- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
All this talk about markets is misguided
Posted on 8/15/11 at 8:19 am
Posted on 8/15/11 at 8:19 am
only really helps if the SEC is rolling out a cable network to plug in cable packages in those markets
the big10 network, for example, gets a certain amount per cable/satellite customer who buys a tier that has the big10 network within it. that person doesn't have to watch the big10N, and ratings don't matter for the bottom line. market matters in that case. this was also the pac10's gameplan last year. expand to texas, colorado, and strengthen the hold within the west coast. they'd have a shot at getting the pac10 network in every market west of houston/denver (and their total population/media center exposure would be insane)
VIEWERS matter for SEC expansion. we are paid by ESPN/CBS to broadcast games. more viewers = higher ratings = more ad revenue for ESPN/CBS. market isn't completely irrelevant, but it's not the major factor. we have to remember that there are a finite number of games to be shown as of now (this may change, but that will lead to conflict b/w CBS and ESPN, so it's hard to speculate). if we add teams, we still keep the same # of national games. so to make the deal more valuable, we have to increase viewership from what we have.
for example, all of this talk about Missouri is silly for the time being. yes, it would expand into a new metro market that would be large. but would the total viewership really increase the bottom line? would more people watch missouri at 645pm on saturday than MSU or Auburn fans? now FSU is in a market that is largely covered by a member school, but i doubt many would argue that FSU wouldn't improve the total viewers over a MSU
and as for a conference cable network, i think that's risky. it works for the big10 b/c they're as football mad as the SEC, and they have a LOT more population centers within the conference. the pac12 has the population centers to make it a very viable enterprise. the SEC doesn't have those population centers. it's no guarantee that we can follow the same model and have the same success
the big10 network, for example, gets a certain amount per cable/satellite customer who buys a tier that has the big10 network within it. that person doesn't have to watch the big10N, and ratings don't matter for the bottom line. market matters in that case. this was also the pac10's gameplan last year. expand to texas, colorado, and strengthen the hold within the west coast. they'd have a shot at getting the pac10 network in every market west of houston/denver (and their total population/media center exposure would be insane)
VIEWERS matter for SEC expansion. we are paid by ESPN/CBS to broadcast games. more viewers = higher ratings = more ad revenue for ESPN/CBS. market isn't completely irrelevant, but it's not the major factor. we have to remember that there are a finite number of games to be shown as of now (this may change, but that will lead to conflict b/w CBS and ESPN, so it's hard to speculate). if we add teams, we still keep the same # of national games. so to make the deal more valuable, we have to increase viewership from what we have.
for example, all of this talk about Missouri is silly for the time being. yes, it would expand into a new metro market that would be large. but would the total viewership really increase the bottom line? would more people watch missouri at 645pm on saturday than MSU or Auburn fans? now FSU is in a market that is largely covered by a member school, but i doubt many would argue that FSU wouldn't improve the total viewers over a MSU
and as for a conference cable network, i think that's risky. it works for the big10 b/c they're as football mad as the SEC, and they have a LOT more population centers within the conference. the pac12 has the population centers to make it a very viable enterprise. the SEC doesn't have those population centers. it's no guarantee that we can follow the same model and have the same success
This post was edited on 8/15/11 at 8:33 am
5
Posted on 8/15/11 at 8:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
only really helps if the SEC is rolling out a cable network to plug in cable packages in those markets
If ESPN or someone else is willing to pay more money per school then it matters.
Posted on 8/15/11 at 8:29 am to Draconian Sanctions
but ESPN isn't going to pay more b/c we have a team in a bigger market. they're going to pay more if we secure a fanbase that will have more people tuning in than the current team who will be replaced
TAMU has value b/c aggies watch aggie football, not b/c there are a lot of aggies in houston/dallas. where they are watching from is irrelevant, as long as they produce better replacement numbers (Which TAMU almost assuredly will)
TAMU has value b/c aggies watch aggie football, not b/c there are a lot of aggies in houston/dallas. where they are watching from is irrelevant, as long as they produce better replacement numbers (Which TAMU almost assuredly will)
Posted on 8/15/11 at 8:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
but i doubt many would argue that FSU wouldn't improve the total viewers over a MSU
You'd be wrong. A number of posters made that very argument in this thread: LINK
I tend to agree with you, from the same thread:
quote:
LINKIf UF gets 48% of FL and FSU gets 25-35%, is that better than getting 45% of VA/DC or Mizz area? I don't know the answer for sure but I would guess the new markets would be better.
