(04-13-2015 07:28 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 06:58 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 06:30 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 01:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 01:28 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  And before Stevens got to Butler their success hadn't been much to brag about either. Same can be said for Boise, Gonzaga, and a few other schools.

They made the Sweet 16 the year before he was hired. Made tournament in 1997, 1998, 2000, second round 2001, Sweet 16 2003 and 2007. They went higher with Stevens but they weren't slobs either.

But I'm sure before Todd Lickliter left Butler the same thing was said, Butler would suck without Lickleter. And you're proving my point, just because when a successful mid-major coach leaves that program, it doesn't mean said program is going to stop being good.

And the Butler coach before Lickliter - Thad Matta - who beat Wake Forest in the first round in his only year there.

Coach before that? In Barry Collier's last four years before leaving to coach Nebraska, three NCAA tourney bids, and one NIT Quarterfinals

Again, proving my point. After Stevens left, you had some saying Butler would become irrelevant. Fact is Butler hasn't been irrelevant in recent memory. But that doesn't stop some from still making the silly comments though.

Wait, I am confused. Why did you post that Butler's success was nothing to brag about before Stevens?

(04-13-2015 07:42 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 07:28 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 06:58 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 06:30 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 01:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  They made the Sweet 16 the year before he was hired. Made tournament in 1997, 1998, 2000, second round 2001, Sweet 16 2003 and 2007. They went higher with Stevens but they weren't slobs either.

But I'm sure before Todd Lickliter left Butler the same thing was said, Butler would suck without Lickleter. And you're proving my point, just because when a successful mid-major coach leaves that program, it doesn't mean said program is going to stop being good.

And the Butler coach before Lickliter - Thad Matta - who beat Wake Forest in the first round in his only year there.

Coach before that? In Barry Collier's last four years before leaving to coach Nebraska, three NCAA tourney bids, and one NIT Quarterfinals

Again, proving my point. After Stevens left, you had some saying Butler would become irrelevant. Fact is Butler hasn't been irrelevant in recent memory. But that doesn't stop some from still making the silly comments though.

Wait, I am confused. Why did you post that Butler's success was nothing to brag about before Stevens?

Ignorance on my part. I completely forgot about Lickliter and Motta. That said, it still proves my point that mid majors can continue to be successful even if they lose a quality coach.

(04-13-2015 02:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 01:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 09:23 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Depends on your definition of failure. CUSA gets 14 million a year for its TV rights. The Sunbelt doesn't even get 1 million for its tv rights. CUSA has more games televised on cable TV and broadcast tv. If the CUSA goal is income generation, then thier strategy has seemingly outperformed the Sunbelt strategy. The real test of success/failure is the new CUSA contract. It's really too soon to say if the latest CUSA rebuilding strategy was a failure. All we know is it was adequate to stave off any reduction in the last years of the existing contract.

We have no idea what CUSA's current TV worth is, that TV deal you cite was signed with Houston, SMU, Memphis, Tulane, ECU, and UCF as members. Fox and CBS not renegotiating a contract that was nearly over isn't the same as an endorsement of the alignment.

You are right. We don't know the real value of CUSA. But its not like the market strategy is new. That's how the old CUSA 2.0 was built as well. Do markets represent a huge payday for the G5? Nope. But at the G5 level, groups of G5's in large markets have paid off better than groups of G5's without markets.

I would not be surprised if the CUSA payday drops to the level of the MAC's new deal. I wouldn't be surprised if new contract stays the same. Im not really expecting an increase--so an increase would be a mild surprise to me. Maybe accelerating values saves the CUSA contract. Who knows?

Market strategy or?
Ranked in decade leading to deal
Marshall 2001, 2002
UCF 2010
Tulsa 2010

Tulsa and Marshall are small markets (Tulsa smaller than Little Rock), USM and ECU are small market and while not ranked in the period weren't long removed from it.

CUSA was playing some good football when the deal was made.

(04-13-2015 11:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 02:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 01:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 09:23 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Depends on your definition of failure. CUSA gets 14 million a year for its TV rights. The Sunbelt doesn't even get 1 million for its tv rights. CUSA has more games televised on cable TV and broadcast tv. If the CUSA goal is income generation, then thier strategy has seemingly outperformed the Sunbelt strategy. The real test of success/failure is the new CUSA contract. It's really too soon to say if the latest CUSA rebuilding strategy was a failure. All we know is it was adequate to stave off any reduction in the last years of the existing contract.

We have no idea what CUSA's current TV worth is, that TV deal you cite was signed with Houston, SMU, Memphis, Tulane, ECU, and UCF as members. Fox and CBS not renegotiating a contract that was nearly over isn't the same as an endorsement of the alignment.

