If you look at the moves in the last 20+ years of realignment instability (ie moves among the five major leagues since the Pac-8 became the Pac-10)

You have:
ACC
Florida State
Miami
VaTech
Boston College
Pitt
Syracuse
Louisville
Notre Dame*

Big 10
Penn State
Nebraska
Maryland
Rutgers

Big Eight/Twelve
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
Baylor
TCU
West Virginia

SEC
Arkansas
South Carolina
Texas A&M
Missouri

Pac-10/12
Utah
Colorado

Less than one-third of the moves involved schools physically within a top 30 TV market and just under half involved a school physically within a top 50 TV market.

Yet these moves were driven by television.

Most if not all were based on the measured audience not potential audience.

So why have so many G5 moves been to secure schools located in large markets, even when some of those selected are drawing small ticket buying populations?

I think it is a combination of two things. The first being a "me too" attitude trying to chase TV dollars and taking a flyer at picking future TV winners. The second being a lack of substantial data.

There is very limited data on the Saturday, nation-wide telecast audience of most G5 members and even less on FCS move-ups (or in the case of some no data at all).

These moves are merely wagers that there might be an audience.

Unless an audience is established, the ad rates will fall, advertisers may be willing to pay a premium for live events but that premium is based upon the number of people viewing those ads. Unless that audience is engaged and viewing (data most cable and satellite providers have) they are not going to pay premium prices to retain those channels, they do not negotiate in the dark these days not knowing how many sets tune to a channel, they use that data to refute requests for increases and if the data is bad enough to force a rate to be lowered or just walk away from carrying or carrying on a preferred tier.

Citing big markets will get you the first contract, but the ones that follow will be based on measured audience.

Amen, I've been preaching the same song on the Sun Belt board for almost a year and a half to no avail. Good info. the data surely supports this. I just hope alot of people don't have to loose their jobs for making bad decisions. IE all the moves by the CUSA this past year excluding ODU and a few by The Belt that I will not name, lol.

(04-19-2013 02:59 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you look at the moves in the last 20+ years of realignment instability (ie moves among the five major leagues since the Pac-8 became the Pac-10)

You have:
ACC
Florida State
Miami
VaTech
Boston College
Pitt
Syracuse
Louisville
Notre Dame*

Big 10
Penn State
Nebraska
Maryland
Rutgers

Big Eight/Twelve
Texas
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
Baylor
TCU
West Virginia

SEC
Arkansas
South Carolina
Texas A&M
Missouri

Pac-10/12
Utah
Colorado

Less than one-third of the moves involved schools physically within a top 30 TV market and just under half involved a school physically within a top 50 TV market.

Yet these moves were driven by television.

Most if not all were based on the measured audience not potential audience.

So why have so many G5 moves been to secure schools located in large markets, even when some of those selected are drawing small ticket buying populations?

I think it is a combination of two things. The first being a "me too" attitude trying to chase TV dollars and taking a flyer at picking future TV winners. The second being a lack of substantial data.

There is very limited data on the Saturday, nation-wide telecast audience of most G5 members and even less on FCS move-ups (or in the case of some no data at all).

These moves are merely wagers that there might be an audience.

Unless an audience is established, the ad rates will fall, advertisers may be willing to pay a premium for live events but that premium is based upon the number of people viewing those ads. Unless that audience is engaged and viewing (data most cable and satellite providers have) they are not going to pay premium prices to retain those channels, they do not negotiate in the dark these days not knowing how many sets tune to a channel, they use that data to refute requests for increases and if the data is bad enough to force a rate to be lowered or just walk away from carrying or carrying on a preferred tier.

Citing big markets will get you the first contract, but the ones that follow will be based on measured audience.

The non-AQs are talking to the networks when they make these decisions. They are adding the schools with the best measured audiences available within each conferences footprint. It's not like CUSA is going to add Nebraska. There is no doubt that the confernces are seeking the counsel of the networks prior to making these moves.

I'm sorry to tell you this but they aren't talking to the networks, they are talking to consultants and the quality of advice varies greatly.

It's true that less than 1/3 of them are in top-30 markets. But FSU, PSU, Texas, TAMU, Colorado, Syracuse, VT, and Missouri were brought in because they deliver top-30 markets, and SC arguably delivers Charlotte. Arkansas, Utah, and Louisville deliver top-50 markets, while SC delivers two top-100 markets in addition to Charlotte. WVU is actually located in the Pittsburgh TV market, so they bring a top-30 market along, too.

That leaves just Notre Dame, Nebraska, Texas Tech, and Baylor. Tech and Baylor were only brought on board to bribe Texas lawmakers. And Nebraska and Notre Dame probably have the largest national followings of any school in the country (at least, if you're only counting fans that live outside of a school's home state).

As you can see, unless you're Nebraska or Notre Dame, every single move was made with TV markets as a huge consideration. Your point that they're not IN the big city markets is irrelevant, because TV markets only care if they DELIVER the markets. But if you can't draw beyond your little corner of the world (like nearly all GO5 teams), the characteristics of that corner mean a lot.

(04-19-2013 07:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  It's true that less than 1/3 of them are in top-30 markets. But FSU, PSU, Texas, TAMU, Colorado, Syracuse, VT, and Missouri were brought in because they deliver top-30 markets, and SC arguably delivers Charlotte. Arkansas, Utah, and Louisville deliver top-50 markets, while SC delivers two top-100 markets in addition to Charlotte. WVU is actually located in the Pittsburgh TV market, so they bring a top-30 market along, too.

That leaves just Notre Dame, Nebraska, Texas Tech, and Baylor. Tech and Baylor were only brought on board to bribe Texas lawmakers. And Nebraska and Notre Dame probably have the largest national followings of any school in the country (at least, if you're only counting fans that live outside of a school's home state).

