(02-12-2014 10:00 AM)txstatebobcat Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 08:07 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 05:21 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Unless something changes and the Sun Belt is offered a decent contract would think
that the SBC would want to do something drastic.

It is a simple concept. the media value of a game between say lsu and alabama is greater than a game between ulm and south alabama..not much we can do about that. occasionally a win over a "name" team will put a sbc team in the spotlight for the next cpl. weeks but that is not the norm.

I don't disagree with that at all. LSU vs Alabama is a far more valuable commodity than stAte vs Louisiana which is probably our "marquee" game in 2031. However is it 99 times more valuable? I would say no. stAte vs Louisiana got 767,000 viewers on a Tuesday night on ESPN2 while LSU vs Alabama got 11.9 million viewers on prime time on CBS. So LSU vs Alabama got 16 times (rounded up) as many viewers as stAte vs Louisiana.

It's the incremental viewers that is the key statistic.

If ESPN didn't have the Sun Belt game to show, they'd still have a MAC game to show. Let's say ESPN2 shows Ball State and Toledo on that Tuesday night, and it draws 650,000 viewers. So the Sun Belt game drew an incremental 117,000 viewers. Also, the viewers of Ball St/Toledo and Ark State/Louisiana-Lafayette would be of the same demographic.

If CBS didn't have the SEC game to show, they'd have no college football game to show. No contracts with anyone else. So instead of 11.9 million viewers watching LSU/Alabama, CBS would get 5.0 million viewers (who are more likely to be outside of the "most desirable" demographics for selling TV commercials) watching some CBS "Saturday Night movie of the week." 6.9 million incremental viewers, plus the benefit of being able to sell ads at a higher rate given audience demographics.

In that sense, 6.9 million:117,000 actually IS close to a 99-1 difference.

(02-19-2014 01:55 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 10:00 AM)txstatebobcat Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 08:07 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 05:21 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Unless something changes and the Sun Belt is offered a decent contract would think
that the SBC would want to do something drastic.

It is a simple concept. the media value of a game between say lsu and alabama is greater than a game between ulm and south alabama..not much we can do about that. occasionally a win over a "name" team will put a sbc team in the spotlight for the next cpl. weeks but that is not the norm.

I don't disagree with that at all. LSU vs Alabama is a far more valuable commodity than stAte vs Louisiana which is probably our "marquee" game in 2031. However is it 99 times more valuable? I would say no. stAte vs Louisiana got 767,000 viewers on a Tuesday night on ESPN2 while LSU vs Alabama got 11.9 million viewers on prime time on CBS. So LSU vs Alabama got 16 times (rounded up) as many viewers as stAte vs Louisiana.

It's the incremental viewers that is the key statistic.

If ESPN didn't have the Sun Belt game to show, they'd still have a MAC game to show. Let's say ESPN2 shows Ball State and Toledo on that Tuesday night, and it draws 650,000 viewers. So the Sun Belt game drew an incremental 117,000 viewers. Also, the viewers of Ball St/Toledo and Ark State/Louisiana-Lafayette would be of the same demographic.

If CBS didn't have the SEC game to show, they'd have no college football game to show. No contracts with anyone else. So instead of 11.9 million viewers watching LSU/Alabama, CBS would get 5.0 million viewers (who are more likely to be outside of the "most desirable" demographics for selling TV commercials) watching some CBS "Saturday Night movie of the week." 6.9 million incremental viewers, plus the benefit of being able to sell ads at a higher rate given audience demographics.

In that sense, 6.9 million:117,000 actually IS close to a 99-1 difference.

