Quo Vadis

The Catholic 7 is getting more because those schools have the coin of the realm in today's media world: Brand-name recognition. Sure, Bulls fans like us know that USF has been much better on the basketball court in recent years than say DePaul, but to the average college basketball fan, the kind likely to tune in for a game, DePaul is a name they have been aware of all their lives whereas USF doesn't ring a bell. All of the C7, even the bottom of the list, are brand names that have long college basketball histories. No, none of them save arguably Georgetown is in the true ultra-elite with the likes of Duke and Kentucky, but Duke and Kentucky fans know all about Georgetown. They know about Villanova, St Johns, DePaul and Marquette too. They are all "in the club", so to speak. And because ALL of the C7 have at least some name recognition, there are lots of airable matchups. Georgetown - Villanova is a good game, so is Villanova-St Johns, St Johns - Marquette, Marquette-Providence, etc. Kentucky and Duke fans will casually watch those games. But, the same is true for only 3-4 Big East teams (going forward). Basically, the only Big East programs with any value are UConn, Memphis, and Cincy basketball, and Temple as well. That's what NBC is paying for. And that value is diluted by lots of matchups with no-names. UConn-Cincy is worth broadcasting. But UConn - UCF or UConn - ECU? Not so much. And in football, NONE of the teams that will be in the Big East from 2014 forward move the brand-recognition needle at all. Thus, our football "inventory" is largely worthless. There is virtually no audience for UCF - Memphis football games. That's just where we stand right now. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The Carltholic 7 get more respect than we do. Obviously, Georgetown is well-known, although much of their fame came with the help of Syracuse. St. John's and Villanova have great locations, and Marquette is playing very well. But, I am not so sure seven are big national brands. Marquette-Providence is a national rivalry? I doubt big Kentucky and Duke fans really care about small private schools they have no connection to; they would probably only watch like most other college basketball games outside of their conference of interest. Normally, probably if it is on and no other significant games are on. 2. Navy has a brand with some name recognition. UConn has one of the 50 largest college football fanbases. I would not call all 7 of the C7 schools "big" national brands. But, they all have some reasonable degree of national name recognition as basketball programs. The same is just not true of many of the new Big East schools. Marquette-Providence is not a national rivalrly, but both names do resonate with college basketball fans and the game is thus likely to draw a decent audience. Tulane vs ECU will just not draw nearly as many viewers, and going forward the Big East has a LOT of matchups like that. As for football, Navy is of interest to the casual football fan on two occasions - when they play Notre Dame and when they play Army. There is little to no benefit to the Big East in that. UConn, I am sorry, but while they are a big basketball brand, virtually nobody outside of Connecticut cares about their football. Pains me to say it, but the typical C7 basketball game is more valuable to a media company than the typical new Big East basketball or football game, which is why they are going to get paid more. UConn, I am sorry, but while they are a big basketball brand, virtually nobody outside of Connecticut cares about their football. This true for any non-Big 5 conference team not named Boise State. UCONN hoops (men and women) are powerhouses and by default the school itself has recognition that could bleed into other sports. For instance, if you saw one of UCONN 3 men's BB championships in the last 20 years and jumped on the bandwagon, its more likely you could be a fan of their football team. Believe it or not women hoops has a following and 'football fans' could be driven from there as well. Pains me to say it, but the typical C7 basketball game is more valuable to a media company than the typical new Big East basketball or football game, which is why they are going to get paid more. Its already basically been established they are getting paid more because FOX needs basketball inventory and a premium had to be paid to get them motivated to make the split from the BE. I do think the $$ involved are ridiculous comparatively. I agree that what i said is true of any non-Big 5 conference team not named Boise, which is one reason losing Boise to the MWC was such a big blow. Essentially, the new Big East went from being very likely every year to get the one reserved BCS bowl slot for the "Other Five" in the new playoff system to probably losing out on it to the MWC more years than not. We can say "well, the MWC sold its soul by cutting Boise a special deal to do it" and we may be correct. But that doesn't mean they weren't smart to do it. We can only hope that the BCS bowl money allocated to the Other Five is essentially the same for each conference regardless of which team plays in the game. I recognize that UConn is a big national basketball brand in both men's and women's hoops. But, i do not think there is any significant bleed-over in fan interest to their football, certainly none outside of the UConn community. It just doesn't seem to work that way - has the tremendous interest in Duke basketball done anything for Duke football over the years? As for FOX and the C7, i am of the view that TV networks are not stupid, they are not going to sign a money-losing contract just to acquire "inventory" to fill time slots. IIRC, wasn't it the alleged need by NBC, FOX, and maybe CBS for football "inventory" that was going to make the new Big East rich? Didn't work out that way, and that's because inventory is only valuable if somebody wants to buy it, which from a media POV means somebody is willing to watch it. . Lots and lots of companies have gone bankrupt because of warehouses full of inventory that they were unable to move and media firms are aware of this. I expect that whatever money FOX pays the C7, they expect to be able to sell advertising for the games that is worth more than that.