As you can see, unless you're Nebraska or Notre Dame, every single move was made with TV markets as a huge consideration. Your point that they're not IN the big city markets is irrelevant, because TV markets only care if they DELIVER the markets. But if you can't draw beyond your little corner of the world (like nearly all GO5 teams), the characteristics of that corner mean a lot.

Advertisers DON'T pay for markets, they pay for eyeballs watching and the demographics of those eyeballs.

Cable and satellite DON'T pay for markets, they pay for content that will induce people to keep subscribing AND they pay for viewers watching because most cable and satellite channel deals gives them part of the ad slots to sell. No one watches, they can't make money selling the ads at high prices and they have no financial reason to pay big carriage fees.

(04-19-2013 07:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  It's true that less than 1/3 of them are in top-30 markets. But FSU, PSU, Texas, TAMU, Colorado, Syracuse, VT, and Missouri were brought in because they deliver top-30 markets, and SC arguably delivers Charlotte. Arkansas, Utah, and Louisville deliver top-50 markets, while SC delivers two top-100 markets in addition to Charlotte. WVU is actually located in the Pittsburgh TV market, so they bring a top-30 market along, too.

That leaves just Notre Dame, Nebraska, Texas Tech, and Baylor. Tech and Baylor were only brought on board to bribe Texas lawmakers. And Nebraska and Notre Dame probably have the largest national followings of any school in the country (at least, if you're only counting fans that live outside of a school's home state).

As you can see, unless you're Nebraska or Notre Dame, every single move was made with TV markets as a huge consideration. Your point that they're not IN the big city markets is irrelevant, because TV markets only care if they DELIVER the markets. But if you can't draw beyond your little corner of the world (like nearly all GO5 teams), the characteristics of that corner mean a lot.

This. ^^^^^^^^

The primary reason why CUSA makes the money it does over G5 conferences like the MAC and SBC has to do with salary history. Its much easier to negotiate from a starting point of 1 million per school and end up with a TV deal valued at 1 million per school like they've done for every contract in the leagues existence.

What has impressed me is how the MWC was after losing BYU, Utah and TCU not only able to resign with ESPN it did so at the tune of 1.8 million dollars per year (about double the MWC received before on ESPN). Most of the schools in the MWC play in tiny markets except SJSU, SDSU and UNLV. The raise pool makes the TV deal even more lucrative for the top football schools

Is Boise a Top 50 TV market? I don't know. Is Boise a Top 50 FB school in popularity? The answer has to be yes to that.

If the characteristic is the population of the large market is generally indifferent to the product there isn't a lot of value.

Quote:Large city population and the presence of pro teams hurt attendance. As much as a big school helps attendance, a big city hurts attendance. Medium sized college towns (100,000-500,000) filled their stadiums to 83.7% of capacity (50,000 per game). The same success was shown in larger college towns (500,000-1 million) with 83% attendance (44,000) and small college towns (less than 100,000) 80% (33,000). All this despite sporting average football teams (all hovering around .500). Colleges in cities (1 to 4 million people) attracted less than 40,000 fans to their games, only 75% attendance – below the NCAA average. The performance was worse in the biggest of cities (4 million+) whose colleges outperformed their competitors on the field – 58% W% – but similarly only drew 40,000 fans (70% of capacity).

http://winthropintelligence.com/2011/07/...rformance/

(04-19-2013 11:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If the characteristic is the population of the large market is generally indifferent to the product there isn't a lot of value.

Quote:Large city population and the presence of pro teams hurt attendance. As much as a big school helps attendance, a big city hurts attendance. Medium sized college towns (100,000-500,000) filled their stadiums to 83.7% of capacity (50,000 per game). The same success was shown in larger college towns (500,000-1 million) with 83% attendance (44,000) and small college towns (less than 100,000) 80% (33,000). All this despite sporting average football teams (all hovering around .500). Colleges in cities (1 to 4 million people) attracted less than 40,000 fans to their games, only 75% attendance – below the NCAA average. The performance was worse in the biggest of cities (4 million+) whose colleges outperformed their competitors on the field – 58% W% – but similarly only drew 40,000 fans (70% of capacity).

http://winthropintelligence.com/2011/07/...rformance/

Interesting read.

(04-19-2013 09:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 07:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  It's true that less than 1/3 of them are in top-30 markets. But FSU, PSU, Texas, TAMU, Colorado, Syracuse, VT, and Missouri were brought in because they deliver top-30 markets, and SC arguably delivers Charlotte. Arkansas, Utah, and Louisville deliver top-50 markets, while SC delivers two top-100 markets in addition to Charlotte. WVU is actually located in the Pittsburgh TV market, so they bring a top-30 market along, too.

That leaves just Notre Dame, Nebraska, Texas Tech, and Baylor. Tech and Baylor were only brought on board to bribe Texas lawmakers. And Nebraska and Notre Dame probably have the largest national followings of any school in the country (at least, if you're only counting fans that live outside of a school's home state).

As you can see, unless you're Nebraska or Notre Dame, every single move was made with TV markets as a huge consideration. Your point that they're not IN the big city markets is irrelevant, because TV markets only care if they DELIVER the markets. But if you can't draw beyond your little corner of the world (like nearly all GO5 teams), the characteristics of that corner mean a lot.

Advertisers DON'T pay for markets, they pay for eyeballs watching and the demographics of those eyeballs.

Cable and satellite DON'T pay for markets, they pay for content that will induce people to keep subscribing AND they pay for viewers watching because most cable and satellite channel deals gives them part of the ad slots to sell. No one watches, they can't make money selling the ads at high prices and they have no financial reason to pay big carriage fees.

