What is the diffeence between Markets and MSAs?

The Mobile-Daphne-Fairhope Combined Statistical Area is 588,246.
The Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent MSA is 439,987.

That is 1,028,233 people.

Plus the MSAs do not include the adjacent counties to the north which is easily another 150,000.

Mobile's market Monroe Counties along Greene County Mississippi. Pensacola's includes the Alabama counnties, Escambia and Conecuh.

How are they determining Market size?

(04-17-2012 01:08 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  I think he is trying to show the stupidity of the current decision-making process for conference realignment being based on questionable potential television markets.

The whole nation used to watch Oklahoma-Nebraska. People in much larger markets than Lincoln or OKC watched it in massive numbers. The reason was intense rivalry based on their familiarity with one another and geography....combined with good football.

Good football + familiarity + geography = real television interest = television dollars

Today it is:

Population of the area you happen to be in = television dollars

One of these is rational....one is not.

Thank you.

The reason was also history. It would take 2 small market teams 50 years to generate that interest. Not to mention the fact that Power 6 conference markets are their entire state.

This thread didn't do anything other than waste peoples' time.

Hell, if you take C-USA's 5 best programs and add them to the WAC the WAC becomes the better conference, too. And that sure as **** doesn't prove anything.

(04-17-2012 03:31 PM)panama Wrote:  The reason was also history. It would take 2 small market teams 50 years to generate that interest. Not to mention the fact that Power 6 conference markets are their entire state.

On the topic of history, if after 100 years of playing ball a program cannot gain substantial recognition even in their state, how can you sell that program to advertisers? The potential thing is out the window because they had a century to prove themselves. On field performance, well the records will have to back that up and it can't be a winning season once every generation. Maybe market?

You could sell the idea of a good season, a new and interesting coaching hire etc. that will spark the interest of alumni and locals. You could say that the interest MAY translate into more fans at the game and more tv viewership. However, you can't say this will work for you but it will not work for another program because at the end of the day it is still a projection.

A newer, or even a "to-be" program can claim all the related "potential" crap. Why? Because, unlike a century old program, the newer program has not confirmed its high water mark.

It is all about "default" viewers vs "engaged" viewers.

Boise is slightly smaller than Reno when it comes to TV markets but Boise carries a higher television value because of their ability to deliver far more engaged viewers.

Someone within the bowels of Disney can tell what the default number is for a college football game at 2pm Central time on Saturday on ABC or a 6:30 pm Central on Saturday on ESPN or 7 pm on Tuesday. There are a certain number of viewers who will tune in no matter who is playing. There is some value to those default viewers so Disney will pay some amount to get some content there. But they pay a premium to get engaged viewers.

Sitting three notches above Reno on the market list is Lincoln, NE.

Disney pays many multiple times more for Nebraska than Boise or Nevada. The reason is Nebraska brings engaged viewers. Whether they live in Omaha (which ranks just below Toledo) or in Dallas, or Kansas City or New York or Los Angeles. There are Husker fans across the country. They will watch any game featuring Nebraska. There are also people who will watch most Nebraska games because they hate the Huskers. There are people who will watch because Nebraska games impact their favorite team in the conference race or they impact their favorite team in the ratings.

There a lot of viewers who are engaged.

When you move down the list of schools and get to UNT or ASU there are far fewer engaged viewers. For ASU and UNT the numbers are likely extremely similar.

Telecasts draw the default audience and the number of engaged viewers is negligible to the overall TV rating.

What makes C-USA willing to call UNT instead of ASU?

They make that call because there is a second tier of default viewer.

These are the people who live near a school, but likely haven't attended a game any time in the recent past, don't own a single piece of officially licensed merchandise, and certainly don't buy season tickets or donate to athletics.

Despite their general level of disinterest and their preference for some other team, their preferred team can only occupy about 210 minutes of broadcast time per week. ESPN has about 840 minutes to fill each Saturday per channel. Once your favorite team has played or while waiting for your favorite team to play, most fans are going to take in some of that other action.

