Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Killing the BIG XII
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,259
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 613
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #101
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-16-2018 04:17 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 04:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I disagree somewhat with JR's characterization of the market. Thirty-five years ago, college football was not a "quaint sleepy regional thing" that only people on the campuses cared about, and which the 1984 supreme court case changed. I remember, and in 1983, Nebraska vs Miami was every bit as "big" in a cultural-sports impact sense as was Georgia vs Alabama this year, and in 1973, Ohio State vs Michigan was as well. I was living in Washington DC then, and believe me, those games were huge where i was back then, even though I was watching from far, far away from those schools.
l.

So., what you just said was... you are old Quo? 04-cheers

Indeed I am. The first college football game i watched was on a TV that was an *enormous* (for that time) 22" but set into a piece of wood furniture the size of a sofa, and reception improved considerably when my dad climbed on the roof of the house and mounted an antenna on the chimney, so we no longer had to twiddle with the "rabbit ear" antennae on the set itself to get rid of the "snow", LOL. 04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 01-16-2018 04:33 PM by quo vadis.)
01-16-2018 04:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 16,456
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 909
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #102
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-16-2018 04:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 12:24 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  WOULD EVERY POSTER ON THIS BOARD PLEASE READ THESE TWO POSTS BY JRsec.

They explain the realignment situation EXACTLY as it is.

I disagree somewhat with JR's characterization of the market. Thirty-five years ago, college football was not a "quaint sleepy regional thing" that only people on the campuses cared about, and which the 1984 supreme court case changed. I remember, and in 1983, Nebraska vs Miami was every bit as "big" in a cultural-sports impact sense as was Georgia vs Alabama this year, and in 1973, Ohio State vs Michigan was as well. I was living in Washington DC then, and believe me, those games were huge where i was back then, even though I was watching from far, far away from those schools.

IOW's, for the entirety of my life, major college football has been a MAJOR sport, up there with the other major sports. The 1984 court cases changed how college football was televised and who would benefit from it, but it did not change the fundamental popularity of the sport.

Another problem with the "1984 court genie" argument is that the same thing has happened in all major sports. E.g., in 1985, the average NFL franchise was worth $75 million. Today, it is $2.34 Billion, even though the NFL was every bit as important and "big" in a cultural landscape sense in 1985 as it is today. And no, inflation isn't a big factor here - that 1985 figure is $175m in today's dollars, still way, way less than today.

Even in so called "dying" sports, money is far bigger. E.g., in the USA, tennis is arguably not as popular in 2017, and it doesn't have the same cultural profile as it did in 1979, when Johnny Mac and Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors ruled the roost. But in 1979, the US Open champion got a check for $39,000 ($120,000 in today's dollars). Last year, the champ got $3.7 million. MLB franchise average worth was $100m in 1992, $1.6 Billion last year.

So obviously, other factors than just the 1984 supreme court case are driving the big money trains in college football.

That's okay Quo. I don't disagree that there was big time football being played in 1983. But the way championships were decided through the polls, the way the Heisman was not yet a TV event for ESPN to twist into some grotesque weekly evaluation of did so and so's team win the big game, the way ticket prices and donations were compared to today, when whole families could afford a game. Back then it was a sleepy little conference controlled and run event with each conference having their own unique events and pageantry. So by comparison to today when IMG has taken over the sound system in your stadium and your fans are given the exact same bumper music and stadium anthems as every other venue in America, it was quaint, sleepy, and quite beautiful.

What ESPN has done was not possible without OU/UGA vs the NCAA. It was the pivotal moment that changed our world, even though at the time how much change was to come was not evident.

So take my descriptors with the overstatement I intended. I wanted to draw a stark comparison between what college football was then, and what it has become today. You know in the days before any of us ever heard about market footprints. And I might add in the days when a conference might have added a neighbor without relying solely on a financial evaluation. You know in the days "before the dark times, before the Empire".
(This post was last modified: 01-16-2018 05:25 PM by JRsec.)
01-16-2018 05:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,259
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 613
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #103
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-16-2018 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 04:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 12:24 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  WOULD EVERY POSTER ON THIS BOARD PLEASE READ THESE TWO POSTS BY JRsec.

They explain the realignment situation EXACTLY as it is.

I disagree somewhat with JR's characterization of the market. Thirty-five years ago, college football was not a "quaint sleepy regional thing" that only people on the campuses cared about, and which the 1984 supreme court case changed. I remember, and in 1983, Nebraska vs Miami was every bit as "big" in a cultural-sports impact sense as was Georgia vs Alabama this year, and in 1973, Ohio State vs Michigan was as well. I was living in Washington DC then, and believe me, those games were huge where i was back then, even though I was watching from far, far away from those schools.

IOW's, for the entirety of my life, major college football has been a MAJOR sport, up there with the other major sports. The 1984 court cases changed how college football was televised and who would benefit from it, but it did not change the fundamental popularity of the sport.