Not exactly right. Local advertisers pay for markets, the rest is about right.

(04-20-2013 06:43 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 07:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  It's true that less than 1/3 of them are in top-30 markets. But FSU, PSU, Texas, TAMU, Colorado, Syracuse, VT, and Missouri were brought in because they deliver top-30 markets, and SC arguably delivers Charlotte. Arkansas, Utah, and Louisville deliver top-50 markets, while SC delivers two top-100 markets in addition to Charlotte. WVU is actually located in the Pittsburgh TV market, so they bring a top-30 market along, too.

That leaves just Notre Dame, Nebraska, Texas Tech, and Baylor. Tech and Baylor were only brought on board to bribe Texas lawmakers. And Nebraska and Notre Dame probably have the largest national followings of any school in the country (at least, if you're only counting fans that live outside of a school's home state).

As you can see, unless you're Nebraska or Notre Dame, every single move was made with TV markets as a huge consideration. Your point that they're not IN the big city markets is irrelevant, because TV markets only care if they DELIVER the markets. But if you can't draw beyond your little corner of the world (like nearly all GO5 teams), the characteristics of that corner mean a lot.

Advertisers DON'T pay for markets, they pay for eyeballs watching and the demographics of those eyeballs.

Cable and satellite DON'T pay for markets, they pay for content that will induce people to keep subscribing AND they pay for viewers watching because most cable and satellite channel deals gives them part of the ad slots to sell. No one watches, they can't make money selling the ads at high prices and they have no financial reason to pay big carriage fees.

Not exactly right. Local advertisers pay for markets, the rest is about right.

No they do not. E.g., compare the rates local Tallahassee advertisers pay for FSU vs FAMU gammes and you will ser a big difference.

(04-20-2013 09:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 06:43 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 07:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  It's true that less than 1/3 of them are in top-30 markets. But FSU, PSU, Texas, TAMU, Colorado, Syracuse, VT, and Missouri were brought in because they deliver top-30 markets, and SC arguably delivers Charlotte. Arkansas, Utah, and Louisville deliver top-50 markets, while SC delivers two top-100 markets in addition to Charlotte. WVU is actually located in the Pittsburgh TV market, so they bring a top-30 market along, too.

That leaves just Notre Dame, Nebraska, Texas Tech, and Baylor. Tech and Baylor were only brought on board to bribe Texas lawmakers. And Nebraska and Notre Dame probably have the largest national followings of any school in the country (at least, if you're only counting fans that live outside of a school's home state).

As you can see, unless you're Nebraska or Notre Dame, every single move was made with TV markets as a huge consideration. Your point that they're not IN the big city markets is irrelevant, because TV markets only care if they DELIVER the markets. But if you can't draw beyond your little corner of the world (like nearly all GO5 teams), the characteristics of that corner mean a lot.

Advertisers DON'T pay for markets, they pay for eyeballs watching and the demographics of those eyeballs.

Cable and satellite DON'T pay for markets, they pay for content that will induce people to keep subscribing AND they pay for viewers watching because most cable and satellite channel deals gives them part of the ad slots to sell. No one watches, they can't make money selling the ads at high prices and they have no financial reason to pay big carriage fees.

Not exactly right. Local advertisers pay for markets, the rest is about right.

No they do not. E.g., compare the rates local Tallahassee advertisers pay for FSU vs FAMU gammes and you will ser a big difference.

You miss understood me. My point was market does play a role in local advertising. I did not say, if fact I expressly said, I agreed with the rest of your post where you argued the number of eyeballs matter and market did not. Of course eyeballs matter more, and of course there would be higher ad rates for a FSU telecast compared to a FAMU one because of the number of eyeballs.

A better example would be to compare the ad rates for two regional Florida channels. The first one has a fishing show that attracts 20,000 viewers across the state. The second one broadcasts a Central Florida football game that garners the same number of viewers but the vast majority are in Orlando. Which do you think commands higher ad rates? Even though there are the same number of eyeballs the UCF broadcast would command higher rates from local advertisers who want to reach the local Orlando market. Think car dealerships, local banks, etc. They pay good money.

(04-20-2013 10:38 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 06:43 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 07:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  It's true that less than 1/3 of them are in top-30 markets. But FSU, PSU, Texas, TAMU, Colorado, Syracuse, VT, and Missouri were brought in because they deliver top-30 markets, and SC arguably delivers Charlotte. Arkansas, Utah, and Louisville deliver top-50 markets, while SC delivers two top-100 markets in addition to Charlotte. WVU is actually located in the Pittsburgh TV market, so they bring a top-30 market along, too.

That leaves just Notre Dame, Nebraska, Texas Tech, and Baylor. Tech and Baylor were only brought on board to bribe Texas lawmakers. And Nebraska and Notre Dame probably have the largest national followings of any school in the country (at least, if you're only counting fans that live outside of a school's home state).

As you can see, unless you're Nebraska or Notre Dame, every single move was made with TV markets as a huge consideration. Your point that they're not IN the big city markets is irrelevant, because TV markets only care if they DELIVER the markets. But if you can't draw beyond your little corner of the world (like nearly all GO5 teams), the characteristics of that corner mean a lot.

Advertisers DON'T pay for markets, they pay for eyeballs watching and the demographics of those eyeballs.

Cable and satellite DON'T pay for markets, they pay for content that will induce people to keep subscribing AND they pay for viewers watching because most cable and satellite channel deals gives them part of the ad slots to sell. No one watches, they can't make money selling the ads at high prices and they have no financial reason to pay big carriage fees.

Not exactly right. Local advertisers pay for markets, the rest is about right.

No they do not. E.g., compare the rates local Tallahassee advertisers pay for FSU vs FAMU gammes and you will ser a big difference.

