rutgers lost on a last second 3 on the road at ohio state last night

deja vu

(12-09-2022 08:50 AM)micman Wrote:  Maryland and Rutgers really did a great job at football brand building before getting into the Big10. Utah was good for only about 4-5 years before getting into the PAC 10 (that was due entirely to 2 coaches). TCU and VT--their success was due almost entirely to single coaches.

That's why I said "a part". State-named/flagship schools obviously have different advantages to help them. Like BinghamptonNed said Maryland and Rutgers brought large markets that allowed the Big 10 Network to charge full carriage fees. It doesn't matter if people actually watch them. As long as someone has any kind of TV service the B1G can charge the full fee to the provider for the Big 10 Network. Like how in the South cable/satellite providers get charged full carriage fees for the SEC Network even though some customers might not watch the channel. Those channels are in regular cable packages in their local areas. So no matter what the B1G/SEC are getting "free money" from non-watchers.

Also it's not like any of the schools mentioned have been perennial losers either. Maryland has had multiple runs of being a ranked program. Rutgers has had bad some bad runs, but it's not like that's all they've had. Utah definitely was not good for only 4-5 years prior to the being added to the PAC. Along with being a state-named school they were putting together lots of winning seasons since at least the 90s. Likewise TCU and Virginia Tech had a long stretch of winning seasons going back to the late 90s and early 90s respectively. Even if that did happen under only one coach it wasn't a brief period.

We don't have the same advantages as some of these schools. We can only look at things that might help our brand. We don't have the benefit of a large market. We aren't a large university. Our academics are only recently moving to the level they need to be for respectability, but still needs work. Whether we like it or not, we have disadvantages that require extra work to overcome for realignment. If Coach Scherer or West had a run like Patterson (also a little from Dennis Franchione) at TCU or Beamer at VT, maybe we would have already moved up and this thread never happens. Since they didn't we're practically starting from 2014 instead of the 90s/00s because from 2006 to 2013 we only had one winning season (7-6, 2007). Our best record in the 90s was 6-5. Before West we have to go all the way back to 1976 for a 7-win team. We can't change when the window of our winning started. What we can do is keep extending that current window for a future opportunity like some of those schools did.

(12-09-2022 03:25 PM)Alanda Wrote:  Also it's not like any of the schools mentioned have been perennial losers either. Maryland has had multiple runs of being a ranked program. Rutgers has had bad some bad runs, but it's not like that's all they've had.

Looks like Rutgers did turn it around a bit after I left. When I lived there, they’d had 4 winning seasons in the past 25 years. After I left and prior to joining the Big Ten, they’d had 7 in the past 9. I do realize why they were invited, but from my perspective it was still “shocking”.

(12-09-2022 03:58 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 03:25 PM)Alanda Wrote:  Also it's not like any of the schools mentioned have been perennial losers either. Maryland has had multiple runs of being a ranked program. Rutgers has had bad some bad runs, but it's not like that's all they've had.

Looks like Rutgers did turn it around a bit after I left. When I lived there, they’d had 4 winning seasons in the past 25 years. After I left and prior to joining the Big Ten, they’d had 7 in the past 9. I do realize why they were invited, but from my perspective it was still “shocking”.

I can believe it was shocking to you because it was for me and others as well. I think there is a misunderstanding about Rutgers "bringing the market". I think we, I'm including myself before I learned how things work, assume that they aren't bringing a lot of eyes which is likely true. But that doesn't matter in their case based on what I mentioned earlier. I've been back in Arkansas for five years now and can probably count on one hand how many times I've watched something on the SEC Network. Even though me and others in the house are not watching, ESPN/SEC are still making money off of us every month. Fox/B1G get to do that with the same people in the NJ/NY area now. And that's a lot of people they can potentially take from.

Chess NOT Checkers

(12-09-2022 01:44 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  So what part of Silverfield’s salary got cut? The amount from the university or the amount from the boosters ?

I would guess the university since that is where the other AD adjustments were made.

(12-09-2022 03:25 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 08:50 AM)micman Wrote:  Maryland and Rutgers really did a great job at football brand building before getting into the Big10. Utah was good for only about 4-5 years before getting into the PAC 10 (that was due entirely to 2 coaches). TCU and VT--their success was due almost entirely to single coaches.

That's why I said "a part". State-named/flagship schools obviously have different advantages to help them. Like BinghamptonNed said Maryland and Rutgers brought large markets that allowed the Big 10 Network to charge full carriage fees. It doesn't matter if people actually watch them. As long as someone has any kind of TV service the B1G can charge the full fee to the provider for the Big 10 Network. Like how in the South cable/satellite providers get charged full carriage fees for the SEC Network even though some customers might not watch the channel. Those channels are in regular cable packages in their local areas. So no matter what the B1G/SEC are getting "free money" from non-watchers.