You are right. We don't know the real value of CUSA. But its not like the market strategy is new. That's how the old CUSA 2.0 was built as well. Do markets represent a huge payday for the G5? Nope. But at the G5 level, groups of G5's in large markets have paid off better than groups of G5's without markets.

I would not be surprised if the CUSA payday drops to the level of the MAC's new deal. I wouldn't be surprised if new contract stays the same. Im not really expecting an increase--so an increase would be a mild surprise to me. Maybe accelerating values saves the CUSA contract. Who knows?

Market strategy or?
Ranked in decade leading to deal
Marshall 2001, 2002
UCF 2010
Tulsa 2010

Tulsa and Marshall are small markets (Tulsa smaller than Little Rock), USM and ECU are small market and while not ranked in the period weren't long removed from it.

CUSA was playing some good football when the deal was made.

Tulsa MSA greater than Little Rock's. Its nearly one million.

Huntingtons is not even in the same universe, and that's with Ironton (Oh) and Ashland (Ky)

(04-11-2015 09:25 AM)FUB Wrote:  The AAC could add UAB to offset Navy's football only membership. If UAB concentrates it's resources on basketball instead of divided between FB and BB they could be a strong team. Don't kid yourself , Birmingham loves good basketball.

Yes, this is why we have no professional team, no minor league basketball team anyone has ever heard of, and when UAB is not winning they have low press.

Everyone likes a winner, but I would hardly say Birmingham loves basketball.

(04-10-2015 01:19 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  CUSAs chickens are coming home to roost. Getting rid of UAB is the first step to dealing with terrible mistakes over the past few years.

1) They expanded too far to 14, then it was announced payouts would be based on 12

2) They focused on markets even if the schools had poor support and performance. Now their TV deal will be weak and the makers they have won't matter.

3) Now championship deregulation kicks in which likely stops realignment and they are stuck with too many unproven teams with poor support and performance history.

They are bloated and would love to get to 12 if they could. If they could redo their selections, they would look totally different than what they have now. Meanwhile knowing realignment is done, the Sun Belt will drop Idaho and possibly NMSU to have a lean conference of solid football teams. Realignment resulted in adding Ga Southern and App State who are both poised to have breakout seasons. Ga St is bad, but no worse than what Charlotte is and can be.

This is setting up very nicely for the Sun Belt.

Seriously? Setting up nicely for the Sunbelt?...lol. Obviously you missed the memo somewhere along the line........The Sunbelt is the worst FBS conference in all the land. Always has and always will be. Talking about TV contracts?.....you better hope we get a good one because if we dont, you likely wont get anything. Reality is...I will be surprised if the Sunbelt as a football conference is even around in 10 years.

(04-14-2015 12:55 AM)NoDak Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 11:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 02:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 01:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 09:23 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Depends on your definition of failure. CUSA gets 14 million a year for its TV rights. The Sunbelt doesn't even get 1 million for its tv rights. CUSA has more games televised on cable TV and broadcast tv. If the CUSA goal is income generation, then thier strategy has seemingly outperformed the Sunbelt strategy. The real test of success/failure is the new CUSA contract. It's really too soon to say if the latest CUSA rebuilding strategy was a failure. All we know is it was adequate to stave off any reduction in the last years of the existing contract.

We have no idea what CUSA's current TV worth is, that TV deal you cite was signed with Houston, SMU, Memphis, Tulane, ECU, and UCF as members. Fox and CBS not renegotiating a contract that was nearly over isn't the same as an endorsement of the alignment.

You are right. We don't know the real value of CUSA. But its not like the market strategy is new. That's how the old CUSA 2.0 was built as well. Do markets represent a huge payday for the G5? Nope. But at the G5 level, groups of G5's in large markets have paid off better than groups of G5's without markets.

I would not be surprised if the CUSA payday drops to the level of the MAC's new deal. I wouldn't be surprised if new contract stays the same. Im not really expecting an increase--so an increase would be a mild surprise to me. Maybe accelerating values saves the CUSA contract. Who knows?

Market strategy or?
Ranked in decade leading to deal
Marshall 2001, 2002
UCF 2010
Tulsa 2010

Tulsa and Marshall are small markets (Tulsa smaller than Little Rock), USM and ECU are small market and while not ranked in the period weren't long removed from it.

CUSA was playing some good football when the deal was made.

Tulsa MSA greater than Little Rock's. Its nearly one million.

