re: Why Mizzou?

No one cares to watch Ole Miss, MSU, Vandy, UK and for that matter, USC if Spurrier wasn't there. You could probably throw in Arkansas as well. Missouri draws more TVs than any of the "bottom 4" SEC programs. If the SEC can get FSU or VT, great, but odds are against it.

They may draw more TVs but Mizzou football has less fans than all those programs except Vandy. Almost no one is Missouri gives a shite about any of Mizzou's teams.

I think WVU is the best fit for the SEC should the Missouri option fall through (obviously...I went to school there).

Having said that WVU fits best in the ACC in everything but academics.

A dream situation for WVU is if the SEC and VTECH (hated rival of WVU) and FSU decide to join the SEC with WVU as #16 (again if Missouri falls through). These three teams would gain more in TV sets than Missouri could ever hope to bring.

Also...WVU has interest in Pittsburgh market, DC market, and Baltimore market (future games with Maryland scheduled in Baltimore). Not to mention the amount of WVU alum living in New Jersey.

WVU has the number 16th ranked merchandise sales in the nation (Missouri is 18th). This has to be evidence of a regional/national following since many think only the 1.8 million in the state of WV watch the Mountaineers.

WVU and Kentucky would be more of a natural rival than Missouri and Kentucky.

No matter how you sugar coat it...the SEC is adding two middle of the road Big 12 teams. If it is more about the number of tv sets than quality of product then Missouri is the answer.

I am a big fan of the SEC. I only watch WVU, Notre Dame (family) and the SEC. I DO NOT WATCH any SEC game that involves Kentucky, Vandy, Ole Miss, Miss St...Missouri and A&M will be on that list in the near future.

IMO...WVU will end up in the SEC...or they will end up in the Big LEAST with 10-12 teams and will somehow keep AQ status (thanks to military academies) and will come out smelling like roses after all the perceived rejection.

quote:

---

Does FSU have a better brand and bring more exciting match ups than Mizzou? Absolutely, and it's not close...The powers in charge about realignment DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE FANS PERSPECTIVE.

---

They shouldn't if the fans just go along with everything they say.

But what if the fans made it be known that they don't want to just settle for some scrub team just because the front office says it'll make more money for the executives?

It's just sad how everyone just seems to be going along with the flow and not stopping to think about how this will change the actual product they are getting for their money.

quote:

---

Reality is somewhat different.

---

Oh, jesus, spare me. I guess if they ran the numbers and found out Wake Forest would generate $1 more in revenue, everyone would jump on the Wake Forest bandwagon.

The REALITY is that if the fans, and the fan associations for each school, made it clear that they wanted a particular school, and that there may be economic ramifications if not, there would be more consideration of the fans desires.

But for some reason consumer demand is just frowned upon these days. we're supposed to buy what they offer us - at their price - and shut up and sit down.

Note to the SEC if they add Missouri...you will need to hold conference meetings with all 14 teams and then dismiss Missouri directors and then tell the rest of the 13 what is really going on...they have more holes and leaks than the Longhorn defense

quote:

---

Missouri wants into the big10 - which coincidentally chose Nebraska instead (2 million people Nebraska versus 6 million people Missouri) And we both know why Nebraska was chosen over Missouri. It has nothing to do with the tv sets. It was all about the prestige of the football program.

---

True, adding Neb was more about brand power than market footprint, HOWEVER, Neb still added a new state and expanded the Big10 footprint. FSU doesn't do that.

Yes, FSU is a better brand, better fit culturally/geographically, and has a much better fan base. They simply don't add a tangible amount of TV sets, regardless of how much you think people in Missouri will or won't watch the SEC.

The SEC may only get one "look-in" on their contracts to renegotiate (I haven't seen the contract so I can only speculate on what others have said), so if you are going to add teams with that in mind you want to add the most market value possible to get to 14. If that's the case and adding teams 15 and 16 doesn't allow you to renegotiate (ie, pre-established increases are stated in the contract for the addition of new teams), then FSU definitely makes a lot of sense if you can get Florida to agree to it.

There is no SEC network...yet. There has been a TON of speculation that it is going to happen however, and I would be shocked if it doesn't considering the potential financial windfall.

The point is, it is highly likely they will pick team #14 based almost entirely of increasing the SEC's tv footprint as much as possible.

quote:

---

So what you're saying is that the number of people in Florida who would be interested in signing up for the SEC Network would not change if FSU were added? These FSU fans would already be signed up for the SECN even if their team stayed in the ACC?

---

No, what I'm saying is that when tv contracts are negotiated, projections consider all potential viewers contained within the existing footprint of the conference. In other words, from purely a paper standpoint, adding FSU doesn't add any new viewers because they already count the whole state of Florida when projecting viewership for UF. That's why there is such emphasis on new markets.

Considerations for increased saturation are going to be substantially smaller than those for the introduction of a new state and/or new markets. Sure, it's theoretically possible for more viewers to be gained from adding FSU than Mizzou, but there is no way to predict that during negotiations. They always go by total potential viewers.

Inevitably, there is going to be some overlap of fan bases, and certain % of FSU fans will likely have the SEC Network in their cable package either because they are sports fans, or because it is included in their particular cable plan. Depending on negotiations with cable companies, you could end up in situation where adding FSU gives you a very small increase in viewers simply because they would have the SEC network anyway. The is especially true when evaluating Tier1/Tier2 contracts and why total potential viewers are ALWAYS used.

In short, adding new states and new markets will almost always give a larger increase in market value than increasing saturation in existing markets.

quote:

---

Wrong! CBS doesn't give a shite about the footprint of the conference. They project how many viewers total they will have NATIONWIDE.

---

While ratings will be important to CBS, as they would ABC, how do they project which teams will get national broadcasts and what ratings to expect up to 10 years in the future? I guarantee CBS cares about how big the SEC footprint is, because ratings will correlate with that footprint.

A larger proportion of fans within the footprint will watch the game than those without, and increasing the size of the conference footprint will likewise increase both national and regional ratings for teams within that conference, as a higher % of the population will associate itself with that conf.

quote:

---

Bullshite. Quit talking out of your butt. During negotiations probably the most important information is past performance evidenced by past ratings. I would certainly believe that FSU averages better ratings than Missouri.

---

Ratings play a part, particularly with Tier1 rights seeing as they are nationally broadcast, but the largest part of your viewership will still come from your regional base. In addition, using previous ratings as your primary factor excludes the possibility of new fans watching games related to their conference that doesn't include their team, or non-fans in new regions watching games.

For Tier2 rights, this is particularly an issue since new teams added to a conference are also joining a new tv region in terms of regional coverage. With A&M now in the SEC, for example, coverage shifts East and will be more available in SEC states than former BigXII states. Likewise, regional broadcasts for the SEC now extend into Texas and its 21 million new viewers. This makes previous ratings for regional broadcasts largely irrelevant.

quote:

---

Now if what you meant was cable deals, then the total amount of people you can force your network onto does matter, but THERE IS NO SEC NETWORK. Not for at least 12 years.

---

How do you figure it will be at least 12 years? They are already discussing it. There will almost certainly be one within 5 yrs tops, especially considering how much money is involved and the success the Big10 network has had.

The SEC Network is going to happen sooner than later.

No way it takes 12 years.

this stuff isn't rocket science.

Missouri is a potential get simply b/c the SEC and likely partner ESPN will be looking to add as many people people as possible when they force the SEC network into cable packages.

why is this so hard for some to comprehend?