CSNbbs

Full Version: Dixie State Already Being Mentioned A Possible Big Sky Conference Candidate
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
(11-05-2019 02:31 PM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]The new conference will have much greater TV's watching rate than the PAC12. More like the Big12 or greater. The Dakotas have its own sports netwo:rk and the west has Root Tv.. The Sun Belt went for years without. any conference. TV contract.

Share the drugs.

(This because, that way, you don't OD and everyone else has a little unexpected fun)

If what you are saying were true, and if Root would be watched out west more than the Pac-12 (if Root were that influential, the Big Sky would be bigger than the Pac-12 NOW), your move would already have happened. Proof is in the pudding. Bye.
(11-06-2019 01:50 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-05-2019 02:31 PM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]The new conference will have much greater TV's watching rate than the PAC12. More like the Big12 or greater. The Dakotas have its own sports netwo:rk and the west has Root Tv.. The Sun Belt went for years without. any conference. TV contract.

Share the drugs.

(This because, that way, you don't OD and everyone else has a little unexpected fun)

If what you are saying were true, and if Root would be watched out west more than the Pac-12 (if Root were that influential, the Big Sky would be bigger than the Pac-12 NOW), your move would already have happened. Proof is in the pudding. Bye.

Was merely stating that the Midco Sports Networks, that serves all the Dakotas, get better ratingss that the PAC12 network.

Obviously, you can’t read so you much be on drugs
(11-06-2019 04:14 PM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-06-2019 01:50 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-05-2019 02:31 PM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]The new conference will have much greater TV's watching rate than the PAC12. More like the Big12 or greater. The Dakotas have its own sports netwo:rk and the west has Root Tv.. The Sun Belt went for years without. any conference. TV contract.

Share the drugs.

(This because, that way, you don't OD and everyone else has a little unexpected fun)

If what you are saying were true, and if Root would be watched out west more than the Pac-12 (if Root were that influential, the Big Sky would be bigger than the Pac-12 NOW), your move would already have happened. Proof is in the pudding. Bye.

Was merely stating that the Midco Sports Networks, that serves all the Dakotas, get better ratingss that the PAC12 network.

Obviously, you can’t read so you much be on drugs

Fox Sports, Fox National, and ESPN also get better ratings than either Midco Sports and the Pac-12 Network and Root. Kind of a big time thing that Power 5 conferences have, never mind the issues with the conference network and its unwillingness to partner with a carrier.

Your logic really is on drugs.
(11-06-2019 05:05 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-06-2019 04:14 PM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-06-2019 01:50 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-05-2019 02:31 PM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]The new conference will have much greater TV's watching rate than the PAC12. More like the Big12 or greater. The Dakotas have its own sports netwo:rk and the west has Root Tv.. The Sun Belt went for years without. any conference. TV contract.

Share the drugs.

(This because, that way, you don't OD and everyone else has a little unexpected fun)

If what you are saying were true, and if Root would be watched out west more than the Pac-12 (if Root were that influential, the Big Sky would be bigger than the Pac-12 NOW), your move would already have happened. Proof is in the pudding. Bye.

Was merely stating that the Midco Sports Networks, that serves all the Dakotas, get better ratingss that the PAC12 network.

Obviously, you can’t read so you much be on drugs

Fox Sports, Fox National, and ESPN also get better ratings than either Midco Sports and the Pac-12 Network and Root. Kind of a big time thing that Power 5 conferences have, never mind the issues with the conference network and its unwillingness to partner with a carrier.

Your logic really is on drugs.

Impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you. Midco doesn’t have hardly any range but has massive penetration of what’s there.

You bring up drugs so there must be massive fascination there.
(11-06-2019 05:22 PM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-06-2019 05:05 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-06-2019 04:14 PM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-06-2019 01:50 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-05-2019 02:31 PM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]The new conference will have much greater TV's watching rate than the PAC12. More like the Big12 or greater. The Dakotas have its own sports netwo:rk and the west has Root Tv.. The Sun Belt went for years without. any conference. TV contract.

Share the drugs.

(This because, that way, you don't OD and everyone else has a little unexpected fun)

If what you are saying were true, and if Root would be watched out west more than the Pac-12 (if Root were that influential, the Big Sky would be bigger than the Pac-12 NOW), your move would already have happened. Proof is in the pudding. Bye.

Was merely stating that the Midco Sports Networks, that serves all the Dakotas, get better ratingss that the PAC12 network.

Obviously, you can’t read so you much be on drugs

Fox Sports, Fox National, and ESPN also get better ratings than either Midco Sports and the Pac-12 Network and Root. Kind of a big time thing that Power 5 conferences have, never mind the issues with the conference network and its unwillingness to partner with a carrier.

Your logic really is on drugs.

Impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you. Midco doesn’t have hardly any range but has massive penetration of what’s there.

You bring up drugs so there must be massive fascination there.

TV networks want range. When the whole population in that range is comparable to the state of Washington, it doesn't see an FBS payday.

