UConn/ACC

[B1GOSU]

When you go to recruit a kid, if you can tell that kid's parents they can watch their son/daughter's games live on BTN, that is a pretty strong impact statement. It doesn't matter if the soccer game has low viewership. The top recruits parents will be watching.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Well with the football national champion, FSU, and the orange bowl champion, Clemson, in their division, they better start competing at the highest level in football or be left behind. That right there is a higher level than anything they would find in the B1G in football. In men's basketball, with three other hall of fame coaches to compete against and some very good rising coaches, they better get on the stick. They almost won the conference last season coming in second, so they seem to be competing pretty well. They lost by only one goal in the men's lacrosse league championship, so they compete well there. I'm not seeing any "fear of success" so far.

I agree but I wouldn't count on it (it being Cuse needs to up its game). BC did a really nice job in fb and bb its first few years in the ACC, too. Then they got comfortable being a "kept woman."

 

[Dooley]

When you go to recruit a kid, if you can tell that kid's parents they can watch their son/daughter's games live on BTN, that is a pretty strong impact statement. It doesn't matter if the soccer game has low viewership. The top recruits parents will be watching.

I agree with this. I thought you were trying to make the argument that the majority of kids are going to watch T3 and non-revenue sports on any Conference Network simply because it's on their lineup. The ability to recruit and tell parents that you can watch your kid on the BTN is a good advantage. But I still say that Conference Networks are more for students and alumni of schools in those conferences. Kids under 18 may watch if they are being recruited by one of those conferences' schools. But there aren't too many of those kids. The bulk of the ratings comes from students/alumni...and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just sayin'.

 

[ArizonaKnight]

I agree with this. I thought you were trying to make the argument that the majority of kids are going to watch T3 and non-revenue sports on any Conference Network simply because it's on their lineup. The ability to recruit and tell parents that you can watch your kid on the BTN is a good advantage. But I still say that Conference Networks are more for students and alumni of schools in those conferences. Kids under 18 may watch if they are being recruited by one of those conferences' schools. But there aren't too many of those kids. The bulk of the ratings comes from students/alumni...and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just sayin'.

I obviously agree with this premise that a kid with no B1G affiliation will not be watching Illinois vs. Iowa in any sport let alone softball. However, I can tell you that in season (meaning August through March) there is no better channel on TV for a B1G fan than the BTN. I will never watch College Gameday again (some hyperbole) because the BTN has it's own pregame show Saturday mornings dedicated solely to every B1G game of the day and it is a first class production not some local access channel. In season BTN Live is also fantastic with highlites, coach and player interviews, previews of the upcoming games, etc but all B1G. This season the B1G will start moving its "College Gameday" type show on campus starting with Rutgers vs. Penn State in Piscataway on 9/13.

 

[Dooley]

I obviously agree with this premise that a kid with no B1G affiliation will not be watching Illinois vs. Iowa in any sport let alone softball. However, I can tell you that in season (meaning August through March) there is no better channel on TV for a B1G fan than the BTN. I will never watch College Gameday again (some hyperbole) because the BTN has it's own pregame show Saturday mornings dedicated solely to every B1G game of the day and it is a first class production not some local access channel. In season BTN Live is also fantastic with highlites, coach and player interviews, previews of the upcoming games, etc but all B1G. This season the B1G will start moving its "College Gameday" type show on campus starting with Rutgers vs. Penn State in Piscataway on 9/13.

I'm not doubting the quality of production of the BTN. All I was saying is that the average kid isn't going to watch a T3 game on a Conference Network when they can watch Alabama vs LSU on CBS or whatever. The point B1GOSU was making is that the BTN is going to be a major boom to the conference because 10 years from now, all of these kids from NYC to DC are going to be watching it. I don't agree with that. Alumni/students will surely be watching (and maybe a few kids by default watching the game with their parents). But for the average kid with a smartphone or tablet and an interest in sports, they are going to pick whatever game that appeals to them. For the most part, that game isn't going to be a Conference Network T3 game. It's going to be a T1 game on a major network (CBS, FOX, ESPiN/ABC, etc).

The day that UCONN is invited into the B1G, I will call Comcast to add the BTN to my cable lineup so I can watch their pre-game shows. They are no doubt better and more informative than ESPiN's dumbed down versions of a bunch of blowhards wearing props making game predictions. My TV stays off ESPiN unless UCONN is playing on it.

