I could be wrong, and I'm not pretending to know. But the way I have understood it is it doesn't matter if a team 'delivers' the TV market. The networks just care about how many TV's are in the market to carry those games.

I had spoken with some TV execs for a story I wroteon Scout last fall and that was general gist I was getting as well.

well here my guess for 8
west needs 2, SJSt [2nd school in Cali & bay area] UtahSt [utah]
Mountoun needs 1 after UTEP. NoTex [3nd school in tex & sits on top of dallas]
SW needs 1, ArkSt [arkansas]
east needs 4, Temple [Phila], Mass {mass], buffalo [western NY], Akron [ohio]
that adds 6 states to the 13 you already got

(02-17-2012 09:49 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  I could be wrong, and I'm not pretending to know. But the way I have understood it is it doesn't matter if a team 'delivers' the TV market. The networks just care about how many TV's are in the market to carry those games.

It has to mean this, unless someone wants to try and sell some load of bull that SMU and SDSU own their market to such a large degree, that fans insist on watching games on TV as opposed to actually showing up in person.

(02-18-2012 12:27 PM)Big Dub Wrote:  

(02-17-2012 09:49 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  I could be wrong, and I'm not pretending to know. But the way I have understood it is it doesn't matter if a team 'delivers' the TV market. The networks just care about how many TV's are in the market to carry those games.

It has to mean this, unless someone wants to try and sell some load of bull that SMU and SDSU own their market to such a large degree, that fans insist on watching games on TV as opposed to actually showing up in person.

that must be what it is, that's the only way it makes since. Seems counter-intuitive, but I don't claim to know anything about this stuff either. It's a shame too, this tv market arms race is killing college football.

(02-18-2012 12:27 PM)Big Dub Wrote:  

(02-17-2012 09:49 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  I could be wrong, and I'm not pretending to know. But the way I have understood it is it doesn't matter if a team 'delivers' the TV market. The networks just care about how many TV's are in the market to carry those games.

It has to mean this, unless someone wants to try and sell some load of bull that SMU and SDSU own their market to such a large degree, that fans insist on watching games on TV as opposed to actually showing up in person.

Think of it this way...

If you are allowed to show your product in your market then you have access to all of those people. As the number of schools increase in the conference then probability that you maintain continued viewership from "X" number fans increase just due to the fact that you have all manner of fans from various regions in the large metro areas..

The reason why the metro areas interest the TV partners more than the more regional schools is two fold. You have the potential for a much greater market penetration long term and a much larger potential draw for advertisements. Not to be critical, but ad revenue is one of the core components for media partners, and it is frequently overlooked.

The larger population bases allow for a greater likelihood of snagging a large regional or national advertising campaigns due to the proximity of the potential customer base and static demographic and cultural characteristics. By adding multiple regions smaller you have a fractured target market for the advertisers. What works in region A might not be as effective in region B or C.

Will there be a separate advertising for each individual school? What markets make the most ad revenue for the media partners? Some spots can be purchased locally but most major ad revenue is pushed on a regional basis. Having to tailor multiple ads or create multiple contracts just increase the costs of production and reduce the bottom line for the media partners. Large DMA's allow for a much easier cookie cuter approach

The next thing is just basic market penetration, probability and the economies of scale and how that relates to large DMA's. To put this in example form, I will use the tired LT and UNT discussion again (just because this an easy example).

If LT reaches 100% of Ruston (Monroe/El Dorado) and 80% of Shreveport (386k*.8 + 177k = 486k) DMA you are talking about a less than 19% of the DFW DMA (2.57M). That would require 19% of DFW to tune in because they are interested in the MUSA teams, or desire to see football or UNT or what ever. It is going to be much easier to achieve 19% viewership in DFW than 80+% in LA. If you drop the market share for LA to a more achievable 60% you are looking at approximately 5% viewership in DFW.The percentages can be manipulated in various directions, but this is just an example of what the extremes looks like with some somewhat real data.

Large DMA's allow for a greater probability to maintain a floor number of viewers even when there is competing products. What happens if LSU and LT play at the same time? The overall % of LT viewers will plunge. Even if OU and UT are playing at the same time as UNT, the % numbers of viewers is so much smaller than the % needed by LT that is allows for a much greater probability of success in reaching that floor threshold needed by the media partners. It is as much about ceiling as it is about floor. Large DMA's allow for both to be fairly safely estimated. Small DMA's provide a much greater variance, which makes it much more difficult when attempting to sell time slots for advertising.

The last thing people need to remember is that isn't as much about adding DFW or FL or TN as it is maintaining the current established brand. Entering a new market that is somewhat apathetic about a product that has no real brand awareness is much harder than to enter that exact same market that might not be initially interested or knowledge about a specific product but already has some form of acceptance for the brand.

(02-16-2012 10:26 PM)KnightTower Wrote:  Could you list those teams with their DMA's pop. amounts?