Another problem with the "1984 court genie" argument is that the same thing has happened in all major sports. E.g., in 1985, the average NFL franchise was worth $75 million. Today, it is $2.34 Billion, even though the NFL was every bit as important and "big" in a cultural landscape sense in 1985 as it is today. And no, inflation isn't a big factor here - that 1985 figure is $175m in today's dollars, still way, way less than today.

Even in so called "dying" sports, money is far bigger. E.g., in the USA, tennis is arguably not as popular in 2017, and it doesn't have the same cultural profile as it did in 1979, when Johnny Mac and Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors ruled the roost. But in 1979, the US Open champion got a check for $39,000 ($120,000 in today's dollars). Last year, the champ got $3.7 million. MLB franchise average worth was $100m in 1992, $1.6 Billion last year.

So obviously, other factors than just the 1984 supreme court case are driving the big money trains in college football.

That's okay Quo. I don't disagree that there was big time football being played in 1983. But the way championships were decided through the polls, the way the Heisman was not yet a TV event for ESPN to twist into some grotesque weekly evaluation of did so and so's team win the big game, the way ticket prices and donations were compared to today, when whole families could afford a game. Back then it was a sleepy little conference controlled and run event with each conference having their own unique events and pageantry. So by comparison to today when IMG has taken over the sound system in your stadium and your fans are given the exact same bumper music and stadium anthems as every other venue in America, it was quaint, sleepy, and quite beautiful.

What ESPN has done was not possible without OU/UGA vs the NCAA. It was the pivotal moment that changed our world, even though at the time how much change was to come was not evident.

So take my descriptors with the overstatement I intended. I wanted to draw a stark comparison between what college football was then, and what it has become today. You know in the days before any of us ever heard about market footprints. And I might add in the days when a conference might have added a neighbor without relying solely on a financial evaluation. You know in the days "before the dark times, before the Empire".

IMO, technological change has to be factored in here. Yes, the 1984 court case was definitely pivotal in how we receive college games and in terms of eventually greatly empowering the conference offices as engines of wealth creation for their members. But, the NCAA restriction of output was at least partially do-able because of the limited viewing options people had back then in terms of technology. Circa 1982, most middle-class families had one big clunky TV sitting in the living room, like a piece of furniture, and it was expensive - in 1982, a typical 19" (large for the time) color TV cost about the equivalent of $1200 today. And, they didn't have cable TV yet. So effectively, there were about 5-6 channels you could get on one device, for the whole family. Maybe the parents had a small B/W TV back in the bedroom as well.

I wonder if the NCAA stranglehold, particularly as it restricted the number of games on TV, could have survived these technological changes for much longer even if the court had ruled in their favor? In 1980, the end-user was used to being spoon-fed the limited offerings because their home technology couldn't handle much more than that anyway. But as time went by and TV prices fell dramatically and TVs themselves became much more efficient in terms of space consumption, and cable channels proliferated, consumers would start questioning why they have all this home sports capacity now but are still getting basically a "game of the week". Wouldn't be the first time market forces overwhelmed a cartel/monopoly agreement.

Personally, I love the way things are now in terms of TV and am a big fan of ESPN. Thanks to ESPN, on fall Saturdays I can get up at 8 AM, put "game day" on as i get work done, then plop down and watch good college football from 11 AM to midnight, 13 straight hours of it, often with multiple games on at the same time. Then during the holidays, there are almost 3 weeks of continuous bowl games on.

I'd never want to go back to the way it was 30 - 40 years ago.
(This post was last modified: 01-17-2018 08:05 AM by quo vadis.)
01-17-2018 07:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,876
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 572
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #104
RE: Killing the BIG XII
I think you could make a case for the growth of cable TV being driven by ESPN right from the start. I certainly didn't feel the need for cable until ESPN started showing football...
01-17-2018 10:08 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,102
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 633
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #105
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-16-2018 04:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 04:17 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 04:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I disagree somewhat with JR's characterization of the market. Thirty-five years ago, college football was not a "quaint sleepy regional thing" that only people on the campuses cared about, and which the 1984 supreme court case changed. I remember, and in 1983, Nebraska vs Miami was every bit as "big" in a cultural-sports impact sense as was Georgia vs Alabama this year, and in 1973, Ohio State vs Michigan was as well. I was living in Washington DC then, and believe me, those games were huge where i was back then, even though I was watching from far, far away from those schools.
l.

So., what you just said was... you are old Quo? 04-cheers

Indeed I am. The first college football game i watched was on a TV that was an *enormous* (for that time) 22" but set into a piece of wood furniture the size of a sofa, and reception improved considerably when my dad climbed on the roof of the house and mounted an antenna on the chimney, so we no longer had to twiddle with the "rabbit ear" antennae on the set itself to get rid of the "snow", LOL. 04-cheers

If you aren't mentioning Nebraska-OU in 71 or the Big Shootout in 69, you aren't old.04-cheers
01-17-2018 10:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,102
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 633
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #106
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-16-2018 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 04:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 12:24 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  WOULD EVERY POSTER ON THIS BOARD PLEASE READ THESE TWO POSTS BY JRsec.

They explain the realignment situation EXACTLY as it is.

