cheeseman Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 I would disagree that it would be hard to show that the StL TV market is worth it to the network. If SLU was in the BE people in StL will watch. Say what you want about StL they do like their local teams. Heck the MU fans will watch just to see if we lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishdawg Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 13 minutes ago, cheeseman said: I would disagree that it would be hard to show that the StL TV market is worth it to the network. If SLU was in the BE people in StL will watch. Say what you want about StL they do like their local teams. Heck the MU fans will watch just to see if we lose. I will admit that I'm not sure how many games SLU currently has on TV each year, but the main point is that the school will have to show whichever network the broadcast is on (whether that's CBSSN, NBCSN, ESPN, FS1, etc.) that people will watch. Considering how down Mizzou is, there's actually a great opportunity currently for SLU to capture more of the local market if Ford can get things moving in the right direction and Missouri continues to struggle. The challenge that I see (and it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, just my opinion) is that St. Louis is already a Fox Sports town with the Blues being on Fox Sports Midwest. So with the Blues and Billikens essentially playing at similar times for their entire season, how much more would the network stand to gain by having 2 local sports teams on, especially if their games happened to run at the same time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, irishdawg said: I will admit that I'm not sure how many games SLU currently has on TV each year, but the main point is that the school will have to show whichever network the broadcast is on (whether that's CBSSN, NBCSN, ESPN, FS1, etc.) that people will watch. Considering how down Mizzou is, there's actually a great opportunity currently for SLU to capture more of the local market if Ford can get things moving in the right direction and Missouri continues to struggle. The challenge that I see (and it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, just my opinion) is that St. Louis is already a Fox Sports town with the Blues being on Fox Sports Midwest. So with the Blues and Billikens essentially playing at similar times for their entire season, how much more would the network stand to gain by having 2 local sports teams on, especially if their games happened to run at the same time? I would disagree that it would be hard to show that the StL TV market is worth it to the network. If SLU was in the BE people in StL will watch. Say what you want about StL they do like their local teams. Heck the MU fans will watch just to see if we lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 Could not the same thing be said for Chicago with the Blackhawks and the Blue Demons. What about Marquette and the Bucks, New York with their 3 hockey teams, 2 bb teams and St. johns. You can see where I am going with this. Every city has the same problem with competing teams/sports. Fox sports only cares that people watch their networks and besides, the Blues and Bills don't cross over that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 38 minutes ago, cheeseman said: Could not the same thing be said for Chicago with the Blackhawks and the Blue Demons. What about Marquette and the Bucks, New York with their 3 hockey teams, 2 bb teams and St. johns. You can see where I am going with this. Every city has the same problem with competing teams/sports. Fox sports only cares that people watch their networks and besides, the Blues and Bills don't cross over that much. -my understanding is SLU buys the time on FSMW and then sells advertising to offset the cost -I doubt this makes money for the U in a strict cash outlay for the time versus receipts for the advertising given the number of SLU promos on these broadcasts, the value of the exposure being uncertain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adman Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 27 minutes ago, irishdawg said: I will admit that I'm not sure how many games SLU currently has on TV each year, but the main point is that the school will have to show whichever network the broadcast is on (whether that's CBSSN, NBCSN, ESPN, FS1, etc.) that people will watch. Considering how down Mizzou is, there's actually a great opportunity currently for SLU to capture more of the local market if Ford can get things moving in the right direction and Missouri continues to struggle. The challenge that I see (and it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, just my opinion) is that St. Louis is already a Fox Sports town with the Blues being on Fox Sports Midwest. So with the Blues and Billikens essentially playing at similar times for their entire season, how much more would the network stand to gain by having 2 local sports teams on, especially if their games happened to run at the same time? There most definitely is opportunity for SLU to capture local market (TV and otherwise) with Mizzou down AND the Rams gone. 18th largest market with no NBA or NFL team? Huge untapped potential. Generally speaking, if the product is good, people will watch. And it helps if there is a legacy/interest building from year to year. I don't have the numbers, but if I was going to make a case to the BE, among other numbers I'd show would be ratings on key telecasts during two time periods: recent 3 straight NCAA tourney years (rickma) Spoonball era with