Who is going to pull the pin (You Horns or OU) and when ? Curious.
.02
and, Go Cats !! and, Hook 'em for the Wife !
Big 12 will remain as is,no expansion
- Thread starter Cotton #12
- Start date
.02
and, Go Cats !! and, Hook 'em for the Wife !
Does it bother anyone that the teams we are calling "mid majors" would beat Iowa state, KU, and probably Tech on a regular basis???
It's the same as in Vandy, UK and Miss st in the SEC or Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana, Illinois and NW in the BIG. Every conference has a mid major team.
No school on that expansion list didn't bring no wow factor to the table
I agree of the schools that were actually considered (I don't beleive Houston or Byu we're really considered) none of them were worth while.
I personslky would of added Bosie State, BYU, Houston, and Cincy
Houston, BYU, and Bosie don't add sizzle but solid football. Cincinnati throws WVU a bone by adding a team out east. But like I said that was never gonna happen.
I personslky would of added Bosie State, BYU, Houston, and Cincy
Houston, BYU, and Bosie don't add sizzle but solid football. Cincinnati throws WVU a bone by adding a team out east. But like I said that was never gonna happen.
You have talked about schools (like Notre Dame) living 30 years in the past. You are doing the same thing with your outlook on expansion. The time where simply having a good team makes a you a candidate for expansion is long gone. Expansion now is all about money, not good teams.
Exhibit A: Big Ten takes Rutgers and Maryland.
Exhibit B: SEC takes Missouri and A&M.
Exhibit C: Pac 12 takes Colorado and Utah.
Exhibit D: ACC takes Pitt and Syracuse.
And yes, these conference do get money for these teams. For example, the ACC's contract went up ~$84 million a year just for adding Pitt and Syracuse. That's not even as much as the other leagues got for their additions (especially the Big Ten).
Man, you're missing the entire point here. You could say the same of half the Big 10 somewhere between a quarter and a half of the teams in the ACC or Big 10. We get it. Houston has a good football team right now. And I'm sure a lot of sports fans would love to live in a world where that is all that mattered when it comes to conference realignment. But let's look at who has been added to which conferences:
Nebraska was added to the Big 10 because they would (hopefully) add a power football program and because they added the clout of having tradition. Rutgers and Maryland don't really bring consistent power programs at all. They bring new states and new markets. So that's 1 for "long tradition as a power program" and 2 for "new markets in populous states and cities that aren't already in the conference's footprint".
The Pac 10 added Colorado and Utah. One had some off and on success in mid-major conferences and the other was a former power that had kind of fallen on hard times. But both did what? Expanded the conference into new and reasonably populous markets.
The SEC added Texas A&M, which brought them solidly into the Texas tv market... and eventually agreed to add Missouri because, again, they got them into some tv markets that they wouldn't have really been in much at all prior to that.
The ACC added Pitt (in and a populous state with Pennsylvania) and Syracuse (and a populous state with New York). They had to add someone in an emergency situation and felt that Louisville was the best option out there with developed football and basketball programs, and in a state that they didn't currently have any schools. They made a deal with Notre Dame who is a traditional blue blood powerhouse money-maker, and again, they are in a new state.
Who didn't get added?
The Big 10 didn't add Pittsburgh. They didn't add Cincinnati. They didn't look seriously at any of the MAC teams, even the ones that were having a couple years of success in a row here or there regardless of whether they were city schools or in the middle of nowhere. They went with a school in NJ and that might help with the NY market and a school in Maryland that might help with the Baltimore and DC markets over places like Louisville... or even West Virginia... that were having more success in football and basketball.
The SEC didn't change their mind and add a second school from any of the states they already have. They didn't add Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Lousiville, Memphis, or Tulane. They didn't ask for two Texas schools right off the bat. I mean, my math might be fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure that both the DFW area or Houston areas are bigger in population than Saint Louis and Kansas City combined. If they thought that they needed another school in Texas, surely they could have gotten one... but UT wasn't playing ball at that point and they decided that Missouri was more valuable than going with the other Texas options because they brought in DIFFERENT markets.
Boise State and BYU both would have leapt at the chance to join the Pac 12, and at the time they were both more successful than Colorado for sure, and Utah sometimes, depending on the year. They went with the two big state schools in two brand new and fairly populous states.
The ACC didn't add USF, UCF, East Carolina, etc., all of which certainly had better runs than some of their ACC counterparts during that period. They added new states with each of their additions.
Ironically, Houston MIGHT make sense for some of these other conferences based on the same theories of addition. They might not have the traditional clout of a Notre Dame or a Nebraska, but for any of the conferences outside of the Big 12 and the SEC, they would add a major market in a new state. It would just be a question about whether they'd meet other requirements that those conferences are looking for. But based on those tests, U of H doesn't fit the model for what the Big 12 should be adding. So either all 4 other conferences (and now the Big 12) are making dumb business decisions, and they SHOULD be doing stuff like adding Cincy and Pitt to the Big 10.... or Houston isn't a very good fit for what would help the Big 12 survive.