I disagree somewhat with JR's characterization of the market. Thirty-five years ago, college football was not a "quaint sleepy regional thing" that only people on the campuses cared about, and which the 1984 supreme court case changed. I remember, and in 1983, Nebraska vs Miami was every bit as "big" in a cultural-sports impact sense as was Georgia vs Alabama this year, and in 1973, Ohio State vs Michigan was as well. I was living in Washington DC then, and believe me, those games were huge where i was back then, even though I was watching from far, far away from those schools.

IOW's, for the entirety of my life, major college football has been a MAJOR sport, up there with the other major sports. The 1984 court cases changed how college football was televised and who would benefit from it, but it did not change the fundamental popularity of the sport.

Another problem with the "1984 court genie" argument is that the same thing has happened in all major sports. E.g., in 1985, the average NFL franchise was worth $75 million. Today, it is $2.34 Billion, even though the NFL was every bit as important and "big" in a cultural landscape sense in 1985 as it is today. And no, inflation isn't a big factor here - that 1985 figure is $175m in today's dollars, still way, way less than today.

Even in so called "dying" sports, money is far bigger. E.g., in the USA, tennis is arguably not as popular in 2017, and it doesn't have the same cultural profile as it did in 1979, when Johnny Mac and Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors ruled the roost. But in 1979, the US Open champion got a check for $39,000 ($120,000 in today's dollars). Last year, the champ got $3.7 million. MLB franchise average worth was $100m in 1992, $1.6 Billion last year.

So obviously, other factors than just the 1984 supreme court case are driving the big money trains in college football.

That's okay Quo. I don't disagree that there was big time football being played in 1983. But the way championships were decided through the polls, the way the Heisman was not yet a TV event for ESPN to twist into some grotesque weekly evaluation of did so and so's team win the big game, the way ticket prices and donations were compared to today, when whole families could afford a game. Back then it was a sleepy little conference controlled and run event with each conference having their own unique events and pageantry. So by comparison to today when IMG has taken over the sound system in your stadium and your fans are given the exact same bumper music and stadium anthems as every other venue in America, it was quaint, sleepy, and quite beautiful.

What ESPN has done was not possible without OU/UGA vs the NCAA. It was the pivotal moment that changed our world, even though at the time how much change was to come was not evident.

So take my descriptors with the overstatement I intended. I wanted to draw a stark comparison between what college football was then, and what it has become today. You know in the days before any of us ever heard about market footprints. And I might add in the days when a conference might have added a neighbor without relying solely on a financial evaluation. You know in the days "before the dark times, before the Empire".

Price increases have taken off recently. I have a 1994 ticket for UT. $17. And you could get season tickets for that price with guaranteed OU tickets and no donation required. Now its variable pricing, about 5 times that high with sizable donations required. In the SEC usually the face price of the tickets is lower, but the required donations are higher.
01-17-2018 10:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,102
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 633
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #107
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-17-2018 07:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 04:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 12:24 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  WOULD EVERY POSTER ON THIS BOARD PLEASE READ THESE TWO POSTS BY JRsec.

They explain the realignment situation EXACTLY as it is.

I disagree somewhat with JR's characterization of the market. Thirty-five years ago, college football was not a "quaint sleepy regional thing" that only people on the campuses cared about, and which the 1984 supreme court case changed. I remember, and in 1983, Nebraska vs Miami was every bit as "big" in a cultural-sports impact sense as was Georgia vs Alabama this year, and in 1973, Ohio State vs Michigan was as well. I was living in Washington DC then, and believe me, those games were huge where i was back then, even though I was watching from far, far away from those schools.

IOW's, for the entirety of my life, major college football has been a MAJOR sport, up there with the other major sports. The 1984 court cases changed how college football was televised and who would benefit from it, but it did not change the fundamental popularity of the sport.

Another problem with the "1984 court genie" argument is that the same thing has happened in all major sports. E.g., in 1985, the average NFL franchise was worth $75 million. Today, it is $2.34 Billion, even though the NFL was every bit as important and "big" in a cultural landscape sense in 1985 as it is today. And no, inflation isn't a big factor here - that 1985 figure is $175m in today's dollars, still way, way less than today.

Even in so called "dying" sports, money is far bigger. E.g., in the USA, tennis is arguably not as popular in 2017, and it doesn't have the same cultural profile as it did in 1979, when Johnny Mac and Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors ruled the roost. But in 1979, the US Open champion got a check for $39,000 ($120,000 in today's dollars). Last year, the champ got $3.7 million. MLB franchise average worth was $100m in 1992, $1.6 Billion last year.

So obviously, other factors than just the 1984 supreme court case are driving the big money trains in college football.

That's okay Quo. I don't disagree that there was big time football being played in 1983. But the way championships were decided through the polls, the way the Heisman was not yet a TV event for ESPN to twist into some grotesque weekly evaluation of did so and so's team win the big game, the way ticket prices and donations were compared to today, when whole families could afford a game. Back then it was a sleepy little conference controlled and run event with each conference having their own unique events and pageantry. So by comparison to today when IMG has taken over the sound system in your stadium and your fans are given the exact same bumper music and stadium anthems as every other venue in America, it was quaint, sleepy, and quite beautiful.