It might be other games around the conference but there will be times there is no natural other game to watch. If that is the case, it is very easy to default to someone within the region. The Horn fan living in Duncanville might tune into UNT vs. whomever just to fill the time. There are almost 2 million more TV homes in the DFW market than in the Jonesboro and Little Rock markets combined. While ASU and UNT may deliver the same number of engaged viewers, if UNT grabs 5% of the people in the DFW market casting around for something to watch, ASU would have to grab 20% of the Jonesboro and Little Rock markets just match audience.

Now that doesn't mean that any of that 5% will change their status of not buying tickets or buying merchandise, or even really caring about the outcome, they watched the game and got exposed to the ads and that is all Disney or CBS or Fox or Comcast cares about.

Look at SMU. They got picked for the Big East. Now if any of us were coming off two consecutive bowl games and then had an 8 win season that drew under 21,000 average, the despair on our message boards would intolerable.

SMU in all likelihood draws an engaged audience that looks a lot like the numbers for ASU and UNT. But because of their recent success they can be passed off as a quality addition to the Big East, but the reality is they are in not because of the engaged audience but rather the default audience.

Contrast SMU to Boise. The Broncos have a TV market that is almost exactly one-tenth the size of DFW. But they've finished in the top 10 the last three seasons and four of the last six. They've busted the BCS twice. There are very few college football fans who don't have an opinion about Boise. Whether it is fans from small leagues complaining about how they were done dirty or SEC fans with their heads spinning and spit flying everywhere while they scream that they couldn't do that playing an SEC schedule, people care about Boise games.

They deliver an engaged audience across the country.

If you want to win the TV game you either have to be so good that people pay attention because they care one way or the other about the outcome, or you take advantage of geography and population and draw an audience that doesn't care about the outcome but they at least provide the advertisers with eyeballs.

(04-17-2012 04:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It is all about "default" viewers vs "engaged" viewers.

Boise is slightly smaller than Reno when it comes to TV markets but Boise carries a higher television value because of their ability to deliver far more engaged viewers.

Someone within the bowels of Disney can tell what the default number is for a college football game at 2pm Central time on Saturday on ABC or a 6:30 pm Central on Saturday on ESPN or 7 pm on Tuesday. There are a certain number of viewers who will tune in no matter who is playing. There is some value to those default viewers so Disney will pay some amount to get some content there. But they pay a premium to get engaged viewers.

Sitting three notches above Reno on the market list is Lincoln, NE.

Disney pays many multiple times more for Nebraska than Boise or Nevada. The reason is Nebraska brings engaged viewers. Whether they live in Omaha (which ranks just below Toledo) or in Dallas, or Kansas City or New York or Los Angeles. There are Husker fans across the country. They will watch any game featuring Nebraska. There are also people who will watch most Nebraska games because they hate the Huskers. There are people who will watch because Nebraska games impact their favorite team in the conference race or they impact their favorite team in the ratings.

There a lot of viewers who are engaged.

When you move down the list of schools and get to UNT or ASU there are far fewer engaged viewers. For ASU and UNT the numbers are likely extremely similar.

Telecasts draw the default audience and the number of engaged viewers is negligible to the overall TV rating.

What makes C-USA willing to call UNT instead of ASU?

They make that call because there is a second tier of default viewer.

These are the people who live near a school, but likely haven't attended a game any time in the recent past, don't own a single piece of officially licensed merchandise, and certainly don't buy season tickets or donate to athletics.

Despite their general level of disinterest and their preference for some other team, their preferred team can only occupy about 210 minutes of broadcast time per week. ESPN has about 840 minutes to fill each Saturday per channel. Once your favorite team has played or while waiting for your favorite team to play, most fans are going to take in some of that other action.