Also it's not like any of the schools mentioned have been perennial losers either. Maryland has had multiple runs of being a ranked program. Rutgers has had bad some bad runs, but it's not like that's all they've had. Utah definitely was not good for only 4-5 years prior to the being added to the PAC. Along with being a state-named school they were putting together lots of winning seasons since at least the 90s. Likewise TCU and Virginia Tech had a long stretch of winning seasons going back to the late 90s and early 90s respectively. Even if that did happen under only one coach it wasn't a brief period.

We don't have the same advantages as some of these schools. We can only look at things that might help our brand. We don't have the benefit of a large market. We aren't a large university. Our academics are only recently moving to the level they need to be for respectability, but still needs work. Whether we like it or not, we have disadvantages that require extra work to overcome for realignment. If Coach Scherer or West had a run like Patterson (also a little from Dennis Franchione) at TCU or Beamer at VT, maybe we would have already moved up and this thread never happens. Since they didn't we're practically starting from 2014 instead of the 90s/00s because from 2006 to 2013 we only had one winning season (7-6, 2007). Our best record in the 90s was 6-5. Before West we have to go all the way back to 1976 for a 7-win team. We can't change when the window of our winning started. What we can do is keep extending that current window for a future opportunity like some of those schools did.

Network TV time is bought based on Nielsen ratings...not which schools belong to which conference. It's purely a numbers game. You deliver more eyeballs, you get to charge more for your commercials.

(12-09-2022 05:40 PM)DallasTiger Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 03:25 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 08:50 AM)micman Wrote:  Maryland and Rutgers really did a great job at football brand building before getting into the Big10. Utah was good for only about 4-5 years before getting into the PAC 10 (that was due entirely to 2 coaches). TCU and VT--their success was due almost entirely to single coaches.

That's why I said "a part". State-named/flagship schools obviously have different advantages to help them. Like BinghamptonNed said Maryland and Rutgers brought large markets that allowed the Big 10 Network to charge full carriage fees. It doesn't matter if people actually watch them. As long as someone has any kind of TV service the B1G can charge the full fee to the provider for the Big 10 Network. Like how in the South cable/satellite providers get charged full carriage fees for the SEC Network even though some customers might not watch the channel. Those channels are in regular cable packages in their local areas. So no matter what the B1G/SEC are getting "free money" from non-watchers.

Also it's not like any of the schools mentioned have been perennial losers either. Maryland has had multiple runs of being a ranked program. Rutgers has had bad some bad runs, but it's not like that's all they've had. Utah definitely was not good for only 4-5 years prior to the being added to the PAC. Along with being a state-named school they were putting together lots of winning seasons since at least the 90s. Likewise TCU and Virginia Tech had a long stretch of winning seasons going back to the late 90s and early 90s respectively. Even if that did happen under only one coach it wasn't a brief period.

We don't have the same advantages as some of these schools. We can only look at things that might help our brand. We don't have the benefit of a large market. We aren't a large university. Our academics are only recently moving to the level they need to be for respectability, but still needs work. Whether we like it or not, we have disadvantages that require extra work to overcome for realignment. If Coach Scherer or West had a run like Patterson (also a little from Dennis Franchione) at TCU or Beamer at VT, maybe we would have already moved up and this thread never happens. Since they didn't we're practically starting from 2014 instead of the 90s/00s because from 2006 to 2013 we only had one winning season (7-6, 2007). Our best record in the 90s was 6-5. Before West we have to go all the way back to 1976 for a 7-win team. We can't change when the window of our winning started. What we can do is keep extending that current window for a future opportunity like some of those schools did.

Network TV time is bought based on Nielsen ratings...not which schools belong to which conference. It's purely a numbers game. You deliver more eyeballs, you get to charge more for your commercials.

I'm not sure how this disagrees with what I wrote. Could you explain further? Because the fees I'm talking about with the B1G and SEC Networks aren't the same as what's charged for advertising revenue.

Rutgers got in because its campus is across the Hudson River from the Bronx. That is New York City if you didn't know. When OSU or Michigan play in East Rutherford it pays off big for the biG.

(12-09-2022 10:38 PM)Keeper Wrote:  Rutgers got in because its campus is across the Hudson River from the Bronx. That is New York City if you didn't know. When OSU or Michigan play in East Rutherford it pays off big for the biG.

East Rutherford? The main campus is in New Brunswick and the stadium is up the road in Piscataway. Both roughly 40 miles from East Rutherford (where the Jets/Giants play). Rutgers plays an occasional game there but it’s rare.

(12-09-2022 11:14 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 10:38 PM)Keeper Wrote:  Rutgers got in because its campus is across the Hudson River from the Bronx. That is New York City if you didn't know. When OSU or Michigan play in East Rutherford it pays off big for the biG.

