Replies: 27
| visibility 1
|
Orange Blooded [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11553
Joined: 11/30/95
|
Football Update: Clemson/LSU sets ESPN viewership record
Jan 4, 2013, 11:07 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21869]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15712
Joined: 10/23/12
|
Re: Football Update: Clemson/LSU sets ESPN viewership record
Jan 4, 2013, 11:13 AM
|
|
I would love to see the viewership breakdown by state or region.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21869]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15712
Joined: 10/23/12
|
Re: Football Update: Clemson/LSU sets ESPN viewership record
Jan 4, 2013, 11:14 AM
|
|
I was peaved they blacked it out on espn3. Could've been even higher viewership.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16363
Joined: 11/30/98
|
We couldn't have had a better platform for redemption!
Jan 4, 2013, 11:14 AM
|
|
Wonderful to replace the Orange Bowl debacle, which has been burned into the national consiousness for a year now, with spectacular game that practically every college fan in the nation was watching from the opening kick-off right up until the final gun (and beyond) ... Go Tigers!!!
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [52371]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23016
Joined: 10/10/11
|
Much better than getting caught up in the many bowls Jan 1
Jan 4, 2013, 1:20 PM
|
|
Our game was the center of attention for the night in college football. Perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17626]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11052
Joined: 10/13/08
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [49613]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30357
Joined: 12/10/98
|
There's your footprint, SEC!***
Jan 4, 2013, 11:17 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3839]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5055
Joined: 9/10/01
|
wonder if espn will catch crap for calling it peach bowl?***
Jan 4, 2013, 11:41 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [255]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 692
Joined: 7/2/04
|
They need to bring back the Peach name. When the playoff
Jan 4, 2013, 11:45 AM
|
|
starts it will be the only bowl in the rotation that just has a sponsor name.
|
|
|
|
|
Head Coach [773]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 813
Joined: 8/10/04
|
There would have been more if Mizzou had been playing
Jan 4, 2013, 11:46 AM
|
|
right Mike Slive??? Clemson in the SEC equals eyeballs on televisions, just saying.
|
|
|
|
|
All-Conference [435]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 555
Joined: 10/30/09
|
Re: There would have been more if Mizzou had been playing
Jan 4, 2013, 1:34 PM
|
|
I've lived in St. Louis for the last 6 years and Mizzou has been pretty decent. But when I go to a sports bar to watch Clemson the place is usually empty. I get my own big screen and often they'll put the sound from my game on the speakers. One time I went in a little late and there were games on, but they were blasting Katy Perry, and nobody (all 5 people) seemed to mind. This is a multiple pro-sports town and the Cardinals rule the roost. Same with KC and the Chiefs, even when they suck.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2213]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3397
Joined: 9/2/07
|
18 million of those viewers were pulling for...
Jan 4, 2013, 1:11 PM
|
|
..the CLEMSON TIGERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10402]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 17413
Joined: 8/9/10
|
Re: Football Update: Clemson/LSU sets ESPN viewership record
Jan 4, 2013, 1:25 PM
|
|
Like I have been saying win your games and everything will work out fine.All I have been hearing is that Clemson is a good team nothing about Clemson being in the ACC.That win will go a long way on our top ten preseason ranking.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27185]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16027
Joined: 10/13/08
|
Which demonstrates how stupid the argument was that Clemson
Jan 4, 2013, 1:35 PM
|
|
would not be a good "fit" in the SEC due to viewership "footprint".
Tiger Droppings, I say.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3233]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 4960
Joined: 11/3/06
|
The issue is that they already have the SC viewership
Jan 4, 2013, 3:18 PM
|
|
in contract due to USuC being a member. Adding us doesn't add anything to the contract.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1335]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 2572
Joined: 1/16/02
|
Re: The issue is that most games are Nationally shown now
Jan 4, 2013, 3:30 PM
|
|
so the foot print is not just in a local area but Nationally
if different networks are showing games at the same time it's likely Clemson vs and SEC team will out draw another game.