You miss understood me. My point was market does play a role in local advertising. I did not say, if fact I expressly said, I agreed with the rest of your post where you argued the number of eyeballs matter and market did not. Of course eyeballs matter more, and of course there would be higher ad rates for a FSU telecast compared to a FAMU one because of the number of eyeballs.

A better example would be to compare the ad rates for two regional Florida channels. The first one has a fishing show that attracts 20,000 viewers across the state. The second one broadcasts a Central Florida football game that garners the same number of viewers but the vast majority are in Orlando. Which do you think commands higher ad rates? Even though there are the same number of eyeballs the UCF broadcast would command higher rates from local advertisers who want to reach the local Orlando market. Think car dealerships, local banks, etc. They pay good money.

Which is why eventually the schools of the G5 will make their money off local and regional TV and national TV will be just for exposure to recruits.

(04-19-2013 11:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If the characteristic is the population of the large market is generally indifferent to the product there isn't a lot of value.

Quote:Large city population and the presence of pro teams hurt attendance. As much as a big school helps attendance, a big city hurts attendance. Medium sized college towns (100,000-500,000) filled their stadiums to 83.7% of capacity (50,000 per game). The same success was shown in larger college towns (500,000-1 million) with 83% attendance (44,000) and small college towns (less than 100,000) 80% (33,000). All this despite sporting average football teams (all hovering around .500). Colleges in cities (1 to 4 million people) attracted less than 40,000 fans to their games, only 75% attendance – below the NCAA average. The performance was worse in the biggest of cities (4 million+) whose colleges outperformed their competitors on the field – 58% W% – but similarly only drew 40,000 fans (70% of capacity).

http://winthropintelligence.com/2011/07/...rformance/

I don't buy this at all. It's a myth that is repeatedly perpetuated by those who want to promote the small, college town agenda. Let's take some examples.

Michigan has the largest stadiums in the country, which it fills ever year. It's only about 30 miles or so outside Detroit but technically not in the Detroit metro area. In the world of today's transportation, 30-40 miles is nothing. Michigan might as well be in downtown Detroit.

Penn State is out in the boondocks of central Pennsylvania. It too has one of the largest stadiums in the country, which it also routinely sells out. Is that because it's removed from a metro area? If you think so, you've never been to a Penn Stae game. The fans are all coming from metropolitan Philly and driving 4-5 hours to get to the game. Penn State would draw just as well if it were in downtown Philly.

Land grant colleges were not normally built in urban areas. They were funded to meet agricultural needs, which is why they are where they are. However, regardless of their locations, they are the state's flagship universities and are a focus of civic pride. They are old and long established with large numbers of alumni who support them with ticket purchases and outright donations. They have a football culture that in many cases goes back 100 years. It's this culture that drives the interest, not their locations.

In order to do a factual comparison, there would have to be an equal number of state flagships in big cities with pro football competition. But there aren't because that's not where most of the flagships are located. Given that flagships top the attendance lists, of course the list is going to show schools in small towns. But it's not cause & effect. It's simply a factor of where the flagships are located.

The idea that a school has o be located in a TV "market" simply ignores everything we know about markets. Professional franchises command markets because their identity coincides with their city. But this is not true of universities. Flagships in particular have statewide identities. What is important about them is that they deliver the big city markets within their states because that's where much of their alumni is located and because it's where much of their stae's population is located. The ability to deliver a market is what matters, not whether a team is physically located within that market. For a flagship, the market is the entire state, not the home town. The fact that networks track viewership by urban markets is irrelevant to the fact that flagship markets are the state and is not broken up by urban market.

If schools in or near big cities with pro teams can't draw fans, someone's going to have to explain to me how Washington and Arizona State draw 60,000 fans in competition with pro franchises in their immediate vicinity, how Florida & Texas A&M despite being within just a couple of hours of Jacksonville and Houston respectively. The 90,000 fans that each draws aren't coming from Gainesville and College Station exclusively. People today actually know how to get in a car and drive somewhere they want to go even if it's not in the immediate vicinity.

Georgia is only a little over an hour from Atlanta. Are you telling me that the power of the NFL is so great that it stifles any interst in local college teams but when you get over the city line, the NFL loses it's influence? I somehow think that a lot of those 90,000 fans at Georgia games are driving down from Atlanta. LSU is a similar distance from New Orleans and also draws 90,000. Same is true for Notre Dame (Chicago & Indianapolis) and Missouri (St. Louis).

And why are there flagships in great college towns that don't draw 80-100K? Orw even 60K? Ole Miss in Oxford doesn't draw any better than Pitt despite the power of the SEC. North Carolina in Chapel Hill doesn't draw any better than Georgia Tech in Atlanta. Oregon in Eugene doesn't draw any better than Stanford in the Bay Area. These 3 aren't examples of good college towns, they are great college towns, 3 of the best you can find in America.

Te notion that it all boils down to geography and the NFL is simplistic and ignores every other factor that goes into building a program successful enough to command large scale interest in attendance and TV viewership.

IMO, institutional culture and tradition has as much to do with explaining the success of Alabama and Notre Dame in college football as it does with explaining the Yankees and Red Sox in Major League Baseball.

(04-20-2013 10:38 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 09:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 06:43 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 07:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  It's true that less than 1/3 of them are in top-30 markets. But FSU, PSU, Texas, TAMU, Colorado, Syracuse, VT, and Missouri were brought in because they deliver top-30 markets, and SC arguably delivers Charlotte. Arkansas, Utah, and Louisville deliver top-50 markets, while SC delivers two top-100 markets in addition to Charlotte. WVU is actually located in the Pittsburgh TV market, so they bring a top-30 market along, too.