My top 4 list for adding teams is:

-Temple
-FIU (not really what I would want, but I guess recruiting ties must be maintained)
-MTSU
-WKU

I do think TV market is #1 criteria, followed by geographic fit, recent performance, growth potential, history etc. Therefore, my top 4 list is :

1. Temple (East)
2. UNT (East)
3. FIU (East)
4. Utah St. (West)

Think UTEP would move west with these picks. The lineup would be :

Alliance West Division

UTEP
New Mexico
Colorado State
Air Force
Wyoming
UNLV
Nevada
Utah St.
Fresno St.
Hawaii (Football Only)

Alliance East Division

Temple (Football only)
ECU
Marshall
FIU
UAB
Southern Miss
Tulane
Rice
North Texas
Tulsa

That would put us at 20 (18 basketball) for now. Think that is the most we will see for a year or 2.

(02-16-2012 07:04 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  ... and neither of the F_U's are in Miami.

You are kidding, right? Check a map to see where FIU campuses are located (yes, we even have a campus in downtown Miami).

More significant is the fact that FIU is only minutes away from Miami International airport and less than 30 minutes form the FLL International airport. FIU and FAU have 3 large airports that are easy to get to and provide a lot of cheap travel options for visiting teams and fans.

Do we carry/bring/own Miami? I don't know because I have no expertise in the logic that goes into this kind of metric and will therefore defer to you and other experts on that matter. :ncaabbs:

(02-18-2012 04:27 PM)Tulsafanzz Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 10:26 PM)KnightTower Wrote:  Could you list those teams with their DMA's pop. amounts?

My top 4 list for adding teams is:

-Temple
-FIU (not really what I would want, but I guess recruiting ties must be maintained)
-MTSU
-WKU

I do think TV market is #1 criteria, followed by geographic fit, recent performance, growth potential, history etc. Therefore, my top 4 list is :

1. Temple (East)
2. UNT (East)
3. FIU (East)
4. Utah St. (West)
.....

Just for brevity sake I clipped your post...


I wonder how that would split up in for individual pods...

Alliance West Division

UTEP
New Mexico
Colorado State
Air Force
Wyoming

UNLV
Nevada
Utah St.
Fresno St.
Hawaii (Football Only)

Alliance East Division

Temple (Football only)
ECU
Marshall
FIU
Southern Miss

UAB
Tulane
Rice
North Texas
Tulsa

Not sure what Southern Miss will think with being in the stacked east coast FB pod and they make more geographic sense flopping with UAB..

Iron sharpens Iron.

First off,

to any new poster with multiple paragraphs.

And secondly, from the bits I read, how is this NOT pimping?

(02-16-2012 01:23 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Third, I continue to hear from former colleagues that Temple is not interested and remains confident they will get an invite to the Big East. If you can't get Temple does it then make sense to expand by more teams - especially for those of you who want to stop at 18 - or does Temple's decision have no bearing on what you guys want to see happen?

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a former employee of the Middle Tennessee athletic dept.

Back to the original question, but first I'm surprised that so many of you thought Temple wasn't going to get back into the Big East.

Anyway, without Temple do your instincts tell you the Alliance will add fewer teams on the range or add on the higher end?

(02-22-2012 02:26 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 01:23 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Third, I continue to hear from former colleagues that Temple is not interested and remains confident they will get an invite to the Big East. If you can't get Temple does it then make sense to expand by more teams - especially for those of you who want to stop at 18 - or does Temple's decision have no bearing on what you guys want to see happen?

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a former employee of the Middle Tennessee athletic dept.

Back to the original question, but first I'm surprised that so many of you thought Temple wasn't going to get back into the Big East.

Anyway, without Temple do your instincts tell you the Alliance will add fewer teams on the range or add on the higher end?

Regardless of what happens to LT in all of this, I find it interesting that many are looking at market size even though those big markets don't care about the potential new team (i.e. UNT). I am very fond of USM, and they have great fans, I'm glad that they are not trying to be a member of CUSA now, otherwise they wouldn't make it due to "market size".

(02-22-2012 05:02 PM)Friscodog Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 02:26 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 01:23 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Third, I continue to hear from former colleagues that Temple is not interested and remains confident they will get an invite to the Big East. If you can't get Temple does it then make sense to expand by more teams - especially for those of you who want to stop at 18 - or does Temple's decision have no bearing on what you guys want to see happen?

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a former employee of the Middle Tennessee athletic dept.

Back to the original question, but first I'm surprised that so many of you thought Temple wasn't going to get back into the Big East.

Anyway, without Temple do your instincts tell you the Alliance will add fewer teams on the range or add on the higher end?

Regardless of what happens to LT in all of this, I find it interesting that many are looking at market size even though those big markets don't care about the potential new team (i.e. UNT). I am very fond of USM, and they have great fans, I'm glad that they are not trying to be a member of CUSA now, otherwise they wouldn't make it due to "market size".

Yeah. I feel ya. It's f'd up.