Marinatto out as BE commish

[MaxwellCuse]

Bob ... power to do what? What would they have been afraid of? That's what I don't get...

If I'm Georgetown or Notre Dame, I think I would be concerned about being grouped in with USF, UCF, Houston and Louisville. These are open enrollment, commuter schools. The academically selective school may have been saying to themselves, "The Conference management is so desperate to save the football side that they are wrecking the conference".

Even on the footbal side, schools like Syracuse and Rutgers and even UConn would have to start asking themselves, "DO we really want to be thought of as a equivalent school to UCF or Louisville or Houston?

It doesn't negate your argument, but your statement that USF, UCF, Houston and Louisville are "open enrollment" schools is inaccurate. USF and UCF are certainly selective. Each requires 4 years of HS math and English. Acceptance rates are 45 % and 46 % respectively. (They are more selective, in other words, than Syracuse University).

Louisville and Houston are less selective than the Florida schools (and SU) but still turn down 30% of their applicants. It is a lot easier to get into these schools than it is to get out with a degree. 4-year graduation rates are: South Florida 24%, Central Florida 35 %, Louisville 21 % and Houston 15%.

(Stats are from the Chronicle of Higher Education from 2011 common data sets).

 

[Townie72]

Yep. I mean the Ivy League just expanded their deal with NBCSN today. The appetite for sports content is insatiable.

Maybe that's what the BE should do. Hoops schools split off and maintain an FCS football league. Rutgers can stay.

Insatiable? Perfectly elastic?

C'mon, Scooch.

I'm satiated. I can tell you that. There's so many games on now, I can't watch them all. I can't even surf through and watch pieces of them before the super-long time out on the SEC games runs out. If there are 7 games on at primetime on Saturday afternoon, do we really need an eighth.

And adding teams doesn't grow the audience much, if at all.

Reminds me of the story of the guy who goes into the pizzeria to pick up a pie he has ordered on the phone.

The guy behind the counter asks, "Do you want me to cut his pie into six pieces or eight?"

The customer responds, "Six pieces, please. I don't think I can eat eight."

 

[longtimefan]

@McMurphyCBS
BREAKING: John Marinatto has resigned as Big East commissioner, sources told @CBSSports

Marinatto is to the BE conference as Capt Smith is to Titanic.

Question is--is this before or after contact with the iceberg? And, if before, is there enough time to change course?

I think the die was cast when the ship was under construction in Belfast (Providence).

 

[Noexcuse]

Marinatto is to the BE conference as Capt Smith is to Titanic.

Question is--is this before or after contact with the iceberg? And, if before, is there enough time to change course?

I think the die was cast when the ship was under construction in Belfast (Providence).

Too many passengers, not enough life boats.

 

[Scooch]

Not at all. What you are failing to see is that the ACC has no fans outside of FSU and Clemson. So the question remains why can the ACC make money with no fans yet the BE could not? :crazy:

No fans outside of FSU and Clemson?

UNC
NC State
UVA
VaTech
Maryland
etc.

Big state schools with enormous alumni and fan bases.

I'm not going to continue this, since you clearly don't understand.

 

[Scooch]

Insatiable? Perfectly elastic?

C'mon, Scooch.

I'm satiated. I can tell you that. There's so many games on now, I can't watch them all. I can't even surf through and watch pieces of them before the super-long time out on the SEC games runs out. If there are 7 games on at primetime on Saturday afternoon, do we really need an eighth.

And adding teams doesn't grow the audience much, if at all.

Reminds me of the story of the guy who goes into the pizzeria to pick up a pie he has ordered on the phone.

The guy behind the counter asks, "Do you want me to cut his pie into six pieces or eight?"

The customer responds, "Six pieces, please. I don't think I can eat eight."

You've missed the point.

Traditional TV viewing is in a state of flux given all the digital alternatives. Advertisers still want to reach people who are in an engaged state of mind. Most of these digital alternatives allow for a large degree of commercial avoidance. The vast majority of sports is watched live. Which means ads are seen.

This is why sports inventory is at a premium. A small audience for, say, Navy-Memphis football may still "work" better, in terms of advertising effectiveness, than a larger audience for a general entertainment program, where people avoid most of the ads.