It might be other games around the conference but there will be times there is no natural other game to watch. If that is the case, it is very easy to default to someone within the region. The Horn fan living in Duncanville might tune into UNT vs. whomever just to fill the time. There are almost 2 million more TV homes in the DFW market than in the Jonesboro and Little Rock markets combined. While ASU and UNT may deliver the same number of engaged viewers, if UNT grabs 5% of the people in the DFW market casting around for something to watch, ASU would have to grab 20% of the Jonesboro and Little Rock markets just match audience.

Now that doesn't mean that any of that 5% will change their status of not buying tickets or buying merchandise, or even really caring about the outcome, they watched the game and got exposed to the ads and that is all Disney or CBS or Fox or Comcast cares about.

Look at SMU. They got picked for the Big East. Now if any of us were coming off two consecutive bowl games and then had an 8 win season that drew under 21,000 average, the despair on our message boards would intolerable.

SMU in all likelihood draws an engaged audience that looks a lot like the numbers for ASU and UNT. But because of their recent success they can be passed off as a quality addition to the Big East, but the reality is they are in not because of the engaged audience but rather the default audience.

Contrast SMU to Boise. The Broncos have a TV market that is almost exactly one-tenth the size of DFW. But they've finished in the top 10 the last three seasons and four of the last six. They've busted the BCS twice. There are very few college football fans who don't have an opinion about Boise. Whether it is fans from small leagues complaining about how they were done dirty or SEC fans with their heads spinning and spit flying everywhere while they scream that they couldn't do that playing an SEC schedule, people care about Boise games.

They deliver an engaged audience across the country.

If you want to win the TV game you either have to be so good that people pay attention because they care one way or the other about the outcome, or you take advantage of geography and population and draw an audience that doesn't care about the outcome but they at least provide the advertisers with eyeballs.

Impressive analysis.

This thread is over.

(04-17-2012 01:31 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 01:08 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 01:00 PM)slappycajun Wrote:  I'm not sure what this is trying to prove.

I think he is trying to show the stupidity of the current decision-making process for conference realignment being based on questionable potential television markets.

The whole nation used to watch Oklahoma-Nebraska. People in much larger markets than Lincoln or OKC watched it in massive numbers. The reason was intense rivalry based on their familiarity with one another and geography....combined with good football.

Good football + familiarity + geography = real television interest = television dollars

Today it is:

Population of the area you happen to be in = television dollars

One of these is rational....one is not.

Good football + familiarity + geography = real television interest = television dollars

Why is stAte or cajuns not as successful as Oklahoma & Nebraska if small college towns always means better quality football & more fans?

Notice I did say "Good Football". To be brutally honest...not positive that either we or the Cajuns have really hit that part of my equation.

We at stAte had a moment in time where we were about to break through back in the '70's but ended up in I-AA soon thereafter and it then became a struggle to get back to I-A instead. We had success in I-AA on the way but that doesn't mean much.

Prior to that we weren't really serious and played in our own state intercollegiate conference at one point.

My original point stands I think.....the nation watched Oklahoma and Nebraska for a reason and it didn't have anything to do with the number of people in Lincoln and Norman. The nation watches Boise and it has nothing to do with how many people are in Boise.

If you want to build a conference follow the model of the SEC or the Big 10 and put forward a good football product.

This business about grabbing the Memphis Tigers or San Diego or FAU because they have more turned off televisions is STOOOPID and is not a long-term model that makes any damn sense.

(04-17-2012 04:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you want to win the TV game you either have to be so good that people pay attention because they care one way or the other about the outcome, or you take advantage of geography and population and draw an audience that doesn't care about the outcome but they at least provide the advertisers with eyeballs.

Look at bowl games. Pittsburgh and SMU are pretty big freaking markets. They met in a bowl game and had crappy ratings. Why? I thought they had all sorts of default viewers from their mighty television markets?

They got the crap beat out of them by Fayetteville, Arkansas and Manhattan, Kansas in eyeballs.