Prior to Pac-12 expansion, a conference official laid out something of a formula by which expansion would manage to expand the PER SCHOOL take, and that formula was built around a state, oh, the size of Colorado. So Colorado happened. That's when the conference apparently panicked and ended up adding Utah when Oklahoma was possibly available. However, that was as clear an explanation as any as to why expansion happened with the school the conference targeted instead of, say, Boise.

This is frankly rather well-known stuff you have conveniently forgotten over time.
If leveling out to 12/14 rather than the awkward 11/13 then sure Dixie St makes sense for the Big Sky.
(12-05-2019 06:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]If leveling out to 12/14 rather than the awkward 11/13 then sure Dixie St makes sense for the Big Sky.

Cedar City and St. George are, by Western US standards, REALLY close. Less than an hour by car, but without serious traffic. That's way too much market saturation. Of course, in theory, that should have been a barrier to Dixie moving up in the first place. This perhaps puts Southern Utah (who's already a have-not in terms of Big Sky budgets) in a real spot if Dixie can follow through on its plans.

Yet... the options out west are such that the Big Sky may not have a choice.

The budget analysis comes from a recent Sac State newspaper article... https://statehornet.com/2019/12/athletic...t-deficit/
(12-06-2019 01:58 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-05-2019 06:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]If leveling out to 12/14 rather than the awkward 11/13 then sure Dixie St makes sense for the Big Sky.

Cedar City and St. George are, by Western US standards, REALLY close. Less than an hour by car, but without serious traffic. That's way too much market saturation. Of course, in theory, that should have been a barrier to Dixie moving up in the first place. This perhaps puts Southern Utah (who's already a have-not in terms of Big Sky budgets) in a real spot if Dixie can follow through on its plans.

Yet... the options out west are such that the Big Sky may not have a choice.

The budget analysis comes from a recent Sac State newspaper article... https://statehornet.com/2019/12/athletic...t-deficit/


I think Dixie State could actually out spend Southern Utah since they are getting a lot of donations for their cause.
(12-06-2019 01:58 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-05-2019 06:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]If leveling out to 12/14 rather than the awkward 11/13 then sure Dixie St makes sense for the Big Sky.

Cedar City and St. George are, by Western US standards, REALLY close. Less than an hour by car, but without serious traffic. That's way too much market saturation. Of course, in theory, that should have been a barrier to Dixie moving up in the first place. This perhaps puts Southern Utah (who's already a have-not in terms of Big Sky budgets) in a real spot if Dixie can follow through on its plans.

Yet... the options out west are such that the Big Sky may not have a choice.

The budget analysis comes from a recent Sac State newspaper article... https://statehornet.com/2019/12/athletic...t-deficit/

That analysis is flawed. This issue came up on our board and I recently posted a response. The athletics deficit needs to be addressed but it is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Our biggest issue is getting an events center built, that alone will punch a big hole in our "revenue" dilemma.
(01-07-2020 12:43 AM)SDHornet Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-06-2019 01:58 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-05-2019 06:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]If leveling out to 12/14 rather than the awkward 11/13 then sure Dixie St makes sense for the Big Sky.

Cedar City and St. George are, by Western US standards, REALLY close. Less than an hour by car, but without serious traffic. That's way too much market saturation. Of course, in theory, that should have been a barrier to Dixie moving up in the first place. This perhaps puts Southern Utah (who's already a have-not in terms of Big Sky budgets) in a real spot if Dixie can follow through on its plans.

Yet... the options out west are such that the Big Sky may not have a choice.

The budget analysis comes from a recent Sac State newspaper article... https://statehornet.com/2019/12/athletic...t-deficit/

That analysis is flawed. This issue came up on our board and I recently posted a response. The athletics deficit needs to be addressed but it is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Our biggest issue is getting an events center built, that alone will punch a big hole in our "revenue" dilemma.

But will it?

The ways in which I see Portland and Sacramento as different are few (at least Sac has a football rival within a 30-minute drive). One of those... I know I'd rather be outside in Sacramento in the winter than the summer, and I think that might explain a couple things. I also know that Viking Pavilion may have made a 20% dent in women's basketball attendance (it got Tennessee there last month) and not much else.

One way we're similar... I am in Timbers Army. We saw what happened when Sacramento Republic started up. It's no surprise that happened (even if I remember what happened in essentially the same league in 1999), and the demographics in Sacramento will be at least as attracted to MLS. I don't see either school rising above the noise in either market... unless Republic overcharges for tickets.
(01-07-2020 04:55 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-07-2020 12:43 AM)SDHornet Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-06-2019 01:58 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-05-2019 06:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]If leveling out to 12/14 rather than the awkward 11/13 then sure Dixie St makes sense for the Big Sky.

Cedar City and St. George are, by Western US standards, REALLY close. Less than an hour by car, but without serious traffic. That's way too much market saturation. Of course, in theory, that should have been a barrier to Dixie moving up in the first place. This perhaps puts Southern Utah (who's already a have-not in terms of Big Sky budgets) in a real spot if Dixie can follow through on its plans.