I get that's the theory, but I think it's just that. Almost all of the big 10 games that matter are on national TV. Are you telling me that people in Maryland are more likely to watch them just because of Maryland's presence? I just don't buy it. As far as the 3rd tire games Rutgers is one of the worst programs in D1. Can't imagine they are drawing many sets in NJ
I get how it's working right now. Imo the tv networks are being stupid by paying for shit like that. What I'm saying is ok we don't have anybody that gives us a geographic advantage. So go find solid programs and put a better product on the field. I promise you networks will,pay if the product is good.
They pay based on what markets they are able to sell those games in. Whether people have their TV on or off, the people who are going to buy a cable package in the Houston area are already getting the channels that the Big 12 plays on. Period. There's not going to be a bunch of people going... oh, wait, the University of Houston is on ESPN2 or FS1 or whatever now too? Well crap, I better demand that my cable company add those channels to my package. Either they already have them... or they don't care.
Expanding simply to expand is stupid and takes more forethought than our current leadership has...
Expanding is not viable, there's not any good additions currently available.
Although, I give them props for their ridiculously public bartering tool of expansion versus network buyout of the pro rata clause.
Expanding is not viable, there's not any good additions currently available.
Although, I give them props for their ridiculously public bartering tool of expansion versus network buyout of the pro rata clause.
It expanded the market. Rutgers has 67,000 students and almost half a million alumni. By adding Rutgers the B1G network now gets a $1.00 per subscriber in NY State vs the $.44 they were getting. Same thing in Maryland and DC and Maryland while not that great in football does draw views in the area and they draw quite a bit more for mens BB. So the addition of the 2 schools allows the B1G to sell its content providers and inventory of games into major TV markets and it allowed them to more than double their subscriber fees in two populous states.
once again I understand how it works. Here is my question. Is there any real evidence that those 600,000+ Rutgers alums have subscribed to the network? Rutgers football is about as releivent as KU, and speaking as someone who lives around a lot of KU alum they don't care about football. So are Rutgers really going to subscribe to the big 10 network for 77-0 beat downs against Michigan or the battle of winless Purdue vs Rutgers.
Like I said I get the theory. Still think you need a decent product for it to actually work the way thectv networks think it will.
Like I said I get the theory. Still think you need a decent product for it to actually work the way thectv networks think it will.
The short answer to your question is yes. The long answer is this. It doesn't matter if Rutgers generated more subscribers. The only thing that matters is that the fee increases.
Let's just hypothetically say the BTN was getting 1 million subscribers in the NY/NJ market. Before expansion, they were getting 44¢ per subscribers, which amounted to ~$5 million a year. By adding Rutgers, that figure is now ~$12 million a year. If the Big Ten had added Pitt, for example, they wouldn't have gotten that extra revenue, because they either already had those subscribers, or those subscribers were already paying a full fee. In other words, Market > Team.
Regarding your part about needing a good produce, the thing is, the P5 conferences already have that, including the Big 12. Good product is not the problem. This is another example of antiquated thinking. Your line of reasoning made sense back in the old days, when you only had 3 networks and a handfull of games on television. Now, most of the games televised are regional, not national. In a national broadcast, "good product" is the only concern. However, in a regional broadcast, your audience is limited by the size of the region receiving the broadcast. Many times, a regional games is limited to the general footprint of the conference. So, even if you had a good product, if it's only broadcasted in a small region, you only get a small number of viewers, even if most everyone in the region watched it. That's why several mediocre schools were taken, because of markets.
The one caveat is that you can't just grab any school and get carriage in that market. Take Tulane, for example. They are second fiddle in their own market to LSU, so even if you took Tulane, SEC games would still sometimes bump the other games for those broadcast slots.
Consumers are cutting the cord left and right. They aren't going to a competing model they are just realizing they don't need that model at all. $100s of dollars a month for just sports isn't sustainable because just about all other programs on TV are replaceable and likely upgraded via streaming.
Consumers are cutting the cord, but the networks (including ESPN) still turn a significant profit. Until they actually start losing money, then you aren't going to see a change in the model.
You actually hit on something that demonstrates why the model isn't dying. Many of the cord cutters aren't sports fans in the first place. That doesn't affect the ratings. It does affect conference networks, not regular broadcasts.
The days of getting 30 million people to pay a dime each for something that only a fraction of them consume are numbered. It's a dying model.
Tried to link something but it didn't work. Just google ESPN and cord cutting if you think they are immune.
Tried to link something but it didn't work. Just google ESPN and cord cutting if you think they are immune.
