(06-09-2011 12:01 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

Quote:Every sports both professional and college says otherwise. Two teams in the same big market in the same league does not benefit TV wise over two teams in the same conference in two different large markets.

Um, professional teams generally will claim an entire market. These are two completely different scenarios. If your options were adding Florida and Florida State, or Florida and Texas this would be no debate.

Duke, UNC, NC State, and Wake Forest are concentrated in area no larger than DFW. Does that mean the ACC doesn't get the full TV value for those schools?

(06-09-2011 12:19 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-09-2011 12:01 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

Quote:Every sports both professional and college says otherwise. Two teams in the same big market in the same league does not benefit TV wise over two teams in the same conference in two different large markets.

Um, professional teams generally will claim an entire market. These are two completely different scenarios. If your options were adding Florida and Florida State, or Florida and Texas this would be no debate.

Duke, UNC, NC State, and Wake Forest are concentrated in area no larger than DFW. Does that mean the ACC doesn't get the full TV value for those schools?

Bit, maybe I had a bad batch of meds this morning, but I'm not following your question.

In the context of the discussion I'm having with Ad, my feeling is that the ACC's value is actually decreased by having 4 schools from North Carolina.

If they removed two of them and replaced them with two other programs from different states/markets than the ones they already have, the value of the ACC TV contract would be more.

It's one of the reasons why adding ECU to the ACC is a non-starter. But ECU could be valuable to the Big East.

It's my belief that if the Big East wants two teams from Texas, TV would pay more for TCU and Houston than it will TCU and SMU. Everything I know about this topic tells me this.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, I agree with you that removing 2 of those teams, and picking up 2 teams from another state would probably help the ACC's contract. But I don't see how that compares with the TCU and SMU being of such close proximity. The rivalry between those 2 schools and cities would help The BEast gain a much bigger foothold in DFW than either school could alone. The best course would be to take SMU and Houston, if we want to maximize our presence in Texas. But I just can't see TCU-Houston becoming as big a conference game as TCU-SMU is right now...

Bit, TCU and SMU have some history, but mostly in the distant past (decades). Houston offers tremendous upside: Large state school; Great recruiting area; football crazy city (they just need a team to cheer on); Working on and financing academic progress/improvements.

Houston will need to improve facilities (I would not invite them unless there were commitments/ground breakings) and there remians questions about whether UT and TAMU take up too much of the market, but it has been shown that multiple conferences can share markets, actually both claiming large portions or even full market so I don't believe that this is an issue, besides, it is the same issue in DFW.

I understand that you seek to solidify the DFW market and that SMU has a great alumni program and $$$$$, but they are not likely to draw enough aditional viewers (TCU already has a portion of this market) in DFW to offset the entire Houston market. Nor would it be wise to forego the entire Houston recruiting scene if available and feasible (i.e. TV gurus believe Htown should be added).

I'm not opposed to Houston. I just think bringing in SMU along with TCU will help us gain a much larger share of DFW than we will without both schools...

(06-09-2011 01:17 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'm not opposed to Houston. I just think bringing in SMU along with TCU will help us gain a much larger share of DFW than we will without both schools...

And I don't disagree with this when focused solely on the DFW market. My contention throughout has been that what additional gain the league makes in DFW by having both TCU and SMU together will still total less than having TCU alone in DFW and Houston alone in Houston.

In other words DFW market (with TCU + SMU) <<< DFW market (TCU) + Houston market (UH).

Cheers,
Neil

Omnicarrier Wrote:Ad, your reply was a mess however I will take partial blame for that.

Yeah, sorry about that. Didn't realize I was responding to so many things at once.

(06-09-2011 12:19 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Duke, UNC, NC State, and Wake Forest are concentrated in area no larger than DFW. Does that mean the ACC doesn't get the full TV value for those schools?

That is not what I am saying. That is what Neil is saying.

(06-09-2011 01:30 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  In other words DFW market (with TCU + SMU) <<< DFW market (TCU) + Houston market (UH).

Here is the bigger issue, and my biggest point. The Big East includes the following markets in some shape or form:
1 New York________7,515,330
3 Chicago__________3,502,610
4 Philadelphia_______3,015,820
5 Dallas-FTW_______2,594,630
14 Tampa/St. Pete_____1,795,200
24 Pittsburgh_________1,160,820
30 Hartford__________1,018,770
33 Cincinnati__________923,830
35 Milwaukee________901,100
50 Louisville_________674,940
51 Buffalo___________636,320
53 Providence________620,600
58 Albany___________557,860
62 Dayton___________527,030

Yet we are still last in revenue. Further, here is how the conferences stack up:

Conference_ACC___Big East__Big Ten__Big XII__Pac 12__SEC____USA
TV HH______22,2 mil__29.3 mil__18.2 mil___12.9 mil__20 mil___13.5 mil___99.2mil
Percentage__22.39%__29.61%__18.39%__13.00%__20.13%__13.57%___117.09%
#Teams/States_12/7__17/14___12/9_____10/4____12/7______12/9______50
$$ Rank_____5_______6_______1_________4________3_______2______N/A
*Using revenue based off previous contracts since the Big Ten, SEC, and Big East have yet to ink new deals in new economy.