What ESPN has done was not possible without OU/UGA vs the NCAA. It was the pivotal moment that changed our world, even though at the time how much change was to come was not evident.

So take my descriptors with the overstatement I intended. I wanted to draw a stark comparison between what college football was then, and what it has become today. You know in the days before any of us ever heard about market footprints. And I might add in the days when a conference might have added a neighbor without relying solely on a financial evaluation. You know in the days "before the dark times, before the Empire".

IMO, technological change has to be factored in here. Yes, the 1984 court case was definitely pivotal in how we receive college games and in terms of eventually greatly empowering the conference offices as engines of wealth creation for their members. But, the NCAA restriction of output was at least partially do-able because of the limited viewing options people had back then in terms of technology. Circa 1982, most middle-class families had one big clunky TV sitting in the living room, like a piece of furniture, and it was expensive - in 1982, a typical 19" (large for the time) color TV cost about the equivalent of $1200 today. And, they didn't have cable TV yet. So effectively, there were about 5-6 channels you could get on one device, for the whole family. Maybe the parents had a small B/W TV back in the bedroom as well.

I wonder if the NCAA stranglehold, particularly as it restricted the number of games on TV, could have survived these technological changes for much longer even if the court had ruled in their favor? In 1980, the end-user was used to being spoon-fed the limited offerings because their home technology couldn't handle much more than that anyway. But as time went by and TV prices fell dramatically and TVs themselves became much more efficient in terms of space consumption, and cable channels proliferated, consumers would start questioning why they have all this home sports capacity now but are still getting basically a "game of the week". Wouldn't be the first time market forces overwhelmed a cartel/monopoly agreement.

Personally, I love the way things are now in terms of TV and am a big fan of ESPN. Thanks to ESPN, on fall Saturdays I can get up at 8 AM, put "game day" on as i get work done, then plop down and watch good college football from 11 AM to midnight, 13 straight hours of it, often with multiple games on at the same time. Then during the holidays, there are almost 3 weeks of continuous bowl games on.

I'd never want to go back to the way it was 30 - 40 years ago.

By 1980, the number of independent channels was proliferating. Even without cable, there was a lot of space for more than one game a week. I remember a new channel being added in Houston. It was a big deal even there. For years it had been 2, 11 and 13, the 3 network channels, 8 PBS and 2 indies 26 and 39. But then 20 was added (and their antenna collapsed, killing a couple people and knocking them off the air shortly after they started). And then it proliferated, a low power channel 5 and a whole slew of others now, not even counting the multi-channels allowed by digital. Not sure how many Houston has now, but Atlanta has at least 28, 107 with sub-channels. And with an indoor antenna, I can get 19 of those and 73 with sub-channels.

Of course cable and the internet gives you an almost infinite amount. But over the air was already proliferating.
01-17-2018 10:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,259
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 613
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #108
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-17-2018 10:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-17-2018 07:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 04:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 12:24 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  WOULD EVERY POSTER ON THIS BOARD PLEASE READ THESE TWO POSTS BY JRsec.

They explain the realignment situation EXACTLY as it is.

I disagree somewhat with JR's characterization of the market. Thirty-five years ago, college football was not a "quaint sleepy regional thing" that only people on the campuses cared about, and which the 1984 supreme court case changed. I remember, and in 1983, Nebraska vs Miami was every bit as "big" in a cultural-sports impact sense as was Georgia vs Alabama this year, and in 1973, Ohio State vs Michigan was as well. I was living in Washington DC then, and believe me, those games were huge where i was back then, even though I was watching from far, far away from those schools.

IOW's, for the entirety of my life, major college football has been a MAJOR sport, up there with the other major sports. The 1984 court cases changed how college football was televised and who would benefit from it, but it did not change the fundamental popularity of the sport.

Another problem with the "1984 court genie" argument is that the same thing has happened in all major sports. E.g., in 1985, the average NFL franchise was worth $75 million. Today, it is $2.34 Billion, even though the NFL was every bit as important and "big" in a cultural landscape sense in 1985 as it is today. And no, inflation isn't a big factor here - that 1985 figure is $175m in today's dollars, still way, way less than today.

Even in so called "dying" sports, money is far bigger. E.g., in the USA, tennis is arguably not as popular in 2017, and it doesn't have the same cultural profile as it did in 1979, when Johnny Mac and Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors ruled the roost. But in 1979, the US Open champion got a check for $39,000 ($120,000 in today's dollars). Last year, the champ got $3.7 million. MLB franchise average worth was $100m in 1992, $1.6 Billion last year.

So obviously, other factors than just the 1984 supreme court case are driving the big money trains in college football.

That's okay Quo. I don't disagree that there was big time football being played in 1983. But the way championships were decided through the polls, the way the Heisman was not yet a TV event for ESPN to twist into some grotesque weekly evaluation of did so and so's team win the big game, the way ticket prices and donations were compared to today, when whole families could afford a game. Back then it was a sleepy little conference controlled and run event with each conference having their own unique events and pageantry. So by comparison to today when IMG has taken over the sound system in your stadium and your fans are given the exact same bumper music and stadium anthems as every other venue in America, it was quaint, sleepy, and quite beautiful.