 

[upstater]

Again, the Big Ten has exactly 2 football championships since 1970, and only 1 basketball championship since 1989, 6 since 1970. The ACC has 5 football championships since 1970, and has 11 basketball championships since 1970, 8 since 1989. The ACC isn't going toe-to-toe with the B1G, it's leaving them behind in results. The ACC now has the current national football champion. The B1G hasn't even sniffed that in over a decade. The idea that the B1G is some short of football power conference is the farce. You have to go back to 1930-1970 to make that claim. They only have 13 Rose Bowl victories in the past 45 years. They do have a media engine that gives the illusion of grandeur, a lot of midwestern fans, and the BTN. I'll give you that.

Yes the Big East did well with teams like Miami, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and West Virginia in BCS bowls. I'm not counting their numbers of championships in the ACC numbers, but guess where 3 out of the four are now. I'm not counting the Syracuse and Louisville basketball championships either.

I'm not claiming that the ACC is going toe to toe with the SEC. That would be the farce. We're trying, but have work to do on that front.

You brought up Clemson's bowl as evidence of the ACC's superiority. The B1G has been racking up BCS bowls for many many years. The ACC has been losing BCS bowls for many, many years.

One good year erases a decade? No.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Again, the Big Ten has exactly 2 football championships since 1970, and only 1 basketball championship since 1989, 6 since 1970. The ACC has 5 football championships since 1970, and has 11 basketball championships since 1970, 8 since 1989. The ACC isn't going toe-to-toe with the B1G, it's leaving them behind in results. The ACC now has the current national football champion. The B1G hasn't even sniffed that in over a decade. The idea that the B1G is some short of football power conference is the farce. You have to go back to 1930-1970 to make that claim. They only have 13 Rose Bowl victories in the past 45 years. They do have a media engine that gives the illusion of grandeur, a lot of midwestern fans, and the BTN. I'll give you that.

Yes the Big East did well with teams like Miami, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and West Virginia in BCS bowls. I'm not counting their numbers of championships in the ACC numbers, but guess where 3 out of the four are now. I'm not counting the Syracuse and Louisville basketball championships either.

I'm not claiming that the ACC is going toe to toe with the SEC. That would be the farce. We're trying, but have work to do on that front.

Those are good points, stimp. Delany might want to address the B1G's product issues or the conference could face the same fate as Detroit's auto industry

 

[upstater]

Who cares about BCS bowls over any other bowl other than the National Championship?

Then why are you bringing up Clemson?

Rutgers or Purdue? Uh, PSU beat, um, Florida State in a BCS bowl. FSU a scrub like Purdue? Usually, when Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio State and PSU land in a BCS bowl, they aren't taking on scrubs.

As for the recruiting talent in that south atlantic region, what good is it if it has to go through southern high schools?

http://www.gogamecocks.com/2014/07/09/600965/academics-update.html

 

[btstimpy]

Those are good points, stimp. Delany might want to address the B1G's product issues or the conference could face the same fate as Detroit's auto industry

He's not on a product mission apparently according to what I've read. He's on a real estate mission. He's more worried about cable subscribers than what he's showing the viewers it seems. Rutgers and Maryland reduced the value of his product, and many in the midwest don't like this idea. It remains to be seen how that works long term. If he were on a product mission for basketball anyways, UConn would have been invited. It's been talked about here for a long time.

A couple of posts up there is talk about all the kids from NY to Maryland getting indoctinated in B1G culture. If that's the expectation, they better lower it. Those kids aren't even indoctrinated in Rutgers or Maryland. The eastern kids are supposed to become midwestern because of a cable channel they won't be watching? I didn't join in that chat, but found humor in it.

 

[ArizonaKnight]

I'm not doubting the quality of production of the BTN. All I was saying is that the average kid isn't going to watch a T3 game on a Conference Network when they can watch Alabama vs LSU on CBS or whatever. The point B1GOSU was making is that the BTN is going to be a major boom to the conference because 10 years from now, all of these kids from NYC to DC are going to be watching it. I don't agree with that. Alumni/students will surely be watching (and maybe a few kids by default watching the game with their parents). But for the average kid with a smartphone or tablet and an interest in sports, they are going to pick whatever game that appeals to them. For the most part, that game isn't going to be a Conference Network T3 game. It's going to be a T1 game on a major network (CBS, FOX, ESPiN/ABC, etc).

