(07-07-2013 06:27 PM)CivilEng Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 06:22 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  Just using your own flawed argument against you, that's all. There is absolutely no data that supports the theory that big markets equal big ratings or big advertising opportunities. What matters is that the students who become alums and move off to various parts of the nation are engaged and carry that interest on when they leave campus. If you are just passing kids through who leave without any attachment to the product then they are not likely to tune in down the road. Winning is obviously the most important thing but winning can create a huge following and ratings in Tuscaloosa or Boise just as easily if not more than winning in Dallas, NY or LA.

Big markets do not equal big ratings. I agree. However, a schools with a large TV market is much more likely to draw more viewers than a school with similar success in a small market.

^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

That's why I thought the nationwide big market strategy the Big East was working on might could work.

Typically, those big market teams have a nice base audience, but not as large as the P-5 power houses like Texas. That said, when the local big market team has a good season, the city ussually hops on the band wagon for the ride. . Since for every conference game there is a loser and a winner, if you had 12-14 teams ALL in large markets, then HALF the leagues teams are winning and gaining bandwagon fans every year. Gaining bandwagon fans in cities in excess of a million is better than gaining bandwagon fans in small towns. So, basically, if you look at the total markets included in that conference, and divide by two---you should be looking at a nice sized audience that the conference should be capable of delivering every year.

Sure, it wont be as good as what a power conference can deliver, but since there are no power conference teams available to add---then the market strategy isn't a half bad concept. What the conference "market" strategy requires is a good TV contract that shows those teams nationally on major networks where the viewers go to watch sports. The AAC strategy is a little off the original strategy as its not quite as big and hits fewer markets than originally planned--- but it does have the kind of contract that will provide the level of exposure that it would need to grow. It will be interesting to see if the conference is able to generate ratings that are high enough to improve its value or if the market strategy simply fails to provide enough ratings to make it worth while.

(07-07-2013 08:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 06:27 PM)CivilEng Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 06:22 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  Just using your own flawed argument against you, that's all. There is absolutely no data that supports the theory that big markets equal big ratings or big advertising opportunities. What matters is that the students who become alums and move off to various parts of the nation are engaged and carry that interest on when they leave campus. If you are just passing kids through who leave without any attachment to the product then they are not likely to tune in down the road. Winning is obviously the most important thing but winning can create a huge following and ratings in Tuscaloosa or Boise just as easily if not more than winning in Dallas, NY or LA.

Big markets do not equal big ratings. I agree. However, a schools with a large TV market is much more likely to draw more viewers than a school with similar success in a small market.

^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

That's why I thought the nationwide big market strategy the Big East was working on might could work.

Typically, those big market teams have a nice base audience, but not as large as the P-5 power houses like Texas. That said, when the local big market team has a good season, the city ussually hops on the band wagon for the ride. . Since for every conference game there is a loser and a winner, if you had 12-14 teams ALL in large markets, then HALF the leagues teams are winning and gaining bandwagon fans every year. Gaining bandwagon fans in cities in excess of a million is better than gaining bandwagon fans in small towns. So, basically, if you look at the total markets included in that conference, and divide by two---you should be looking at a nice sized audience that the conference should be capable of delivering every year.

Sure, it wont be as good as what a power conference can deliver, but since there are no power conference teams available to add---then the market strategy isn't a half bad concept. What the conference "market" strategy requires is a good TV contract that shows those teams nationally on major networks where the viewers go to watch sports. The AAC strategy is a little off the original strategy as its not quite as big and hits fewer markets than originally planned--- but it does have the kind of contract that will provide the level of exposure that it would need to grow. It will be interesting to see if the conference is able to generate ratings that are high enough to improve its value or if the market strategy simply fails to provide enough ratings to make it worth while.

I would argue against your theory and say a smaller market team would pick up more bandwagon fans in a good season compared to a large market team. In the DFW area, the average sports fan would not notice if North Texas is 8-0 or 0-8. Only UNT fans probably pay attention. The other fans are paying attention to the Cowboys, Rangers, Mavericks, Stars, FC Dallas, Longhorns, Aggies, Horned Frogs, Mustangs, and Bears. Even if they did notice, they probably wouldn't care. Lets now look at Troy. If they were having a great season, the majority of SE Alabama would take notice, even if they also rooted for Bama or Auburn. Because there's less going on, rural areas like SE Alabama tend to be tighter knit than a place like Dallas. Being tighter knit, they would be more likely to rally together and get behind a great season for Troy.