Following now?

I defer to your experience on the strategy/consultant stuff. Trust me, I don't know much, but I know of what I speak about this.

 

[Townie72]

You've missed the point.

Traditional TV viewing is in a state of flux given all the digital alternatives. Advertisers still want to reach people who are in an engaged state of mind. Most of these digital alternatives allow for a large degree of commercial avoidance. The vast majority of sports is watched live. Which means ads are seen.

This is why sports inventory is at a premium. A small audience for, say, Navy-Memphis football may still "work" better, in terms of advertising effectiveness, than a larger audience for a general entertainment program, where people avoid most of the ads.

Following now?

I defer to your experience on the strategy/consultant stuff. Trust me, I don't know much, but I know of what I speak about this.

Always good to talk to an expert. I get it. I've been involved in advertising from the client side. So I understand a little about reach and frequency and impressions.

But that curve has to start bending down eventually. As you keep adding inventory what you are doing is taking audience away from other games, right? The law of diminishing returns hasn't been repealed.

 

[Scooch]

But that curve has to start bending down eventually. As you keep adding inventory what you are doing is taking audience away from other games, right? The law of diminishing returns hasn't been repealed.

Not necessarily. Sure, at some point there is an audience ceiling, but viewing is not inherently zero-sum. There are more games on than ever, and college football ratings have never been better.

But again, even if you reach total saturation at some point, and the then formerly 5.0 rating is now a 4.7, there is still a TON more value in that 4.7 rating than in other content ratings because of the aforementioned stuff I said about live viewing/ad effectiveness.

This is not about sports vs. sports, it's about sports vs. everything else.

 

[Madbiker]

You may be right but couldn't it be that moving decidedly in the direction of football was near impossible given the strength of the basketball members (even those that also field FB teams)? And I don't know who should have eaten whom, but I sincerely doubt the BE shakes anyone loose from the ACC. Maybe a shot with FSU and Maryland if they were really, really aggressive? But UMD considers itself southern and a key member of the ACC. All the carolina and VA schools are no-gos. I just don't know how realistic it was from either side -- shaking up the ACC and/or getting the whole conference to support a super aggressive football push.

I could be wrong, I just think the BE was a conference without too many compelling football teams at a time when football is king.

Even if the BE doesn't poach any ACC teams during that time, had the Big East TV contract been superior or even equal to the ACC then there is no mass defection in '03. And there was no reason, other than bad BE leadership, for the contract to be half that of the ACC.

 

[kingottoiii]

No fans outside of FSU and Clemson?

As FB fanbases go, the ACC is weak. Wake and Duke are awful. MD and GA Tech are poor for BCS schools. UVA, UNC, and NC St are below average for BCS schools. Really those 7 schools were no different top to bottom than the BE schools were before the first ACC raid. You switch FSU and Clemson to the BE and the BE would have averaged more per game than the ACC did with both teams.

Also those BE schools have an higher average current enrollment of nearly 5k vs those 7 ACC schools. So if the BE schools have more people attending their games and more students how is it that the ACC has more fans?

Which brings me back to my original premise. If the BE sat there in 2001 and said hey this is our 10th anniversary what can we do to make ourselves better? Then taking a look around seen how successful the SEC and B12 CGs had gone, shouldn't they have considered expending? Shouldn't they have thought well we could be the East coast version of the P10? Wouldn't going hard after FSU have been a good idea? As well as putting out feelers for Clemson, GA Tech, and MD?

There was no way the BE would have gotten all four of those schools but shouldn't the master plan have been:

South: FSU, GA Tech, Clemson, VT, MD, RU
North: Miami, WV, Pitt, SU, UConn, BC

Then as back up plans ECU, Temple, and stay at 9/10 teams?

 

[Townie72]

Not necessarily. Sure, at some point there is an audience ceiling, but viewing is not inherently zero-sum. There are more games on than ever, and college football ratings have never been better.

But again, even if you reach total saturation at some point, and the then formerly 5.0 rating is now a 4.7, there is still a TON more value in that 4.7 rating than in other content ratings because of the aforementioned stuff I said about live viewing/ad effectiveness.