After looking it up, the SEC has a 55 million/year deal with CBS and a 140+ million/year with ESPN. This isn't even counting their network. compared to the Sunbelt's measley .5 million/year (estimate but i doubt i'm very far off, I would love to be wrong on this one) so the actual ratio is more like 400-1. I guess the original complain of 99-1 would actually be a huge improvement over our current situation. Also it goes to show that P5 conferences are being hugely overpaid.
The people at ESPN especially, are just counting on our ability to keep up with our monthly cable bill. Using myself as an example roughly $6 of my cable bill goes to ESPN. That is $72/year just for the right to see a few games on ESPN3, the longhorn channel and a couple of other games on espn2. I think I'll just go back to listening on the radio, and cut the $1300+/year ball in chain that is cable tv. I doubt my family would miss it, the only thing my kids watch is netflix nowadays.

(02-19-2014 06:11 PM)TStatebobcat Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 01:55 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 10:00 AM)txstatebobcat Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 08:07 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 05:21 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Unless something changes and the Sun Belt is offered a decent contract would think
that the SBC would want to do something drastic.

It is a simple concept. the media value of a game between say lsu and alabama is greater than a game between ulm and south alabama..not much we can do about that. occasionally a win over a "name" team will put a sbc team in the spotlight for the next cpl. weeks but that is not the norm.

I don't disagree with that at all. LSU vs Alabama is a far more valuable commodity than stAte vs Louisiana which is probably our "marquee" game in 2031. However is it 99 times more valuable? I would say no. stAte vs Louisiana got 767,000 viewers on a Tuesday night on ESPN2 while LSU vs Alabama got 11.9 million viewers on prime time on CBS. So LSU vs Alabama got 16 times (rounded up) as many viewers as stAte vs Louisiana.

It's the incremental viewers that is the key statistic.

If ESPN didn't have the Sun Belt game to show, they'd still have a MAC game to show. Let's say ESPN2 shows Ball State and Toledo on that Tuesday night, and it draws 650,000 viewers. So the Sun Belt game drew an incremental 117,000 viewers. Also, the viewers of Ball St/Toledo and Ark State/Louisiana-Lafayette would be of the same demographic.

If CBS didn't have the SEC game to show, they'd have no college football game to show. No contracts with anyone else. So instead of 11.9 million viewers watching LSU/Alabama, CBS would get 5.0 million viewers (who are more likely to be outside of the "most desirable" demographics for selling TV commercials) watching some CBS "Saturday Night movie of the week." 6.9 million incremental viewers, plus the benefit of being able to sell ads at a higher rate given audience demographics.

In that sense, 6.9 million:117,000 actually IS close to a 99-1 difference.

After looking it up, the SEC has a 55 million/year deal with CBS and a 140+ million/year with ESPN. This isn't even counting their network. compared to the Sunbelt's measley .5 million/year (estimate but i doubt i'm very far off, I would love to be wrong on this one) so the actual ratio is more like 400-1. I guess the original complain of 99-1 would actually be a huge improvement over our current situation. Also it goes to show that P5 conferences are being hugely overpaid.
The people at ESPN especially, are just counting on our ability to keep up with our monthly cable bill. Using myself as an example roughly $6 of my cable bill goes to ESPN. That is $72/year just for the right to see a few games on ESPN3, the longhorn channel and a couple of other games on espn2. I think I'll just go back to listening on the radio, and cut the $1300+/year ball in chain that is cable tv. I doubt my family would miss it, the only thing my kids watch is netflix nowadays.

Wouldn't advise cutting cable - internet usage caps tend to eat people up who do that - especially with kids.

Without quoting the walls of text - I understand our current situation with being locked into ESPN for the 6 more years - but after that - and hopefully with improvement conference wide in that 6 years - I hope we will have some improved opportunities.

Oh, and ESPN is vastly overpriced to the end user. What else would you expect from Disney?

(02-19-2014 06:37 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 06:11 PM)TStatebobcat Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 01:55 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 10:00 AM)txstatebobcat Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 08:07 AM)runamuck Wrote:  It is a simple concept. the media value of a game between say lsu and alabama is greater than a game between ulm and south alabama..not much we can do about that. occasionally a win over a "name" team will put a sbc team in the spotlight for the next cpl. weeks but that is not the norm.