They were beaten by Fort Worth and Ruston in eyeballs.

Is there merit in default tv markets? Sure, I guess if there is nothing else for those people to watch and nothing else for them to do in their metro area they live in they might have the game on.

Is that the strategy? To build a conference designed to skim a few extra eyeballs of people who don't really care about your program and are watching because nothing else is on? No matter how crappy the football, how weird the membership, or that your fans can't attend away games? Or how many rivalries you lose?

Sure, that sounds great for people who care nothing about colleges or football but do care for a few extra eyeballs to sell refrigerators and color tv's. But are University Presidents and Athletic Directors supposed to be thinking like that? I guess so.

Money for nothing! and chicks for free worked for MTV...for a little while. Sooner or later the crappy music catches up to you though.

(04-17-2012 02:21 PM)SidJag Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 12:38 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Please tell me how El Paso, a city with 650,000 people is a small market while Mobile with less than 200,000 is a big city.

El Paso Area Market pop.= 800, 647.
(includes Las Cruces, NM; Juarez, Mex and El Paso)

Mobile Area Market pop.= 894,467.
(includes Pensacola, FL; Mobile, Pascagoula, MS and Biloxi)

No doubt, El Paso's AMP is comparable to Mobile/Pensacola. Remember, Juarez and surrounding area is included in El Paso's.

Wrong. The El Paso-Jaurez-Las Cruces combined area is 2.3 million.
Just El Paso county is 800k.
However, I doubt many people in Juarez care too much about Miner Football

They are more likely Texas Longhorn fans. I know when I go into Reynosa or Progreso in Tamaulipas State in Mexico you see a whole bunch of guys wearing Dallas Cowboys and UT caps. But you never know. UTSA has established their radio network in English and in Spanish on the off chance they can gain some converts.

These market analysis guys are the same geniuses that decided Pensacola would rather see Marlin and Ray games than the Braves.

I picture a Victorian Englishman with a map of the Middle East.

Interesting replies.

For those of you questioning my motives for posting this, it was merely to point out a different way to think about things.

Realignment is focused on a particular kind of revenue. TV revenue. I'm just saying there are other forms of revenue.

Ticket sales.
Tourney appearances.
BCS monies.

My first question would be what would conferences look like if these things were the focus and not televisions?

What gets me is that CUSA fans don't realize that by saying a school located in a large market with a lot of money, by default, has a brighter future than others are damning their own schools.

crazy

(04-18-2012 08:54 AM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  Interesting replies.

For those of you questioning my motives for posting this, it was merely to point out a different way to think about things.

Realignment is focused on a particular kind of revenue. TV revenue. I'm just saying there are other forms of revenue.

Ticket sales.
Tourney appearances.
BCS monies.

My first question would be what would conferences look like if these things were the focus and not televisions?

What gets me is that CUSA fans don't realize that by saying a school located in a large market with a lot of money, by default, has a brighter future than others are damning their own schools.

crazy

It comes down to who you are and what your view is. In 1996 Apple was nearly bankrupt and people said they needed to be more like Compaq or Gateway.

Jobs returned and part of the overhaul was that his pay was in stock options vesting in five years and the employees started getting 20% or 25% of their pay in five year vesting options. Everyone in the company made their focus what are we doing in five years so that I make a lot of money in five years. Meanwhile Compaq and Gateway were run like many other companies with options and bonuses based on quarterly reports and annual earnings. They went for today's dollar rather than the dollar 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 years down the road.

For the next several years those guys stomped all over Apple but the long range focus paid off. Five years later Compaq was struggling and in another year bought out, five more years down the road Gateway was struggling and bought out. Four years after Gateway is shut down, Apple is the richest company in the world.

Chasing markets is a today answer to make money today.

I think what small market Boise has done or small conference Butler has done shows that there is the possibility of great things. To do that you give yourself the best chance and that means aligning schools based on the ability to produce winners, align enough winners and you can have a conference that produces a lot of BCS and NCAA Tournament money. If you have a league having that success TV will follow.