This is not about sports vs. sports, it's about sports vs. everything else.

I get it ... or at least I'll trsut you.

But how much time shifting and commercial avoidance is going on in the rest of whats on TV?

On another topic --- and borrowing on your expertise --- I have increasingly become a fan of European soccer on TV (Fox Soccer Channel, FCS + and GOL TV). I think there's a wider audience for it in the US based on the quality of the play, the athleticism, the drama and the spectacle one sees. But, with a running clock, there are no opportunities for commercails except at half time (and pre and post). Does this significantly lower the value to advertisers and the willngmess of the networks to show and promote UEFA, EPL, La Liga or German and Italian soccer?

 

[SU2NASA]

As FB fanbases go, the ACC is weak. Wake and Duke are awful. MD and GA Tech are poor for BCS schools. UVA, UNC, and NC St are below average for BCS schools.

Below average compared to the SEC? Look at what the average BCS school is and at worst they're either in, or pretty close to the median. There's a lot of Oregon State's and Illinois' in the BCS conferences.

 

[Bayside44]

Not at all. What you are failing to see is that the ACC has no fans outside of FSU and Clemson. So the question remains why can the ACC make money with no fans yet the BE could not? :crazy:

What in the world are you talking about? NCState, GTech, UNC, UVa, VT don't have fans?

 

[Scooch]

What in the world are you talking about? NCState, GTech, UNC, UVa, VT don't have fans?

Not as many fans as Cincinnati, USF and UConn! DUHHHH!

 

[Bayside44]

As FB fanbases go, the ACC is weak. Wake and Duke are awful. MD and GA Tech are poor for BCS schools. UVA, UNC, and NC St are below average for BCS schools. Really those 7 schools were no different top to bottom than the BE schools were before the first ACC raid. You switch FSU and Clemson to the BE and the BE would have averaged more per game than the ACC did with both teams.

Also those BE schools have an higher average current enrollment of nearly 5k vs those 7 ACC schools. So if the BE schools have more people attending their games and more students how is it that the ACC has more fans?

Which brings me back to my original premise. If the BE sat there in 2001 and said hey this is our 10th anniversary what can we do to make ourselves better? Then taking a look around seen how successful the SEC and B12 CGs had gone, shouldn't they have considered expending? Shouldn't they have thought well we could be the East coast version of the P10? Wouldn't going hard after FSU have been a good idea? As well as putting out feelers for Clemson, GA Tech, and MD?

There was no way the BE would have gotten all four of those schools but shouldn't the master plan have been:

South: FSU, GA Tech, Clemson, VT, MD, RU
North: Miami, WV, Pitt, SU, UConn, BC

Then as back up plans ECU, Temple, and stay at 9/10 teams?

All those schools you mentioned have scores of well educated alumni and draw well. NCState gets 65K, UNC just did a big corporate expansion, UVa did theirs some years ago and it's pretty awesome...and when you go to games the people that are paying ad time at these games are blue chippers, you're not gonna see and hear ads to get your wiper blades replaced by Bubba.

 

[kingottoiii]

Not as many fans as Cincinnati, USF and UConn! DUHHHH!

Again talking pre raid nice try though

 

[Chip]

I don't disagree with any of this. And that's why I've never gone in for the venom directed at Tranghese or Marinatto. They got dealt a bad hand, and had to deal with a delusional membership to boot. I do think that at a few fleeting times the BE had a small window to be proactive and innovative and ensure the viability of the league, but the membership wasn't interested, and the Commissioners weren't hired to pull that off anyway.

The only thing I wonder, and we'll probably never know (at least I've never heard if we know), is in those small windows of time to be proactive, was Tranghese warning the ADs and Chancellors that this league is built in a way that keeps it very vulnerable for a raid? Seemed like any forward thinking leader of a conference structured like no other would realize how possible that was.

It's possible he was telling them all the time, and the ADs/Presidents just never thought it would really happen so they ignored it. But I do think it's part of a Commissioner's job to be the one screaming at them in their meetings that this is a real possibility, and perhaps even mention that maybe we should strike first. Mid 90's, the Big East still had the CBS contract, and although it's 2 bottom feeders were bringing it down (RU and Temple), the 3, sometimes 4, top feeders were national players (SU, Miami, VT, sometimes WVU), with 2 more programs who were names and markets (BC and Pitt) you could potentially sell to some potentially disenchanted ACC schools.