(07-07-2013 09:42 PM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 08:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 06:27 PM)CivilEng Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 06:22 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  Just using your own flawed argument against you, that's all. There is absolutely no data that supports the theory that big markets equal big ratings or big advertising opportunities. What matters is that the students who become alums and move off to various parts of the nation are engaged and carry that interest on when they leave campus. If you are just passing kids through who leave without any attachment to the product then they are not likely to tune in down the road. Winning is obviously the most important thing but winning can create a huge following and ratings in Tuscaloosa or Boise just as easily if not more than winning in Dallas, NY or LA.

Big markets do not equal big ratings. I agree. However, a schools with a large TV market is much more likely to draw more viewers than a school with similar success in a small market.

^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^

That's why I thought the nationwide big market strategy the Big East was working on might could work.

Typically, those big market teams have a nice base audience, but not as large as the P-5 power houses like Texas. That said, when the local big market team has a good season, the city ussually hops on the band wagon for the ride. . Since for every conference game there is a loser and a winner, if you had 12-14 teams ALL in large markets, then HALF the leagues teams are winning and gaining bandwagon fans every year. Gaining bandwagon fans in cities in excess of a million is better than gaining bandwagon fans in small towns. So, basically, if you look at the total markets included in that conference, and divide by two---you should be looking at a nice sized audience that the conference should be capable of delivering every year.

Sure, it wont be as good as what a power conference can deliver, but since there are no power conference teams available to add---then the market strategy isn't a half bad concept. What the conference "market" strategy requires is a good TV contract that shows those teams nationally on major networks where the viewers go to watch sports. The AAC strategy is a little off the original strategy as its not quite as big and hits fewer markets than originally planned--- but it does have the kind of contract that will provide the level of exposure that it would need to grow. It will be interesting to see if the conference is able to generate ratings that are high enough to improve its value or if the market strategy simply fails to provide enough ratings to make it worth while.

I would argue against your theory and say a smaller market team would pick up more bandwagon fans in a good season compared to a large market team. In the DFW area, the average sports fan would not notice if North Texas is 8-0 or 0-8. Only UNT fans probably pay attention. The other fans are paying attention to the Cowboys, Rangers, Mavericks, Stars, FC Dallas, Longhorns, Aggies, Horned Frogs, Mustangs, and Bears. Even if they did notice, they probably wouldn't care. Lets now look at Troy. If they were having a great season, the majority of SE Alabama would take notice, even if they also rooted for Bama or Auburn. Because there's less going on, rural areas like SE Alabama tend to be tighter knit than a place like Dallas. Being tighter knit, they would be more likely to rally together and get behind a great season for Troy.

That's one reason I was saying the TV contract is important. If N Texas is on NBC or ESPN, that would help getting noticed and would aid in picking up the band wagon fans. The school probably makes a difference. In Houston, winning definitely helps the crowds, maybe that's not true in all the big market schools. You may or may not be right. Like I said, I think the AAC experiment will help in determining if market based realignment makes any sense.

What makes people think that people that live in large cities care that much.
If that were the case NYC would have a well watched team.
They have a hundred things going on most weekends. The only ones
that care about a college team is normally the people connected to it.

Only if the team is really good and/or has a charismatic leader (coach, starting QB, shutdown linebacker, flashy receiver, etc).

Just having a team in a market didn't work well for the ACC. In fact, their most succesful expansion move was VT and Blacksburg doesn't compare to Boston or Miami.

TV is all about ratings. Since brand recognition and market size drive ratings, those two things drive conference realignment. You must have one or the other if you want to be attractive to the TV exec's, and therefore conference exec's. There are lots of examples where schools that had only one of the two were successful in moving up the conference ladder. USM suffered from being in a terrible market, but their brand recognition got them into the Metro Conference years ago. That brand recognition gives them a shot at the AAC, but they have much more competition now. Tulane is an example of a school whose past greatly enhances its brand recognition, and having that good brand recognition to go with a good market, got them into the AAC despite the fact that their entire athletic department is terrible right now. La Tech got into CUSA because of brand recognition, which was greatly enhanced from its years in the WAC. Schools like UTSA and UAB are in CUSA based on markets alone. So do markets matter? For some, that's been all they've had to offer, and it has been enough.

