|
Replies: 14
| visibility 866
|
All-TigerNet [11161]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10900
Joined: 9/17/07
|
Things like matchups are more important than TV Markets.
Nov 30, 2012, 10:58 AM
|
|
It's clear that ESPN is pushing this "expand into additional markets" crap. I'm telling you that doesn't matter. The strength of the matchups in the league week in and week out will make the ratings, not the # of eyeballs watching TV at any given time. If Clemson and FSU were to join the SEC, I'd bet more people in the Northeast will be watching FSU/Clemson versus LSU, Florida, Bama, etc., than they will be watching Rutgers Vs. Michigan. More tickets will be sold for the Clemson/FSU games, so the individual schools will get more revenue as well. I say keep the conferences in a tight region and strengthen the matchups in those regions.
How much of a football ticket revenue hit is the B1G taking per school when visiting fans can't travel from Minnesota to Rutgers for a Saturday game? How about a Saturday noon game between Rutgers and Georgia Tech. These conferences should have learned from the ACC, who expanded early, that poor game attendance from a large geographic footprint and a diluted product are the long-run results.
I think these commissioners and ESPN are totally missing the boat, watering down the College Football product, and hurting their business and their conferences in the long run.
I guess it's just the money is everything mentality we have today. People see the monetary value of the farm their family has owned for 100 years and sell it. They don't think twice about how much that land meant to their ancestors, and how they would have been devastated to give it up. Long term value for these Universities does not come from the money they get from ESPN this year, but from their history, their rivalries, the traditions, and the great matchups with schools NEAR them.
This stuff makes me sick.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-TigerNet [10887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15066
Joined: 8/6/10
|
I agree with you on everything except the money.
Nov 30, 2012, 11:00 AM
|
|
Your initial point is absolutely correct.
However, money isn't the problem. Your argument about matchups is just as valid when talking about money: more people will watch good matchups, and that means more money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11161]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10900
Joined: 9/17/07
|
You're right.
Nov 30, 2012, 11:02 AM
|
|
Schools are jumping for higher paychecks now, when over time the quality of the match ups will be more valuable and bring more TV and ticket money to the schools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15066
Joined: 8/6/10
|
Yep. It is short-sighted, just like BC.***
Nov 30, 2012, 11:06 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7159]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10136
Joined: 6/27/07
|
ever since obama was voted in everthing has went haywire***
Nov 30, 2012, 11:01 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [25471]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14968
Joined: 10/12/08
|
Re: Things like matchups are more important than TV Markets.
Nov 30, 2012, 11:04 AM
|
|
Teams will make more money off of shared TV revenue than on butts in the stands. The attendance figs. may drop by 30% for some teams and some games. But that will be significantly offset by tv revenue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7913]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13703
Joined: 1/8/02
|
that's it...not about butts in the stands***
Nov 30, 2012, 11:06 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7913]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13703
Joined: 1/8/02
|
B1G expanding has nothing to do with ESPN
Nov 30, 2012, 11:05 AM
|
|
they simply want to expand the footprint of their own network.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17285]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14229
Joined: 12/14/98
|
I see the same dilution effect
Nov 30, 2012, 11:07 AM
|
|
We get the B1G Ten Network in FL. But who wants to watch a replay of Minnisota vs Maryland? Or Ga Tech vs. Iowa?
I do not see long term value. How do these products capture a more diversified viewing audience?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7913]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13703
Joined: 1/8/02
|
it's not about you watching...it's about them being able to
Nov 30, 2012, 11:09 AM
|
|
generate additional revenue....I have the Big Ten network here at my house...the Big Ten network gets essentially 10 cents a month from Comcast for me. If the Big Ten expands into Atlanta they get around $1 from comcast a month because it's a "home" market for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [481]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 777
Joined: 7/19/10
|
correct about B1G, but I think its anyones guess on ESPN
Nov 30, 2012, 11:35 AM
|
|
The MNC last year was the lowest rated MNC game in the history of the BCS. Thats because the regular season, 6-3 snoozer didnt generate a lot of excitement for a rematch, and because there arent a lot of people in Alabama and Louisiana, relatively speaking.
I agree completely with the OP though, that college presidents and ADs are selling the family farm and being completely short sighted. It never works out. Its kind of like watching a car crash in slow motion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7913]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13703
Joined: 1/8/02
|
the ratings though will be through the roof for Bama/ND***
Nov 30, 2012, 11:40 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [481]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 777
Joined: 7/19/10
|
Re: correct about B1G, but I think its anyones guess on ESPN
Nov 30, 2012, 11:42 AM
[ in reply to correct about B1G, but I think its anyones guess on ESPN ] |
|
Miami, Fla, FSU, USF; Georgia, GT, SCU, Clemson; Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vandy; Ole Miss, MSU, LSU, Arkansas will ultimately be our 16 team pod. Unfortunately, its only gonna get worse before it gets better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [253]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 406
Joined: 9/10/00
|
# of eyeballs watching is meaningless...
Nov 30, 2012, 11:29 AM
|
|
It's all about number of cable/satellite subscribers in the market to which a conference is expanding. Those people can be watching Honey Boo Boo all day long and never even turn on a football game - it doesn't matter.
But eventually, I do think you're right. There is not unlimited money for college football and at some point down the line, the quality of the games that are delivered has to be there. But it will probably require a "college football bubble burst" for sanity to prevail...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member [28]
TigerPulse: 38%
Posts: 74
Joined: 3/3/06
|
Re: Things like matchups are more important than TV Markets.
Nov 30, 2012, 11:48 AM
|
|
I've lived in NYC for three years and Boston for two and I promise I'm not trying to stir the pot here...but no one knows what state Clemson is even in. College football fans will watch, but the casual sports fan isn't going to care at all! Virginia Tech, FSU, West Virginia and Miami all have more interest in the NE than Clemson...not because they are better but because people know at least a little about the school (like where it is). I would say that this is one of Clemson's biggest challenges...as well as a school like Auburn (the rivalry with Alabama is what has helped them become recognized.)
There are a handfull of people that know college football up here, but the majority have no clue and don't even know it. You would be AMAZED to hear who they think the top programs are in the country. All they hear are the national media talking heads and are clueless to some of the biggest schools in the sport.
This is not a knock on Clemson, it's just reality and it doesn't do anyone any good not to recognize it. There are a handful of schools that are a national brand and Clemson isn't one of them...very few schools are. That's why it's so important to align yourself with the schools that are in a major conference and do have that national brand.
Expanding new TV markets are not important because of TV ratings for games broadcast on ESPN or ABC, they are important because of the number of cable subscribers in a conferences footprint if they decide to make their own cable network...that's it! If the SEC decides to create an SEC network with ESPN now every cable provider in Texas, Missouri and Kansas City along with every state in the original SEC footprint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 14
| visibility 866
|
|
|
50