Huntingtons is not even in the same universe, and that's with Ironton (Oh) and Ashland (Ky)

Little Rock TV market (and if you are playing market strategy that's the market) is 56, Tulsa 59

(04-13-2015 11:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 02:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 01:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 09:23 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Depends on your definition of failure. CUSA gets 14 million a year for its TV rights. The Sunbelt doesn't even get 1 million for its tv rights. CUSA has more games televised on cable TV and broadcast tv. If the CUSA goal is income generation, then thier strategy has seemingly outperformed the Sunbelt strategy. The real test of success/failure is the new CUSA contract. It's really too soon to say if the latest CUSA rebuilding strategy was a failure. All we know is it was adequate to stave off any reduction in the last years of the existing contract.

We have no idea what CUSA's current TV worth is, that TV deal you cite was signed with Houston, SMU, Memphis, Tulane, ECU, and UCF as members. Fox and CBS not renegotiating a contract that was nearly over isn't the same as an endorsement of the alignment.

You are right. We don't know the real value of CUSA. But its not like the market strategy is new. That's how the old CUSA 2.0 was built as well. Do markets represent a huge payday for the G5? Nope. But at the G5 level, groups of G5's in large markets have paid off better than groups of G5's without markets.

I would not be surprised if the CUSA payday drops to the level of the MAC's new deal. I wouldn't be surprised if new contract stays the same. Im not really expecting an increase--so an increase would be a mild surprise to me. Maybe accelerating values saves the CUSA contract. Who knows?

Market strategy or?
Ranked in decade leading to deal
Marshall 2001, 2002
UCF 2010
Tulsa 2010

Tulsa and Marshall are small markets (Tulsa smaller than Little Rock), USM and ECU are small market and while not ranked in the period weren't long removed from it.

CUSA was playing some good football when the deal was made.

I dont think I would call Tulsa or Marshall "small markets"......not that we have a big markets but last I checked we were both ranked in the 60-65 range nationally. Thats right up there with Lexington Ky, Dayton Oh, Knoxville, TN..etc.

(04-14-2015 10:24 AM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 11:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 02:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 01:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 09:23 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Depends on your definition of failure. CUSA gets 14 million a year for its TV rights. The Sunbelt doesn't even get 1 million for its tv rights. CUSA has more games televised on cable TV and broadcast tv. If the CUSA goal is income generation, then thier strategy has seemingly outperformed the Sunbelt strategy. The real test of success/failure is the new CUSA contract. It's really too soon to say if the latest CUSA rebuilding strategy was a failure. All we know is it was adequate to stave off any reduction in the last years of the existing contract.

We have no idea what CUSA's current TV worth is, that TV deal you cite was signed with Houston, SMU, Memphis, Tulane, ECU, and UCF as members. Fox and CBS not renegotiating a contract that was nearly over isn't the same as an endorsement of the alignment.

You are right. We don't know the real value of CUSA. But its not like the market strategy is new. That's how the old CUSA 2.0 was built as well. Do markets represent a huge payday for the G5? Nope. But at the G5 level, groups of G5's in large markets have paid off better than groups of G5's without markets.

I would not be surprised if the CUSA payday drops to the level of the MAC's new deal. I wouldn't be surprised if new contract stays the same. Im not really expecting an increase--so an increase would be a mild surprise to me. Maybe accelerating values saves the CUSA contract. Who knows?

Market strategy or?
Ranked in decade leading to deal
Marshall 2001, 2002
UCF 2010
Tulsa 2010

Tulsa and Marshall are small markets (Tulsa smaller than Little Rock), USM and ECU are small market and while not ranked in the period weren't long removed from it.

CUSA was playing some good football when the deal was made.

I dont think I would call Tulsa or Marshall "small markets"......not that we have a big markets but last I checked we were both ranked in the 60-65 range nationally. Thats right up there with Lexington Ky, Dayton Oh, Knoxville, TN..etc.

Markets are stupid to argue over. The truth is markets only matter if the team doesn't matter. Look at the P5 programs, while some thrive in major markets most of the uber successful ones are in medium to small markets.

So if you hitch your wagon to your market it probably means that your program is insignificant.

(04-14-2015 10:49 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 10:24 AM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 11:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 02:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 01:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  We have no idea what CUSA's current TV worth is, that TV deal you cite was signed with Houston, SMU, Memphis, Tulane, ECU, and UCF as members. Fox and CBS not renegotiating a contract that was nearly over isn't the same as an endorsement of the alignment.

You are right. We don't know the real value of CUSA. But its not like the market strategy is new. That's how the old CUSA 2.0 was built as well. Do markets represent a huge payday for the G5? Nope. But at the G5 level, groups of G5's in large markets have paid off better than groups of G5's without markets.

I would not be surprised if the CUSA payday drops to the level of the MAC's new deal. I wouldn't be surprised if new contract stays the same. Im not really expecting an increase--so an increase would be a mild surprise to me. Maybe accelerating values saves the CUSA contract. Who knows?