That leaves just Notre Dame, Nebraska, Texas Tech, and Baylor. Tech and Baylor were only brought on board to bribe Texas lawmakers. And Nebraska and Notre Dame probably have the largest national followings of any school in the country (at least, if you're only counting fans that live outside of a school's home state).

As you can see, unless you're Nebraska or Notre Dame, every single move was made with TV markets as a huge consideration. Your point that they're not IN the big city markets is irrelevant, because TV markets only care if they DELIVER the markets. But if you can't draw beyond your little corner of the world (like nearly all GO5 teams), the characteristics of that corner mean a lot.

Advertisers DON'T pay for markets, they pay for eyeballs watching and the demographics of those eyeballs.

Cable and satellite DON'T pay for markets, they pay for content that will induce people to keep subscribing AND they pay for viewers watching because most cable and satellite channel deals gives them part of the ad slots to sell. No one watches, they can't make money selling the ads at high prices and they have no financial reason to pay big carriage fees.

Not exactly right. Local advertisers pay for markets, the rest is about right.

No they do not. E.g., compare the rates local Tallahassee advertisers pay for FSU vs FAMU gammes and you will ser a big difference.

You miss understood me. My point was market does play a role in local advertising. I did not say, if fact I expressly said, I agreed with the rest of your post where you argued the number of eyeballs matter and market did not. Of course eyeballs matter more, and of course there would be higher ad rates for a FSU telecast compared to a FAMU one because of the number of eyeballs.

A better example would be to compare the ad rates for two regional Florida channels. The first one has a fishing show that attracts 20,000 viewers across the state. The second one broadcasts a Central Florida football game that garners the same number of viewers but the vast majority are in Orlando. Which do you think commands higher ad rates? Even though there are the same number of eyeballs the UCF broadcast would command higher rates from local advertisers who want to reach the local Orlando market. Think car dealerships, local banks, etc. They pay good money.

Gotcha.

(04-20-2013 11:36 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 11:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If the characteristic is the population of the large market is generally indifferent to the product there isn't a lot of value.

Quote:Large city population and the presence of pro teams hurt attendance. As much as a big school helps attendance, a big city hurts attendance. Medium sized college towns (100,000-500,000) filled their stadiums to 83.7% of capacity (50,000 per game). The same success was shown in larger college towns (500,000-1 million) with 83% attendance (44,000) and small college towns (less than 100,000) 80% (33,000). All this despite sporting average football teams (all hovering around .500). Colleges in cities (1 to 4 million people) attracted less than 40,000 fans to their games, only 75% attendance – below the NCAA average. The performance was worse in the biggest of cities (4 million+) whose colleges outperformed their competitors on the field – 58% W% – but similarly only drew 40,000 fans (70% of capacity).

http://winthropintelligence.com/2011/07/...rformance/

I don't buy this at all. It's a myth that is repeatedly perpetuated by those who want to promote the small, college town agenda. Let's take some examples.

Michigan has the largest stadiums in the country, which it fills ever year. It's only about 30 miles or so outside Detroit but technically not in the Detroit metro area. In the world of today's transportation, 30-40 miles is nothing. Michigan might as well be in downtown Detroit.

Penn State is out in the boondocks of central Pennsylvania. It too has one of the largest stadiums in the country, which it also routinely sells out. Is that because it's removed from a metro area? If you think so, you've never been to a Penn Stae game. The fans are all coming from metropolitan Philly and driving 4-5 hours to get to the game. Penn State would draw just as well if it were in downtown Philly.

Land grant colleges were not normally built in urban areas. They were funded to meet agricultural needs, which is why they are where they are. However, regardless of their locations, they are the state's flagship universities and are a focus of civic pride. They are old and long established with large numbers of alumni who support them with ticket purchases and outright donations. They have a football culture that in many cases goes back 100 years. It's this culture that drives the interest, not their locations.

In order to do a factual comparison, there would have to be an equal number of state flagships in big cities with pro football competition. But there aren't because that's not where most of the flagships are located. Given that flagships top the attendance lists, of course the list is going to show schools in small towns. But it's not cause & effect. It's simply a factor of where the flagships are located.

The idea that a school has o be located in a TV "market" simply ignores everything we know about markets. Professional franchises command markets because their identity coincides with their city. But this is not true of universities. Flagships in particular have statewide identities. What is important about them is that they deliver the big city markets within their states because that's where much of their alumni is located and because it's where much of their stae's population is located. The ability to deliver a market is what matters, not whether a team is physically located within that market. For a flagship, the market is the entire state, not the home town. The fact that networks track viewership by urban markets is irrelevant to the fact that flagship markets are the state and is not broken up by urban market.

If schools in or near big cities with pro teams can't draw fans, someone's going to have to explain to me how Washington and Arizona State draw 60,000 fans in competition with pro franchises in their immediate vicinity, how Florida & Texas A&M despite being within just a couple of hours of Jacksonville and Houston respectively. The 90,000 fans that each draws aren't coming from Gainesville and College Station exclusively. People today actually know how to get in a car and drive somewhere they want to go even if it's not in the immediate vicinity.

Georgia is only a little over an hour from Atlanta. Are you telling me that the power of the NFL is so great that it stifles any interst in local college teams but when you get over the city line, the NFL loses it's influence? I somehow think that a lot of those 90,000 fans at Georgia games are driving down from Atlanta. LSU is a similar distance from New Orleans and also draws 90,000. Same is true for Notre Dame (Chicago & Indianapolis) and Missouri (St. Louis).