(07-08-2013 06:44 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  TV is all about ratings. Since brand recognition and market size drive ratings, those two things drive conference realignment. You must have one or the other if you want to be attractive to the TV exec's, and therefore conference exec's. There are lots of examples where schools that had only one of the two were successful in moving up the conference ladder. USM suffered from being in a terrible market, but their brand recognition got them into the Metro Conference years ago. That brand recognition gives them a shot at the AAC, but they have much more competition now. Tulane is an example of a school whose past greatly enhances its brand recognition, and having that good brand recognition to go with a good market, got them into the AAC despite the fact that their entire athletic department is terrible right now. La Tech got into CUSA because of brand recognition, which was greatly enhanced from its years in the WAC. Schools like UTSA and UAB are in CUSA based on markets alone. So do markets matter? For some, that's been all they've had to offer, and it has been enough.

Don't forget about begging. La Tech did that for a long time too. I agree that market size has driven CUSA additions because those market sizes have increased their TV deals. Either TV execs are out of touch with the following of these schools or it is just based on potential, and they pass off this market exposure and use it to increase their advertising fees whether the teams deliver their market or not.

(07-08-2013 04:34 AM)T-Dog Wrote:  Only if the team is really good and/or has a charismatic leader (coach, starting QB, shutdown linebacker, flashy receiver, etc).

Just having a team in a market didn't work well for the ACC. In fact, their most succesful expansion move was VT and Blacksburg doesn't compare to Boston or Miami.

Exactly, Tech isn't in a big market (Roanoke) but in fact is the most popular state school in any market outside of Charlottesville. So while it doesn't reside in a big market, it brings the whole state.

TV market theory didn't help the old Big East conference much with their new football contract.
Will not help conferences depending on it for larger contracts nearly as much as what teams they have playing.

(07-08-2013 08:24 AM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 06:44 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  TV is all about ratings. Since brand recognition and market size drive ratings, those two things drive conference realignment. You must have one or the other if you want to be attractive to the TV exec's, and therefore conference exec's. There are lots of examples where schools that had only one of the two were successful in moving up the conference ladder. USM suffered from being in a terrible market, but their brand recognition got them into the Metro Conference years ago. That brand recognition gives them a shot at the AAC, but they have much more competition now. Tulane is an example of a school whose past greatly enhances its brand recognition, and having that good brand recognition to go with a good market, got them into the AAC despite the fact that their entire athletic department is terrible right now. La Tech got into CUSA because of brand recognition, which was greatly enhanced from its years in the WAC. Schools like UTSA and UAB are in CUSA based on markets alone. So do markets matter? For some, that's been all they've had to offer, and it has been enough.

Don't forget about begging. La Tech did that for a long time too. I agree that market size has driven CUSA additions because those market sizes have increased their TV deals. Either TV execs are out of touch with the following of these schools or it is just based on potential, and they pass off this market exposure and use it to increase their advertising fees whether the teams deliver their market or not.

TV execs probably know a lot more about what they are doing than you think.

(07-08-2013 11:51 AM)MG61 Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 08:24 AM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 06:44 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  TV is all about ratings. Since brand recognition and market size drive ratings, those two things drive conference realignment. You must have one or the other if you want to be attractive to the TV exec's, and therefore conference exec's. There are lots of examples where schools that had only one of the two were successful in moving up the conference ladder. USM suffered from being in a terrible market, but their brand recognition got them into the Metro Conference years ago. That brand recognition gives them a shot at the AAC, but they have much more competition now. Tulane is an example of a school whose past greatly enhances its brand recognition, and having that good brand recognition to go with a good market, got them into the AAC despite the fact that their entire athletic department is terrible right now. La Tech got into CUSA because of brand recognition, which was greatly enhanced from its years in the WAC. Schools like UTSA and UAB are in CUSA based on markets alone. So do markets matter? For some, that's been all they've had to offer, and it has been enough.

