re: Auburn wants to leave West & Bama doesnt want Mizzou

quote:

---

bamascott2

---

quote:

---

He's mad our trees and traditions are better

---

Not anymore.

This is why it will likely ultimately get done. When you add a state that has no SEC footprint you force the local media to cover that team and the rest of the conference. You truly do add the STATE population due to media coverage. It makes sense from that standpoint only.

This kind of thinking was valid 30 years ago when local TV/print media mattered. Today, there is almost no such thing as local TV sports. And the print media is rapidly going the way of the telegraph operator.
The fact is, who cares how big the St Louis TV market is? No one in Missouri gives a shite about Missouri football. Much less the rest of the country. Nationally, Mizzou has about as much drawing power and cache as a Louisville or Arizona State. FSU or Clemson would be a much bigger national draw than Mizzou to the average, non-die hard fan. It's total eyeballs in front of TV sets we should aim for and not some Monopoly strategy of adding properties.

quote:

---

But it identifies a venue where it hasn't been played in a decade.

---

You obviously are not very familiar with the etymology of the name "Iron Bowl".

I quote from the quite fantastic book "The Uncivil War" co-written by Bama graduate Scott Brown and Auburn graduate Will Collier:

quote:

---

Former Auburn coach Ralph "Shug" Jordan named the annual Auburn-Alabama game the Iron Bowl during his twenty-five year tenure as the leader of the Tigers. His friend and nemesis, Paul "Bear" Bryant, saw eye-to-eye with Jordan on few matters, but in this case the two legends were in complete agreement. Jordan was referring not only to the iron ore of the Birmingham hills, but to the nature of the Game itself. It is a hard game, but its metal is tempered in a fire of the hottest forge - in the hearts of the teams and the people that follow their every move.

---

You thought/think that "Iron Bowl" refers merely to a rusting venue in a broken town? Not to the heart of the rivalry? Or the players and coaches that play it? Or even the fans?

As long as the teams play against one another and the fans cheer with the same passion that they STILL do to this day, there you will find THE IRON BOWL.

quote:

---

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is, who cares how big the St Louis TV market is? No one in Missouri gives a shite about Missouri football. Much less the rest of the country. Nationally, Mizzou has about as much drawing power and cache as a Louisville or Arizona State. FSU or Clemson would be a much bigger national draw than Mizzou to the average, non-die hard fan. It's total eyeballs in front of TV sets we should aim for and not some Monopoly strategy of adding properties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well said.

---

Not really and totally inaccurate.

quote:

---

If push comes to shove UA-UT will go away. The AU-UA will never go away.

---

This part is most likely true.

(See: nice cordial and not confrontational)

Ok. How much will TV ad revenue increase by adding Missouri? Do you think there would be a noticeable increase in viewership just because we added Missouri?

They're not a sexy pick from a viewing standpoint.

Ok. Found it. Here is part of it. It is from Clay Travis (yeah the guy that started out like SBB, but he is actually extremely knowledgable and seems fairly well connected):

quote:

---

2. This is why the Texas and Missouri markets matter and make sense.

There has been lots of media talk about markets and television footprints, but this makes less sense right now for the SEC. Why? Because the games are already nationally distributed on CBS and ESPN. Ratings may well increase now that a team from Texas -- and potentially Missouri -- is in the SEC, but the actual market availability doesn't change. If you wanted to watch the SEC game of the week in St. Louis, you already had CBS. Same with the night game on ESPN in Texas. Now you may watch more if teams from your states are in the conference, but the markets and television footprint argument makes more sense in the cable subscription context. Why? Because when you add a new market you get to increase the amount of subscription fee that you can charge cable operators to carry your network in those states. The more states you have teams in, the more money you make. As an example, the Big Ten Network makes around .90 cents per subscriber in the eight states where its teams are located. What does it make per subscriber in the other 42 states? Try .05 cents. Given that most of the SEC states view college sports as the primary sporting focus -- unlike the Big Ten where pro sports still dominate -- the SEC per subscriber carriage fees would be higher.

So expanding into Texas and Missouri makes tens of millions -- if not hundreds of millions in the case of Texas -- of dollars and sense using the network model.
The SEC would be able to charge premium carriage rates in eleven states: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Texas.
Adding Missouri and Texas -- a combined population of 31 million -- would move the SEC's population footprint in its states from 50 million to 81 million.

---

Yep. They need to drop mizzu and go after FSU.

Yep. Has been all along.

And Mizzou makes a lot of sense $$ wise.