You guys are missing the point here....It has nothing to do with viewers. It has everything to do with the number of TV sets in a market. The more TV sets in a schools market the more valuable they are from a TV networks perspective.

(12-08-2012 12:22 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  Markets are a thing the big east tried to draw up to increase revenue. Markets are not affected by college sports nor are college sports affected by markets, especially in cities with pro franchises.

It is not just the Big East...All of the recent PROACTIVE expansion by conferences has been because of TV markets.

http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2012/0...edia-buzz/

Quote:D. Big East basketball is a weaker draw than expected – No one should be surprised by the weak Big East football numbers. However, the basketball and large market-centric side of the league actually had fewer hoops viewers than any of the power conferences except for the Pac-12, which doesn’t bode well with the league losing the strong draws of Syracuse, Pitt and West Virginia. The Big East was also widely acknowledged as the top conference in basketball last year, so the league was at its competitive peak in the post-2003 ACC raid era. This gives credence to the argument that large media markets in and of themselves don’t matter as much as large and rabid fan bases that draw in statewide audiences.

(12-08-2012 01:41 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2012/0...edia-buzz/

Quote:D. Big East basketball is a weaker draw than expected – No one should be surprised by the weak Big East football numbers. However, the basketball and large market-centric side of the league actually had fewer hoops viewers than any of the power conferences except for the Pac-12, which doesn’t bode well with the league losing the strong draws of Syracuse, Pitt and West Virginia. The Big East was also widely acknowledged as the top conference in basketball last year, so the league was at its competitive peak in the post-2003 ACC raid era. This gives credence to the argument that large media markets in and of themselves don’t matter as much as large and rabid fan bases that draw in statewide audiences.

You are quoting a blog giving an opinion....Ummm, OK. This explaines why the Big Ten added Maryland and Rutgers....Because we all know these two schools are known for their large and rabid fan bases that draw statewide audiences... What do these 2 schools have in common? They are located in very Large media markets that the Big 10 did not have a team located. Also both of these have historically struggled on the football field for wins and fans in the stands. Rutgers has made strides of late but my point remains the same. Right now, whether right or wrong, when conferences look to make a proactive conference addition they are looking for schools in large media markets first then on to other areas like academics and performance.

(12-07-2012 11:30 PM)Weatherdemon Wrote:  This is more of my point.

South Bend 101,000
Norman 113K/OKC 591K
Baton Rouge 230K
Columbus 797K

And then,
Tulsa 396K
New Orleans 360K

You have to go by TV market or metro size. Tulsa and New Orleans are even bigger that way, granted so is Columbus.

And saying Notre Dame is in the South Bend market is like saying Gonzaga is in the Spokane market. They both appeal nationally.

(12-08-2012 01:11 AM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  You guys are missing the point here....It has nothing to do with viewers. It has everything to do with the number of TV sets in a market. The more TV sets in a schools market the more valuable they are from a TV networks perspective.

Exactly, Neilson views potential viewership (media market) as directly relative to overall market size (metro- area). TV Media market is the number of TV sets in a market. Those are the numbers I posted. Some schools beat this by having large, rabid fan bases... Notre Dame; some are their states flagship universities and have large (not necessarily rabid) alumni bases which bring viewers (TV sets)... Maryland. Granted each school fits the fan base, alumni base, TV media market location criteria with different blends... SoCal has all of these; Texas Tech does not. Regardless, # of tv sets = POTENTIAL viewers. At our level (Gang of 5) we are forced to gamble on TV media market more than the Big Conferences do. We can not attract the Arkansas', Florida States, and Ole Miss's that transcend TV market location. Outside of the big conference schools the only ones that do consistently are Boise, BYU and the academies (to some degree), or a Gang of 5 school (say ECU or Marshall) that make a good run for a year or 2. Marshall played bigger than our "media market" for a while- great run great story. At our level that is hard to maintain.

(12-08-2012 01:11 AM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  You guys are missing the point here....It has nothing to do with viewers. It has everything to do with the number of TV sets in a market. The more TV sets in a schools market the more valuable they are from a TV networks perspective.

No you are missing the point here.

Nothing makes sense in College Football anymore. I'm starting to hate it more and more the older I get. Delany/Dodds can all goto hell. Which will lessen viewership imo if the current trend of old men behind closed doors controlling the monopoly at other's expense.

I can't help to think of how much Fox/ESPN have made off CUSA viewership. At thats "just the tip" of the mega media conglomerates.

And the older I get, the more I like European soccer. Although still a long ways to go in "being fair" - at least their structure is equally competitive from a non sustaining point.

(12-08-2012 01:11 AM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  You guys are missing the point here....It has nothing to do with viewers. It has everything to do with the number of TV sets in a market. The more TV sets in a schools market the more valuable they are from a TV networks perspective.

Maybe, but the Big East is severely challenging the point of diminishing returns...

Its never made sense to me for the smaller conferences. I get it for the Big 10 but the BIg East market grab was retarded.

Im glad that Tulsa is staying away from that bc at the end of the day one or two million bucks is chump change. Honestly how does a few million bucks translate into a better football program or experience for the fans. Is that gonna get people to see Tulane games? or Pony games? Or Rice games? No. Why bc they are small programs in a mid major world and thats ok. Win out and you get a seat at the table. Look at NIU, look @ TCU, Boise, Hawaii ect.

