Boise, and SDSU stayed with the MWC, the financial value of the MWC could have gone upwards, perhaps surpassing what the BE would then be able to garner. When TCU & Utah exited the MWC, any hope the MWC would move into the elite conference group quickly diminished.

The BE was attractive to certain ambitious schools, regardless of location, simply because it was pre-labeled BCS and had the associated perks that come with such a fledging designation. Never mind the BE was losing some of their most valued schools, newcomers were sold on the concept that they would be equal or upgraded replacements, thus little being lost in their new, stretched market format.

For now, the BE can claim conference #6 value and a certain network may oblige with near future contracts. By comparison, it still will not reach elite levels and the bowl options will hardly be much better than a couple of the lesser conferences. Somebody may "over-pay" for BE TV broadcasting, and wasn't Aresco hired to deliver such? And, the BE shall still use its bb pedigree, though compromised, for selling the BE name. It's why the BE shall not put a split on the table.

Each of the current BE all-sports members, new in-coming BE members, and BE want-to-bes', all want a call from one of the "big 5" conferences. The BE shall serve a fundamental purpose and they know it. It's a holding pattern and try-out arrangement until/when the B1G/Pac12/Big12/SEC/ACC comes calling. Beyond limited revenue factors, that's the basic advantage the BE has over the Sunbelt, C-USA, MAC, and the MWC.

Mark Blaudschun blog article(previously posted in another thread)discussing BE tv negotiations at http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=3104

WSJ article(previously posted in another thread)reporting (scroll down)that ESPN and the BE have agreed to extend their exclusive negotiating window due to disruptions caused by Hurricane Sandy.Unclear as to the significance of this move.Link at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 72590.html

My latest source of, well, humor is NBC paying $250 million for 3 years to show English Premiere League games. Not that contract itself... that's the right aim to invest but at a curious price.

The question: will NBC Sports show the "late" EPL Saturday game, almost always Saturday at 12:30 pm Eastern Time?

If so, interesting development for the Big East.

NBC has NBC Sports Net and Universal Sports to show the EPL on if there is a conflict. Also, the Big East could be shown at 3:30 or in prime time when Notre Dame has an away game. My guess is NBC would not show much (or any) EPL on NBC proper before Christmas. That's the way they worked the NHL last year, and they didn't show much MLS on NBC until the 2nd half of this season.

BE MB thread discussing report that the BE/ESPN exclusive negotiating window has apparently expired without a deal at http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=597297

Do you think the Big East gets relegated to cable, or EPL? If EPL costs that much to score, I suspect it won't be EPL...at least, not fully. And what about local coverage? That might not be an issue in, say, Chicago, where the city does not have a Big East team, but in Philly or upstate NJ/NYC if Temple or Rutgers are playing at home? Sizable markets get shunted to local coverage?