Put me in the category of those who have very little faith in anything Aresco says, simply because he has been absolutely unable to deliver on anything. Defenders can say "well, what could he have done?" all they want, but if there's nothing a man can do to help the conference, then why hire him to begin with? I mean, sure, Rutgers wasn't going to turn down the Big 10 even if God was our commissioner, but was it really inevitable that we lose two programs to the Mountain West Conference? Please. Aresco is drawing a nice salary, but in the 6 months he has been in charge we have suffered one disaster after another. And his alleged trump card, his connections to media companies and thus knowledge of how to negotiate a lucrative media deal, has turned out to be a deuce. It is hard to imagine how anyone, including your or I, could have produced worse results.

The Catholic 7 is getting more because those schools have the coin of the realm in today's media world: Brand-name recognition. Sure, Bulls fans like us know that USF has been much better on the basketball court in recent years than say DePaul, but to the average college basketball fan, the kind likely to tune in for a game, DePaul is a name they have been aware of all their lives whereas USF doesn't ring a bell. All of the C7, even the bottom of the list, are brand names that have long college basketball histories. No, none of them save arguably Georgetown is in the true ultra-elite with the likes of Duke and Kentucky, but Duke and Kentucky fans know all about Georgetown. They know about Villanova, St Johns, DePaul and Marquette too. They are all "in the club", so to speak. And because ALL of the C7 have at least some name recognition, there are lots of airable matchups. Georgetown - Villanova is a good game, so is Villanova-St Johns, St Johns - Marquette, Marquette-Providence, etc. Kentucky and Duke fans will casually watch those games. But, the same is true for only 3-4 Big East teams (going forward). Basically, the only Big East programs with any value are UConn, Memphis, and Cincy basketball, and Temple as well. That's what NBC is paying for. And that value is diluted by lots of matchups with no-names. UConn-Cincy is worth broadcasting. But UConn - UCF or UConn - ECU? Not so much. And in football, NONE of the teams that will be in the Big East from 2014 forward move the brand-recognition needle at all. Thus, our football "inventory" is largely worthless. There is virtually no audience for UCF - Memphis football games. That's just where we stand right now. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The Carltholic 7 get more respect than we do. Obviously, Georgetown is well-known, although much of their fame came with the help of Syracuse. St. John's and Villanova have great locations, and Marquette is playing very well. But, I am not so sure seven are big national brands. Marquette-Providence is a national rivalry? I doubt big Kentucky and Duke fans really care about small private schools they have no connection to; they would probably only watch like most other college basketball games outside of their conference of interest. Normally, probably if it is on and no other significant games are on. 2. Navy has a brand with some name recognition. UConn has one of the 50 largest college football fanbases. I would not call all 7 of the C7 schools "big" national brands. But, they all have some reasonable degree of national name recognition as basketball programs. The same is just not true of many of the new Big East schools. Marquette-Providence is not a national rivalrly, but both names do resonate with college basketball fans and the game is thus likely to draw a decent audience. Tulane vs ECU will just not draw nearly as many viewers, and going forward the Big East has a LOT of matchups like that. As for football, Navy is of interest to the casual football fan on two occasions - when they play Notre Dame and when they play Army. There is little to no benefit to the Big East in that. UConn, I am sorry, but while they are a big basketball brand, virtually nobody outside of Connecticut cares about their football. Pains me to say it, but the typical C7 basketball game is more valuable to a media company than the typical new Big East basketball or football game, which is why they are going to get paid more.