I think Nationally Clemson is very well know, you see the helmet and fans know exactly who that is, Clemson has proven they can win a National Title, beat one of the top two teams in the SEC most years and fans all over the nation will tune in to watch Clemson play
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1641]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2190
Joined: 8/17/09
|
I think the argument is moot, but
Jan 4, 2013, 5:40 PM
|
|
the most important thing to a tv contract is eyeballs. We can and would be a good addition.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17626]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11052
Joined: 10/13/08
|
You nailed it.
Jan 4, 2013, 7:45 PM
[ in reply to Re: The issue is that most games are Nationally shown now ] |
|
"... you see the helmet and fans know exactly who that is". Our logo is simply elegant while the one from that school in the middle of the state is unrecognizable from a distance and looks like a glob of chicken poop from close up.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95419
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I don't buy that.
Jan 4, 2013, 7:37 PM
[ in reply to The issue is that they already have the SC viewership ] |
|
There's no way it wouldn't put more eyes on the SEC were Clemson to play there.
I'm all against being an SEC school. I don't want to swim in the sewer either.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [39020]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 51623
Joined: 11/20/04
|
It's about $$$, not eyeballs.
Jan 4, 2013, 7:53 PM
|
|
The way the television contracts for the Big Ten Network (the blueprint everyone is following) work, cable operators within the conference's 'footprint' pay $.80/subscriber to carry the network. Cable operators in states *without* Big Ten teams pay $.10/subscriber.
Under this model, it makes ZERO sense to add Clemson to the SEC when you could add, say, NC State and Virginia Tech, who expand the footprint. Look at it this way; if the SEC were being formed today, Auburn, Vanderbilt and one of the Mississippis would be left out in the cold.
That's why our most likely landing spot should the ACC implode (still very possible) is and always has been the Big XII.
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [548]
TigerPulse: 54%
Posts: 1049
Joined: 11/2/10
|
Re: It's about $$$, not eyeballs.
Jan 4, 2013, 9:06 PM
|
|
There are more Clemson football fans in North carolina and virgina, than there are anywhere besides SC.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [39020]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 51623
Joined: 11/20/04
|
That doesn't matter.
Jan 4, 2013, 9:27 PM
|
|
They get EIGHT TIMES as much money by adding a team in a new state. It's like a whole new source of revenue.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4896]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5278
Joined: 8/24/11
|
Eyeballs = $$$. Not footprint
Jan 4, 2013, 9:22 PM
|
|
When more people watch the ratings are higher and the network gets more for the ads. Footprint means nothing if people don't watch. For proof look at Viginia's Chick-fil-a ratings or any BC game.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [39020]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 51623
Joined: 11/20/04
|
Incorrect.
Jan 4, 2013, 9:31 PM
|
|
Add a team in a new state and you make money before that team ever plays a down.
You're thinking about this in a totally logical manner, but the contracts in place make your assessment inaccurate.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4896]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5278
Joined: 8/24/11
|
Really? My daughter sells TV advertising on ESPN
Jan 4, 2013, 9:31 PM
|
|
The rates are based on how many people watch regardless of where they are located. The only thing footprint does is get them higher rates in higher saturation markets but the net is the same and based on total viewers.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [39020]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 51623
Joined: 11/20/04
|
That's what makes ESPN money.
Jan 4, 2013, 9:34 PM
|
|
I'm talking about what makes the SEC money.
The SEC decides who to add to the conference, not ESPN.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4896]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5278
Joined: 8/24/11
|
But the conference is paid by the networks
Jan 4, 2013, 9:42 PM
|
|
So the more people who watch their games the more the networks pay the conference. The conference wants to add viewers period. If it were really about footprint then BC would be in the SEC.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [39020]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 51623
Joined: 11/20/04
|
Not when the conference has their own network.
Jan 4, 2013, 10:43 PM
|
|
The SEC's contracts with ESPN and CBS would fluctuate somewhat with additions like FSU and Clemson, but the SEC network will make even more money adding teams like NC State and Virginia Tech because it's two more states where they will make $.80/subscriber instead of $.10/subscriber
This is why the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland, and it's why the SEC has no interest in Clemson.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 27
| visibility 1
|
|
|