http://www.deseretnews.com/article/86566...tml?pg=all

....But arguably the biggest pitch is how many viewers schools can deliver. That’s where it gets tricky. Is it market size or purely the number of viewers?...

(08-17-2016 09:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/86566...tml?pg=all

....But arguably the biggest pitch is how many viewers schools can deliver. That’s where it gets tricky. Is it market size or purely the number of viewers?...

Bullet I've been saying this for a few years. The SEC and Big 12 are #1 & #2 in market saturation. The Big 10 is very close to the numbers of the Big 12. Then there is a major drop off with the ACC and PAC. Both have large markets and much weaker saturation numbers.

IMO that is why ESPN has held such an interest in the Big 12 and it would be the only business reason to even consider expansion West for the SEC, or a merger like Trammel has suggested. Strong brands and dedicated fans translate into advertising dollars.

So the question remains for the networks, "Do you strengthen the ACC with a scheduling alliance with the ACC and strengthen the PAC with the same with the Big 10?" Or, do you strengthen the PAC with a merger or expansion from the Big 12?
It is possible that the Big 12's saturation numbers could drop with expansion by the PAC or a merger with the PAC. It's a risky move, especially as long as the PAC owns its own network. The major networks would make less off of the product, and the PAC might not be able to increase payouts to levels needed on its own, and such a move might not move the needle in PAC fan interest which is poor, and could damage some fan interest from the Big 12.

For a while I think they were considering the same issues with regard to the SEC / ACC situations. I believe they were thinking 6 years ago that moving the SEC into some of the coastal markets might well energize those markets, but then too they had to consider if traveling to less energized and engaged venues would damage some of the SEC fervor. Since the two conferences essentially separated over fundamental differences decades ago, it may well have been wise to let the two stay separate with the exception of certain in state rivalries.

(08-17-2016 09:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/86566...tml?pg=all

....But arguably the biggest pitch is how many viewers schools can deliver. That’s where it gets tricky. Is it market size or purely the number of viewers?...

UConn is dominant in his market. And there is ample evidence to prove this.

So I'm not sure why this guy is so dismissive.

When SNY added UConn's tier 3 rights, it went from being on a sports tier, to basic cable in every Cable system. You didn't even need a cable box to get SNY.

And they ramped up their monthly user fees to $2.60 per household.

Again, this was basic cable, 1.6 million households. And it's not just the Hartford / New Haven markets either, but also Fairfield County which is inside New York City's DMA. There too the monthly fee jumped $1.20, and there too they all went to basic cable.

I wish people like this reporter would do some research.

It's not like any of this is a mystery.

He claims East Carolina and others are "overshadowed" by better known schools except ECU out performs NC State in ratings when playing P5 competition and comes up just shy of UNC.

TV audiences for college football in Birmingham are roughly equal to TV audiences for college football in NYC. If you are in the business of selling ads on college football telecasts Birmingham's interest is basically equal to NYC's.

Fares well for Memphis

(08-17-2016 10:32 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 09:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/86566...tml?pg=all

....But arguably the biggest pitch is how many viewers schools can deliver. That’s where it gets tricky. Is it market size or purely the number of viewers?...

UConn is dominant in his market. And there is ample evidence to prove this.

So I'm not sure why this guy is so dismissive.

When SNY added UConn's tier 3 rights, it went from being on a sports tier, to basic cable in every Cable system. You didn't even need a cable box to get SNY.

And they ramped up their monthly user fees to $2.60 per household.

Again, this was basic cable, 1.6 million households. And it's not just the Hartford / New Haven markets either, but also Fairfield County which is inside New York City's DMA. There too the monthly fee jumped $1.20, and there too they all went to basic cable.

I wish people like this reporter would do some research.

It's not like any of this is a mystery.

He's making a point that BYU gets higher ratings despite having a smaller market than UConn, Cincinnati, Houston, etc. It's a good point.