Don't forget about begging. La Tech did that for a long time too. I agree that market size has driven CUSA additions because those market sizes have increased their TV deals. Either TV execs are out of touch with the following of these schools or it is just based on potential, and they pass off this market exposure and use it to increase their advertising fees whether the teams deliver their market or not.

TV execs probably know a lot more about what they are doing than you think.

Southern Fried Stings. Dog the Bounty Hunter. Ice Spiders. Megapython versus Gatoroid. Honey BooBoo Smellovision. Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire. Chevy Chase Talk Show.

TV execs are brilliant.

(07-08-2013 12:19 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 11:51 AM)MG61 Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 08:24 AM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 06:44 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  TV is all about ratings. Since brand recognition and market size drive ratings, those two things drive conference realignment. You must have one or the other if you want to be attractive to the TV exec's, and therefore conference exec's. There are lots of examples where schools that had only one of the two were successful in moving up the conference ladder. USM suffered from being in a terrible market, but their brand recognition got them into the Metro Conference years ago. That brand recognition gives them a shot at the AAC, but they have much more competition now. Tulane is an example of a school whose past greatly enhances its brand recognition, and having that good brand recognition to go with a good market, got them into the AAC despite the fact that their entire athletic department is terrible right now. La Tech got into CUSA because of brand recognition, which was greatly enhanced from its years in the WAC. Schools like UTSA and UAB are in CUSA based on markets alone. So do markets matter? For some, that's been all they've had to offer, and it has been enough.

Don't forget about begging. La Tech did that for a long time too. I agree that market size has driven CUSA additions because those market sizes have increased their TV deals. Either TV execs are out of touch with the following of these schools or it is just based on potential, and they pass off this market exposure and use it to increase their advertising fees whether the teams deliver their market or not.

TV execs probably know a lot more about what they are doing than you think.

Southern Fried Stings. Dog the Bounty Hunter. Ice Spiders. Megapython versus Gatoroid. Honey BooBoo Smellovision. Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire. Chevy Chase Talk Show.

TV execs are brilliant.

And yet people watch that s**t, and TV execs continue to make money - and make money for their advertisers.

(07-08-2013 12:49 PM)GaStPanthers Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 12:19 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 11:51 AM)MG61 Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 08:24 AM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 06:44 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  TV is all about ratings. Since brand recognition and market size drive ratings, those two things drive conference realignment. You must have one or the other if you want to be attractive to the TV exec's, and therefore conference exec's. There are lots of examples where schools that had only one of the two were successful in moving up the conference ladder. USM suffered from being in a terrible market, but their brand recognition got them into the Metro Conference years ago. That brand recognition gives them a shot at the AAC, but they have much more competition now. Tulane is an example of a school whose past greatly enhances its brand recognition, and having that good brand recognition to go with a good market, got them into the AAC despite the fact that their entire athletic department is terrible right now. La Tech got into CUSA because of brand recognition, which was greatly enhanced from its years in the WAC. Schools like UTSA and UAB are in CUSA based on markets alone. So do markets matter? For some, that's been all they've had to offer, and it has been enough.

Don't forget about begging. La Tech did that for a long time too. I agree that market size has driven CUSA additions because those market sizes have increased their TV deals. Either TV execs are out of touch with the following of these schools or it is just based on potential, and they pass off this market exposure and use it to increase their advertising fees whether the teams deliver their market or not.

TV execs probably know a lot more about what they are doing than you think.

Southern Fried Stings. Dog the Bounty Hunter. Ice Spiders. Megapython versus Gatoroid. Honey BooBoo Smellovision. Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire. Chevy Chase Talk Show.

TV execs are brilliant.

And yet people watch that s**t, and TV execs continue to make money - and make money for their advertisers.

I can guarantee you SyFy could have created something that made far more money than Megapython in its time slot.

Bill Bidwell found a way to "make money" off a losing NFL team by keeping costs low and milked it for years. That does not make him brilliant.