(04-18-2012 10:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-18-2012 08:54 AM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  Interesting replies.

For those of you questioning my motives for posting this, it was merely to point out a different way to think about things.

Realignment is focused on a particular kind of revenue. TV revenue. I'm just saying there are other forms of revenue.

Ticket sales.
Tourney appearances.
BCS monies.

My first question would be what would conferences look like if these things were the focus and not televisions?

What gets me is that CUSA fans don't realize that by saying a school located in a large market with a lot of money, by default, has a brighter future than others are damning their own schools.

crazy

It comes down to who you are and what your view is. In 1996 Apple was nearly bankrupt and people said they needed to be more like Compaq or Gateway.

Jobs returned and part of the overhaul was that his pay was in stock options vesting in five years and the employees started getting 20% or 25% of their pay in five year vesting options. Everyone in the company made their focus what are we doing in five years so that I make a lot of money in five years. Meanwhile Compaq and Gateway were run like many other companies with options and bonuses based on quarterly reports and annual earnings. They went for today's dollar rather than the dollar 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 years down the road.

For the next several years those guys stomped all over Apple but the long range focus paid off. Five years later Compaq was struggling and in another year bought out, five more years down the road Gateway was struggling and bought out. Four years after Gateway is shut down, Apple is the richest company in the world.

Chasing markets is a today answer to make money today.

I think what small market Boise has done or small conference Butler has done shows that there is the possibility of great things. To do that you give yourself the best chance and that means aligning schools based on the ability to produce winners, align enough winners and you can have a conference that produces a lot of BCS and NCAA Tournament money. If you have a league having that success TV will follow.

Probably the best post I have seen in a long while. Logical and well founded. Makes a lot of sense, and makes you think.

(04-18-2012 10:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-18-2012 08:54 AM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  Interesting replies.

For those of you questioning my motives for posting this, it was merely to point out a different way to think about things.

Realignment is focused on a particular kind of revenue. TV revenue. I'm just saying there are other forms of revenue.

Ticket sales.
Tourney appearances.
BCS monies.

My first question would be what would conferences look like if these things were the focus and not televisions?

What gets me is that CUSA fans don't realize that by saying a school located in a large market with a lot of money, by default, has a brighter future than others are damning their own schools.

crazy

It comes down to who you are and what your view is. In 1996 Apple was nearly bankrupt and people said they needed to be more like Compaq or Gateway.

Jobs returned and part of the overhaul was that his pay was in stock options vesting in five years and the employees started getting 20% or 25% of their pay in five year vesting options. Everyone in the company made their focus what are we doing in five years so that I make a lot of money in five years. Meanwhile Compaq and Gateway were run like many other companies with options and bonuses based on quarterly reports and annual earnings. They went for today's dollar rather than the dollar 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 years down the road.

For the next several years those guys stomped all over Apple but the long range focus paid off. Five years later Compaq was struggling and in another year bought out, five more years down the road Gateway was struggling and bought out. Four years after Gateway is shut down, Apple is the richest company in the world.

Chasing markets is a today answer to make money today.

I think what small market Boise has done or small conference Butler has done shows that there is the possibility of great things. To do that you give yourself the best chance and that means aligning schools based on the ability to produce winners, align enough winners and you can have a conference that produces a lot of BCS and NCAA Tournament money. If you have a league having that success TV will follow.

Boy ain't that the truth. Short money=the only money to people today.

(04-18-2012 10:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  ....give yourself the best chance and that means aligning schools based on the ability to produce winners, align enough winners and you can have a conference that produces a lot of BCS and NCAA Tournament money. If you have a league having that success TV will follow.

Thank You.


Give me a school with a high quality football program or basketball program or both with a rabid fanbase any day.

That's the best way to build a conference.

That's the way they built them before we were born. They are called MAJOR conferences today.