I don't disagree with that at all. LSU vs Alabama is a far more valuable commodity than stAte vs Louisiana which is probably our "marquee" game in 2031. However is it 99 times more valuable? I would say no. stAte vs Louisiana got 767,000 viewers on a Tuesday night on ESPN2 while LSU vs Alabama got 11.9 million viewers on prime time on CBS. So LSU vs Alabama got 16 times (rounded up) as many viewers as stAte vs Louisiana.

It's the incremental viewers that is the key statistic.

If ESPN didn't have the Sun Belt game to show, they'd still have a MAC game to show. Let's say ESPN2 shows Ball State and Toledo on that Tuesday night, and it draws 650,000 viewers. So the Sun Belt game drew an incremental 117,000 viewers. Also, the viewers of Ball St/Toledo and Ark State/Louisiana-Lafayette would be of the same demographic.

If CBS didn't have the SEC game to show, they'd have no college football game to show. No contracts with anyone else. So instead of 11.9 million viewers watching LSU/Alabama, CBS would get 5.0 million viewers (who are more likely to be outside of the "most desirable" demographics for selling TV commercials) watching some CBS "Saturday Night movie of the week." 6.9 million incremental viewers, plus the benefit of being able to sell ads at a higher rate given audience demographics.

In that sense, 6.9 million:117,000 actually IS close to a 99-1 difference.

After looking it up, the SEC has a 55 million/year deal with CBS and a 140+ million/year with ESPN. This isn't even counting their network. compared to the Sunbelt's measley .5 million/year (estimate but i doubt i'm very far off, I would love to be wrong on this one) so the actual ratio is more like 400-1. I guess the original complain of 99-1 would actually be a huge improvement over our current situation. Also it goes to show that P5 conferences are being hugely overpaid.
The people at ESPN especially, are just counting on our ability to keep up with our monthly cable bill. Using myself as an example roughly $6 of my cable bill goes to ESPN. That is $72/year just for the right to see a few games on ESPN3, the longhorn channel and a couple of other games on espn2. I think I'll just go back to listening on the radio, and cut the $1300+/year ball in chain that is cable tv. I doubt my family would miss it, the only thing my kids watch is netflix nowadays.

Wouldn't advise cutting cable - internet usage caps tend to eat people up who do that - especially with kids.

What foreign country do you live in with usage caps still?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(02-19-2014 10:25 PM)Check Yosef Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 06:37 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 06:11 PM)TStatebobcat Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 01:55 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 10:00 AM)txstatebobcat Wrote:  I don't disagree with that at all. LSU vs Alabama is a far more valuable commodity than stAte vs Louisiana which is probably our "marquee" game in 2031. However is it 99 times more valuable? I would say no. stAte vs Louisiana got 767,000 viewers on a Tuesday night on ESPN2 while LSU vs Alabama got 11.9 million viewers on prime time on CBS. So LSU vs Alabama got 16 times (rounded up) as many viewers as stAte vs Louisiana.

It's the incremental viewers that is the key statistic.

If ESPN didn't have the Sun Belt game to show, they'd still have a MAC game to show. Let's say ESPN2 shows Ball State and Toledo on that Tuesday night, and it draws 650,000 viewers. So the Sun Belt game drew an incremental 117,000 viewers. Also, the viewers of Ball St/Toledo and Ark State/Louisiana-Lafayette would be of the same demographic.

If CBS didn't have the SEC game to show, they'd have no college football game to show. No contracts with anyone else. So instead of 11.9 million viewers watching LSU/Alabama, CBS would get 5.0 million viewers (who are more likely to be outside of the "most desirable" demographics for selling TV commercials) watching some CBS "Saturday Night movie of the week." 6.9 million incremental viewers, plus the benefit of being able to sell ads at a higher rate given audience demographics.

In that sense, 6.9 million:117,000 actually IS close to a 99-1 difference.