East Rutherford? The main campus is in New Brunswick and the stadium is up the road in Piscataway. Both roughly 40 miles from East Rutherford (where the Jets/Giants play). Rutgers plays an occasional game there but it’s rare.

So easy to look up.

(12-09-2022 10:38 PM)Keeper Wrote:  Rutgers got in because its campus is across the Hudson River from the Bronx. That is New York City if you didn't know. When OSU or Michigan play in East Rutherford it pays off big for the biG.

It really only pays off based on the number of eyeballs the teams deliver. If Rutgers delivers x number of eyeballs, that is what the team is worth. The ad revenue really has nothing to do with New York or the size of the market. If the team playing was the Little Company of Mary grammar school and it was in New York City and only 500 people watched the game....being in New York would be worthless. My point...it is not the name of the market....it is the audience delivery as reported by Nielsen that is important. I was born in New York City. My father worked in Manhattan for 50 years.

(12-10-2022 12:00 PM)DallasTiger Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 10:38 PM)Keeper Wrote:  Rutgers got in because its campus is across the Hudson River from the Bronx. That is New York City if you didn't know. When OSU or Michigan play in East Rutherford it pays off big for the biG.

It really only pays off based on the number of eyeballs the teams deliver. If Rutgers delivers x number of eyeballs, that is what the team is worth. The ad revenue really has nothing to do with New York or the size of the market. If the team playing was the Little Company of Mary grammar school and it was in New York City and only 500 people watched the game....being in New York would be worthless. My point...it is not the name of the market....it is the audience delivery as reported by Nielsen that is important. I was born in New York City. My father worked in Manhattan for 50 years.

Dang Yankee ---just kidding

(12-10-2022 12:04 PM)jsw3ent Wrote:  

(12-10-2022 12:00 PM)DallasTiger Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 10:38 PM)Keeper Wrote:  Rutgers got in because its campus is across the Hudson River from the Bronx. That is New York City if you didn't know. When OSU or Michigan play in East Rutherford it pays off big for the biG.

It really only pays off based on the number of eyeballs the teams deliver. If Rutgers delivers x number of eyeballs, that is what the team is worth. The ad revenue really has nothing to do with New York or the size of the market. If the team playing was the Little Company of Mary grammar school and it was in New York City and only 500 people watched the game....being in New York would be worthless. My point...it is not the name of the market....it is the audience delivery as reported by Nielsen that is important. I was born in New York City. My father worked in Manhattan for 50 years.

Dang Yankee ---just kidding

We left NY when I was 12 and moved to Florida. When I worked for RKO I was offered a great job in New York City. I told them, no way I was going back there. Been there once....was not going back again. I would have been working at 32 Avenue of the Americas. Also did not want to put my wife and two daughters into the rat race. I love living in the South (I am including Texas as part of the South).

(12-08-2022 06:19 PM)Alanda Wrote:  Bob Thompson is a former President of Fox Sports and helped create the Big 10 Network. He's retired and lately shares a lot of insight on things like how media deals are negotiated. This tweet in particular was in regards to Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff who's been saying some rather unfounded things after USCLA decided to leave. This tweet in particular was due to his claim that part of the reason why their new Pac-12 media deal is being delayed is because he knew Deion was being hired to Colorado and that would help increase the conference's value.

bwahahahahahahaha yea right.

This just tells me how badly the media rights negotiations are going for the new pac.

Deion will either do little to nothing at CU, or he will do well. If he does well, he will be gone. There's no way the media negotiations are based on a friggin coach.

(12-09-2022 10:57 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 10:50 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 10:01 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 03:47 AM)3rdgenerationtiger Wrote:  The administration/boosters made the decision to cease building the football brand by admitting it was too expensive to buy out a substandard coaching staff.

I just have a hard time believing that. If so, they need better financial people around them. Because it's going to be ugly next year.

I think the issue is whose money would pay the buyout. The university would not, it would be the boosters. Yes, the university will lose an equal or greater share of revenue but it will be university losses not that of boosters who committed to the RS contract deal. All the more reason extending RS' contract term seemed ill-conceived at the time & even more so now. I understood that was a AD sponsored move, so maybe the boosters agreed, and by doing so put LV on the hook too. And maybe his seat is now as hot as RS'. One would hope so.

He agreed to take a pay cut in 2020 which went directly toward the Tiger Scholarship Fund, which was depleted because there were less donations during covid. His pay was 9th out of 11 AAC coaches.

Who is "He"? LV, or CRS?