As you can see, just adding markets does not help. You need to develop them. Another school in a soft market already in our footprint (Ft Worth, Orlando, and Philly would all count) would do a lot more than adding another soft school in a separate soft market.

(06-09-2011 05:13 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

Omnicarrier Wrote:Ad, your reply was a mess however I will take partial blame for that.

Yeah, sorry about that. Didn't realize I was responding to so many things at once.

(06-09-2011 12:19 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Duke, UNC, NC State, and Wake Forest are concentrated in area no larger than DFW. Does that mean the ACC doesn't get the full TV value for those schools?

That is not what I am saying. That is what Neil is saying.

(06-09-2011 01:30 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  In other words DFW market (with TCU + SMU) <<< DFW market (TCU) + Houston market (UH).

Here is the bigger issue, and my biggest point. The Big East includes the following markets in some shape or form:
1 New York________7,515,330
3 Chicago__________3,502,610
4 Philadelphia_______3,015,820
5 Dallas-FTW_______2,594,630
14 Tampa/St. Pete_____1,795,200
24 Pittsburgh_________1,160,820
30 Hartford__________1,018,770
33 Cincinnati__________923,830
35 Milwaukee________901,100
50 Louisville_________674,940
51 Buffalo___________636,320
53 Providence________620,600
58 Albany___________557,860
62 Dayton___________527,030

Yet we are still last in revenue. Further, here is how the conferences stack up:

Conference_ACC___Big East__Big Ten__Big XII__Pac 12__SEC____USA
TV HH______22,2 mil__29.3 mil__18.2 mil___12.9 mil__20 mil___13.5 mil___99.2mil
Percentage__22.39%__29.61%__18.39%__13.00%__20.13%__13.57%___117.09%
#Teams/States_12/7__17/14___12/9_____10/4____12/7______12/9______50
$$ Rank_____5_______6_______1_________4________3_______2______N/A
*Using revenue based off previous contracts since the Big Ten, SEC, and Big East have yet to ink new deals in new economy.

As you can see, just adding markets does not help. You need to develop them. Another school in a soft market already in our footprint (Ft Worth, Orlando, and Philly would all count) would do a lot more than adding another soft school in a separate soft market.

Well that could change in the next TV contract. One thing about TV contracts thats hard to compare between conferences is that they are all signed at different times and certaintly that plays a huge part on what you get. I believe last Big East TV contract came at probably one of the worst time for the league after being raided and much uncertainty.

that's why I used the older contracts to rank them. It seemed the fairest way to do so. The point being the two richest conferences (long term anyway) rank 4 and 6 in population base. I tjust shows that the number of large markets is overrated as an end all be all barameter.

I should note that the numbers above are only out of the top 100 markets. This does not include the entire population base. However, for practical purposes, the only numbers that matter are the ratings in the top 56 markets, the ones that report for the overnight ratings, since those are the most used ratings.

(06-09-2011 05:13 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

Omnicarrier Wrote:Ad, your reply was a mess however I will take partial blame for that.

Yeah, sorry about that. Didn't realize I was responding to so many things at once.

(06-09-2011 12:19 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Duke, UNC, NC State, and Wake Forest are concentrated in area no larger than DFW. Does that mean the ACC doesn't get the full TV value for those schools?

That is not what I am saying. That is what Neil is saying.

(06-09-2011 01:30 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  In other words DFW market (with TCU + SMU) <<< DFW market (TCU) + Houston market (UH).

Here is the bigger issue, and my biggest point. The Big East includes the following markets in some shape or form:
1 New York________7,515,330
3 Chicago__________3,502,610
4 Philadelphia_______3,015,820
5 Dallas-FTW_______2,594,630
14 Tampa/St. Pete_____1,795,200
24 Pittsburgh_________1,160,820
30 Hartford__________1,018,770
33 Cincinnati__________923,830
35 Milwaukee________901,100
50 Louisville_________674,940
51 Buffalo___________636,320
53 Providence________620,600
58 Albany___________557,860
62 Dayton___________527,030

Yet we are still last in revenue. Further, here is how the conferences stack up:

Conference_ACC___Big East__Big Ten__Big XII__Pac 12__SEC____USA
TV HH______22,2 mil__29.3 mil__18.2 mil___12.9 mil__20 mil___13.5 mil___99.2mil
Percentage__22.39%__29.61%__18.39%__13.00%__20.13%__13.57%___117.09%
#Teams/States_12/7__17/14___12/9_____10/4____12/7______12/9______50
$$ Rank_____5_______6_______1_________4________3_______2______N/A
*Using revenue based off previous contracts since the Big Ten, SEC, and Big East have yet to ink new deals in new economy.