What ESPN has done was not possible without OU/UGA vs the NCAA. It was the pivotal moment that changed our world, even though at the time how much change was to come was not evident.

So take my descriptors with the overstatement I intended. I wanted to draw a stark comparison between what college football was then, and what it has become today. You know in the days before any of us ever heard about market footprints. And I might add in the days when a conference might have added a neighbor without relying solely on a financial evaluation. You know in the days "before the dark times, before the Empire".

IMO, technological change has to be factored in here. Yes, the 1984 court case was definitely pivotal in how we receive college games and in terms of eventually greatly empowering the conference offices as engines of wealth creation for their members. But, the NCAA restriction of output was at least partially do-able because of the limited viewing options people had back then in terms of technology. Circa 1982, most middle-class families had one big clunky TV sitting in the living room, like a piece of furniture, and it was expensive - in 1982, a typical 19" (large for the time) color TV cost about the equivalent of $1200 today. And, they didn't have cable TV yet. So effectively, there were about 5-6 channels you could get on one device, for the whole family. Maybe the parents had a small B/W TV back in the bedroom as well.

I wonder if the NCAA stranglehold, particularly as it restricted the number of games on TV, could have survived these technological changes for much longer even if the court had ruled in their favor? In 1980, the end-user was used to being spoon-fed the limited offerings because their home technology couldn't handle much more than that anyway. But as time went by and TV prices fell dramatically and TVs themselves became much more efficient in terms of space consumption, and cable channels proliferated, consumers would start questioning why they have all this home sports capacity now but are still getting basically a "game of the week". Wouldn't be the first time market forces overwhelmed a cartel/monopoly agreement.

Personally, I love the way things are now in terms of TV and am a big fan of ESPN. Thanks to ESPN, on fall Saturdays I can get up at 8 AM, put "game day" on as i get work done, then plop down and watch good college football from 11 AM to midnight, 13 straight hours of it, often with multiple games on at the same time. Then during the holidays, there are almost 3 weeks of continuous bowl games on.

I'd never want to go back to the way it was 30 - 40 years ago.

By 1980, the number of independent channels was proliferating. Even without cable, there was a lot of space for more than one game a week. I remember a new channel being added in Houston. It was a big deal even there. For years it had been 2, 11 and 13, the 3 network channels, 8 PBS and 2 indies 26 and 39. But then 20 was added (and their antenna collapsed, killing a couple people and knocking them off the air shortly after they started). And then it proliferated, a low power channel 5 and a whole slew of others now, not even counting the multi-channels allowed by digital. Not sure how many Houston has now, but Atlanta has at least 28, 107 with sub-channels. And with an indoor antenna, I can get 19 of those and 73 with sub-channels.

Of course cable and the internet gives you an almost infinite amount. But over the air was already proliferating.

The early 1980s were definitely a time of new TV technologies. I recall in Washington DC, in 1981 a nascent satellite service, i think it was called Super Television started broadcasting just locally, in the eastern DC area. You could get about 40 channels for $20 a month OTA, on UHF (you had to have their box to unscramble the signal), and in areas that weren't yet wired for cable.

And, around that time, Ted Turner was making a big name for himself with his TBS "Superstation", and people in sports were noticing that the Atlanta Braves were gaining a kind of national following thanks to game distribution nationwide on his channels.

All of this (including the other stuff we've mentioned) was happening as a run-up to the 1982 decisions by Oklahoma and Georgia to buck the NCAA's monopoly. I don't doubt that the growing satellite and cable technologies were an impetus for these schools to do so, they realized that new tech could open up doors to more TV broadcasts and exposure, if the NCAA lock could be broken.
(This post was last modified: 01-17-2018 11:01 AM by quo vadis.)
01-17-2018 10:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,190
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 87
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #109
RE: Killing the BIG XII
Ok, so who is older , quo or jrsec ? Y’all sound like your older than me, Iam 54
01-17-2018 11:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 16,456
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 909
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #110
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-17-2018 11:20 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  Ok, so who is older , quo or jrsec ? Y’all sound like your older than me, Iam 54

Well let's just say that the TV set had a really small screen, in a large solid wooden cabinet (no veneer), received 1 channel well and 1 channel which was very fuzzy and we had a large free standing Philco radio in another impressive cabinet and both the TV and radio had vacuum tubes which periodically needed to be replaced and that we still listened to the radio as much, or more, than we watched TV.
01-17-2018 12:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 16,456
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 909
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #111
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-17-2018 10:41 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 04:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 12:24 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  WOULD EVERY POSTER ON THIS BOARD PLEASE READ THESE TWO POSTS BY JRsec.

They explain the realignment situation EXACTLY as it is.