Market strategy or?
Ranked in decade leading to deal
Marshall 2001, 2002
UCF 2010
Tulsa 2010

Tulsa and Marshall are small markets (Tulsa smaller than Little Rock), USM and ECU are small market and while not ranked in the period weren't long removed from it.

CUSA was playing some good football when the deal was made.

I dont think I would call Tulsa or Marshall "small markets"......not that we have a big markets but last I checked we were both ranked in the 60-65 range nationally. Thats right up there with Lexington Ky, Dayton Oh, Knoxville, TN..etc.

Markets are stupid to argue over. The truth is markets only matter if the team doesn't matter. Look at the P5 programs, while some thrive in major markets most of the uber successful ones are in medium to small markets.

So if you hitch your wagon to your market it probably means that your program is insignificant.

You're not going to get anywhere arguing that a program in small towns like Tuscaloosa can be a national draw. P5's are P5's. They get the money they do precisely because they are national draws. G5's are not national draws, so being in major metro area that can boost their viewership when they do well and provide a floor for their viewership when they do poorly is a plus.

Here's the thing. We can all agree that "wins in conference" is a zero sum game. For every winner there is a loser. Typically, about half the conference will be .500 or above, and half will be below. If ALL your schools are in large markets, then half your schools will be winning and will do fairly well in those large markets. Half will not be winning and will not do well in their big markets. But that dynamic will be the same everywhere. G5 teams not doing well wont bring many viewers regardless of whether they sit in large or small markets.

So, here's where the market strategy has some viability. If half your teams are going to win, and you build your league entirely out of large markets, then a network is generally guaranteed of doing pretty well in half those large markets. That's better, than doing well in half of a league of small markets---which is the alternative. Essentially, when teams do well, the networks will pick up bandwagon fans in large markets, and that can be a sizable number in markets exceeding one million. There's simply more bandwagon fans to get in a large market than in a small market. That's really where I see the market strategy making some sense and having some value.

(04-14-2015 11:47 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 10:49 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 10:24 AM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 11:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 02:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You are right. We don't know the real value of CUSA. But its not like the market strategy is new. That's how the old CUSA 2.0 was built as well. Do markets represent a huge payday for the G5? Nope. But at the G5 level, groups of G5's in large markets have paid off better than groups of G5's without markets.

I would not be surprised if the CUSA payday drops to the level of the MAC's new deal. I wouldn't be surprised if new contract stays the same. Im not really expecting an increase--so an increase would be a mild surprise to me. Maybe accelerating values saves the CUSA contract. Who knows?

Market strategy or?
Ranked in decade leading to deal
Marshall 2001, 2002
UCF 2010
Tulsa 2010

Tulsa and Marshall are small markets (Tulsa smaller than Little Rock), USM and ECU are small market and while not ranked in the period weren't long removed from it.

CUSA was playing some good football when the deal was made.

I dont think I would call Tulsa or Marshall "small markets"......not that we have a big markets but last I checked we were both ranked in the 60-65 range nationally. Thats right up there with Lexington Ky, Dayton Oh, Knoxville, TN..etc.

Markets are stupid to argue over. The truth is markets only matter if the team doesn't matter. Look at the P5 programs, while some thrive in major markets most of the uber successful ones are in medium to small markets.

So if you hitch your wagon to your market it probably means that your program is insignificant.

You're not going to get anywhere arguing that a program in small towns like Tuscaloosa can be a national draw. P5's are P5's. They get the money they do precisely because they are national draws. G5's are not national draws, so being in major metro area that can boost their viewership when they do well and provide a floor for their viewership when they do poorly is a plus.

Here's the thing. We can all agree that "wins in conference" is a zero sum game. For every winner there is a loser. Typically, about half the conference will be .500 or above, and half will be below. If ALL your schools are in large markets, then half your schools will be winning and will do fairly well in those large markets. Half will not be winning and will not do well in their big markets. But that dynamic will be the same everywhere. G5 teams not doing well wont bring many viewers regardless of whether they sit in large or small markets.

So, here's where the market strategy has some viability. If half your teams are going to win, and you build your league entirely out of large markets, then a network is generally guaranteed of doing pretty well in half those large markets. That's better, than doing well in half of a league of small markets---which is the alternative. Essentially, when teams do well, the networks will pick up bandwagon fans in large markets, and that can be a sizable number in markets exceeding one million. There's simply more bandwagon fans to get in a large market than in a small market. That's really where I see the market strategy making some sense and having some value.

Except TV doesn't use the market rank in calculating the value of a national product.

If we were talking regionally syndicated television it would be relevant.

Market size matters if you are a news reporter because you get paid more working in a larger market.