The day that UCONN is invited into the B1G, I will call Comcast to add the BTN to my cable lineup so I can watch their pre-game shows. They are no doubt better and more informative than ESPiN's dumbed down versions of a bunch of blowhards wearing props making game predictions. My TV stays off ESPiN unless UCONN is playing on it.

We're pretty much on the same page with one distinction. After the average kid from Maryland sees a steady diet of Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State and Penn State vs. their flagship state school, they may begin to take on a rooting interest. If that kid becomes a fan of any one of those teams they will be MUCH more likely to watch games that affect their team's standing in their division even if that means watching Rutgers vs. Penn State on the BTN or Michigan vs. Indiana. When you add 2,000,000 living B1G alumni (I think I read that) in the NYC-DC corridor you have some serious inertia.

 

[ArizonaKnight]

A couple of posts up there is talk about all the kids from NY to Maryland getting indoctinated in B1G culture. If that's the expectation, they better lower it. Those kids aren't even indoctrinated in Rutgers or Maryland. The eastern kids are supposed to become midwestern because of a cable channel they won't be watching? I didn't join in that chat, but found humor in it.

4 of the top 5 rated ESPN College Football broadcasts ever in the NYC DMA involve Rutgers. That is a fact and is well documented. So, that kind of deflates your point.

 

[btstimpy]

Then why are you bringing up Clemson?

As for the recruiting talent in that south atlantic region, what good is it if it has to go through southern high schools?

http://www.gogamecocks.com/2014/07/09/600965/academics-update.html

Penn State beat FSU because FSU missed 3 overtime field goals or something any of which would win the game, not in regulation, but in overtime. I was living in Miami at the the time. The game lasted forever and was basically a tie.

South Carolina will get those kids in somehow. They left the ACC specifically so that they could lower their standards to admit football players. They'll find a way.

There is other talent in the region that will qualify normally. Spurrier knows he doesn't have to worry about it.

 

[upstater]

Penn State beat FSU because FSU missed 3 overtime field goals or something any of which would win the game, not in regulation, but in overtime. I was living in Miami at the the time. The game lasted forever and was basically a tie.

South Carolina will get those kids in somehow. They left the ACC specifically so that they could lower their standards to admit football players. They'll find a way.

There is other talent in the region that will qualify normally. Spurrier knows he doesn't have to worry about it.

That's not the point. You wrote about beating scrubs in BCS bowls. When you look at the BCS opponents, they weren't scrubs.

Teams like #5 Stanford, #11 Virginia Tech, #8 Arkansas, #7 Oregon, #9 Georgia Tech, #6 Notre Dame.

 

[btstimpy]

4 of the top 5 rated ESPN College Football broadcasts ever in the NYC DMA involve Rutgers. That is a fact and is well documented. So, that kind of deflates your point.

Not really. That's not the BTN that kids won't be watching first of all, and a football game here or there isn't midwestern culture.

 

[btstimpy]

That's not the point. You wrote about beating scrubs in BCS bowls. When you look at the BCS opponents, they weren't scrubs.

Teams like #5 Stanford, #11 Virginia Tech, #8 Arkansas, #7 Oregon, #9 Georgia Tech, #6 Notre Dame.

No I didn't. I wrote about beating a 24-1 Ohio State team in the orange bowl that was highly overrated because of their schedule that produced that record, and it showed. They lost.

 

[ArizonaKnight]

Not really. That's not the BTN that kids won't be watching first of all, and a football game here or there isn't midwestern culture.

That might be the worst counterpoint I have ever read. Moving on...

 

[upstater]

No I didn't. I wrote about beating a 24-1 Ohio State team in the orange bowl that was highly overrated because of their schedule that produced that record, and it showed. They lost.

I see what you're saying now, but it could be inferred you meant something else. As for Rutgers why include them? They didn't play Ohio State. No wonder I thought you were discussing bowl opponents.

Still, the fact remains that the ACC is the only BCS conference with a sub .250 record in those games. It really is hard to believe you're touting the ACC over any BCS conference whatsoever. Clearly, the SEC is by far and away the best, while the rest hover around .500, and then comes the ACC at >.250.

 

[btstimpy]

That might be the worst counterpoint I have ever read. Moving on...