You are right the local market numbers would be a loss. But, imagine that Mizz match-up draws 2% of the national viewers, but an FSU match-up pulls in 5%. 3% more of the nation is bigger than 45% of Mizz area.
You are confusing the larger percent of a market vs. the larger number of overall viewers. I mean would you rather have 3% of 115 million (3.45M) viewers or 45% of 5 million (2.25M).
Obviously, I made these numbers up to illustrate a point, but I don't have the data to run. However, I bet Mike Slive does; so, if he wants FSU, there is likely a reason. I'm just trying to show you that owning 45% of market could still be less beneficial than owning a team in the same market.
LINK
This post was edited on 8/15/11 at 8:37 am
Posted on 8/15/11 at 8:32 am to Archie Bengal Bunker
that's supposed to say WOULDN'T 
FSU would bring more viewers and is therefore more valuable. i corrected the OP
FSU would bring more viewers and is therefore more valuable. i corrected the OP
This post was edited on 8/15/11 at 8:33 am
Posted on 8/15/11 at 8:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that's supposed to say WOULDN'T
I edited for you, but I knew what you meant. And the point still stands. Many posters DID make the argument that the new Mizzou Market > FSU match-ups/ any "national appeal" FSU might have.
Again, I agree with you though. Match-ups cause people to tune in, and a FSU vs. X SEC team is a better match-up than Missouri vs. X SEC team.
Edit: I don't care either way. And, I honestly don't think FSU is going. They've had a chance before and didn't. I just think that FSU would be one of the better options out there, if available.
This post was edited on 8/15/11 at 8:42 am
Posted on 8/15/11 at 8:41 am to Archie Bengal Bunker
if we want to increase our tv value, FSU should be the #1 target within the region. sorry for the confusion in the OP
FSU brings a legit fanbase who watches games, as well as a national bandwagon following from the 90s success
Missouri does not bring either. UL is the worst option that has been posted, imho. we have a team in kentucky (so no new market), UL doesn't have a large fanbase, and it has no national following. VT would be the middle option of the 3
FSU brings a legit fanbase who watches games, as well as a national bandwagon following from the 90s success
Missouri does not bring either. UL is the worst option that has been posted, imho. we have a team in kentucky (so no new market), UL doesn't have a large fanbase, and it has no national following. VT would be the middle option of the 3
Posted on 8/15/11 at 8:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
but ESPN isn't going to pay more b/c we have a team in a bigger market. they're going to pay more if we secure a fanbase that will have more people tuning in than the current team who will be replaced
Yes and no. Casual "fans" in Texas who maybe don't have a direct aTm connection will be more likely to watch as well.
Posted on 8/15/11 at 8:42 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Yes and no. Casual "fans" in Texas who maybe don't have a direct aTm connection will be more likely to watch as well.
i'd say they're much more likely to watch UT, OU, or OSU than TAMU (esp with the big12/texas connection)
Posted on 8/15/11 at 8:44 am to Archie Bengal Bunker
quote:
Again, I agree with you though. Match-ups cause people to tune in
along with the team's fanbase and its national appeal. FSU has both appeals, and will create popular matchups
Missouri doesn't have local or national appeal, and i don't know who would care about a Mizzou game in conference (unless they got elite somehow)
Louisville makes no sense
Posted on 8/15/11 at 8:46 am to SlowFlowPro
I think you may also consider the number of viewers in the new market watching games that do not involve their team. It may not only be about the number of people in Missouri watching a Missouri game at 6:45 vs the number of people in Alabama watching an Auburn game at 6:45, but how many more Missouri fans (or A&M fans in Texas) will now be watching the Auburn game because it has a direct impact on their team?