(07-08-2013 12:19 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 11:51 AM)MG61 Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 08:24 AM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 06:44 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  TV is all about ratings. Since brand recognition and market size drive ratings, those two things drive conference realignment. You must have one or the other if you want to be attractive to the TV exec's, and therefore conference exec's. There are lots of examples where schools that had only one of the two were successful in moving up the conference ladder. USM suffered from being in a terrible market, but their brand recognition got them into the Metro Conference years ago. That brand recognition gives them a shot at the AAC, but they have much more competition now. Tulane is an example of a school whose past greatly enhances its brand recognition, and having that good brand recognition to go with a good market, got them into the AAC despite the fact that their entire athletic department is terrible right now. La Tech got into CUSA because of brand recognition, which was greatly enhanced from its years in the WAC. Schools like UTSA and UAB are in CUSA based on markets alone. So do markets matter? For some, that's been all they've had to offer, and it has been enough.

Don't forget about begging. La Tech did that for a long time too. I agree that market size has driven CUSA additions because those market sizes have increased their TV deals. Either TV execs are out of touch with the following of these schools or it is just based on potential, and they pass off this market exposure and use it to increase their advertising fees whether the teams deliver their market or not.

TV execs probably know a lot more about what they are doing than you think.

Southern Fried Stings. Dog the Bounty Hunter. Ice Spiders. Megapython versus Gatoroid. Honey BooBoo Smellovision. Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire. Chevy Chase Talk Show.

TV execs are brilliant.

What do those shows have to do with football & sports or the production of either ? Nothing.

(07-08-2013 11:51 AM)MG61 Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 08:24 AM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 06:44 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  TV is all about ratings. Since brand recognition and market size drive ratings, those two things drive conference realignment. You must have one or the other if you want to be attractive to the TV exec's, and therefore conference exec's. There are lots of examples where schools that had only one of the two were successful in moving up the conference ladder. USM suffered from being in a terrible market, but their brand recognition got them into the Metro Conference years ago. That brand recognition gives them a shot at the AAC, but they have much more competition now. Tulane is an example of a school whose past greatly enhances its brand recognition, and having that good brand recognition to go with a good market, got them into the AAC despite the fact that their entire athletic department is terrible right now. La Tech got into CUSA because of brand recognition, which was greatly enhanced from its years in the WAC. Schools like UTSA and UAB are in CUSA based on markets alone. So do markets matter? For some, that's been all they've had to offer, and it has been enough.

Don't forget about begging. La Tech did that for a long time too. I agree that market size has driven CUSA additions because those market sizes have increased their TV deals. Either TV execs are out of touch with the following of these schools or it is just based on potential, and they pass off this market exposure and use it to increase their advertising fees whether the teams deliver their market or not.

TV execs probably know a lot more about what they are doing than you think.

They would have to know more than we think.

The dynamics involved in predicting winners and losers is extremely complicated.

When the "only" potential relies on market size your taking enormous risk. Who makes up the market? What are the demographics? Is it a traditional university with a history of athletic success or a commuter college turn traditional or the much less predictable start-up? What other local programs will be competing for the viewer.

Winning is far and away the most significant and reliable way to success. If I were a betting man, which I am, I'm evaluating more than market size. Market size would carry no more weight than a dozen other critical characteristics of a teams potential. Good for those who can window dress but playing at the top of your league will get the job done. Success being defined as national recognition.

Some markets are hot beds of talent and some are simply so hungry for any kind of entertainment that local success is more likely than achieving a Boisesk level of exposure.

(07-08-2013 08:46 PM)Oldyeller Wrote:  The dynamics involved in predicting winners and losers is extremely complicated.

When the "only" potential relies on market size your taking enormous risk. Who makes up the market? What are the demographics? Is it a traditional university with a history of athletic success or a commuter college turn traditional or the much less predictable start-up? What other local programs will be competing for the viewer.

Winning is far and away the most significant and reliable way to success. If I were a betting man, which I am, I'm evaluating more than market size. Market size would carry no more weight than a dozen other critical characteristics of a teams potential. Good for those who can window dress but playing at the top of your league will get the job done. Success being defined as national recognition.

Some markets are hot beds of talent and some are simply so hungry for any kind of entertainment that local success is more likely than achieving a Boisesk level of exposure.

If market size is not as important as you say, how does CUSA invite a school without a football program over established, successful SBC teams?