Look, he insulted my school by using inaccurate data too. But he's right about his main point. UConn/Cincy are not "dominant" in our markets in the way that Ole Miss or Alabama is dominant. Not even close. UConn & Cincy are both #1 in our markets, but "winning #1 in a market" or "being in a large market" isn't nearly as important as the total number of viewers.

In general, the point he is making is right on the money. But it does seem he uses some over generalization to dismiss some of the schools he talks about. The premise is correct: planting a flag in a metropolitan area DOES NOT automatically equate to viewers. But he sounded a bit out of touch when he got into specifics.

(08-17-2016 10:32 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  When SNY added UConn's tier 3 rights, it went from being on a sports tier, to basic cable in every Cable system. You didn't even need a cable box to get SNY.

I no way am I dimissing the claim of what UConn brings to its market, but it is worth noting that the package UConn brought to SNY back then is near what UConn would bring now. Back then, SNY received not only UConn's tier 3 games (or really Tier 4) that were not broadcast, but they also received as part of the UConn rights, rights to the ENTIRE Big East syndication package, which allowed them to carry any Big East game, football or basketball, that was carried on the Big East Syndicated network. This was upwards of 100+ basketball games , and 30 plus football games, including other nearby teams such as St Johns, Syracuse, Seton Hall, Rutgers, and Providence, as well as major names such as Pitt, WV, Louisville, Cincinnati, etc..

Now I am not saying those schools were responsible for SNY's footprint expansion in Connecticut, but it IS important to note that it was likely paramount in why SNY invested in it in the first place. SNYH used to show a LOT of Big East games that were not UConn: I know because I used to watch a lot of Louisville games on SNY, because their HD was better than our local station who carried the games, and it was better quality on SNY. I point this out because the lack of the other properties to go with it, that are no longer there, might temper what SNY would pay for UConn, sine they no longer get the additional programming with it, not to mention any potential conference UConn would move to, has a much higher percentage of games assigned to national TV than the old Big East contract did, which will push the value down. Basically UConn women's basketball would have to carry the lot, and while it is very valuable programming, it is much better as a secondary offering than the prime driver.

(08-17-2016 10:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  TV audiences for college football in Birmingham are roughly equal to TV audiences for college football in NYC. If you are in the business of selling ads on college football telecasts Birmingham's interest is basically equal to NYC's.

It depends on the team or teams playing. In Birmingham if it involved a home school the saturation is off the charts % wise. That kind of concentration makes specific targeting of product possible.

Boise State gets more viewers than in and around the population of the size of Boise. They get a national following better than most of the ACC schools. They do better than Washington State and Oregon State as well.

The downside to that of course is many sponsors, Madison Avenue if you will, will take 1 million viewers in NYC over 2 million in Birmingham.

The one thing that holds the SEC back, as compared to the Big Ten, is the demographics of their audience. The SEC audience is bigger by most accounts, at least in football, but by comparison they make less than the Big Ten because of the demographics.

I remember back in the day, I spent a short time working at WWE. And I remember in one meeting how pissed one of the marketing guys, after an argument about the ratings, and someone at UPN said to them "let's be frank. Yes you are the number one show on the network, by a good margin even, yet your ad prices are STILL the lowest of any show on the network. The ad execs don't like your audience. and demos, and no one wants to buy time." I remember the classic response "yeah but I just saw (so and so) buy some commercial time: obviously they think we are worthwhile." And he responded "sigh, those were make good ads because the CMA's ratings dropped this year."

The biggest lesson I learned in the month I worked there was how much they hated the Westminster Dog show, which used to preempt them one or two weeks per year. It drew 1/5 the ratings of their flagship show, and made USA 3 times the money per ad.

Markets matter. Audience size matters more. Who the audience is, "can" matter even more than that.

(08-17-2016 05:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The downside to that of course is many sponsors, Madison Avenue if you will, will take 1 million viewers in NYC over 2 million in Birmingham.

The one thing that holds the SEC back, as compared to the Big Ten, is the demographics of their audience. The SEC audience is bigger by most accounts, at least in football, but by comparison they make less than the Big Ten because of the demographics.