I disagree somewhat with JR's characterization of the market. Thirty-five years ago, college football was not a "quaint sleepy regional thing" that only people on the campuses cared about, and which the 1984 supreme court case changed. I remember, and in 1983, Nebraska vs Miami was every bit as "big" in a cultural-sports impact sense as was Georgia vs Alabama this year, and in 1973, Ohio State vs Michigan was as well. I was living in Washington DC then, and believe me, those games were huge where i was back then, even though I was watching from far, far away from those schools.

IOW's, for the entirety of my life, major college football has been a MAJOR sport, up there with the other major sports. The 1984 court cases changed how college football was televised and who would benefit from it, but it did not change the fundamental popularity of the sport.

Another problem with the "1984 court genie" argument is that the same thing has happened in all major sports. E.g., in 1985, the average NFL franchise was worth $75 million. Today, it is $2.34 Billion, even though the NFL was every bit as important and "big" in a cultural landscape sense in 1985 as it is today. And no, inflation isn't a big factor here - that 1985 figure is $175m in today's dollars, still way, way less than today.

Even in so called "dying" sports, money is far bigger. E.g., in the USA, tennis is arguably not as popular in 2017, and it doesn't have the same cultural profile as it did in 1979, when Johnny Mac and Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors ruled the roost. But in 1979, the US Open champion got a check for $39,000 ($120,000 in today's dollars). Last year, the champ got $3.7 million. MLB franchise average worth was $100m in 1992, $1.6 Billion last year.

So obviously, other factors than just the 1984 supreme court case are driving the big money trains in college football.

That's okay Quo. I don't disagree that there was big time football being played in 1983. But the way championships were decided through the polls, the way the Heisman was not yet a TV event for ESPN to twist into some grotesque weekly evaluation of did so and so's team win the big game, the way ticket prices and donations were compared to today, when whole families could afford a game. Back then it was a sleepy little conference controlled and run event with each conference having their own unique events and pageantry. So by comparison to today when IMG has taken over the sound system in your stadium and your fans are given the exact same bumper music and stadium anthems as every other venue in America, it was quaint, sleepy, and quite beautiful.

What ESPN has done was not possible without OU/UGA vs the NCAA. It was the pivotal moment that changed our world, even though at the time how much change was to come was not evident.

So take my descriptors with the overstatement I intended. I wanted to draw a stark comparison between what college football was then, and what it has become today. You know in the days before any of us ever heard about market footprints. And I might add in the days when a conference might have added a neighbor without relying solely on a financial evaluation. You know in the days "before the dark times, before the Empire".

Price increases have taken off recently. I have a 1994 ticket for UT. $17. And you could get season tickets for that price with guaranteed OU tickets and no donation required. Now its variable pricing, about 5 times that high with sizable donations required. In the SEC usually the face price of the tickets is lower, but the required donations are higher.

Yeah, now the SEC games and OOC P5's are around $80 each, the G5 games around $65, and the FCS (if we have one) around $55. But the donations depending upon where one sits can go from $800-$100,000.

I think the pricing when I was in school was around $10 for a non student ticket and student tickets were $2 each and yes we still dressed up for the games.
01-17-2018 12:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,259
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 613
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #112
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-17-2018 11:20 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  Ok, so who is older , quo or jrsec ? Y’all sound like your older than me, Iam 54

Nope, I'm 53. 04-cheers
01-17-2018 12:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Erictelevision Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 820
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 10
I Root For: Uconn hoops
Location:
Post: #113
RE: Killing the BIG XII
I'm 39 (40 in 6 weeks). I'll get off your lawn.
01-17-2018 12:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
firmbizzle Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,895
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation: 423
I Root For: UF, UCF, UC bb
Location:
Post: #114
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-17-2018 12:54 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  I'm 39 (40 in 6 weeks). I'll get off your lawn.

Dang kids! 03-banghead
01-18-2018 05:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,102
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 633
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #115
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-15-2018 08:38 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  While I don't consider Twitter to be a solid "source", it often delivers food for thought nuggets.

I saw one where the poster asked the question "where are schools like OU & TX more valuable to the networks, in the XII or somewhere else?"

The reason I still believe the networks will drive the next round of realignment is that several conferences made out REALLY WELL at the last contract negotiations. The SEC & B1G made that kind of money because the networks (ESPN/Fox) thought they were good investments. When the next round comes up in 4-5 years, the networks and the conferences will have to decide if expansion will be valuable on BOTH sides, meaning is there enough value added in taking an OU to increase the money they get and the ratings they get.

The pie is only so big. The SEC & B1G consume that most of the pie is it appears that ESPN is willing to allow the ACC to take it's share as well. Since the PAC is pretty much an island unto itself, that leaves the XII as the proverbial odd man out. I still believe when the fat lady is singing, OU and TX (and probably KU) will be calling somewhere else home.

The pie is not limited. Only the number of TV slots is limited. Its why they are doing TH and F night games-to increase the number of TV slots. But if they can get more people watching in the existing slots, both sides can make more money. That's the reason for a lot of the rules tweaks and for the endless TV commercials.
01-18-2018 09:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,102
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 633
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #116
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-17-2018 12:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-17-2018 10:41 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 04:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 12:24 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  WOULD EVERY POSTER ON THIS BOARD PLEASE READ THESE TWO POSTS BY JRsec.