Houston does not get paid on a national television deal based on how many people are in the Houston market, they get paid based on their national value and that comes down to viewership and whether those viewers will cancel their subscription to Time Warner and switch to ATT UVerse or Dish or Direct if that school's games are not available.

If Dish were to announce it was dropping ESPN to save customers $6 per month, Dish would lose a large number of subscribers to competing services. They know that and thus pay the toll.

If we are talking Pac-12, Big 10, or SEC with their own networks, market matters but it isn't the Nielsen TV markets. Rather it is state based. Comcast knows if they dump SEC Network in Little Rock they will lose subscribers so they pay even though UArk isn't officially in that TV market.

Carriage fees for ESPN or FS1 or a conference network will not be driven by a G5 league, so the carriage fee is irrelevant in their pricing.

Viewership is what drives G5 pricing. How much more valuable is this game than poker, fishing, or a UFC talk show.

Boise drives much of the MWC value because they draw viewers.

The concern for CUSA has to be how many of the most watched CUSA games in 2013 involved teams now in AAC (most watched involved small market ECU). This last year the most watched CUSA game was the title game pitting small market La Tech vs. small market Marshall. The most watched regular season CUSA game pitted small market Marshall vs. small market Western Kentucky.

Viewers is the name of the game.

(04-14-2015 04:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Boise drives much of the MWC value because they draw viewers.

The concern for CUSA has to be how many of the most watched CUSA games in 2013 involved teams now in AAC (most watched involved small market ECU). This last year the most watched CUSA game was the title game pitting small market La Tech vs. small market Marshall. The most watched regular season CUSA game pitted small market Marshall vs. small market Western Kentucky.

Viewers is the name of the game.

Right- and Boise has won double digit games for years. They have multiple ooc skins on the wall. they have won major bowl games.
Marshall was ranked during the year. ECU doesn't win double digit games, but the certainly have significant ooc wins on the wall.
Football excellence trumps all. No question about it. But that level of excellence is rare in G5 land. Just winning 7,8 games a year with no rankings, no real ooc scalps doesn't mean a lot. And it falls well behind the more definable and consistent metrics like market, research and endowment.

(04-14-2015 04:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 11:47 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 10:49 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 10:24 AM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 11:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Market strategy or?
Ranked in decade leading to deal
Marshall 2001, 2002
UCF 2010
Tulsa 2010

Tulsa and Marshall are small markets (Tulsa smaller than Little Rock), USM and ECU are small market and while not ranked in the period weren't long removed from it.

CUSA was playing some good football when the deal was made.

I dont think I would call Tulsa or Marshall "small markets"......not that we have a big markets but last I checked we were both ranked in the 60-65 range nationally. Thats right up there with Lexington Ky, Dayton Oh, Knoxville, TN..etc.

Markets are stupid to argue over. The truth is markets only matter if the team doesn't matter. Look at the P5 programs, while some thrive in major markets most of the uber successful ones are in medium to small markets.

So if you hitch your wagon to your market it probably means that your program is insignificant.

You're not going to get anywhere arguing that a program in small towns like Tuscaloosa can be a national draw. P5's are P5's. They get the money they do precisely because they are national draws. G5's are not national draws, so being in major metro area that can boost their viewership when they do well and provide a floor for their viewership when they do poorly is a plus.

Here's the thing. We can all agree that "wins in conference" is a zero sum game. For every winner there is a loser. Typically, about half the conference will be .500 or above, and half will be below. If ALL your schools are in large markets, then half your schools will be winning and will do fairly well in those large markets. Half will not be winning and will not do well in their big markets. But that dynamic will be the same everywhere. G5 teams not doing well wont bring many viewers regardless of whether they sit in large or small markets.

So, here's where the market strategy has some viability. If half your teams are going to win, and you build your league entirely out of large markets, then a network is generally guaranteed of doing pretty well in half those large markets. That's better, than doing well in half of a league of small markets---which is the alternative. Essentially, when teams do well, the networks will pick up bandwagon fans in large markets, and that can be a sizable number in markets exceeding one million. There's simply more bandwagon fans to get in a large market than in a small market. That's really where I see the market strategy making some sense and having some value.

Except TV doesn't use the market rank in calculating the value of a national product.

If we were talking regionally syndicated television it would be relevant.

Market size matters if you are a news reporter because you get paid more working in a larger market.

Houston does not get paid on a national television deal based on how many people are in the Houston market, they get paid based on their national value and that comes down to viewership and whether those viewers will cancel their subscription to Time Warner and switch to ATT UVerse or Dish or Direct if that school's games are not available.

If Dish were to announce it was dropping ESPN to save customers $6 per month, Dish would lose a large number of subscribers to competing services. They know that and thus pay the toll.