I remember back in the day, I spent a short time working at WWE. And I remember in one meeting how pissed one of the marketing guys, after an argument about the ratings, and someone at UPN said to them "let's be frank. Yes you are the number one show on the network, by a good margin even, yet your ad prices are STILL the lowest of any show on the network. The ad execs don't like your audience. and demos, and no one wants to buy time." I remember the classic response "yeah but I just saw (so and so) buy some commercial time: obviously they think we are worthwhile." And he responded "sigh, those were make good ads because the CMA's ratings dropped this year."

The biggest lesson I learned in the month I worked there was how much they hated the Westminster Dog show, which used to preempt them one or two weeks per year. It drew 1/5 the ratings of their flagship show, and made USA 3 times the money per ad.

Markets matter. Audience size matters more. Who the audience is, "can" matter even more than that.

Many advertisers would love to sponsor a feel good story Cinderella team in football, and the little darling for advertisers is Boise State.

(08-17-2016 05:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The downside to that of course is many sponsors, Madison Avenue if you will, will take 1 million viewers in NYC over 2 million in Birmingham.

Yes, the different values placed on different demos is why golf tournaments get on TV.

(08-17-2016 05:08 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 05:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The downside to that of course is many sponsors, Madison Avenue if you will, will take 1 million viewers in NYC over 2 million in Birmingham.

The one thing that holds the SEC back, as compared to the Big Ten, is the demographics of their audience. The SEC audience is bigger by most accounts, at least in football, but by comparison they make less than the Big Ten because of the demographics.

I remember back in the day, I spent a short time working at WWE. And I remember in one meeting how pissed one of the marketing guys, after an argument about the ratings, and someone at UPN said to them "let's be frank. Yes you are the number one show on the network, by a good margin even, yet your ad prices are STILL the lowest of any show on the network. The ad execs don't like your audience. and demos, and no one wants to buy time." I remember the classic response "yeah but I just saw (so and so) buy some commercial time: obviously they think we are worthwhile." And he responded "sigh, those were make good ads because the CMA's ratings dropped this year."

The biggest lesson I learned in the month I worked there was how much they hated the Westminster Dog show, which used to preempt them one or two weeks per year. It drew 1/5 the ratings of their flagship show, and made USA 3 times the money per ad.

Markets matter. Audience size matters more. Who the audience is, "can" matter even more than that.

Many advertisers would love to sponsor a feel good story Cinderella team in football, and the little darling for advertisers is Boise State.

If Boise St joins a P5 conference they're no longer Cinderella, they're just another step sister.

Alaska is a big market but not a quality market.

"Bummer"
- NIU

(08-17-2016 10:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  TV audiences for college football in Birmingham are roughly equal to TV audiences for college football in NYC. If you are in the business of selling ads on college football telecasts Birmingham's interest is basically equal to NYC's.

Hard to believe. NYC has 7.4m households, and Birmingham has 690k.

New York pulls 4 to 8 ratings on Saturdays.

This means that Birmingham has to do better than 40 to 80 ratings.

(08-17-2016 03:05 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 10:32 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(08-17-2016 09:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/86566...tml?pg=all

....But arguably the biggest pitch is how many viewers schools can deliver. That’s where it gets tricky. Is it market size or purely the number of viewers?...

UConn is dominant in his market. And there is ample evidence to prove this.

So I'm not sure why this guy is so dismissive.

When SNY added UConn's tier 3 rights, it went from being on a sports tier, to basic cable in every Cable system. You didn't even need a cable box to get SNY.

And they ramped up their monthly user fees to $2.60 per household.

Again, this was basic cable, 1.6 million households. And it's not just the Hartford / New Haven markets either, but also Fairfield County which is inside New York City's DMA. There too the monthly fee jumped $1.20, and there too they all went to basic cable.

I wish people like this reporter would do some research.

It's not like any of this is a mystery.

He's making a point that BYU gets higher ratings despite having a smaller market than UConn, Cincinnati, Houston, etc. It's a good point.