Bills' previous NCAA run, were #4 in average NCAA attendance one of the years, and Rams hadn't yet arrived. This will prove the interest and market potential. But only partially. Whatever the ratings during those eras, I don't think they are close to the ceilings. You build interest by putting great product on the court year after year. Unfortunately, the success with Charlie and Rick was short-lived. And now we start over - again. Hard as it is to imagine, as great a legacy as the Cardinals have, in the 70s their attendance and ratings were weak. It wasn't until the 80s with Herzog that attendance nearly doubled to 3+million. Had few bad years in 90s. But LaRussa teams continued and today 3+M happens every year. But that's because year after year it was built with very good to great product, competitive teams. I'd love to see what happens to TV ratings over a 10-year period if the Bills were in the Dance 7 or 8 years. Yes, dates/times when Blues and Bills air at same time will sometimes dilute ratings. But not huge deal. First, this occurs only occasionally. Second, the audiences are somewhat different. Third, DVRs help eliminate the either/or dilemma. Again, great product will find audience. Finally, would be more concerned about Fox1 as channel. Their launch has been terrible. Many cable systems don't carry as part of "basic" line-up; viewers may have to pay supplemental fee. So...the Bills could be hard to find, ratings hard to deliver. Not sure length of Fox1 contract with BE, but depending on whether Fox1 gets its issues worked out and many other factors ($$,) Bills may be better served elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 52 minutes ago, Cowboy said: -my understanding is SLU buys the time on FSMW and then sells advertising to offset the cost -I doubt this makes money for the U in a strict cash outlay for the time versus receipts for the advertising given the number of SLU promos on these broadcasts, the value of the exposure being uncertain SLU had done this for some games in the past but I am not sure that they are still doing it this way. Levick started this to make up for the lost TV time from the then new A10 package that gave some schools more exposure but for some schools like SLU got less. I also believe that this issue with the A10 contract had been rectified some time ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishdawg Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 1 hour ago, Adman said: Finally, would be more concerned about Fox1 as channel. Their launch has been terrible. Many cable systems don't carry as part of "basic" line-up; viewers may have to pay supplemental fee. So...the Bills could be hard to find, ratings hard to deliver. Not sure length of Fox1 contract with BE, but depending on whether Fox1 gets its issues worked out and many other factors ($$,) Bills may be better served elsewhere. FS1 is in 83 million homes vs. ESPN's 89 million. Subscriber fees are $1.15 per month on FS1 vs. ESPN's $6 per month. It's also not just an FS1 contract with the Big East (believe it was for 12 years starting in 2013 for $500 Million). Games are televised on FS2, regional Fox affiliates (such as Fox Sports Midwest) as well as Fox's network channel. In terms of whether the channel is actually making money, they lost about $50M in 2015, which is actually a major improvement on their $265M loss they took in the first year of operations and are projected to make over $100M this year. While I doubt they'll ever reach the level of viewership and brand recognition that ESPN has, they also don't have the massive amount of rights fees that they have to pay each year for national broadcasts of NBA, NFL and MLB games along with their collegiate contracts, and Fox is starting to pick up other leagues for college basketball and football (Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 12). What will really be interesting is to see how television networks react to all the people cutting cable and moving more to an online platform where they may very well wind up competing with Google and Amazon for broadcast rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierPal Posted August 30, 2016 Share Posted August 30, 2016 http://sportstvratings.com/on-espns-and-other-networks-subscriber-losses-august-2016-edition/5583/ According to this article, both FS1 and ESPN are hemorrhaging severely. You are right that cable TV we have today won't be recognizable 5 years from now. I trust that all of the collegiate TV contracts have language to address the new platforms that are being developed (or haven't even been thought of yet.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adman Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 20 hours ago, irishdawg said: FS1 is in 83 million homes vs. ESPN's 89 million. Subscriber fees are $1.15 per month on FS1 vs. ESPN's $6 per month. It's also not just an FS1 contract with the Big East (believe it was for 12 years starting in 2013 for $500 Million). Games are televised on FS2, regional Fox affiliates (such as Fox Sports Midwest) as well as Fox's network channel. In terms of whether the channel is actually making money, they lost about $50M in 2015, which is actually a major improvement on their $265M loss they took in the first year of operations and are projected to make over $100M this year. While I doubt they'll ever reach the level of viewership and brand recognition that ESPN has, they also don't have the massive amount of rights fees that they have to pay each year for national broadcasts of NBA, NFL and MLB games along with their collegiate contracts, and Fox