If we are talking Pac-12, Big 10, or SEC with their own networks, market matters but it isn't the Nielsen TV markets. Rather it is state based. Comcast knows if they dump SEC Network in Little Rock they will lose subscribers so they pay even though UArk isn't officially in that TV market.

Carriage fees for ESPN or FS1 or a conference network will not be driven by a G5 league, so the carriage fee is irrelevant in their pricing.

Viewership is what drives G5 pricing. How much more valuable is this game than poker, fishing, or a UFC talk show.

Boise drives much of the MWC value because they draw viewers.

The concern for CUSA has to be how many of the most watched CUSA games in 2013 involved teams now in AAC (most watched involved small market ECU). This last year the most watched CUSA game was the title game pitting small market La Tech vs. small market Marshall. The most watched regular season CUSA game pitted small market Marshall vs. small market Western Kentucky.

Viewers is the name of the game.

By that measure virtually no G5 brings any real national cache. However, using the large market dynamics I was referencing, you can consistently supply a decent national audience, of course, you cant predict where it will be from year to year. A big tv number for a G5 game is a million people. These big metro areas are a big help in hitting those kind of numbers. That said, Im not sure how well that works for the carriage model.

Frankly, I seriously doubt any of the G5's are any kind of driving force in ESPN's carriage numbers--so does it really matter? I would think more people in Houston (with a 6 million metro area) will likely switch networks to get Houston games if necessary than would happen if Houston was only 200K. But even I don't think UH has much to do with driving ESPN's carriage numbers . Hell, Im not even sure if all of college sports is much more than a tiny blip in the real driving force in ESPN's carriage rates.

I do think a large 18-24 team best of the rest national conference that includes most of the bigger names in G5 football with a lot of nice markets is about the only kind of product that might have some value in a carriage equation. Its the kind of model that might generate enough heat and enough interest due to being EVERTWHERE and due to having so many fan bases (18-24) invested in one single conference. I think its worth a try. Based on how you explain it, its virtually impossible for any G5 regional confernece will to have any value on a national basis.

(04-14-2015 06:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 04:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 11:47 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 10:49 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 10:24 AM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  I dont think I would call Tulsa or Marshall "small markets"......not that we have a big markets but last I checked we were both ranked in the 60-65 range nationally. Thats right up there with Lexington Ky, Dayton Oh, Knoxville, TN..etc.

Markets are stupid to argue over. The truth is markets only matter if the team doesn't matter. Look at the P5 programs, while some thrive in major markets most of the uber successful ones are in medium to small markets.

So if you hitch your wagon to your market it probably means that your program is insignificant.

You're not going to get anywhere arguing that a program in small towns like Tuscaloosa can be a national draw. P5's are P5's. They get the money they do precisely because they are national draws. G5's are not national draws, so being in major metro area that can boost their viewership when they do well and provide a floor for their viewership when they do poorly is a plus.

Here's the thing. We can all agree that "wins in conference" is a zero sum game. For every winner there is a loser. Typically, about half the conference will be .500 or above, and half will be below. If ALL your schools are in large markets, then half your schools will be winning and will do fairly well in those large markets. Half will not be winning and will not do well in their big markets. But that dynamic will be the same everywhere. G5 teams not doing well wont bring many viewers regardless of whether they sit in large or small markets.

So, here's where the market strategy has some viability. If half your teams are going to win, and you build your league entirely out of large markets, then a network is generally guaranteed of doing pretty well in half those large markets. That's better, than doing well in half of a league of small markets---which is the alternative. Essentially, when teams do well, the networks will pick up bandwagon fans in large markets, and that can be a sizable number in markets exceeding one million. There's simply more bandwagon fans to get in a large market than in a small market. That's really where I see the market strategy making some sense and having some value.

Except TV doesn't use the market rank in calculating the value of a national product.

If we were talking regionally syndicated television it would be relevant.

Market size matters if you are a news reporter because you get paid more working in a larger market.

Houston does not get paid on a national television deal based on how many people are in the Houston market, they get paid based on their national value and that comes down to viewership and whether those viewers will cancel their subscription to Time Warner and switch to ATT UVerse or Dish or Direct if that school's games are not available.

If Dish were to announce it was dropping ESPN to save customers $6 per month, Dish would lose a large number of subscribers to competing services. They know that and thus pay the toll.

If we are talking Pac-12, Big 10, or SEC with their own networks, market matters but it isn't the Nielsen TV markets. Rather it is state based. Comcast knows if they dump SEC Network in Little Rock they will lose subscribers so they pay even though UArk isn't officially in that TV market.

Carriage fees for ESPN or FS1 or a conference network will not be driven by a G5 league, so the carriage fee is irrelevant in their pricing.

Viewership is what drives G5 pricing. How much more valuable is this game than poker, fishing, or a UFC talk show.