Posted on 8/15/11 at 8:47 am to MOT
quote:
but how many more Missouri fans (or A&M fans in Texas) will now be watching the Auburn game because it has a direct impact on their team?
that will still only have an effect if that fanbase is large and rabid, and we would still want to pick that fanbase
FSU would deliver more of those fans, too
Posted on 8/15/11 at 9:00 am to SlowFlowPro
The idea of adding media markets is a little strange in that CBS/ESPN broadcast nationally. There aren't any media markets for SEC to expand into that don't already have CBS/ESPN.
Posted on 8/15/11 at 9:13 am to jacks40
yeah it makes sense when you're trying to push a cable network, but it's not that logical with the setup we currently have
and, we may want to push a cable network with a new deal, but i don't know if we're set up to do that (for reasons above)
and, we may want to push a cable network with a new deal, but i don't know if we're set up to do that (for reasons above)
Posted on 8/15/11 at 9:18 am to SlowFlowPro
People need to realize VT does not guarantee the entire DC market, that area is very split when it comes to college sports DC is a pro sports town. If Maryland ever gets back to bcs bowl they will get way more pub then the hokies
Posted on 8/15/11 at 9:26 am to jacks40
quote:
The idea of adding media markets is a little strange in that CBS/ESPN broadcast nationally. There aren't any media markets for SEC to expand into that don't already have CBS/ESPN.
Not all of the SEC games are shown nationally on ESPN. This is where adding the new markets comes into play. The "regional games" that ESPN shows are only shown within the geographic area of the conference. With the addition of TAMU, the region size increases within Texas (42% of current SEC population). The ad dollars would be sold, as would the contract for rights, on potential viewership.
The addition of FSU increases the likelihood of ESPN showing a "regional game" in the larger media markets with FSU fans. This would get SEC "regional games" broadcast in LA and NYC when given a choice over OU and Baylor where as now, if State & Kentucky are playing are playing, ESPN will show the OU v. Baylor game 4 out of 5 times. If it was FSU and Vandy, there might be a reason to show that game on the east coast as opposed to the OU game.
Posted on 8/15/11 at 9:26 am to jacks40
quote:
The idea of adding media markets is a little strange in that CBS/ESPN broadcast nationally. There aren't any media markets for SEC to expand into that don't already have CBS/ESPN.
Most people are using new markets (we ain't gotta team there) as synonymous with increased viewers if we add a team. Some do think that because we are broadcast in a market, then we own it because we're the SEC! That's a problem.
Posted on 8/15/11 at 9:28 am to Indiana Tiger
Think the media is starting to catch on to this idea.
I've seen increased use of the term "increase conference footprint" rather than "add media markets"
I've seen increased use of the term "increase conference footprint" rather than "add media markets"
Posted on 8/15/11 at 9:36 am to PetTiger
quote:
Not all of the SEC games are shown nationally on ESPN. This is where adding the new markets comes into play. The "regional games" that ESPN shows are only shown within the geographic area of the conference. With the addition of TAMU, the region size increases within Texas (42% of current SEC population). The ad dollars would be sold, as would the contract for rights, on potential viewership.
The addition of FSU increases the likelihood of ESPN showing a "regional game" in the larger media markets with FSU fans. This would get SEC "regional games" broadcast in LA and NYC when given a choice over OU and Baylor where as now, if State & Kentucky are playing are playing, ESPN will show the OU v. Baylor game 4 out of 5 times. If it was FSU and Vandy, there might be a reason to show that game on the east coast as opposed to the OU game.
They will find a way to maximize profits, even if it means increasing regional broadcasts as you suggest. It's nonsensical to think otherwise. An extreme example would be say if the SEC swallowed every conference. The idea that we would be limited on games broadcast on ESPN/CBS to what the SEC has today is silly.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News