I know the common wisdom is well the conference will last another 5 years because that's how long the tv deal has left. I imagine though that if Texas or OU wanted out bad enough. They'd find a way out early.
I didn't say ESPN was immune. However, ESPN is still turning a significant profit, even with cord cutting. The thing you aren't considering is that cord cutting is not a continuous phenomenon. There are only X number of people who will cut the cord. At a certain point, that will level off. The old network model won't be monolithic like it was, but it will still exist, and make a significant profit.
Cord cutting isn't going to effect sports rights. Live programing like sports will always be a money maker. ESPN, Fox, etc might have to adapt how it's delivered and paid for. It's still a cash cow though and always will be.
Check out this site. http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/numbers/
Right now ESPN has 89 million subscribers and gets $7.92 for ESPN and ESPN2. Right now approximately 25-30 million people watch live sports on ESPN so they are getting fees from 69 million people that don't watch ESPN. If ESPN wants to retain that revenue in an a la carte model they would need to bring in $30 per month per subscriber. When the bundle model finally dies the big time TV money goes with it.
Right now ESPN has 89 million subscribers and gets $7.92 for ESPN and ESPN2. Right now approximately 25-30 million people watch live sports on ESPN so they are getting fees from 69 million people that don't watch ESPN. If ESPN wants to retain that revenue in an a la carte model they would need to bring in $30 per month per subscriber. When the bundle model finally dies the big time TV money goes with it.
For someone that knows a little more about tv ratings than I do. Let me ask something. If ESPN draws 23 million for a game. Is that 23 million tv's? How does it calculate having 5 buddies over on a Saturday afternoon?
I ask because using your numbers speed 30 million of the subscribers might be tuned in to the game but isn't it possible that some of those other 69 million might also be watching?
I ask because using your numbers speed 30 million of the subscribers might be tuned in to the game but isn't it possible that some of those other 69 million might also be watching?
The answer to your first question is, not really. The answer to your 2nd and 3rd questions is this. A ratings company (like Nielson) gets is numbers from a statistical sample. For example, they will select, say, 5,000 homes (just spitballing a number) and measure what those homes watch. They select those 5,000 homes based on demographics. (X number of whites, Y number of blacks, Z number of seniors, A number of young adults, etc.) Then, they extrapolate from what their sample homes watched, and estimate how many other similar people watched the same thing. For example, if 20% of Nielson's white teenagers watched a ballgame, then they extrapolate that 20% of all white teenagers nationally watched the same ballgame. (That's a gross simplification of what they do, but it illustrates the point.) But in other words, having 5 buddies over to watch the game doesn't affect the number, because it's just an estimation based on demographics. The 5 buddies are already factored into the total.
How many people "subscribe" to ESPN? ESPN2? ESPNU? FS1? LHN? Almost no one says "you know what, I'm going to subscribe to ESPN". They get a cable package that includes those channels or they don't. They may get that cable package because they watch MTV (if people still actually watch MTV...?) or HGTV or HBO or Showtime or Fox News or MSNBC or Lifetime. But they get the network. And the cable companies can charge a little more because they have the networks that show the teams from that state. And so the tv networks get a little more from the cable companies who provide the packages that show the teams based in those states. I'm pretty sure that BTN is the same as all the others I listed. Do you know how many Aggies get LHN? A lot of them. Why? Not because they want to watch UT sports or Augie's cooking show (although, you know some of them do watch it just so they can go post about it)... but because LHN is just included in a lot of cable packages around the state now. I'm imagining that that's how the BTN works in Big 10 states. If you live in New Jersey and have cable to a certain level... you have BTN. Am I wrong on that, anyone who knows for sure?
So yes, a bunch of people in NJ are helping their network... as well as the other TV networks that host Big 10 games. And while eyes-on-the-tv does have meaning, that tends not to be the main focus of these conference TV deals right now.
That's pretty much how the conference networks operate. In South Carolina, most of the cable companies carry the SECN on the "Extended Basic" package, which is essentially the standard package everyone gets. (Regular basic is just like 10 or 15 channels, and doesn't even include ESPN.) So even most Clemson fans in South Carolina have the SECN, even if they don't want it.
It also involves the number of Big 10 grads in the NE tri-state area. Many of them.
Rutgers is cyclical too. They had a very good ten year run where they made a bowl game 8-9 of those years and posted an above average winning percentage, until recently, but they are not the type of program that can survive the reign of a bad coach, and this is what happened. This current disastrous year involves a new, young staff, implementing new schemes, on a team thin with talent, and remember, at a school which is still receiving only Big East type of payouts (10 mill.).
In conference expansion, you have to wait 5-10 years to judge, because sports writers think about the past, fans are concerned with the present, but conferences are planning for the future.
Similar threads
