The Man Makes the Point

[Col. Bleep]

BASKETBALL IS the Big East's game.

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_sports/hoop_ti_doo_iG9fqYHRcXeVpuuUuUbvhP

 

[IthacaMatt]

Here's the problem with trying to be a basketball first league in 2011 going forward in time - there is a glut of college basketball programming on almost every night of the week, so the individual game ratings are not enough to get advertisers drooling, and to draw the big money TV contracts. College football, like the NFL, is a once a week sport, which means limited inventory.

Now, that inventory has spread out to many other nights of the week unheard of in recent years, so it isn't quite as individually valuable as it used to be, but they have broadened the market. You can tailgate once a week for a football game. You can't party like that 3 times a week in February, including a Monday and Wednesday night, and work a grown up day job. So, because of scarcity of inventory relative to hoops during the regular season, football drives the bus. The ratings are bigger, the games are more "events".

Now, to the contrary, college football has ruined the television value of the bowl season. Economically, March Madness is the far better media product, and they don't do brackets of all the bowl games in December and January at the office. But all these moves show that (a) football ratings are that much better and more valuable than hoops and (b) football could be improved as a product if they could develop a play-off system to rival March Madness.

 

[HoustonCuse]

I really need someone to explain the economics of Football vs Basketball. I honestly do not understand why football makes so much more money. Basketball sells more tickets, has more TV games, thus more ad revenue, and has the second most important sports event in the USA with the tournament. The NCAA tournament is a billion-plus dollar event every single year. The final four this year will have attendance numbers in the mid 60 thousands per game. I just don't get it.

Didn't UConn lose something like $2 million by being in a BCS bowl last year??

The only rationalization I have for this is that the NCAA steals all the basketball tournament money (or 90% of it) and in football the bowl money goes directly to the schools (or in UConn's case, the BILL goes directly to the school)??

Someone please provide a coherent explanation of how football is not only "driving the bus" but is so much bigger than anything else that basketball is made the equivalent of bowling.

 

[BlackSquirrels]

Someone please provide a coherent explanation of how football is not only "driving the bus" but is so much bigger than anything else that basketball is made the equivalent of bowling.

I'm not an expert on this but the way I understand it, there are approximately 340 D1 basketball schools versus about 120 FBS football schools. Football revenue is divided among far fewer schools.

Also, I'm not sure about your contention that basketball sells way more tickets. That might be true at Syracuse but I doubt it's true for many schools in the SEC.

 

[armory]

From what I understand ... Football makes the schools more money... while Basketball makes the NCAA more money.

 

[CarltonCuse]

Also, I'm not sure about your contention that basketball sells way more tickets. That might be true at Syracuse but I doubt it's true for many schools in the SEC.

I don't really have any expertise on the subject whatsoever, but I do know that when I lived in Baton Rouge for the past decade, I could park on campus, go to the window on game night at Maravich Center, get a good seat and watch a hoops game. On football gameday, I couldn't get my car out of my driveway because the roads were filled with Tiger Stadium traffic.

 

[Knicks411]

The TV money, which I believe only goes to the BCS schools, is part of it, but football sells more tickets.

Last year, division 1 (FBS) drew a little over 37,000,000.
division 1 hoops drew a total of 25,164,431.

And remember, that's 320 or whatever hoops schools, and 120 whatever football schools. And football STILL drew a shade under 50% more people.

The final four this year will have attendance numbers in the mid 60 thousands per game. I just don't get it.

The average NCAA football game last year drew over 45,000 people. 21 football teams drew more than 70,000 people per game last year. Drawing, 60,000 people for 3 games is nothing.

 

[EastCoast2]

The TV money, which I believe only goes to the BCS schools, is part of it, but football sells more tickets.

Last year, division 1 (FBS) drew a little over 37,000,000.
division 1 hoops drew a total of 25,164,431.

And remember, that's 320 or whatever hoops schools, and 120 whatever football schools. And football STILL drew a shade under 50% more people.

The average NCAA football game last year drew over 45,000 people. 21 football teams drew more than 70,000 people per game last year. Drawing, 60,000 people for 3 games is nothing.

+1 for the data

 

[elkeed]

Here's the problem with trying to be a basketball first league in 2011 going forward in time - there is a glut of college basketball programming on almost every night of the week, so the individual game ratings are not enough to get advertisers drooling, and to draw the big money TV contracts. College football, like the NFL, is a once a week sport, which means limited inventory.

Now, that inventory has spread out to many other nights of the week unheard of in recent years, so it isn't quite as individually valuable as it used to be, but they have broadened the market. You can tailgate once a week for a football game. You can't party like that 3 times a week in February, including a Monday and Wednesday night, and work a grown up day job. So, because of scarcity of inventory relative to hoops during the regular season, football drives the bus. The ratings are bigger, the games are more "events".

Now, to the contrary, college football has ruined the television value of the bowl season. Economically, March Madness is the far better media product, and they don't do brackets of all the bowl games in December and January at the office. But all these moves show that (a) football ratings are that much better and more valuable than hoops and (b) football could be improved as a product if they could develop a play-off system to rival March Madness.

Athough I agree with you, you still have to look at each school and region individually. For the Big East football schools like SU and UL, hoops generates as much if not more revenue with FAR greater profit margins due to the much lower cost structure. i.e. fewer coaches, scholarships, equipment etc. Therefore I am very apprehensive about this move. We run the risk of being an outsider looking in in the coast league.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I really need someone to explain the economics of Football vs Basketball. I honestly do not understand why football makes so much more money. Basketball sells more tickets, has more TV games, thus more ad revenue, and has the second most important sports event in the USA with the tournament. The NCAA tournament is a billion-plus dollar event every single year. The final four this year will have attendance numbers in the mid 60 thousands per game. I just don't get it.

Didn't UConn lose something like $2 million by being in a BCS bowl last year??

The only rationalization I have for this is that the NCAA steals all the basketball tournament money (or 90% of it) and in football the bowl money goes directly to the schools (or in UConn's case, the BILL goes directly to the school)??

Someone please provide a coherent explanation of how football is not only "driving the bus" but is so much bigger than anything else that basketball is made the equivalent of bowling.

Individual ratings for any single regular season basketball game are a small fraction of the television audience for a network Saturday afternoon college football game. There are too many basketball games on TV compared to football, thus fewer of the games get big ratings.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Athough I agree with you, you still have to look at each school and region individually. For the Big East football schools like SU and UL, hoops generates as much if not more revenue with FAR greater profit margins due to the much lower cost structure. i.e. fewer coaches, scholarships, equipment etc. Therefore I am very apprehensive about this move. We run the risk of being an outsider looking in in the coast league.

Oh, yeah, I agree with that. We run one of he most profitable programs in the country. That's a big part of why we play so many home games - because they make a ton of money for the school. But that's not from the TV contract, although we do OK for a hoops conference, we'd be paid much more in other conferences that have that football television appeal. That's why the move to the ACC was the only move to make. The combination of hoops and football is perfect for a school like us, and gives us a seat at the Big Boy table for the next 50 years.

 

[BleedsOrange44]

Oh, yeah, I agree with that. We run one of he most profitable programs in the country. That's a big part of why we play so many home games - because they make a ton of money for the school. But that's not from the TV contract, although we do OK for a hoops conference, we'd be paid much more in other conferences that have that football television appeal. That's why the move to the ACC was the only move to make. The combination of hoops and football is perfect for a school like us, and gives us a seat at the Big Boy table for the next 50 years.

I agree. And I think, in time, Marrone will have us a major player in the ACC.