After looking it up, the SEC has a 55 million/year deal with CBS and a 140+ million/year with ESPN. This isn't even counting their network. compared to the Sunbelt's measley .5 million/year (estimate but i doubt i'm very far off, I would love to be wrong on this one) so the actual ratio is more like 400-1. I guess the original complain of 99-1 would actually be a huge improvement over our current situation. Also it goes to show that P5 conferences are being hugely overpaid.
The people at ESPN especially, are just counting on our ability to keep up with our monthly cable bill. Using myself as an example roughly $6 of my cable bill goes to ESPN. That is $72/year just for the right to see a few games on ESPN3, the longhorn channel and a couple of other games on espn2. I think I'll just go back to listening on the radio, and cut the $1300+/year ball in chain that is cable tv. I doubt my family would miss it, the only thing my kids watch is netflix nowadays.

Wouldn't advise cutting cable - internet usage caps tend to eat people up who do that - especially with kids.

What foreign country do you live in with usage caps still?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Comcast just went to data caps not too long ago and Charter will do the same soon. Also Comcast just bought Time Warner Cable so if you have them you'll have data caps soon too. Cable companies aren't fools, they know more people are ditching cable and switching to streaming so they'll just implement caps to make that money back they're losing on overages. And I believe Comcast is the largest provider in the US so it's not as if it's rare.

(02-19-2014 06:11 PM)TStatebobcat Wrote:  

(02-19-2014 01:55 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 10:00 AM)txstatebobcat Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 08:07 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 05:21 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Unless something changes and the Sun Belt is offered a decent contract would think
that the SBC would want to do something drastic.

It is a simple concept. the media value of a game between say lsu and alabama is greater than a game between ulm and south alabama..not much we can do about that. occasionally a win over a "name" team will put a sbc team in the spotlight for the next cpl. weeks but that is not the norm.

I don't disagree with that at all. LSU vs Alabama is a far more valuable commodity than stAte vs Louisiana which is probably our "marquee" game in 2031. However is it 99 times more valuable? I would say no. stAte vs Louisiana got 767,000 viewers on a Tuesday night on ESPN2 while LSU vs Alabama got 11.9 million viewers on prime time on CBS. So LSU vs Alabama got 16 times (rounded up) as many viewers as stAte vs Louisiana.

It's the incremental viewers that is the key statistic.

If ESPN didn't have the Sun Belt game to show, they'd still have a MAC game to show. Let's say ESPN2 shows Ball State and Toledo on that Tuesday night, and it draws 650,000 viewers. So the Sun Belt game drew an incremental 117,000 viewers. Also, the viewers of Ball St/Toledo and Ark State/Louisiana-Lafayette would be of the same demographic.

If CBS didn't have the SEC game to show, they'd have no college football game to show. No contracts with anyone else. So instead of 11.9 million viewers watching LSU/Alabama, CBS would get 5.0 million viewers (who are more likely to be outside of the "most desirable" demographics for selling TV commercials) watching some CBS "Saturday Night movie of the week." 6.9 million incremental viewers, plus the benefit of being able to sell ads at a higher rate given audience demographics.

In that sense, 6.9 million:117,000 actually IS close to a 99-1 difference.

After looking it up, the SEC has a 55 million/year deal with CBS and a 140+ million/year with ESPN. This isn't even counting their network. compared to the Sunbelt's measley .5 million/year (estimate but i doubt i'm very far off, I would love to be wrong on this one) so the actual ratio is more like 400-1. I guess the original complain of 99-1 would actually be a huge improvement over our current situation. Also it goes to show that P5 conferences are being hugely overpaid.
The people at ESPN especially, are just counting on our ability to keep up with our monthly cable bill. Using myself as an example roughly $6 of my cable bill goes to ESPN. That is $72/year just for the right to see a few games on ESPN3, the longhorn channel and a couple of other games on espn2. I think I'll just go back to listening on the radio, and cut the $1300+/year ball in chain that is cable tv. I doubt my family would miss it, the only thing my kids watch is netflix nowadays.

That ratio of 400-1 really brings things into focus the future of college sports. The ratio isn't much better for any other G-5 conference. How can any of us compete against those kind of odds?