The Catholic 7 is getting more because those schools have the coin of the realm in today's media world: Brand-name recognition. Sure, Bulls fans like us know that USF has been much better on the basketball court in recent years than say DePaul, but to the average college basketball fan, the kind likely to tune in for a game, DePaul is a name they have been aware of all their lives whereas USF doesn't ring a bell. All of the C7, even the bottom of the list, are brand names that have long college basketball histories. No, none of them save arguably Georgetown is in the true ultra-elite with the likes of Duke and Kentucky, but Duke and Kentucky fans know all about Georgetown. They know about Villanova, St Johns, DePaul and Marquette too. They are all "in the club", so to speak. And because ALL of the C7 have at least some name recognition, there are lots of airable matchups. Georgetown - Villanova is a good game, so is Villanova-St Johns, St Johns - Marquette, Marquette-Providence, etc. Kentucky and Duke fans will casually watch those games. But, the same is true for only 3-4 Big East teams (going forward). Basically, the only Big East programs with any value are UConn, Memphis, and Cincy basketball, and Temple as well. That's what NBC is paying for. And that value is diluted by lots of matchups with no-names. UConn-Cincy is worth broadcasting. But UConn - UCF or UConn - ECU? Not so much. And in football, NONE of the teams that will be in the Big East from 2014 forward move the brand-recognition needle at all. Thus, our football "inventory" is largely worthless. There is virtually no audience for UCF - Memphis football games. That's just where we stand right now.

First of all, nobody at UC, Uconn, etc cares whether we are pissed if we get left behind, Second, if the ACC or Big12 invited us instead of UC or Uconn, we would accept and not care at all what happens to them and rightly so.

Maybe he should focus more on the crappy coaching and poor product on the field. If the product on the field was better, more people would be there. I love USF football, but it is getting painful to watch. We will never be big time, and attractive to a major conference, until attendance goes way up.

I do not see what the multiplier effect would be for NBC gaining the "last available" college football conference. NBC is likely to gain what any network gains: Advertising revenues from showing the games. Yes, Big East basketball is valuable, but obviously ESPN did not think it so valuable that they would over-pay for Big East football, and that is because football drives the bus in these media deals. I doubt NBC executives will think otherwise. The fact that they and their parent company had a great revenue year does not mean they will be profligate with that money. I would dearly like to be wrong about this because obviously I would like USF to get maximum media dollars. But, the reality seems to be that our football product is significantly less attractive than it was before the realignment (raids) of the past year, and thus we can expect the offers we get from NBC or FOX to reflect that, just as it did for ESPN. The thing that no one beyond the offices at NBC Sports Network knows as of right now is what their plans and strategy is. That's the wild card in this entire process. If they are indeed trying to build a network to rival ESPN they will invest in the BE. Right now they are showing Ivy League football on Saturdays. It all depends on what they are trying to do. If they are trying to make NBC Sports Network big time then they will spend and invest. Let us say that Comcast wants to turn NBCSN into another ESPN. Even in that case, i do not see how offering significantly more than ESPN offered advances that strategy. It would just mean they are paying more. And i am really not sure why they would invest in us unless they actually bought equity in our programs, which of course is impossible. The reality is if exposure and big money from NBCSN allows the Big East to grow in popularity, that 'investment' can easily be lost to another network when the contract is up for renewal.

We will never be truly big-time until we can keep the 4- and 5- star recruits within 50 miles of our campus from choosing the likes of UF, FSU, Alabama, and Georgia instead of us. I remember when Saban took over at LSU in 2000, one of the first things he said was "we have to build a recruiting wall around Louisiana" to keep the talent staying home at LSU instead of hemorraghing away. We need to do the same for the greater Tampa Bay area. That should be USF territory, and it isn't.