Hard to rail on a commissioner for what I'm saying, because I have the benefit of hindsight. But these are smart guys who should always know the worst case of the landscape, even if expansion had been quiet and things looked stable.

 

[Scooch]

The only thing I wonder, and we'll probably never know (at least I've never heard if we know), is in those small windows of time to be proactive, was Tranghese warning the ADs and Chancellors that this league is built in a way that keeps it very vulnerable for a raid? Seemed like any forward thinking leader of a conference structured like no other would realize how possible that was.

It's possible he was telling them all the time, and the ADs/Presidents just never thought it would really happen so they ignored it. But I do think it's part of a Commissioner's job to be the one screaming at them in their meetings that this is a real possibility, and perhaps even mention that maybe we should strike first. Mid 90's, the Big East still had the CBS contract, and although it's 2 bottom feeders were bringing it down (RU and Temple), the 3, sometimes 4, top feeders were national players (SU, Miami, VT, sometimes WVU), with 2 more programs who were names and markets (BC and Pitt) you could potentially sell to some potentially disenchanted ACC schools.

Hard to rail on a commissioner for what I'm saying, because I have the benefit of hindsight. But these are smart guys who should always know the worst case of the landscape, even if expansion had been quiet and things looked stable.

I agree with you, and I think there was a colossal failure of leadership on both sides, administration and membership.

It was Swofford who brought the ACC kicking and screaming into the 12-team era. He knew it had to happen for the long-term health of the league.

Larry Smith sold the Pac-10 on the 16 team model, and was thisclose to pulling it off. The consolation prize is brilliant branding, a mega-gigundo media deal, and a 7 channel conference network with a very smart affiliate/ownership model that's going to rake in the dough.

No one in the BE tried this, as far as anyone knows. Other than Tranghese trying to get the ACC to merge football conferences (my goodness, why would they ever have accepted that?!). But honestly, when you read things like some hoops school AD saying that the league revenue should be split 75/25 in favor of the hoops schools... I mean this thing never had a chance.

 

[billsin01]

The only thing I wonder, and we'll probably never know (at least I've never heard if we know), is in those small windows of time to be proactive, was Tranghese warning the ADs and Chancellors that this league is built in a way that keeps it very vulnerable for a raid? Seemed like any forward thinking leader of a conference structured like no other would realize how possible that was.

It's possible he was telling them all the time, and the ADs/Presidents just never thought it would really happen so they ignored it. But I do think it's part of a Commissioner's job to be the one screaming at them in their meetings that this is a real possibility, and perhaps even mention that maybe we should strike first. Mid 90's, the Big East still had the CBS contract, and although it's 2 bottom feeders were bringing it down (RU and Temple), the 3, sometimes 4, top feeders were national players (SU, Miami, VT, sometimes WVU), with 2 more programs who were names and markets (BC and Pitt) you could potentially sell to some potentially disenchanted ACC schools.

Hard to rail on a commissioner for what I'm saying, because I have the benefit of hindsight. But these are smart guys who should always know the worst case of the landscape, even if expansion had been quiet and things looked stable.

I agree with the first part and have no idea if Tranghese saw it coming or not. If he didn't, then I suppose you'd have no choice but to criticize him for it. But I think where they got stuck was in two areas:

1) the basketball onlys set-up. I actually like the hybrid conference and think it should have been possible to come up with sensible revenue sharing given the fact that the conference was noteworthy almost entirely for it's basketball (at the time Va Tech was in it's infancy as a power). But either way, obviously the set-up was messy and couldn't have been been terribly attractive to outsiders.

2) affiliation with a southern conference, from what I gather, is huge to most of those schools. FSU may have been an option and I'd like to think UMD would listen to an offer. But, ultimately, I think they would stay with the ACC.

Regardless, criticism may be valid, but I just think a lot of venom is based on the fact that people tend to simply view the conference breakup as avoidable if the BE had simply been proactive. I'm not sure it's that simple.