is starting to pick up other leagues for college basketball and football (Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 12). What will really be interesting is to see how television networks react to all the people cutting cable and moving more to an online platform where they may very well wind up competing with Google and Amazon for broadcast rights. You're right, thanks for update. Had been a while since I looked at FS1's distribution numbers. Where they struggle is on rating side which affects awareness they can deliver for teams (and excitement for recruits.) But will be interesting to see how they develop, particularly with Fox Sports Regional stations on their flanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 -seeing the post about this morning's workout, if the drill near the end of the video is designed to closeout on a shooter and not foul I say AMEN! no more fouling 3pt shooters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilkowsky Posted August 31, 2016 Author Share Posted August 31, 2016 The problem is SLU has not been good for an extended period. Think about SLU in the Big East the last two years. it would have been ugly. Even when they had the three year run of going to the NCAA - they couldn't of competed with the best of the Big East in my opinion. They need to stay in the A-10 where they can compete for the league title off and on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 6 minutes ago, Tilkowsky said: Even when they had the three year run of going to the NCAA - they couldn't of competed with the best of the Big East in my opinion. You mean that run when we went 6-2 against Villanova, Xavier, and Butler (three teams at the top of the current Big East)? Poor troll...very poor troll, indeed. Adding "in my opinion" on the end of objectively stupid statements doesn't make them any less stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierPal Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 45 minutes ago, Cowboy said: -seeing the post about this morning's workout, if the drill near the end of the video is designed to closeout on a shooter and not foul I say AMEN! no more fouling 3pt shooters? It is fun watching these videos from practice. I remember Coach Majerus had the curtains pulled on the windows above the gym so even a casual fan couldn't see what they were doing. Times have changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilkowsky Posted August 31, 2016 Author Share Posted August 31, 2016 6 minutes ago, hsmith19 said: You mean that run when we went 6-2 against Villanova, Xavier, and Butler (three teams at the top of the current Big East)? Poor troll...very poor troll, indeed. Adding "in my opinion" on the end of objectively stupid statements doesn't make them any less stupid. 6 minutes ago, hsmith19 said: You mean that run when we went 6-2 against Villanova, Xavier, and Butler (three teams at the top of the current Big East)? Poor troll...very poor troll, indeed. Adding "in my opinion" on the end of objectively stupid statements doesn't make them any less stupid. Can you post links that SLU went 6-2 against those teams and they were the top three teams in the Big East? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 On 8/24/2016 at 4:30 PM, Tilkowsky said: Tilkowsky, what team do you root for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilkowsky Posted August 31, 2016 Author Share Posted August 31, 2016 5 minutes ago, ACE said: Tilkowsky, what team do you root for? SLU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierPal Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 17 minutes ago, hsmith19 said: You mean that run when we went 6-2 against Villanova, Xavier, and Butler (three teams at the top of the current Big East)? Poor troll...very poor troll, indeed. Adding "in my opinion" on the end of objectively stupid statements doesn't make them any less stupid. Thanks to Steve I have been able to put TrollPants on Ignore. (You should try it.) But since you have put "troll" and "stupid" in the same sentence, it is obvious you are responding to TrollPants. Those three wins against Butler in 12-13 were special. Taking down X twice in 11-12, also fun times. It takes a second grade education to figure this out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 6 minutes ago, Tilkowsky said: Can you post links that SLU went 6-2 against those teams and they were the top three teams in the Big East? Sure, I'll humor you one more time. Here's the '15-'16 standings, showing that (as I said) Nova, X, and Butler are all at the top of the current BE, along with Seton Hall and Providence, who we didn't play during the three year run: http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/conferences/big-east/2016.html Now here are our records from the three year run, showing that we (as I said) went 6-2 against those teams. The only losses were to X in the 2012 conference tourney and on the road in overtime at the end of the 2014 regular season. The best victories were Nova on a neutral court, @X, and Butler when they were ranked #9 in the nation. And this is of course not counting our numerous victories over other possible targets for BE expansion during that timeframe, including VCU and Dayton. http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/saint-louis/2012-schedule.html http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/saint-louis/2013-schedule.html http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/saint-louis/2014-schedule.html Now you're done. You'll have to create a new sockpuppet account to get me to indulge any more