They explain the realignment situation EXACTLY as it is.

I disagree somewhat with JR's characterization of the market. Thirty-five years ago, college football was not a "quaint sleepy regional thing" that only people on the campuses cared about, and which the 1984 supreme court case changed. I remember, and in 1983, Nebraska vs Miami was every bit as "big" in a cultural-sports impact sense as was Georgia vs Alabama this year, and in 1973, Ohio State vs Michigan was as well. I was living in Washington DC then, and believe me, those games were huge where i was back then, even though I was watching from far, far away from those schools.

IOW's, for the entirety of my life, major college football has been a MAJOR sport, up there with the other major sports. The 1984 court cases changed how college football was televised and who would benefit from it, but it did not change the fundamental popularity of the sport.

Another problem with the "1984 court genie" argument is that the same thing has happened in all major sports. E.g., in 1985, the average NFL franchise was worth $75 million. Today, it is $2.34 Billion, even though the NFL was every bit as important and "big" in a cultural landscape sense in 1985 as it is today. And no, inflation isn't a big factor here - that 1985 figure is $175m in today's dollars, still way, way less than today.

Even in so called "dying" sports, money is far bigger. E.g., in the USA, tennis is arguably not as popular in 2017, and it doesn't have the same cultural profile as it did in 1979, when Johnny Mac and Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors ruled the roost. But in 1979, the US Open champion got a check for $39,000 ($120,000 in today's dollars). Last year, the champ got $3.7 million. MLB franchise average worth was $100m in 1992, $1.6 Billion last year.

So obviously, other factors than just the 1984 supreme court case are driving the big money trains in college football.

That's okay Quo. I don't disagree that there was big time football being played in 1983. But the way championships were decided through the polls, the way the Heisman was not yet a TV event for ESPN to twist into some grotesque weekly evaluation of did so and so's team win the big game, the way ticket prices and donations were compared to today, when whole families could afford a game. Back then it was a sleepy little conference controlled and run event with each conference having their own unique events and pageantry. So by comparison to today when IMG has taken over the sound system in your stadium and your fans are given the exact same bumper music and stadium anthems as every other venue in America, it was quaint, sleepy, and quite beautiful.

What ESPN has done was not possible without OU/UGA vs the NCAA. It was the pivotal moment that changed our world, even though at the time how much change was to come was not evident.

So take my descriptors with the overstatement I intended. I wanted to draw a stark comparison between what college football was then, and what it has become today. You know in the days before any of us ever heard about market footprints. And I might add in the days when a conference might have added a neighbor without relying solely on a financial evaluation. You know in the days "before the dark times, before the Empire".

Price increases have taken off recently. I have a 1994 ticket for UT. $17. And you could get season tickets for that price with guaranteed OU tickets and no donation required. Now its variable pricing, about 5 times that high with sizable donations required. In the SEC usually the face price of the tickets is lower, but the required donations are higher.

Yeah, now the SEC games and OOC P5's are around $80 each, the G5 games around $65, and the FCS (if we have one) around $55. But the donations depending upon where one sits can go from $800-$100,000.

I think the pricing when I was in school was around $10 for a non student ticket and student tickets were $2 each and yes we still dressed up for the games.

Don't remember what regular tickets cost when I went to school, but the student tickets were $2. Texas was pretty casual. But my wife who was at UGA in the Herschel era tells me they all dressed up no matter how hot it was. The girls are much more casual at UGA now, although they do wear the colors, usually a casual little black dress.
01-18-2018 09:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BadgerMJ Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,314
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 139
I Root For: Wisconsin / ND
Location: Wisconsin
Post: #117
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-18-2018 09:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-15-2018 08:38 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  While I don't consider Twitter to be a solid "source", it often delivers food for thought nuggets.

I saw one where the poster asked the question "where are schools like OU & TX more valuable to the networks, in the XII or somewhere else?"

The reason I still believe the networks will drive the next round of realignment is that several conferences made out REALLY WELL at the last contract negotiations. The SEC & B1G made that kind of money because the networks (ESPN/Fox) thought they were good investments. When the next round comes up in 4-5 years, the networks and the conferences will have to decide if expansion will be valuable on BOTH sides, meaning is there enough value added in taking an OU to increase the money they get and the ratings they get.

The pie is only so big. The SEC & B1G consume that most of the pie is it appears that ESPN is willing to allow the ACC to take it's share as well. Since the PAC is pretty much an island unto itself, that leaves the XII as the proverbial odd man out. I still believe when the fat lady is singing, OU and TX (and probably KU) will be calling somewhere else home.

The pie is not limited. Only the number of TV slots is limited. Its why they are doing TH and F night games-to increase the number of TV slots. But if they can get more people watching in the existing slots, both sides can make more money. That's the reason for a lot of the rules tweaks and for the endless TV commercials.

It's limited in the fact that the networks (Fox & ESPN) have a dollar amount in mind to budget for conference contracts.