 

[Chip]

I agree with the first part and have no idea if Tranghese saw it coming or not. If he didn't, then I suppose you'd have no choice but to criticize him for it. But I think where they got stuck was in two areas:

1) the basketball onlys set-up. I actually like the hybrid conference and think it should have been possible to come up with sensible revenue sharing given the fact that the conference was noteworthy almost entirely for it's basketball (at the time Va Tech was in it's infancy as a power). But either way, obviously the set-up was messy and couldn't have been been terribly attractive to outsiders.

2) affiliation with a southern conference, from what I gather, is huge to most of those schools. FSU may have been an option and I'd like to think UMD would listen to an offer. But, ultimately, I think they would stay with the ACC.

Regardless, criticism may be valid, but I just think a lot of venom is based on the fact that people tend to simply view the conference breakup as avoidable if the BE had simply been proactive. I'm not sure it's that simple.

FSU was the prize, you had to start there and see what dominoes could come with them. I don't think they had that southern conference affiliation syndrome, as they hadn't even been in a conference all that long.

I'd kind of turn that last sentence around. If the Big East were proactive, it doesn't necessarily guarantee that it would have a future (as you mention, hoops onlies were an issue, but depending on flipping FSU, you had a chance at a new all sports league that survives). But to turn the sentence around, it seems more like conference breakup was unavoidable, so why not try to be proactive as a means to save it?

I know, I'm back on my hindsight horse. Life is easier that way.

 

[TexanMark]

What in the world are you talking about? NCState, GTech, UNC, UVa, VT don't have fans?

UNC fans (according to a Clemson fan I know) told me do not travel well to FB games...TIFWIW

Ask your TarHeel if true.

 

[Bayside44]

UNC fans (according to a Clemson fan I know) told me do not travel well to FB games...TIFWIW

Ask your TarHeel if true.

I don't think she really focuses on it.

But to King's mistaken points, these school have multigenerational, deeply loyal fan bases and fans that are loyal to their products in their lives as well, and generally some money. To compare that to anything the Big East has is wrong.

 

[zls44]

UNC fans (according to a Clemson fan I know) told me do not travel well to FB games...TIFWIW

Ask your TarHeel if true.

They brought an average number to UConn with a good team, but I think a worse Virginia team brought more a couple of years before.

 

[kingottoiii]

Below average compared to the SEC? Look at what the average BCS school is and at worst they're either in, or pretty close to the median. There's a lot of Oregon State's and Illinois' in the BCS conferences.

The average last year was 60,500 per team. The median was 56,000. Of the 7 ACC teams I mentioned above, five were below both the average and median. The other two were below the average. One was the median and the other was one spot above median. Illinois BTW beat out 5 of those 7 last year. And Oregon St beta out three.

 

[billsin01]

FSU was the prize, you had to start there and see what dominoes could come with them. I don't think they had that southern conference affiliation syndrome, as they hadn't even been in a conference all that long.

I'd kind of turn that last sentence around. If the Big East were proactive, it doesn't necessarily guarantee that it would have a future (as you mention, hoops onlies were an issue, but depending on flipping FSU, you had a chance at a new all sports league that survives). But to turn the sentence around, it seems more like conference breakup was unavoidable, so why not try to be proactive as a means to save it?

I know, I'm back on my hindsight horse. Life is easier that way.

Fair points. I guess one counter is that I don't think breaking off the hoops onlies was going to be part of a solution to "save" the conference. I'm not saying I agree with that per se, but I think the general approach was to try and save the league as it was constituted, regardless of whether that was a fool's errand or not.

But my only point is that I'm not sure many know enough to say unequivocally that the leadership was abhorrent. But maybe it was. What do I know? My reaction on moving to the ACC breaks up into three parts, none of which are very popular on this board:

1) A massive "meh" to ACC football membership and hoops outside of Duke/UNC.
2) A sense of loss at BE hoops and the tourney in NYC.
3) A nagging suspicion that we could be aligned elsewhere or the ACC could look significantly different by 2016. I have zero information on this but just don't have any sense that there will be any loyalty to conferences that are set up with no real regional ties to begin with.