(06-25-2015 08:47 PM)omniorange Wrote: (06-25-2015 07:59 PM)nzmorange Wrote: (06-25-2015 07:45 PM)omniorange Wrote: (06-25-2015 07:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote: Recruiting and fan interest aside (as neither are applicable with ISU), markets don't matter, ever - network or not.
Jim Delany apparently disagrees.
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketbal...en-country
Some of the almost 10 million homes in New York and Washington, D.C. alone -- to say nothing of regional areas and New Jersey, where Rutgers' following is strongest -- already receive the Big Ten Network. But there are many more homes to reach, and many more subscriptions to sell.
"We're in, and we have some distribution in, the East," Delany said. "I hope that we'll have complete and total integration and Big Ten distribution in the East in the coming months.
"We're not there yet. We won't get there overnight. These things take a little time to develop. But I'm confident we'll achieve distribution in these markets -- full distribution."
Emphasis mine.
As I have stated in other conversations with you about this topic, markets are not the be-all and end-all. But they have a place in the discussion. To dismiss them out right is foolish, imho.
Cheers,
Neil
What did you expect him to say? "The ACC almost nabbed our 4th most valuable property when they took our biggest target, but we managed to convince PSU to stay by landing schools near PSU boosters and in areas where PSU recruits both students and athletes." That's a terrible storyline and what was heavily implicated when Madison's AD said that PSU had wandering eyes.
Regardless, I genuinely believe that Delany confident that the B1G will achieve distribution in those markets. Given the country's demographic trends, improvements in telecommunications technology, and market forces, I'm confident that the B1G will receive national distribution in the next 20 years. Heck, I could get national distribution. It's called public access TV. Distribution does not equal money. There might be a correlation, but there is no causal relationship.
Don't get me wrong, the B1G's media payout *will* go up. Inflation alone will make that happen. However, other very real and very significant factors will also benefit the B1G. Michigan just shelled out for a LEGIT head football coach, PSU looks very solid, Wisconsin looks very solid, and OSU is the current NC in football. Those forces aligning at the right time absolutely will create a phenomenal amount of value.
However, RU's random proximity to NYC doesn't. If you think that RU is a media gold mine, then why was the BIG EAST's contract peanuts? If UMD is a media goldmine, why was the ACC's contract low? If BC is a goldmine, why did the (per school) media payout actually go down when BC joined? Why is the SEC such a profitable conference? Why is the ACC fighting for 3rd place revenue?
As I've said in previous arguments, come back with *any* shred of evidence that isn't glorified coach speak, and/or an explanation as to how markets inherently create value. I have yet to hear *anyone* give one of those that wasn't insanely half-baked.
You do realize that SU has many grads that actually work at ESPN. Have you ever spoken with any of them?
All those market analyses they do regarding who is watching in which markets, totally useless according to you.
National marketing surveys with TNS that they pay for, totally useless according to you.
As for your reason above as to why the B1G took Rutgers and Maryland, that was a small part of it. However, you do realize that PSU could still have jumped to the ACC even with Rutgers and Maryland going to the B1g and gotten basically the same thing with the ACC, right?
And why would the rest of the league vote them in for that reason alone? It's not as though Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, etc. are going to put PSU's interests ahead of their own, are they?
As for "concrete" evidence, I just did above and have on numerous occasions in the past provided said links. But you simply dismiss them but hang on to what Barry Alvarez said as if that was carved on a stone tablet by the good lord himself.
Again, as I have said many times in the past brand trumps markets. But markets do have a smaller role to play in conference realignment.
But I'm done. You have a mental block on this issue that cannot be overcome.
Peace,
Neil
"You do realize that SU has many grads that actually work at ESPN. Have you ever spoken with any of them?
*All those market analyses they do regarding who is watching in which markets, totally useless according to you.
*National marketing surveys with TNS that they pay for, totally useless according to you."
WTH are you talking about? A school's presence in a markets doesn't matter. That doesn't mean that marketing doesn't matter. Your half-baked contention that RU is somehow magically a valuable TV commodity because of its location (against many years of evidence which is CLEARLY to the contrary) is 100% wrong. That's not to say that a customers' willingness to pay for access to a product and/or watch content and then purchase items advertised during that content doesn't add value. It does. It just has *nothing* to do with geography. That's my point, which is why Nielsen reports matter and other market research matter. The networks don't care where schools are located. For all they care, a school could be on the moon. But, if Moon U got good ratings and fans everywhere were clamoring for access, you better believe that the Networks would buy its content. That has *nothing* to do with geography.
"As for your reason above as to why the B1G took Rutgers and Maryland, that was a small part of it. However, you do realize that PSU could still have jumped to the ACC even with Rutgers and Maryland going to the B1g and gotten basically the same thing with the ACC, right?"
No. Had PSU jumped to the ACC, they would have lost OSU, Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Nebraska, Iowa, and a massive TV contract. That's a big loss. It *might* have been worth it to pick up southern exposure and put eastern rivals back on their schedule (Pitt, SU, and VT), but adding RU and UMD tilted the balance back to the B1G because the adds gave PSU games in front of wealthy alumni. PSU even admitted this.
"And why would the rest of the league vote them in for that reason alone? It's not as though Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, etc. are going to put PSU's interests ahead of their own, are they?"
The won't. It's in their interest to keep PSU in the league. Not only does PSU give the conference football credibility, the Nittany Lions make the conference a TON of money. Do you really think that those schools would be willing to throw that money away and give it to the ACC? You're also stupidly ignoring the fact that NJ is great for football, basketball, and academic recruiting, which is a HUGE issue for the B1G. Michigan (the state) isn't what it used to be, and neither is western PA. Beyond that, there is a limited amount of basketball talent in the Midwest, and schools like Madison have substantial ambitions.
"As for "concrete" evidence, I just did above and have on numerous occasions in the past provided said links. But you simply dismiss them but hang on to what Barry Alvarez said as if that was carved on a stone tablet by the good lord himself."
No. You have yet to even put together an economic model to explain your scattered and half-baked thoughts, let alone *any* real supporting evidence. You specifically said that BC was a market grab. That was your "hard evidence." The ACC's media deal got worse with the BC add. Nice evidence. Also, while we're at it, why would Barry lie about that. It made the B1G look weak and hurt Wisconsin's position. It was a statement against his own interest. That's a weird thing to lie about, no?
"But I'm done."
No. Your an uneducated buffoon who spews breath-takingly stupid dribble across the internet with an astonishingly undeserved sense or superiority. Unfortunately, I doubt that you're done.
"You have a mental block on this issue that cannot be overcome."
Yes, it's called rational thought.