IF they can manage to find ways to increase viewership and/or increase commercial revenue, they would adjust that budgeted amount.

Even if they do, it's not an unlimited dollar amount.

Ratings have shown that the numbers are in favor of the SEC & B1G and I'd guess that the contract $$$ will reflect that.

Those networks and conferences might come to realize that they can have the best of both worlds by increasing viewership/ratings and $$$ by simply adding schools instead of negotiating more contracts.
01-18-2018 10:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 16,456
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 909
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #118
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-18-2018 09:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-17-2018 12:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-17-2018 10:41 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 05:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 04:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I disagree somewhat with JR's characterization of the market. Thirty-five years ago, college football was not a "quaint sleepy regional thing" that only people on the campuses cared about, and which the 1984 supreme court case changed. I remember, and in 1983, Nebraska vs Miami was every bit as "big" in a cultural-sports impact sense as was Georgia vs Alabama this year, and in 1973, Ohio State vs Michigan was as well. I was living in Washington DC then, and believe me, those games were huge where i was back then, even though I was watching from far, far away from those schools.

IOW's, for the entirety of my life, major college football has been a MAJOR sport, up there with the other major sports. The 1984 court cases changed how college football was televised and who would benefit from it, but it did not change the fundamental popularity of the sport.

Another problem with the "1984 court genie" argument is that the same thing has happened in all major sports. E.g., in 1985, the average NFL franchise was worth $75 million. Today, it is $2.34 Billion, even though the NFL was every bit as important and "big" in a cultural landscape sense in 1985 as it is today. And no, inflation isn't a big factor here - that 1985 figure is $175m in today's dollars, still way, way less than today.

Even in so called "dying" sports, money is far bigger. E.g., in the USA, tennis is arguably not as popular in 2017, and it doesn't have the same cultural profile as it did in 1979, when Johnny Mac and Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors ruled the roost. But in 1979, the US Open champion got a check for $39,000 ($120,000 in today's dollars). Last year, the champ got $3.7 million. MLB franchise average worth was $100m in 1992, $1.6 Billion last year.

So obviously, other factors than just the 1984 supreme court case are driving the big money trains in college football.

That's okay Quo. I don't disagree that there was big time football being played in 1983. But the way championships were decided through the polls, the way the Heisman was not yet a TV event for ESPN to twist into some grotesque weekly evaluation of did so and so's team win the big game, the way ticket prices and donations were compared to today, when whole families could afford a game. Back then it was a sleepy little conference controlled and run event with each conference having their own unique events and pageantry. So by comparison to today when IMG has taken over the sound system in your stadium and your fans are given the exact same bumper music and stadium anthems as every other venue in America, it was quaint, sleepy, and quite beautiful.

What ESPN has done was not possible without OU/UGA vs the NCAA. It was the pivotal moment that changed our world, even though at the time how much change was to come was not evident.

So take my descriptors with the overstatement I intended. I wanted to draw a stark comparison between what college football was then, and what it has become today. You know in the days before any of us ever heard about market footprints. And I might add in the days when a conference might have added a neighbor without relying solely on a financial evaluation. You know in the days "before the dark times, before the Empire".

Price increases have taken off recently. I have a 1994 ticket for UT. $17. And you could get season tickets for that price with guaranteed OU tickets and no donation required. Now its variable pricing, about 5 times that high with sizable donations required. In the SEC usually the face price of the tickets is lower, but the required donations are higher.

Yeah, now the SEC games and OOC P5's are around $80 each, the G5 games around $65, and the FCS (if we have one) around $55. But the donations depending upon where one sits can go from $800-$100,000.

I think the pricing when I was in school was around $10 for a non student ticket and student tickets were $2 each and yes we still dressed up for the games.

Don't remember what regular tickets cost when I went to school, but the student tickets were $2. Texas was pretty casual. But my wife who was at UGA in the Herschel era tells me they all dressed up no matter how hot it was. The girls are much more casual at UGA now, although they do wear the colors, usually a casual little black dress.

Yeah, I think the student tickets were the last ones to go up. I was well into my donation for season ticket years by the time Herschel and Bo played. Back in those days we were headed to the away games too if they didn't conflict with work. I think the student tickets were still $2 almost into the 90's. It's been a long time since I checked but somebody told me a few years ago that they are $10 each now. I don't know if that is true, but that is about the same 5 x rate you mentioned for regular tickets.
01-18-2018 10:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,190
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 87
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #119
RE: Killing the BIG XII
(01-17-2018 12:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-17-2018 11:20 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  Ok, so who is older , quo or jrsec ? Y’all sound like your older than me, Iam 54

Well let's just say that the TV set had a really small screen, in a large solid wooden cabinet (no veneer), received 1 channel well and 1 channel which was very fuzzy and we had a large free standing Philco radio in another impressive cabinet and both the TV and radio had vacuum tubes which periodically needed to be replaced and that we still listened to the radio as much, or more, than we watched TV.

So jr is the old man, I also remember such TV sets as a kid, mybe these cabinet TVs were new when you first saw then ?
01-18-2018 07:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.