As you can see, just adding markets does not help. You need to develop them. Another school in a soft market already in our footprint (Ft Worth, Orlando, and Philly would all count) would do a lot more than adding another soft school in a separate soft market.

Ad, I think your numbers are off.

The Big Ten prior to getting Nebraska had over 26 million TVHHs.

The SEC has 23 million TVHHs

The ACC has 24 million TVHHs (but that is with giving them credit for all of Florida, which is debateable so your 22 million is probably closest to reality)

The new Pac-12 has 22 million TVHHs, while the old had 19 million.

The Big 12-2 is down to 14 million with the losses of Colorado and Nebraska. But had over 16 million with them.

The Big East has to be looked at separately.

Football with TCU is 19 million TVHHs but that is being generous giving them full credit for NYC. Without TCU it is 16.5 million.

Basketball with TCU is up to 29 million and without TCU it is 26.5 million.

So the TV contracts were basically on target when TVHHs and the Kings factor are taken into consideration jointly.

If you can't increase your Kings factor (which is the Big East's problem) you need to increase the Barons factor AND TVHHs.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-09-2011 01:30 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(06-09-2011 01:17 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'm not opposed to Houston. I just think bringing in SMU along with TCU will help us gain a much larger share of DFW than we will without both schools...

And I don't disagree with this when focused solely on the DFW market. My contention throughout has been that what additional gain the league makes in DFW by having both TCU and SMU together will still total less than having TCU alone in DFW and Houston alone in Houston.

In other words DFW market (with TCU + SMU) <<< DFW market (TCU) + Houston market (UH).

DFW is one market, as far as TV is concerned. But it's not really one market. It's 2 markets. One is Dallas, and one is Fort Worth, and the 2 cities are nothing at all alike in their tastes and perceptions...

(06-09-2011 06:52 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-09-2011 01:30 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(06-09-2011 01:17 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'm not opposed to Houston. I just think bringing in SMU along with TCU will help us gain a much larger share of DFW than we will without both schools...

And I don't disagree with this when focused solely on the DFW market. My contention throughout has been that what additional gain the league makes in DFW by having both TCU and SMU together will still total less than having TCU alone in DFW and Houston alone in Houston.

In other words DFW market (with TCU + SMU) <<< DFW market (TCU) + Houston market (UH).

DFW is one market, as far as TV is concerned. But it's not really one market. It's 2 markets. One is Dallas, and one is Fort Worth, and the 2 cities are nothing at all alike in their tastes and perceptions...

And guess what, Philly isn't really one market either. It's southern New Jersey, it's Delaware, and it's the city of Philadelphia but no one says we need to take both Nova and Delaware to get the Philly DMA. Right?

Cheers,
Neil

Nobody says we have the Philadelphia market with Villanova. We didn't have it with Temple either...

(06-09-2011 07:52 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Nobody says we have the Philadelphia market with Villanova. We didn't have it with Temple either...

And we won't have the Dallas market with SMU either.

Cheers,
Neil

That hasn't been proven yet, Neil, unlike the Philadelphia situation...

(06-09-2011 08:29 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  That hasn't been proven yet, Neil, unlike the Philadelphia situation...

Okay, well you got me there.

But I hope we never get the chance to find out since I don't see two private colleges getting basically the same market all that excited.

Cheers,
Neil

Truth be told, I'd rather sit at 9, or attempt a reverse raid...

(06-09-2011 06:28 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Ad, I think your numbers are off.

You may not have noticed, but I addressed this above. I was using the number of TV households from the top 100 TV Markets*. Those numbers (for TV pruposes) are more important than overall numbers, since the metered market numbers are typically used to set ad rates. That, and it took long enough to sort those numbers with just 100 TV markets . When you start getting to some of the smaller ones, I sometimes can't even tell what state they are in.

*Note that I did not assign a conference to four top 100 markets: Las Vegas, Albequerque, Honolulu, and Portland, ME. Also, I assigned the same value for each market whether they were the primary league in the market, or the secondary league. The SEC and ACC had a lot of overlap, as did the Big East and Big Ten.

(06-10-2011 02:55 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-09-2011 06:28 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Ad, I think your numbers are off.

You may not have noticed, but I addressed this above. I was using the number of TV households from the top 100 TV Markets*. Those numbers (for TV pruposes) are more important than overall numbers, since the metered market numbers are typically used to set ad rates. That, and it took long enough to sort those numbers with just 100 TV markets . When you start getting to some of the smaller ones, I sometimes can't even tell what state they are in.

*Note that I did not assign a conference to four top 100 markets: Las Vegas, Albequerque, Honolulu, and Portland, ME. Also, I assigned the same value for each market whether they were the primary league in the market, or the secondary league. The SEC and ACC had a lot of overlap, as did the Big East and Big Ten.

It isn't really that difficult to go beyond the Top 100 markets (as I did) until one gets to the ACC and the shared markets of Florida. And by going beyond the Top 100 markets it actually shows your original point to be wrong.

Cheers,
Neil