Look, he insulted my school by using inaccurate data too. But he's right about his main point. UConn/Cincy are not "dominant" in our markets in the way that Ole Miss or Alabama is dominant. Not even close. UConn & Cincy are both #1 in our markets, but "winning #1 in a market" or "being in a large market" isn't nearly as important as the total number of viewers.

UConn is by far the most popular of any sport in its market.

This is exactly what I showed with the numbers I provided.

And not only does Connecticut have a higher population than Mississippi, but the state is not divided into having 2 state schools. Mississippi actually doesnt get the best ratings. http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releas...e-in-2011/

Alabama is Alabama and no one is comparing UConn to Alabama.

(08-17-2016 04:35 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  In general, the point he is making is right on the money. But it does seem he uses some over generalization to dismiss some of the schools he talks about. The premise is correct: planting a flag in a metropolitan area DOES NOT automatically equate to viewers. But he sounded a bit out of touch when he got into specifics.

(08-17-2016 10:32 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  When SNY added UConn's tier 3 rights, it went from being on a sports tier, to basic cable in every Cable system. You didn't even need a cable box to get SNY.

I no way am I dimissing the claim of what UConn brings to its market, but it is worth noting that the package UConn brought to SNY back then is near what UConn would bring now. Back then, SNY received not only UConn's tier 3 games (or really Tier 4) that were not broadcast, but they also received as part of the UConn rights, rights to the ENTIRE Big East syndication package, which allowed them to carry any Big East game, football or basketball, that was carried on the Big East Syndicated network. This was upwards of 100+ basketball games , and 30 plus football games, including other nearby teams such as St Johns, Syracuse, Seton Hall, Rutgers, and Providence, as well as major names such as Pitt, WV, Louisville, Cincinnati, etc..

Now I am not saying those schools were responsible for SNY's footprint expansion in Connecticut, but it IS important to note that it was likely paramount in why SNY invested in it in the first place. SNYH used to show a LOT of Big East games that were not UConn: I know because I used to watch a lot of Louisville games on SNY, because their HD was better than our local station who carried the games, and it was better quality on SNY. I point this out because the lack of the other properties to go with it, that are no longer there, might temper what SNY would pay for UConn, sine they no longer get the additional programming with it, not to mention any potential conference UConn would move to, has a much higher percentage of games assigned to national TV than the old Big East contract did, which will push the value down. Basically UConn women's basketball would have to carry the lot, and while it is very valuable programming, it is much better as a secondary offering than the prime driver.

You could look at the ratings for SNY when UConn was on, and when UConn wasn't to get a better sense. Again, the numbers are cold hard facts. in-state, a UConn game would be the highest rated show on both Cable and Network TV. And the phenomenon also carried through into NY state when UConn sports pre-empted Syracuse sports, if they were live.

But I'll say it again, the moment that SNY picked up UConn, it doubled the carriage fee and it swiftly moved to Basic. This happened because SNY had UConn, not any additional games.

I am sure also that a huge chunk of the TV households had no idea they were paying so much for SNY and UConn sports, but this speaks to the wealth in Southern Connecticut.

This link is interesting in that they take the television market, number of fans for the team from sources like Common Census fan map, and google search traffic--though the numbers were run back in 2010 when the last round of realignment was taking place. http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09...haos/?_r=2

Here is how they rate the college football fan base size for candidates in Big 12 expansion this time (with conference alignment changes since these numbers were generated):
BYU 709,864
UConn 618,724 * Big East to American
USF 520,627 * Big East to American
UCF 506,679 * C-USA to American
Boise State 483,489
East Carolina 348,391 * C-USA to American
Cincinnati 322,757 * Big East to American
Arkansas State 312,058
SDSU 242,126
Memhis 235,656 * C-USA to American
Temple 226,483 * MAC to American
Air Force 213,946
Colorado State 199,506
New Mexico 171,154
SMU 163,671 * C-USA to American
Northern Illinois 162,687
UNLV 136,687
Rice 126,901
Tulane 101,701 * C-USA to American
Houston 100,253 * C-USA to American

It would be interesting to see if these numbers significantly changed over the past 5-6 years.