of your BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 5 minutes ago, HoosierPal said: Thanks to Steve I have been able to put TrollPants on Ignore. (You should try it.) But since you have put "troll" and "stupid" in the same sentence, it is obvious you are responding to TrollPants. Those three wins against Butler in 12-13 were special. Taking down X twice in 11-12, also fun times. It takes a second grade education to figure this out. It just sucks that we didn't play Trollkowsky's beloved Notre Dame during that run, or we could have added them to the list even though they are no longer BE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 Tilkowsky claims to be a fan of SLU, yet he continually refers to SLU as "they"... "Even when they had the three year run of going to the NCAA - they couldn't of competed with the best of the Big East in my opinion. They need to stay in the A-10 where they can compete for the league title off and on." This is further evidence he is a fraud. Pretty clear he is the same SLU-obsessed troll from the stltoday board. He had his fun for a bit here, but now time to ban the troll. He has no interest in a legit discussion or even good trash talk. His sole purpose is to try to disrupt. Please flush him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBFan Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Tilkowsky said: The problem is SLU has not been good for an extended period. Think about SLU in the Big East the last two years. it would have been ugly. Even when they had the three year run of going to the NCAA - they couldn't of competed with the best of the Big East in my opinion. They need to stay in the A-10 where they can compete for the league title off and on. If coach Majerus was alive the Billikens would have owned the A10 as proven when coach Crews won the A10 two years in a row. Those teams beat Butler 3 times in one season. I am not sure where you come up with on and off league title when it was won twice with coach Majerus recruits and coach Crews coaching those teams. Rick Majerus coaching in his last NCAA tournament appearance beat Memphis and took Michigan State to the wire who was as good as the top Big East teams. I think about SLU in the last two years in the A10 with coach Crews and that was extremely ugly however the bottom division of the Big East was beatable. As proven by the transfers by coach Crews recruits they were not good enough to compete in a decent division however coach Ford is bringing in good players. It will be interesting what can be accomplished with the coach Ford players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilkowsky Posted August 31, 2016 Author Share Posted August 31, 2016 1 hour ago, hsmith19 said: Sure, I'll humor you one more time. Here's the '15-'16 standings, showing that (as I said) Nova, X, and Butler are all at the top of the current BE, along with Seton Hall and Providence, who we didn't play during the three year run: http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/conferences/big-east/2016.html Now here are our records from the three year run, showing that we (as I said) went 6-2 against those teams. The only losses were to X in the 2012 conference tourney and on the road in overtime at the end of the 2014 regular season. The best victories were Nova on a neutral court, @X, and Butler when they were ranked #9 in the nation. And this is of course not counting our numerous victories over other possible targets for BE expansion during that timeframe, including VCU and Dayton. http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/saint-louis/2012-schedule.html http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/saint-louis/2013-schedule.html http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/saint-louis/2014-schedule.html Now you're done. You'll have to create a new sockpuppet account to get me to indulge any more of your BS. Then why haven't the Big East offered SLU a spot then if SLU is such a basketball power? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilkowsky Posted August 31, 2016 Author Share Posted August 31, 2016 1 hour ago, ACE said: Tilkowsky claims to be a fan of SLU, yet he continually refers to SLU as "they"... "Even when they had the three year run of going to the NCAA - they couldn't of competed with the best of the Big East in my opinion. They need to stay in the A-10 where they can compete for the league title off and on." This is further evidence he is a fraud. Pretty clear he is the same SLU-obsessed troll from the stltoday board. He had his fun for a bit here, but now time to ban the troll. He has no interest in a legit discussion or even good trash talk. His sole purpose is to try to disrupt. Please flush him. The reason I say they is that I am not on the team. I am not part of the athletic department. my guess is you aren't either. Unless fans are part of the organization or on the team - you really shouldn't use we. You are not part of the team just because you are a fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted August 31, 2016 Share Posted August 31, 2016 3 minutes ago, Tilkowsky said: Then why haven't the Big East offered SLU a spot then if SLU is such a basketball power? If you're actually interested in having this discussion, you'll admit you were talking out of your rectum above about SLU not being able to compete with the top BE teams during the recent three-year run. I even went and dug up the links this time so you couldn't play dumb. If you won't admit that, it's confirmation of your trollhood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.