And why are there flagships in great college towns that don't draw 80-100K? Orw even 60K? Ole Miss in Oxford doesn't draw any better than Pitt despite the power of the SEC. North Carolina in Chapel Hill doesn't draw any better than Georgia Tech in Atlanta. Oregon in Eugene doesn't draw any better than Stanford in the Bay Area. These 3 aren't examples of good college towns, they are great college towns, 3 of the best you can find in America.

Te notion that it all boils down to geography and the NFL is simplistic and ignores every other factor that goes into building a program successful enough to command large scale interest in attendance and TV viewership.

IMO, institutional culture and tradition has as much to do with explaining the success of Alabama and Notre Dame in college football as it does with explaining the Yankees and Red Sox in Major League Baseball.

Very interesting post but let me question a couple of things. First, I don't know what this small college town agenda is that you refer to? There are those who think college football succeeds better in small towns but I don't see any political agenda.

Second, while I agree completely that institutional culture and tradition explaon the success of big time programs like notrr dame, I think you ignore that same factor when discussing the impact of the NFL. Believe me, there are NFL towns, like NYC and Boston, where the regions culture is oriented to pro not college football.

(04-20-2013 11:36 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 11:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If the characteristic is the population of the large market is generally indifferent to the product there isn't a lot of value.

Quote:Large city population and the presence of pro teams hurt attendance. As much as a big school helps attendance, a big city hurts attendance. Medium sized college towns (100,000-500,000) filled their stadiums to 83.7% of capacity (50,000 per game). The same success was shown in larger college towns (500,000-1 million) with 83% attendance (44,000) and small college towns (less than 100,000) 80% (33,000). All this despite sporting average football teams (all hovering around .500). Colleges in cities (1 to 4 million people) attracted less than 40,000 fans to their games, only 75% attendance – below the NCAA average. The performance was worse in the biggest of cities (4 million+) whose colleges outperformed their competitors on the field – 58% W% – but similarly only drew 40,000 fans (70% of capacity).

http://winthropintelligence.com/2011/07/...rformance/

I don't buy this at all. It's a myth that is repeatedly perpetuated by those who want to promote the small, college town agenda. Let's take some examples.

Michigan has the largest stadiums in the country, which it fills ever year. It's only about 30 miles or so outside Detroit but technically not in the Detroit metro area. In the world of today's transportation, 30-40 miles is nothing. Michigan might as well be in downtown Detroit.

Penn State is out in the boondocks of central Pennsylvania. It too has one of the largest stadiums in the country, which it also routinely sells out. Is that because it's removed from a metro area? If you think so, you've never been to a Penn Stae game. The fans are all coming from metropolitan Philly and driving 4-5 hours to get to the game. Penn State would draw just as well if it were in downtown Philly.

Land grant colleges were not normally built in urban areas. They were funded to meet agricultural needs, which is why they are where they are. However, regardless of their locations, they are the state's flagship universities and are a focus of civic pride. They are old and long established with large numbers of alumni who support them with ticket purchases and outright donations. They have a football culture that in many cases goes back 100 years. It's this culture that drives the interest, not their locations.

In order to do a factual comparison, there would have to be an equal number of state flagships in big cities with pro football competition. But there aren't because that's not where most of the flagships are located. Given that flagships top the attendance lists, of course the list is going to show schools in small towns. But it's not cause & effect. It's simply a factor of where the flagships are located.

The idea that a school has o be located in a TV "market" simply ignores everything we know about markets. Professional franchises command markets because their identity coincides with their city. But this is not true of universities. Flagships in particular have statewide identities. What is important about them is that they deliver the big city markets within their states because that's where much of their alumni is located and because it's where much of their stae's population is located. The ability to deliver a market is what matters, not whether a team is physically located within that market. For a flagship, the market is the entire state, not the home town. The fact that networks track viewership by urban markets is irrelevant to the fact that flagship markets are the state and is not broken up by urban market.

If schools in or near big cities with pro teams can't draw fans, someone's going to have to explain to me how Washington and Arizona State draw 60,000 fans in competition with pro franchises in their immediate vicinity, how Florida & Texas A&M despite being within just a couple of hours of Jacksonville and Houston respectively. The 90,000 fans that each draws aren't coming from Gainesville and College Station exclusively. People today actually know how to get in a car and drive somewhere they want to go even if it's not in the immediate vicinity.

Georgia is only a little over an hour from Atlanta. Are you telling me that the power of the NFL is so great that it stifles any interst in local college teams but when you get over the city line, the NFL loses it's influence? I somehow think that a lot of those 90,000 fans at Georgia games are driving down from Atlanta. LSU is a similar distance from New Orleans and also draws 90,000. Same is true for Notre Dame (Chicago & Indianapolis) and Missouri (St. Louis).

And why are there flagships in great college towns that don't draw 80-100K? Orw even 60K? Ole Miss in Oxford doesn't draw any better than Pitt despite the power of the SEC. North Carolina in Chapel Hill doesn't draw any better than Georgia Tech in Atlanta. Oregon in Eugene doesn't draw any better than Stanford in the Bay Area. These 3 aren't examples of good college towns, they are great college towns, 3 of the best you can find in America.

Te notion that it all boils down to geography and the NFL is simplistic and ignores every other factor that goes into building a program successful enough to command large scale interest in attendance and TV viewership.

IMO, institutional culture and tradition has as much to do with explaining the success of Alabama and Notre Dame in college football as it does with explaining the Yankees and Red Sox in Major League Baseball.

Very interesting post but let me question a couple of things. First, I don't know what this small college town agenda is that you refer to? There are those who think college football succeeds better in smal towns but I don't see any political agenda.

Second, while I agree completely that institutional culture and tradition explaon the success of big time programs like notrr dame, I think you ignore thar same factor whwn discussing the impact of the NFL. Believe me, there are NFL towns, like NYC and Boston, where the regions culture is oriented to pro not college football.