I think the MWC adding Tulsa and UTEP is more about strengthening the league competitively and bringing good schools in. Thats something that CUSA failed to grasp. Maybe FIU and FAU turn it around but those are crap programs with little to no fan support.

(12-08-2012 11:46 AM)panicstricken Wrote:  Its never made sense to me for the smaller conferences. I get it for the Big 10 but the BIg East market grab was retarded.

Im glad that Tulsa is staying away from that bc at the end of the day one or two million bucks is chump change. Honestly how does a few million bucks translate into a better football program or experience for the fans. Is that gonna get people to see Tulane games? or Pony games? Or Rice games? No. Why bc they are small programs in a mid major world and thats ok. Win out and you get a seat at the table. Look at NIU, look @ TCU, Boise, Hawaii ect.

I think the MWC adding Tulsa and UTEP is more about strengthening the league competitively and bringing good schools in. Thats something that CUSA failed to grasp. Maybe FIU and FAU turn it around but those are crap programs with little to no fan support.

I also think you have to look within for money instead of ask for free handouts, besides Baylor . Some Big 10 and ACC teams squat on their money.

Louisville has set up a system where they print money. They get 3.5 million from the Big East and they had 80something million in revenues. And that will grow considerably now. What were their revenues in the late 90s? Nothing near that I'm presuming.

Jurich is probably the best AD in the country.

(12-08-2012 08:02 AM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 01:41 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2012/0...edia-buzz/

Quote:D. Big East basketball is a weaker draw than expected – No one should be surprised by the weak Big East football numbers. However, the basketball and large market-centric side of the league actually had fewer hoops viewers than any of the power conferences except for the Pac-12, which doesn’t bode well with the league losing the strong draws of Syracuse, Pitt and West Virginia. The Big East was also widely acknowledged as the top conference in basketball last year, so the league was at its competitive peak in the post-2003 ACC raid era. This gives credence to the argument that large media markets in and of themselves don’t matter as much as large and rabid fan bases that draw in statewide audiences.

You are quoting a blog giving an opinion....Ummm, OK. This explaines why the Big Ten added Maryland and Rutgers....Because we all know these two schools are known for their large and rabid fan bases that draw statewide audiences... What do these 2 schools have in common? They are located in very Large media markets that the Big 10 did not have a team located. Also both of these have historically struggled on the football field for wins and fans in the stands. Rutgers has made strides of late but my point remains the same. Right now, whether right or wrong, when conferences look to make a proactive conference addition they are looking for schools in large media markets first then on to other areas like academics and performance.

I never said the B1G additions were correct, as a matter of fact you basically agree with my point that markets are pointless in the section I put in bold from your post. all I said was, that markets were a theory coined by the big east to increase their viewership and earnings. Obviously, the nielsen data proves otherwise.

You guys say POTENTIAL viewership is increased, what do you guys mean by POTENTIAL? Are these schools brand new or something? Their viewership has already been established, they either pull in their market or they don't. For example in Cusa, I can see UTSA, and Charlotte having POTENTIAL (brand new product to their market), but I can't see FAU or FIU having POTENTIAL increase in viewership.

(12-08-2012 08:02 AM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(12-08-2012 01:41 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2012/0...edia-buzz/

Quote:D. Big East basketball is a weaker draw than expected – No one should be surprised by the weak Big East football numbers. However, the basketball and large market-centric side of the league actually had fewer hoops viewers than any of the power conferences except for the Pac-12, which doesn’t bode well with the league losing the strong draws of Syracuse, Pitt and West Virginia. The Big East was also widely acknowledged as the top conference in basketball last year, so the league was at its competitive peak in the post-2003 ACC raid era. This gives credence to the argument that large media markets in and of themselves don’t matter as much as large and rabid fan bases that draw in statewide audiences.

You are quoting a blog giving an opinion....Ummm, OK. This explaines why the Big Ten added Maryland and Rutgers....Because we all know these two schools are known for their large and rabid fan bases that draw statewide audiences... What do these 2 schools have in common? They are located in very Large media markets that the Big 10 did not have a team located. Also both of these have historically struggled on the football field for wins and fans in the stands. Rutgers has made strides of late but my point remains the same. Right now, whether right or wrong, when conferences look to make a proactive conference addition they are looking for schools in large media markets first then on to other areas like academics and performance.

True to a degree. Actually, the two teams the Big Ten was targeting were Texas & ND, IMO, but this was pre-SEC & pre-ACC expansion. Missouri was a target that the Big Ten could have targeted pre-SEC expansion, but curiously the Big Ten ignored it. IMO, they were waiting on a bigger fish, the University of Texas, who was in more media markets and was a bigger brand than Mizzou. Post-SEC expansion showed that Texas was not going to be easily swayed into a conference where they would not have a lot of power shown by ESPN sweetening the pot for the Big XII and the GOR actually being enforced. Post-ACC expansion showed that the ACC coveted the Northeast as much as the Big Ten did. The Big Ten did not like the competition, and finally made a move that it didn't really want to make, but felt like it had to since Texas was no longer available.