Miami is not a big boy either

I do not see what the multiplier effect would be for NBC gaining the "last available" college football conference. NBC is likely to gain what any network gains: Advertising revenues from showing the games. Yes, Big East basketball is valuable, but obviously ESPN did not think it so valuable that they would over-pay for Big East football, and that is because football drives the bus in these media deals. I doubt NBC executives will think otherwise. The fact that they and their parent company had a great revenue year does not mean they will be profligate with that money. I would dearly like to be wrong about this because obviously I would like USF to get maximum media dollars. But, the reality seems to be that our football product is significantly less attractive than it was before the realignment (raids) of the past year, and thus we can expect the offers we get from NBC or FOX to reflect that, just as it did for ESPN.

It is Skip's job to coach the players so they do not miss assignments or turn the ball over.

I have never felt worse about the state of USF football

I mean, i am at a loss for words

IMO, I think you are wrong. Why? Ok, since i asked you that, I should first lay out my reasons for thinking we will get less than what was offered to us by ESPN in 2011: 1) Losing WVU, Pitt, and Syracuse hurts our TV appeal in both football and basketball more than adding Temple, SMU, Houston, Boise, and UCF helps it. On balance, the schools that make up today's Big East do not have the media/fan appeal that the schools that left had. If the new schools like SMU and Temple were more valuable to media outlets than schools like WVU and Syracuse were, then it stands to reason that conferences like the ACC and Big 12 would have taken SMU and Temple themselves. But no, they took WVU and Syracuse. 2) While many of us might think ESPN's name is dirt, in media circles they are vastly respected as one of the most successful media companies of all time, and easily the most successful sports media company of all time. What this means is that executives of other companies like FOX and NBC are likely to think twice before offering us significantly more than what ESPN offered during this two-month negotiating window. The thinking could very well be "nobody knows what they are doing in this area more than ESPN, and if they value the Big East at "x" dollars per year, that's probably pretty close to what they are worth", meaning how much they can pay us and still make a profit from advertisers, etc. If you are an executive at NBC sports and you pay us a lot more than ESPN offered and the deal costs NBC money, it is going to be very hard to explain to a Board of Directors why you thought the Big East was worth a lot more than ESPN did, and executives like to keep their jobs. 3) I think that the new members are likely to be willing to settle for what from USF's perspective will be a low-ball offer. Why? Because these schools have been receiving peanuts from their C-USA and MWC media deals, which means that if the "competing" networks are trying to get us to accept, say, $8 million per year for all-sports teams (which from my POV would be disappointing for USF), the new guys like Memphis and Temple are likely to vote "yes" because this would be far, far more than they have gotten in the past. What to us would be a let-down will look like a huge wind-fall to them. Anyway, those are my reasons.

It is starting to look like turning down that $13.8m per school offer from ESPN last year was a really dumb move.

If we lose out, he will surely be gone. It all depends on the final record.

Crikey, when did the Greenery close? That place was the definition of a "USF institution".

Sorry to see the old Fontana Hall go. I never lived there but during my undergrad years of 1983-1986 i spent many nights over there visiting friends and girls, going to the Greenery, etc.

The answer, sadly, is that nothing, neither competively on the field or in terms of fan support, separates us from UCF. If any major conference was thinking about choosing between us, it would be a coin-flip.

Those who think the recent contract extension means that Skip has his job for at least a couple more years are mistaken. No coach can survive very many emails like this one.

I never thought he was a good legislator in a general sense, but will always be grateful for his advocacy of USF. RIP.

I was glad to see Leavitt go, but you unjustly belittle what were solid achievements given the stage of development of our football program.

Me. Life is more important than football. Not to mention the SEC has a reputation of below-average academics as well as off-the-field arrests. And if that's not enough, look at Stanford, Notre Dame, USC, etc; you can have very high academic standards and still win at a high level. I'm not saying we need to be NC contenders and have Ivy standards. But, 100% of the time I will trade a few wins for players who graduate and represent the university well. I would bet that USF's academic ranking (as measured by US News and the like) is about the same, maybe even lower than, the SEC average. That is no slag on our alma mater but it shows you can win big on the football field and still have good academics.

Excellent post. Cheers.

Agreed. Year one was a solid start. Problem is, he was hired and has been paid handsomely to take us to a higher level than what he inherited from Leavitt, and instead the program has clearly headed south. And I see scant evidence to suggest Holtz can turn things around.