It can still be done today. All it takes is for a group of schools to say NO MORE and build for the future. I'm thinking these schools could build something pretty special:

Texas State
Louisiana
Louisiana Tech
Arkansas State
WKU
Middle Tennessee
Appalachain State
Georgia State
Georgia Southern
Troy
South Alabama

Imagine what almost was with the MWC.

Utah, BYU, Boise State, Air Force, San Diego State, etc. etc.

That group was going to be a major conference. They just cashed out way too early.

(04-18-2012 10:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  <snip>
For the next several years those guys stomped all over Apple but the long range focus paid off. Five years later Compaq was struggling and in another year bought out, five more years down the road Gateway was struggling and bought out. Four years after Gateway is shut down, Apple is the richest company in the world.

Chasing markets is a today answer to make money today.

I appreciate the sentiment about a long range outlook. It makes sense for most endeavors.

What I don't understand about the Apple analogy is this, how does choosing a school with a history of recent success on the football field equal a long range outlook while choosing a team in a large market and little success, but much potential, equal short range thinking.

The old bromide is true - winning cures a multitude of sins. And it is also true that you cant make a million people move to a small town.

If a big market team gets good, the bandwagon will be overflowing. It's not easy but with the right coach and a few good recruiting cycles huge things can happen.

Credit to Boise, they have done some great things, but what goes up can come down. What if they got hit with sanctions? No allegations here (other than I have always wondered how they got all those highly ranked California recruits to move to Idaho) but ask yourself what would happen to all that national interest?

(04-18-2012 11:09 AM)ajg Wrote:  

(04-18-2012 10:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  <snip>
For the next several years those guys stomped all over Apple but the long range focus paid off. Five years later Compaq was struggling and in another year bought out, five more years down the road Gateway was struggling and bought out. Four years after Gateway is shut down, Apple is the richest company in the world.

Chasing markets is a today answer to make money today.

I appreciate the sentiment about a long range outlook. It makes sense for most endeavors.

What I don't understand about the Apple analogy is this, how does choosing a school with a history of recent success on the football field equal a long range outlook while choosing a team in a large market and little success, but much potential, equal short range thinking.

The old bromide is true - winning cures a multitude of sins. And it is also true that you cant make a million people move to a small town.

If a big market team gets good, the bandwagon will be overflowing. It's not easy but with the right coach and a few good recruiting cycles huge things can happen.

Credit to Boise, they have done some great things, but what goes up can come down. What if they got hit with sanctions? No allegations here (other than I have always wondered how they got all those highly ranked California recruits to move to Idaho) but ask yourself what would happen to all that national interest?

Well said sir! Also a point to note with that Apple analogy, WAS using the same strategies as the other companies and was getting creamed by the other companies until Jobs came in a change strategies and focus.

Sometimes change is not a bad thing, trying to follow a model to conference relevance that was created 100 years ago when conditions and competition was a lot different may not be the answer.

(04-18-2012 10:44 AM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  

(04-18-2012 10:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  ....give yourself the best chance and that means aligning schools based on the ability to produce winners, align enough winners and you can have a conference that produces a lot of BCS and NCAA Tournament money. If you have a league having that success TV will follow.

Thank You.


Give me a school with a high quality football program or basketball program or both with a rabid fanbase any day.

That's the best way to build a conference.

That's the way they built them before we were born. They are called MAJOR conferences today.

It can still be done today. All it takes is for a group of schools to say NO MORE and build for the future. I'm thinking these schools could build something pretty special:

Texas State
Louisiana
Louisiana Tech
Arkansas State
WKU
Middle Tennessee
Appalachain State
Georgia State
Georgia Southern
Troy
South Alabama

Imagine what almost was with the MWC.

Utah, BYU, Boise State, Air Force, San Diego State, etc. etc.

That group was going to be a major conference. They just cashed out way too early.

No ULM....cause they are putrid.