Boise drives much of the MWC value because they draw viewers.

The concern for CUSA has to be how many of the most watched CUSA games in 2013 involved teams now in AAC (most watched involved small market ECU). This last year the most watched CUSA game was the title game pitting small market La Tech vs. small market Marshall. The most watched regular season CUSA game pitted small market Marshall vs. small market Western Kentucky.

Viewers is the name of the game.

By that measure virtually no G5 brings any real national cache. However, using the large market dynamics I was referencing, you can consistently supply a decent national audience, of course, you cant predict where it will be from year to year. A big number of a G5 game is a million people. These big metro areas are a big help in hitting those kind of numbers. That said, Im not sure how well that works for the carriage model.

Frankly, I seriously doubt any of the G5's are any kind of driving force in ESPN's carriage numbers--so does it really matter? I would think more people in Houston (with a 6 million metro area) will likely switch networks to get Houston games if necessary than would happen if Houston was only 200K. But even I don't think UH has much to do with driving ESPN's carriage numbers . Hell, Im not even sure if all of college sports is much more than a tiny blip in the real driving force in ESPN's carriage rates.

I do think a large 18-24 team best of the rest national conference that includes most of the bigger names in G5 football with a lot of nice markets is about the only kind of product that might have some value in a carriage equation. Its the kind of model that might generate enough heat and enough interest due to being EVERTWHERE and due to having so many fan bases (18-24) invested in one single conference. I think its worth a try. Based on how you explain it, its virtually impossible for any G5 regional confernece will to have any value on a national basis.

Just to use as an example, would this really move the needle?
A SDSU, Fresno, UNLV, Boise, BYU (assuming you could get them-HI if not)
B Colorado St., New Mexico, Air Force, Navy, Army
C SMU, Houston, Tulane, Memphis, Cincinnati
D UCF, USF, ECU, Temple, UConn

That's the MWC + AAC + BYU + Army leaving out Tulsa, Wyoming, Utah St., Nevada, San Jose and Hawaii.

(04-14-2015 08:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 06:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 04:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 11:47 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 10:49 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  Markets are stupid to argue over. The truth is markets only matter if the team doesn't matter. Look at the P5 programs, while some thrive in major markets most of the uber successful ones are in medium to small markets.

So if you hitch your wagon to your market it probably means that your program is insignificant.

You're not going to get anywhere arguing that a program in small towns like Tuscaloosa can be a national draw. P5's are P5's. They get the money they do precisely because they are national draws. G5's are not national draws, so being in major metro area that can boost their viewership when they do well and provide a floor for their viewership when they do poorly is a plus.

Here's the thing. We can all agree that "wins in conference" is a zero sum game. For every winner there is a loser. Typically, about half the conference will be .500 or above, and half will be below. If ALL your schools are in large markets, then half your schools will be winning and will do fairly well in those large markets. Half will not be winning and will not do well in their big markets. But that dynamic will be the same everywhere. G5 teams not doing well wont bring many viewers regardless of whether they sit in large or small markets.

So, here's where the market strategy has some viability. If half your teams are going to win, and you build your league entirely out of large markets, then a network is generally guaranteed of doing pretty well in half those large markets. That's better, than doing well in half of a league of small markets---which is the alternative. Essentially, when teams do well, the networks will pick up bandwagon fans in large markets, and that can be a sizable number in markets exceeding one million. There's simply more bandwagon fans to get in a large market than in a small market. That's really where I see the market strategy making some sense and having some value.

Except TV doesn't use the market rank in calculating the value of a national product.

If we were talking regionally syndicated television it would be relevant.

Market size matters if you are a news reporter because you get paid more working in a larger market.

Houston does not get paid on a national television deal based on how many people are in the Houston market, they get paid based on their national value and that comes down to viewership and whether those viewers will cancel their subscription to Time Warner and switch to ATT UVerse or Dish or Direct if that school's games are not available.

If Dish were to announce it was dropping ESPN to save customers $6 per month, Dish would lose a large number of subscribers to competing services. They know that and thus pay the toll.

If we are talking Pac-12, Big 10, or SEC with their own networks, market matters but it isn't the Nielsen TV markets. Rather it is state based. Comcast knows if they dump SEC Network in Little Rock they will lose subscribers so they pay even though UArk isn't officially in that TV market.

Carriage fees for ESPN or FS1 or a conference network will not be driven by a G5 league, so the carriage fee is irrelevant in their pricing.

Viewership is what drives G5 pricing. How much more valuable is this game than poker, fishing, or a UFC talk show.

Boise drives much of the MWC value because they draw viewers.