(07-08-2013 04:14 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 12:19 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 11:51 AM)MG61 Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 08:24 AM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 06:44 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  TV is all about ratings. Since brand recognition and market size drive ratings, those two things drive conference realignment. You must have one or the other if you want to be attractive to the TV exec's, and therefore conference exec's. There are lots of examples where schools that had only one of the two were successful in moving up the conference ladder. USM suffered from being in a terrible market, but their brand recognition got them into the Metro Conference years ago. That brand recognition gives them a shot at the AAC, but they have much more competition now. Tulane is an example of a school whose past greatly enhances its brand recognition, and having that good brand recognition to go with a good market, got them into the AAC despite the fact that their entire athletic department is terrible right now. La Tech got into CUSA because of brand recognition, which was greatly enhanced from its years in the WAC. Schools like UTSA and UAB are in CUSA based on markets alone. So do markets matter? For some, that's been all they've had to offer, and it has been enough.

Don't forget about begging. La Tech did that for a long time too. I agree that market size has driven CUSA additions because those market sizes have increased their TV deals. Either TV execs are out of touch with the following of these schools or it is just based on potential, and they pass off this market exposure and use it to increase their advertising fees whether the teams deliver their market or not.

TV execs probably know a lot more about what they are doing than you think.

Southern Fried Stings. Dog the Bounty Hunter. Ice Spiders. Megapython versus Gatoroid. Honey BooBoo Smellovision. Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire. Chevy Chase Talk Show.

TV execs are brilliant.

What do those shows have to do with football & sports or the production of either ? Nothing.

I was responding to a comment indicating that television executives were more intelligent than they were given credit for. The examples I gave were a counterpoint to that assertion.

It's a lot easier to understand why someone posts something if you make the attempt to read the posts that they are responding to.

(07-08-2013 09:14 PM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 08:46 PM)Oldyeller Wrote:  The dynamics involved in predicting winners and losers is extremely complicated.

When the "only" potential relies on market size your taking enormous risk. Who makes up the market? What are the demographics? Is it a traditional university with a history of athletic success or a commuter college turn traditional or the much less predictable start-up? What other local programs will be competing for the viewer.

Winning is far and away the most significant and reliable way to success. If I were a betting man, which I am, I'm evaluating more than market size. Market size would carry no more weight than a dozen other critical characteristics of a teams potential. Good for those who can window dress but playing at the top of your league will get the job done. Success being defined as national recognition.

Some markets are hot beds of talent and some are simply so hungry for any kind of entertainment that local success is more likely than achieving a Boisesk level of exposure.

If market size is not as important as you say, how does CUSA invite a school without a football program over established, successful SBC teams?

They're taking enormous risk. The idea being that they're taking less risk is the only debate here. Why would they not take GState? The Atlanta market is larger than all of the CUSA adds combined. If you answer that question correctly you have your answer. There's more to it than TV market. In GState's defense they've completely underestimated the talent rich Georgia market. GState will be successful and soon I predict.

(07-08-2013 09:45 PM)Oldyeller Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 09:14 PM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 08:46 PM)Oldyeller Wrote:  The dynamics involved in predicting winners and losers is extremely complicated.

When the "only" potential relies on market size your taking enormous risk. Who makes up the market? What are the demographics? Is it a traditional university with a history of athletic success or a commuter college turn traditional or the much less predictable start-up? What other local programs will be competing for the viewer.

Winning is far and away the most significant and reliable way to success. If I were a betting man, which I am, I'm evaluating more than market size. Market size would carry no more weight than a dozen other critical characteristics of a teams potential. Good for those who can window dress but playing at the top of your league will get the job done. Success being defined as national recognition.

Some markets are hot beds of talent and some are simply so hungry for any kind of entertainment that local success is more likely than achieving a Boisesk level of exposure.

If market size is not as important as you say, how does CUSA invite a school without a football program over established, successful SBC teams?

They're taking enormous risk. The idea being that they're taking less risk is the only debate here. Why would they not take GState? The Atlanta market is larger than all of the CUSA adds combined. If you answer that question correctly you have your answer. There's more to it than TV market. In GState's defense they've completely underestimated the talent rich Georgia market. GState will be successful and soon I predict.

Charlotte is not totally unknown to CUSA as they are a former member of the conference.