- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: BIG10 reaching out to UVA,UNC & Georgia Tech
Posted on 2/19/13 at 3:33 pm to TheSandman
Posted on 2/19/13 at 3:33 pm to TheSandman
They won't. Which is why the current model is outdated and bound to be replaced. Cord cutting continues to rise. TV subscribers continue to fall
1
Posted on 2/19/13 at 3:35 pm to TheSandman
quote:
Why the hell are companies going to want to pay for and carry stations that no one is going to watch? Just to bring subscription costs up?
That's just the way the cable deals works. Atlanta probably has a good # of Ohio State, Michigan, MSU fans etc that will demand the B1G network. It gets bundled with a sports package, they get $.50 or a $1.00 a sub.
Posted on 2/19/13 at 3:37 pm to rocket31
quote:
Which is why the current model is outdated and bound to be replaced. Cord cutting continues to rise. TV subscribers continue to fall
maybe, but those stats are a bit misleading, cord cutting is new, cable is mostly saturated.
Posted on 2/19/13 at 3:41 pm to H-Town Tiger
Derp. Obviously The teams at the top can still be good. Why add poverty schools to that mix? Maryland? Rutgers? Lmao I was Lmao.
Posted on 2/19/13 at 3:42 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:I just don't see how there's going to be enough demand to justify adding the BTN to Atlanta, which is somewhere around 80-90% SEC, with the majority of that being UGA, AU, and UA.
That's just the way the cable deals works. Atlanta probably has a good # of Ohio State, Michigan, MSU fans etc that will demand the B1G network. It gets bundled with a sports package, they get $.50 or a $1.00 a sub.
With as bad as the economy is right now, and how technology is leading us to an on-demand centered television system (Netflix, hulu, ect.) some time in the next 10-20 years, I still don't believe there's enough economic justification for companies in ATL to pay for BTN coverage
This post was edited on 2/19/13 at 3:47 pm
Posted on 2/19/13 at 3:44 pm to H-Town Tiger
Like I said... that trend exists for a reason... And so do the projections of future TV packages
Posted on 2/19/13 at 3:49 pm to TheSandman
I understand your point about demand. I do think that you'd be surprised at the number of Big Ten alumni living around Atlanta.
The fact is that the BTN has a deal with the cables companies that if there is a Big Ten team in the footprint then the BTN gets guaranteed money. I believe it is less that $1 a subscriber (not to the BTN but to the cable company). The BTN will be added to the lineup if there is a team in the area. It may be an ala carte item for the consumer but there will be a payout for every consumer whether they choose to subscribe or not.
The fact is that the BTN has a deal with the cables companies that if there is a Big Ten team in the footprint then the BTN gets guaranteed money. I believe it is less that $1 a subscriber (not to the BTN but to the cable company). The BTN will be added to the lineup if there is a team in the area. It may be an ala carte item for the consumer but there will be a payout for every consumer whether they choose to subscribe or not.
This post was edited on 2/19/13 at 3:50 pm
Posted on 2/19/13 at 3:52 pm to rocket31
quote:
And so do the projections of future TV packages
Aren't these deals for like 15-20 years? No one has any idea what tv packages (or even college footbal) will be worth that far down the road. The whole point of this discussion is to discuss what things are worth now and right now, conferences can make a shite ton by expanding TV markets.
I would LOVE to see future TV packages and what they expect to happen. Compare the tv package the Braves agreed to 7 years ago to what the Dodgers are about to sign. No one has a clue where TV is headed.
This post was edited on 2/19/13 at 3:53 pm
Posted on 2/19/13 at 3:55 pm to hiltacular
Right now. Yes. But that same money from bundled packages will not be there in the future genius. That is my argument and my point...
Eta: if you can't see the current backwards cable model of today I'm clearly wasting my time here
Eta: if you can't see the current backwards cable model of today I'm clearly wasting my time here
This post was edited on 2/19/13 at 3:57 pm
Posted on 2/19/13 at 4:08 pm to rocket31
I fail to see how the conferences get screwed in your hypothetical scenario where no one is willing to pay for tv anymore.
Conference expansion leads to more money now, why should the conferences give a shite about what tv packages will be worth 15 years from now?
Unless you are saying conference expansion will prevent them from making more down the road for whatever reason and I would be interested to hear how you think they can make more by not expanding.
I do agree that the money you can make off of TV will never be greater than what it is right now but you could definitely debate that. Who knows what value adding the playoff will bring.
Conference expansion leads to more money now, why should the conferences give a shite about what tv packages will be worth 15 years from now?
Unless you are saying conference expansion will prevent them from making more down the road for whatever reason and I would be interested to hear how you think they can make more by not expanding.
I do agree that the money you can make off of TV will never be greater than what it is right now but you could definitely debate that. Who knows what value adding the playoff will bring.