Yet... the options out west are such that the Big Sky may not have a choice.

The budget analysis comes from a recent Sac State newspaper article... https://statehornet.com/2019/12/athletic...t-deficit/

That analysis is flawed. This issue came up on our board and I recently posted a response. The athletics deficit needs to be addressed but it is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Our biggest issue is getting an events center built, that alone will punch a big hole in our "revenue" dilemma.

But will it?

The ways in which I see Portland and Sacramento as different are few (at least Sac has a football rival within a 30-minute drive). One of those... I know I'd rather be outside in Sacramento in the winter than the summer, and I think that might explain a couple things. I also know that Viking Pavilion may have made a 20% dent in women's basketball attendance (it got Tennessee there last month) and not much else.

One way we're similar... I am in Timbers Army. We saw what happened when Sacramento Republic started up. It's no surprise that happened (even if I remember what happened in essentially the same league in 1999), and the demographics in Sacramento will be at least as attracted to MLS. I don't see either school rising above the noise in either market... unless Republic overcharges for tickets.
If it ever happens, it'll be under our current president. And believe it or not, Ohio State played at The Nest this year in WBB. The game was supposed to happen last year but the poor air quality from the fires caused it to be rescheduled to this season.

I think the Republic will be well followed here in Sac. The wife and I were season ticket holders for a few years, then when the Republic were passed over for MLS expansion a few years back their customer service went to sh!t and we disengaged.
(01-07-2020 12:43 AM)SDHornet Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-06-2019 01:58 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-05-2019 06:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]If leveling out to 12/14 rather than the awkward 11/13 then sure Dixie St makes sense for the Big Sky.

Cedar City and St. George are, by Western US standards, REALLY close. Less than an hour by car, but without serious traffic. That's way too much market saturation. Of course, in theory, that should have been a barrier to Dixie moving up in the first place. This perhaps puts Southern Utah (who's already a have-not in terms of Big Sky budgets) in a real spot if Dixie can follow through on its plans.

Yet... the options out west are such that the Big Sky may not have a choice.

The budget analysis comes from a recent Sac State newspaper article... https://statehornet.com/2019/12/athletic...t-deficit/

That analysis is flawed. This issue came up on our board and I recently posted a response. The athletics deficit needs to be addressed but it is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Our biggest issue is getting an events center built, that alone will punch a big hole in our "revenue" dilemma.

Your basketball team can't sell out your high school gym! So, this new arena will mean sell out crowds of 5,000-7,000 people?

The way for Sac St to cut expenses is to get into the Big West, which is all CA schools and Hawaii. The Big Sky is clearly willing to have football only members, so dropping Sac St for all other sports would mean a 10 team Big Sky! Bakersfield was D1 for about 15 years before finally getting into the Big West. Sac St has been in the Big Sky for about 25 years and still losing money!
(07-17-2020 05:30 PM)Hilldog Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-07-2020 12:43 AM)SDHornet Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-06-2019 01:58 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-05-2019 06:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]If leveling out to 12/14 rather than the awkward 11/13 then sure Dixie St makes sense for the Big Sky.

Cedar City and St. George are, by Western US standards, REALLY close. Less than an hour by car, but without serious traffic. That's way too much market saturation. Of course, in theory, that should have been a barrier to Dixie moving up in the first place. This perhaps puts Southern Utah (who's already a have-not in terms of Big Sky budgets) in a real spot if Dixie can follow through on its plans.

Yet... the options out west are such that the Big Sky may not have a choice.

The budget analysis comes from a recent Sac State newspaper article... https://statehornet.com/2019/12/athletic...t-deficit/

That analysis is flawed. This issue came up on our board and I recently posted a response. The athletics deficit needs to be addressed but it is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Our biggest issue is getting an events center built, that alone will punch a big hole in our "revenue" dilemma.

Your basketball team can't sell out your high school gym! So, this new arena will mean sell out crowds of 5,000-7,000 people?

The way for Sac St to cut expenses is to get into the Big West, which is all CA schools and Hawaii. The Big Sky is clearly willing to have football only members, so dropping Sac St for all other sports would mean a 10 team Big Sky! Bakersfield was D1 for about 15 years before finally getting into the Big West. Sac St has been in the Big Sky for about 25 years and still losing money!

We sell it out (or damn near it) when we have a good team and its a top matchup, promotional game, or senior night. During the 14-15 season that place was packed to gills every game, and when we had an exciting team (mid 2000's) when I was a student you had to get there an hour before tip to get a free ticket. So yes, we can sell it out.

New events center would be about 5k capacity, I'd guess we could easily average 1.5k on the season with the bigger match-ups (and better scheduling) getting bigger crowds then some of the less desirable BSC match-ups. Additionally a new venue would significantly help recruiting so the on court product would be better which would result in better attendance.

Regarding any BW talk, we aren't going to jeopardize our FB home. FB drives the bus in college athletics.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's