The concern for CUSA has to be how many of the most watched CUSA games in 2013 involved teams now in AAC (most watched involved small market ECU). This last year the most watched CUSA game was the title game pitting small market La Tech vs. small market Marshall. The most watched regular season CUSA game pitted small market Marshall vs. small market Western Kentucky.

Viewers is the name of the game.

By that measure virtually no G5 brings any real national cache. However, using the large market dynamics I was referencing, you can consistently supply a decent national audience, of course, you cant predict where it will be from year to year. A big number of a G5 game is a million people. These big metro areas are a big help in hitting those kind of numbers. That said, Im not sure how well that works for the carriage model.

Frankly, I seriously doubt any of the G5's are any kind of driving force in ESPN's carriage numbers--so does it really matter? I would think more people in Houston (with a 6 million metro area) will likely switch networks to get Houston games if necessary than would happen if Houston was only 200K. But even I don't think UH has much to do with driving ESPN's carriage numbers . Hell, Im not even sure if all of college sports is much more than a tiny blip in the real driving force in ESPN's carriage rates.

I do think a large 18-24 team best of the rest national conference that includes most of the bigger names in G5 football with a lot of nice markets is about the only kind of product that might have some value in a carriage equation. Its the kind of model that might generate enough heat and enough interest due to being EVERTWHERE and due to having so many fan bases (18-24) invested in one single conference. I think its worth a try. Based on how you explain it, its virtually impossible for any G5 regional confernece will to have any value on a national basis.

Just to use as an example, would this really move the needle?
A SDSU, Fresno, UNLV, Boise, BYU (assuming you could get them-HI if not)
B Colorado St., New Mexico, Air Force, Navy, Army
C SMU, Houston, Tulane, Memphis, Cincinnati
D UCF, USF, ECU, Temple, UConn

That's the MWC + AAC + BYU + Army leaving out Tulsa, Wyoming, Utah St., Nevada, San Jose and Hawaii.

Probably more than either conference would by itself. Otherwise, why would someone in Hatford watch a game between Fresno and New Mexico? Likewise, why would a guy in San Diego watch a game between Temple and UCF? Tie the two conferences together, and maybe you start to pull in some viewer from a larger footprint. For ESPN, it helps, because the Fresno vs New Mexico game is showing in Hartford and Philly anyway. Conversely, it helps ESPN because the Temple vs UCF game is on in San Deigo and Fresno as well. The total number of people interested in a conference is the total number of people interested in the conference. Does it really matter to ESPN if the interest comes from 12 fan bases or 18 if 1 million people are watching?

(04-14-2015 06:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  By that measure virtually no G5 brings any real national cache. However, using the large market dynamics I was referencing, you can consistently supply a decent national audience, of course, you cant predict where it will be from year to year. A big tv number for a G5 game is a million people. These big metro areas are a big help in hitting those kind of numbers. That said, Im not sure how well that works for the carriage model.

Frankly, I seriously doubt any of the G5's are any kind of driving force in ESPN's carriage numbers--so does it really matter? I would think more people in Houston (with a 6 million metro area) will likely switch networks to get Houston games if necessary than would happen if Houston was only 200K. But even I don't think UH has much to do with driving ESPN's carriage numbers . Hell, Im not even sure if all of college sports is much more than a tiny blip in the real driving force in ESPN's carriage rates.

I do think a large 18-24 team best of the rest national conference that includes most of the bigger names in G5 football with a lot of nice markets is about the only kind of product that might have some value in a carriage equation. Its the kind of model that might generate enough heat and enough interest due to being EVERTWHERE and due to having so many fan bases (18-24) invested in one single conference. I think its worth a try. Based on how you explain it, its virtually impossible for any G5 regional confernece will to have any value on a national basis.

I thought we had stipulated that no G5 has a major national brand that impacts carriage fee.

I understand the theory. If a local team is playing X% people in the region are more likely to tune than if it were two non-regional teams. If there are a lot of people in the region then that will translate into more viewers.

I've crawled all over several years worth of rating data and simply don't see evidence to support that assumption (an assumption I once thought was valid).

If you look at a G5's attendance and their W/L those two factors are far more reliable indicators of viewership than home market. You can get more viewers for ULM vs Troy when neither is in contention in the Sun Belt than you can for FIU vs FAU which involves the #16 and #38 markets and they abut each other.

Now since I don't have access to the geographic data that the networks have, it could well be that in P5 vs. G5 games that the home market of the G5 increases in viewership because I excluded all games involving P5 when looking at the data.

Based on three years of rating data, the best G5 programs for viewership are (not in any sort of order): Boise State, Air Force, Fresno, Houston, UCF, USF, Navy, Cincinnati, ECU, Northern Illinois, Bowling Green, Arkansas State, Louisiana Lafayette, Marshall.