I can clarify further. ABC puts its best games on the over the air ABC network as well as the BCS games and the national championship. Notre Dame, who that DMA cares about the most is on NBC and would be on ABC if ABC has the chance to show them in prime time. We'll see more ND games on ESPN now that they are in the ACC scheduling arrangement, so we'll have to see if those Rutgers TV ratings from 2006 on the cable channel remain in a few years.

 

[btstimpy]

I see what you're saying now, but it could be inferred you meant something else. As for Rutgers why include them? They didn't play Ohio State. No wonder I thought you were discussing bowl opponents.

Still, the fact remains that the ACC is the only BCS conference with a sub .250 record in those games. It really is hard to believe you're touting the ACC over any BCS conference whatsoever. Clearly, the SEC is by far and away the best, while the rest hover around .500, and then comes the ACC at >.250.

I was trying to make the point that Clemson played a top tier B1G team and not one at the bottom. I did a bad job of making my point because I named the two bottom tier teams, but not Ohio State.

The ACC has won its last 3 BCS games in a row, only conference to do so if you are so hung up on BCS bowls.

 

[pj]

Who cares about BCS bowls over any other bowl other than the National Championship? No one.

True enough, the Orange Bowl is no more worth caring about than the Little Caesar's Pizza Bowl, the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl, the New Orleans Bowl, or the Fight Hunger Bowl. But I'm surprised an ACC fan admits it.

It's like who cares about academics once you're past the top 50? Not the ACC.

 

[upstater]

I was trying to make the point that Clemson played a top tier B1G team and not one at the bottom. I did a bad job of making my point because I named the two bottom tier teams, but not Ohio State.

The ACC has won its last 3 BCS games in a row, only conference to do so if you are so hung up on BCS bowls.

I know this: I am thoroughly confused at whatever point you're trying to make. You point is now that Clemson did not play a scrub team in its bowl? That's the point I thought you were making originally. But you then said I had it wrong. I have no idea what you are trying to say. All I know is that the ACC's BCS bowl record is abominable.

Florida State did beat Northern Illinois a couple years ago, so congrats on that, but Clemson was walloped the game before that.

In fact, right before your recent 3-0 run, you had an 0-4 run.

 

[ArizonaKnight]

I can clarify further. ABC puts its best games on the over the air ABC network as well as the BCS games and the national championship. Notre Dame, who that DMA cares about the most is on NBC and would be on ABC if ABC has the chance to show them in prime time. We'll see more ND games on ESPN now that they are in the ACC scheduling arrangement, so we'll have to see if those Rutgers TV ratings from 2006 on the cable channel remain in a few years.

So Notre Dame has never played on ESPN before? Has Florida State ever been on ESPN before? Does Clemson vs. South Carolina ever make it on ESPN? I seem to recall Miami vs. VaTech games on ESPN every year. How many SEC games, Big XII games, Pac12 games have been showcased on Thursday nights every single year?

You inferred that no one in NY/NJ cares about Rutgers Football and I just told you that despite the fact that every college football team on the planet has played on ESPN, Rutgers own 4 of the top 5 ratings in the NYC DMA. Rather than keep arguing, just admit you were unaware of that fact or just fold your hand.

 

[billybud]

Does Rutgers deliver in football?

Experts can not seem to agree...

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/2380/does-rutgers-really-bring-in-nyc-market

 

[billybud]

"A New York Times study of the 210 television markets found New York has about 3 million college football fans, and 20.9% of those chose Rutgers as their favorite team. That's almost equal to those naming Notre Dame (9.2%), Penn State (6.4) and Connecticut (5.2) combined."

 

[pj]

"A New York Times study of the 210 television markets found New York has about 3 million college football fans, and 20.9% of those chose Rutgers as their favorite team. That's almost equal to those naming Notre Dame (9.2%), Penn State (6.4) and Connecticut (5.2) combined."

Over one-third of the people, and close to half the college football fans (since NY residents are notoriously uninterested in college football compared to residents in the states with football playing universities), in the NYC television market live in New Jersey. For Rutgers only to pull in 20.9% of the rooting interest is a weak performance.

In contrast, Connecticut is about 5% of the NYC television market and UConn draws about what it should. We do need to market ourselves better in NYC, as Notre Dame, Penn State, and some other national brands do, but at least we're pulling the Connecticut piece.