(12-10-2022 12:25 PM)DallasTiger Wrote:  

(12-10-2022 12:04 PM)jsw3ent Wrote:  

(12-10-2022 12:00 PM)DallasTiger Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 10:38 PM)Keeper Wrote:  Rutgers got in because its campus is across the Hudson River from the Bronx. That is New York City if you didn't know. When OSU or Michigan play in East Rutherford it pays off big for the biG.

It really only pays off based on the number of eyeballs the teams deliver. If Rutgers delivers x number of eyeballs, that is what the team is worth. The ad revenue really has nothing to do with New York or the size of the market. If the team playing was the Little Company of Mary grammar school and it was in New York City and only 500 people watched the game....being in New York would be worthless. My point...it is not the name of the market....it is the audience delivery as reported by Nielsen that is important. I was born in New York City. My father worked in Manhattan for 50 years.

Dang Yankee ---just kidding

We left NY when I was 12 and moved to Florida. When I worked for RKO I was offered a great job in New York City. I told them, no way I was going back there. Been there once....was not going back again. I would have been working at 32 Avenue of the Americas. Also did not want to put my wife and two daughters into the rat race. I love living in the South (I am including Texas as part of the South).

(12-10-2022 12:00 PM)DallasTiger Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 10:38 PM)Keeper Wrote:  Rutgers got in because its campus is across the Hudson River from the Bronx. That is New York City if you didn't know. When OSU or Michigan play in East Rutherford it pays off big for the biG.

It really only pays off based on the number of eyeballs the teams deliver. If Rutgers delivers x number of eyeballs, that is what the team is worth. The ad revenue really has nothing to do with New York or the size of the market. If the team playing was the Little Company of Mary grammar school and it was in New York City and only 500 people watched the game....being in New York would be worthless. My point...it is not the name of the market....it is the audience delivery as reported by Nielsen that is important. I was born in New York City. My father worked in Manhattan for 50 years.

Ok. Now I know for sure we are talking about different things. What I am talking about is not related to Neilsen. I'm talking about carriage fees. For example:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/10/disney-s...-past.html

Quote:Broadcast and cable networks still make billions of dollars per year from the traditional TV model. ESPN is a huge beneficiary, because media companies earn monthly subscriber fees from pay-TV providers regardless of how many people watch their programming. Niche channels make just a few cents a month per subscriber, while sports networks charge several dollars.

Disney makes more money from cable subscribers than any other company, and that’s solely because of ESPN. ESPN and sister network ESPN2 charge nearly $10 per month combined, according to research firm Kagan, a unit of S&P Global Market Intelligence. That’s at least four times more than almost every other national broadcast or cable network, according to Kagan.

Disney requires pay-TV providers to include ESPN as part of their most popular cable packages. It’s a no-brainer for TV providers, who wouldn’t dare drop ESPN.

When it comes to networks like the Big Ten and SEC if they are carried in a state with no conference team they can only charge a partial rate. And if they are carried in a state with a conference team they can charge a full rate. From what I remember of threads I looked at in the past, there didn't seem to be a consensus on what those actual fees are so I'll make a price example. Before Rutgers was added the Big 10 Network could only charge .50 cents per cable/satellite subscriber per month in the NJ/NY area. And I don't know how much it was actually carried in that area before. Once Rutgers was added they could start charging a full $1.00. And if it wasn't carried there before they were able to negotiate to get it carried by providers in the area. At a minimum they doubled their revenue in that area just like that. And now from what I've learned it will be the same for Southern California once at least USC gets added.

It's the same for an idea I've had where Memphis could get added to the ACC if some teams were taken. A year ago the ACC Network reached a deal to be carried by Comcast Xfinity. If the ACC added Memphis after losing some teams then they would be able to get full carriage fees in Tennessee.

(12-10-2022 01:02 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-08-2022 06:19 PM)Alanda Wrote:  Bob Thompson is a former President of Fox Sports and helped create the Big 10 Network. He's retired and lately shares a lot of insight on things like how media deals are negotiated. This tweet in particular was in regards to Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff who's been saying some rather unfounded things after USCLA decided to leave. This tweet in particular was due to his claim that part of the reason why their new Pac-12 media deal is being delayed is because he knew Deion was being hired to Colorado and that would help increase the conference's value.

bwahahahahahahaha yea right.

This just tells me how badly the media rights negotiations are going for the new pac.

Deion will either do little to nothing at CU, or he will do well. If he does well, he will be gone. There's no way the media negotiations are based on a friggin coach.

Glad you quoted that part. I got to see how poorly I typed that. But yeah people went after him after he made that statement. Even Stewart Mandel who has talked favorably about the PAC in the past said there is a 0.0% chance a coach can do that. Just like he made a claim without showing any proof that UCLA would be financially better off staying in the PAC than taking the money in the B1G. UCLA has since shown how being in the B1G would be a benefit to them even with the added costs.