This post was edited on 2/19/13 at 4:22 pm
Posted on 2/19/13 at 4:26 pm to rocket31
quote:
Derp. Obviously The teams at the top can still be good. Why add poverty schools to that mix? Maryland? Rutgers? Lmao I was Lmao
well that's been explained ad nausem. That you don't agree with the business model is fine, that you think it's outdated is also fine, but even if you are right, which I'm not 100% sure I agree, it will be years before that happens. There will still be demand for college sports and someone will pay for it.
quote:
Like I said... that trend exists for a reason... And so do the projections of future TV packages
the reason the trend exists is that there are people opting out of cable, that doesn't mean everyone will in the next 10 years. I'm not so sure it will be cheaper to go ala carte for everything. I find it somewhat amusing that people whine and complain about paying $80 for cable, but will pay more than that for smart phne plans and another $40-50 for internet service. You have to get the content to your devise somehow, so if cable goes away, they can shift and we are talking years down the road anyway.
This post was edited on 2/19/13 at 4:30 pm
Posted on 2/19/13 at 4:33 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
well that's been explained ad nausem. That you don't agree with the business model is fine, that you think it's outdated is also fine, but even if you are right, which I'm not 100% sure I agree, it will be years before that happens. There will still be demand for college sports and someone will pay for it.
never mind that being in a larger conference with big schools would be a massive benefit if all channels ever went a-la-carte. The more grads a school has the more likely you are to have customers who would subscribe.
regardless, sports programing will always be bundled.
good luck getting all of the sports on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNNews, SEC Net, Fox 1, Fox 2, FSN, NBC Sports, CBS Sports, Big 10 Net, Pac 12 Net, BEin, NFL Net, MLB Net, NBA TV, TNT, TBS, etc at a cheaper price individually than you can in a bundled package.
This post was edited on 2/19/13 at 4:35 pm
Posted on 2/19/13 at 4:40 pm to 12Pence
quote:Sure they are, but they are not adding to SEC revenue as much as they would if they were subscribers to cable networks that will carry the SEC channel. The current business model for cable TV provides the channel with a small amount of money per household whether that household watches the channel or not. Ratings increase the amount per household the cable networks pay (chack out the disputes ESPN has been having with cable networks), but actual viewership is just icing on the cake. Getting into the households is the reason why higher population states with large markets are preferrable to rural states with small markets. Oklahoma would be a much better target from a sports competition perspective than any ACC school, but from a cable TV revenue perspective Oklahoma might as well not exist.
Do you really believe fans in North Carolina, Texas, Michigan, Oregon, etc are not actively paying attention and watching SEC sports? Same can be said in SEC country.
Posted on 2/20/13 at 2:53 pm to Chicken
Posted on 2/20/13 at 2:59 pm to 12Pence
Missouri was an easy choice for SEC.
It provided a neighboring state without a SEC school already in a potential good environment to maybe bring a basketball tourney one day.
Missouri didn't have to be a sexy pickup, Texas A&M and access to the state of Texas was what the SEC really wanted.
Next round of expansion will be the same thing, SEC doesn't need a marquee team, they already have those in current SEC membership.
When the dominoes fall, the SEC will pluck a ACC team in a state where they have no presence, most likely NC State and somewhere else, possibly even another Texas team would be ideal.
It provided a neighboring state without a SEC school already in a potential good environment to maybe bring a basketball tourney one day.
Missouri didn't have to be a sexy pickup, Texas A&M and access to the state of Texas was what the SEC really wanted.
Next round of expansion will be the same thing, SEC doesn't need a marquee team, they already have those in current SEC membership.
When the dominoes fall, the SEC will pluck a ACC team in a state where they have no presence, most likely NC State and somewhere else, possibly even another Texas team would be ideal.
Posted on 2/20/13 at 11:52 pm to beaverfever
quote:
Don't like it. I really think the SEC needs to own NC and VA.
I'll take VT and Duke/NCST over UNC and UVA
Posted on 2/21/13 at 12:40 am to TH3 LSU TIG3R
These threads make me 
Half the people don't even know what they're arguing
I'm surprised PeeJ didn't make an appearance.
The B1G will get two of these three before next fall IMO.
Half the people don't even know what they're arguing
I'm surprised PeeJ didn't make an appearance.
The B1G will get two of these three before next fall IMO.
Posted on 2/21/13 at 12:41 am to beaverfever
quote:
Don't like it. I really think the SEC needs to own NC and VA.
I'd rather give A&M and Missouri back to the Big 12 and keep the SEC the way it was two years ago.
Posted on 2/21/13 at 8:42 am to SabiDojo
quote:
I'd rather give A&M and Missouri back to the Big 12 and keep the SEC the way it was two years ago.
Glad you are not in charge, if you don't grow, you wither and die. There were SEC that felt like you when we added Arky and USCe, those moves and the addition of the SEC CG are a big part of the reason why the SEC is what it is today.
Posted on 2/21/13 at 1:14 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Glad you are not in charge, if you don't grow, you wither and die. There were SEC that felt like you when we added Arky and USCe, those moves and the addition of the SEC CG are a big part of the reason why the SEC is what it is today.
I didn't mind the addition of Arkansas and USC then, so that makes your "point" both erroneous and irrelevant.
Page 6 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News