(04-20-2013 12:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 11:36 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 11:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If the characteristic is the population of the large market is generally indifferent to the product there isn't a lot of value.

Quote:Large city population and the presence of pro teams hurt attendance. As much as a big school helps attendance, a big city hurts attendance. Medium sized college towns (100,000-500,000) filled their stadiums to 83.7% of capacity (50,000 per game). The same success was shown in larger college towns (500,000-1 million) with 83% attendance (44,000) and small college towns (less than 100,000) 80% (33,000). All this despite sporting average football teams (all hovering around .500). Colleges in cities (1 to 4 million people) attracted less than 40,000 fans to their games, only 75% attendance – below the NCAA average. The performance was worse in the biggest of cities (4 million+) whose colleges outperformed their competitors on the field – 58% W% – but similarly only drew 40,000 fans (70% of capacity).

http://winthropintelligence.com/2011/07/...rformance/

I don't buy this at all. It's a myth that is repeatedly perpetuated by those who want to promote the small, college town agenda. Let's take some examples.

Michigan has the largest stadiums in the country, which it fills ever year. It's only about 30 miles or so outside Detroit but technically not in the Detroit metro area. In the world of today's transportation, 30-40 miles is nothing. Michigan might as well be in downtown Detroit.

Penn State is out in the boondocks of central Pennsylvania. It too has one of the largest stadiums in the country, which it also routinely sells out. Is that because it's removed from a metro area? If you think so, you've never been to a Penn Stae game. The fans are all coming from metropolitan Philly and driving 4-5 hours to get to the game. Penn State would draw just as well if it were in downtown Philly.

Land grant colleges were not normally built in urban areas. They were funded to meet agricultural needs, which is why they are where they are. However, regardless of their locations, they are the state's flagship universities and are a focus of civic pride. They are old and long established with large numbers of alumni who support them with ticket purchases and outright donations. They have a football culture that in many cases goes back 100 years. It's this culture that drives the interest, not their locations.

In order to do a factual comparison, there would have to be an equal number of state flagships in big cities with pro football competition. But there aren't because that's not where most of the flagships are located. Given that flagships top the attendance lists, of course the list is going to show schools in small towns. But it's not cause & effect. It's simply a factor of where the flagships are located.

The idea that a school has o be located in a TV "market" simply ignores everything we know about markets. Professional franchises command markets because their identity coincides with their city. But this is not true of universities. Flagships in particular have statewide identities. What is important about them is that they deliver the big city markets within their states because that's where much of their alumni is located and because it's where much of their stae's population is located. The ability to deliver a market is what matters, not whether a team is physically located within that market. For a flagship, the market is the entire state, not the home town. The fact that networks track viewership by urban markets is irrelevant to the fact that flagship markets are the state and is not broken up by urban market.

If schools in or near big cities with pro teams can't draw fans, someone's going to have to explain to me how Washington and Arizona State draw 60,000 fans in competition with pro franchises in their immediate vicinity, how Florida & Texas A&M despite being within just a couple of hours of Jacksonville and Houston respectively. The 90,000 fans that each draws aren't coming from Gainesville and College Station exclusively. People today actually know how to get in a car and drive somewhere they want to go even if it's not in the immediate vicinity.

Georgia is only a little over an hour from Atlanta. Are you telling me that the power of the NFL is so great that it stifles any interst in local college teams but when you get over the city line, the NFL loses it's influence? I somehow think that a lot of those 90,000 fans at Georgia games are driving down from Atlanta. LSU is a similar distance from New Orleans and also draws 90,000. Same is true for Notre Dame (Chicago & Indianapolis) and Missouri (St. Louis).

And why are there flagships in great college towns that don't draw 80-100K? Orw even 60K? Ole Miss in Oxford doesn't draw any better than Pitt despite the power of the SEC. North Carolina in Chapel Hill doesn't draw any better than Georgia Tech in Atlanta. Oregon in Eugene doesn't draw any better than Stanford in the Bay Area. These 3 aren't examples of good college towns, they are great college towns, 3 of the best you can find in America.

Te notion that it all boils down to geography and the NFL is simplistic and ignores every other factor that goes into building a program successful enough to command large scale interest in attendance and TV viewership.

IMO, institutional culture and tradition has as much to do with explaining the success of Alabama and Notre Dame in college football as it does with explaining the Yankees and Red Sox in Major League Baseball.

Very interesting post but let me question a couple of things. First, I don't know what this small college town agenda is that you refer to? There are those who think college football succeeds better in small towns but I don't see any political agenda.

Second, while I agree completely that institutional culture and tradition explaon the success of big time programs like notrr dame, I think you ignore that same factor when discussing the impact of the NFL. Believe me, there are NFL towns, like NYC and Boston, where the regions culture is oriented to pro not college football.

True, but with NYC and Boston you have two states (New York and Massachusetts) where being THE state school means diddly.

I'm sure there are "pro cities" that are good examples of what you are referring to, but the ones you chose aren't effective examples to counter Melky's point.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-20-2013 01:42 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 12:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 11:36 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 11:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If the characteristic is the population of the large market is generally indifferent to the product there isn't a lot of value.

Quote:Large city population and the presence of pro teams hurt attendance. As much as a big school helps attendance, a big city hurts attendance. Medium sized college towns (100,000-500,000) filled their stadiums to 83.7% of capacity (50,000 per game). The same success was shown in larger college towns (500,000-1 million) with 83% attendance (44,000) and small college towns (less than 100,000) 80% (33,000). All this despite sporting average football teams (all hovering around .500). Colleges in cities (1 to 4 million people) attracted less than 40,000 fans to their games, only 75% attendance – below the NCAA average. The performance was worse in the biggest of cities (4 million+) whose colleges outperformed their competitors on the field – 58% W% – but similarly only drew 40,000 fans (70% of capacity).

http://winthropintelligence.com/2011/07/...rformance/

I don't buy this at all. It's a myth that is repeatedly perpetuated by those who want to promote the small, college town agenda. Let's take some examples.

