Mikovio wrote:I was just proceeding under your implied premise that market size correlates with the size of TV contracts. You make that assumption every time you say Bradley can never increase anyone's TV contract because it's in Peoria. It's not my assumption-- it's yours, and I haven't argued against it (until now). It's true to a degree, but if market size were that important to a TV contract and TV contracts are the end-all be-all to expansion then they would never take a team in an 800k metro over a team in a 2MM metro. But they did, so that should tell us that having a smaller market can be overcome by strength of a program, which contributes millions in NCAA shares as I mentioned, but also in TV ratings.
Incorrect. I said that Bradley will never increase the Big East's TV contract, and market size is a significant reason why. None of the factors that would increase a TV contract -- market size, national name, national viewers, significant alumni presence in major markets, etc., etc., etc. -- exist for Bradley. There are numerous things that increase a TV contract, and Bradley presents none of them. Yes, if you had the success of Duke, of course you'd increase the TV contract ...
But that's a strawman argument. I never said you wouldn't increase their TV deal if you were Duke.
How do you know for a fact that adding Creighton increased their TV contract? Are you saying that the strength of their program and star power offset the smallness of their market? I think that argument (ie, Creighton's star power brings their ratings above SLU's) is false, but if you do believe that then why do you deny out of hand that the same dynamic could take place at Bradley? Seems inconsistent.
I know for a fact that adding Creighton increased their TV contract because it already happened. It's an illogical idea to argue that the Big East would have had a bigger per-team TV contract without Creighton and added them anyway. Logic argues that did not happen. Feel free to prove otherwise, though -- you're the one arguing an idea that goes contrary to logic and the history of conference expansion.
I'm denying the same dynamic exists at Bradley. You're entire argument is based on so many theoretical possibilities of future success it's absurd.
I'm not being childish. You're putting words in my mouth and setting up strawmen. You purported to address my "points" by asking me to compare Bradley to the programs already in the league. But I never argued BU was on their level, or ever will be. If I throw together a strawman like that by all means please call me out on it.
I in fact did not call you childish. So, in fact, you are putting words in my mouth and setting up strawmen. Please re-read what I said.
I agree with point 1. But point 2 relies on several assumptions you make that are questionable at best. For instance,
1) You assume that a conference only looks at TV dollars when making realignment choices, and ignores the impact on revenue and expenses from other sources, as if all non-TV dollars are Monopoly money or something, and
2) You assume the NBE is on the same level as the SEC, B1G, etc (and so the NBE's actions will mimic theirs). It's not. The football-playing major conferences get $20 million every year just for one (guaranteed) appearance in a BCS bowl. They often get two. On top of that, their TV deals are worth $20-30MM per team annually. A Final Four appearance in basketball is only worth $10MM, and the best TV deals available to non-football schools top out at $4MM.
1) I am not assuming a conference only looks at TV dollars. I'm assuming TV dollars are the largest single source of income for major conferences. I'm stating that other sources of revenue/expenses increase/decrease very slowly from a single addition (such as your assertion about travel costs, where the difference a single team would have on travel costs, unless significantly outside of the team's geographic footprint, is rather irrelevant). And my assumption regarding TV dollars has been proven with essentially every expansion move in the history of conference expansion.
2) Until a conference EVER expands with a team that causes the per-team TV revenue to decrease, it's worthless to pretend they will. It has simply never happened. Your entire idea relies on the idea that the Big East will do what no conference has ever done before.
I'm not quite sure what you're arguing here. I just thought the "NBE owns IL" claim was ridiculous to any Illinoisan. I'm not saying that by adding Bradley they would "own" IL either.
My point isn't in regards to what ownership of a state a particular team actually has. It's that conferences typically do not want multiple teams in a single state. How much of a market share that team owns from a particular state is kind of irrelevant in that. It's more about the potential market share a team could derive -- generally speaking, a team like DePaul will not want another team in Illinois, because that would provide in-state competition that could hurt their program. It also doubles regional markets, which is not preferable for regional TV deals, and duplicates recruiting grounds -- which is a positive sometimes with Florida, Texas, and California, but I don't believe Illinois is in that area. I'm not as familiar with basketball recruiting, though -- if Illinois is top 5 in basketball recruiting, that might actually work in your favor.
As a Florida State alumnus, we will never join the SEC. This is despite the fact that we're a major power in college athletics, one of the biggest national TV draws, in one of the biggest recruiting regions in college athletics, etc. We will never join the SEC because the SEC has continuously (since the early 90's, when they did try to get us) rejected the idea of duplicating states they already own. As I showed above, that is a mindset that has been duplicated throughout college athletics -- Rutgers in 1995 is the only exception of a second team being added from one state to a major conference in decades without direct political intervention, such as with Virginia Tech.
Regardless, I don't think recruiting downstate IL would be a draw for BU admission to the NBE.
And that's my point. Illinois' importance in basketball recruiting (I know they're a very big recruiting area, but I don't know if they're top 3 the way FL/TX/CA are in football) might allow an exception, but you'd need to be very big in rural Illinois to make that argument. You'd have to divide IL into Chicago and rural, giving DePaul the presence in Chicago and Bradley the pull outside of it.
Also, it sounds like Dayton will join Xavier as two Ohio teams in the NBE, or at least was strongly considered the last time around, so again a highly questionable premise.
From what I've heard, the only reason Dayton might not join the NBE is because of Xavier fighting against having a second team from Ohio.
My premise isn't questionable unless Dayton is added.
You argument has inconsistent logic, a weak foundation and compares apples to oranges. Bradley has been a top 40 program for most of its basketball history and I don't see why it can't be again.
When was the last time Bradley was a top 40 program for more than a single season?
When a team is invited by a new conference often it's the new conference that pays the exit fee. I know that's what happened when Temple was poached by the (old) BE from the MAC with a similar sized fee last year. A $2MM exit fee amounts to a one time payment of $200k per team so I doubt it would be a deterrent. SLU wasn't turning down a NBE invitation.
Of course not. But if the Big East was faced with the idea of adding Creighton and having Saint Louis wait a season or two, or adding Saint Louis and paying the exit fee for them, if those two programs were fairly close in what they were looking for anyway, the $2 million exit fee might have been enough to put Creighton ahead of them (which doesn't cost the teams anything) and enough to have Saint Louis prefer to wait to see how things work out.
Saint Louis doesn't lose anything by waiting. The NBE will still want them regardless.