Michigan has the largest stadiums in the country, which it fills ever year. It's only about 30 miles or so outside Detroit but technically not in the Detroit metro area. In the world of today's transportation, 30-40 miles is nothing. Michigan might as well be in downtown Detroit.

Penn State is out in the boondocks of central Pennsylvania. It too has one of the largest stadiums in the country, which it also routinely sells out. Is that because it's removed from a metro area? If you think so, you've never been to a Penn Stae game. The fans are all coming from metropolitan Philly and driving 4-5 hours to get to the game. Penn State would draw just as well if it were in downtown Philly.

Land grant colleges were not normally built in urban areas. They were funded to meet agricultural needs, which is why they are where they are. However, regardless of their locations, they are the state's flagship universities and are a focus of civic pride. They are old and long established with large numbers of alumni who support them with ticket purchases and outright donations. They have a football culture that in many cases goes back 100 years. It's this culture that drives the interest, not their locations.

In order to do a factual comparison, there would have to be an equal number of state flagships in big cities with pro football competition. But there aren't because that's not where most of the flagships are located. Given that flagships top the attendance lists, of course the list is going to show schools in small towns. But it's not cause & effect. It's simply a factor of where the flagships are located.

The idea that a school has o be located in a TV "market" simply ignores everything we know about markets. Professional franchises command markets because their identity coincides with their city. But this is not true of universities. Flagships in particular have statewide identities. What is important about them is that they deliver the big city markets within their states because that's where much of their alumni is located and because it's where much of their stae's population is located. The ability to deliver a market is what matters, not whether a team is physically located within that market. For a flagship, the market is the entire state, not the home town. The fact that networks track viewership by urban markets is irrelevant to the fact that flagship markets are the state and is not broken up by urban market.

If schools in or near big cities with pro teams can't draw fans, someone's going to have to explain to me how Washington and Arizona State draw 60,000 fans in competition with pro franchises in their immediate vicinity, how Florida & Texas A&M despite being within just a couple of hours of Jacksonville and Houston respectively. The 90,000 fans that each draws aren't coming from Gainesville and College Station exclusively. People today actually know how to get in a car and drive somewhere they want to go even if it's not in the immediate vicinity.

Georgia is only a little over an hour from Atlanta. Are you telling me that the power of the NFL is so great that it stifles any interst in local college teams but when you get over the city line, the NFL loses it's influence? I somehow think that a lot of those 90,000 fans at Georgia games are driving down from Atlanta. LSU is a similar distance from New Orleans and also draws 90,000. Same is true for Notre Dame (Chicago & Indianapolis) and Missouri (St. Louis).

And why are there flagships in great college towns that don't draw 80-100K? Orw even 60K? Ole Miss in Oxford doesn't draw any better than Pitt despite the power of the SEC. North Carolina in Chapel Hill doesn't draw any better than Georgia Tech in Atlanta. Oregon in Eugene doesn't draw any better than Stanford in the Bay Area. These 3 aren't examples of good college towns, they are great college towns, 3 of the best you can find in America.

Te notion that it all boils down to geography and the NFL is simplistic and ignores every other factor that goes into building a program successful enough to command large scale interest in attendance and TV viewership.

IMO, institutional culture and tradition has as much to do with explaining the success of Alabama and Notre Dame in college football as it does with explaining the Yankees and Red Sox in Major League Baseball.

Very interesting post but let me question a couple of things. First, I don't know what this small college town agenda is that you refer to? There are those who think college football succeeds better in small towns but I don't see any political agenda.

Second, while I agree completely that institutional culture and tradition explaon the success of big time programs like notrr dame, I think you ignore that same factor when discussing the impact of the NFL. Believe me, there are NFL towns, like NYC and Boston, where the regions culture is oriented to pro not college football.

True, but with NYC and Boston you have two states (New York and Massachusetts) where being THE state school means diddly.

I'm sure there are "pro cities" that are good examples of what you are referring to, but the ones you chose aren't effective examples to counter Melky's point.

Neil, Melky's point is that those who claim that a college program can't draw big crowds if it is in a big city with NFL teams are wrong. But who has ever claimed that? Obviously, as programs like Arizona State and USC (in the past, when LA had NFL teams) prove, they can.

Melky does make a second point that makes more sense: He notes that there are also big-time football programs that are located in small towns but that are actually in close proximity to big cities - like Michigan/Detroit and Notre Dame/Chicago so it would be wrong to call those "small town" programs, and I agree with him.

Nevertheless, I believe he pushes his point too far when he fails to acknowledge that there are in fact some big cities that are pro-oriented and where it would be very difficult for a college program to succeed. Cities that have a pro-culture as opposed to a college one. New York and Boston are in fact good examples, because big flagships are not the only kinds of big-time programs - see Notre Dame, USC, and Miami, for example. So it is wrong to limit his claim to only flagships. For his point to stand it has to be true of other types of schools as well, and NYC and Boston have plenty of those. Heck, NYC used to be a college football hotbed, until the NFL matured.

As an aside, one example that is often used to support small town concept that is NOT a good one is Tampa. USF fans like myself often justify USF's weak fan interest by saying "Tampa is a Bucs/NFL town". That it is, but, it is also a Florida and FSU town too. If you drive around Tampa in the fall, you will see tons of cars flying UF and FSU flags, very few flying USF fans. So even though Tampa loves its Bucs, it embraces college football too - just not so much USF.