Given that so many games are on TV, especially cable, do conferences REALLY need to extend their footprints into EVERY state, making travel difficult?

(04-07-2020 03:34 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Given that so many games are on TV, especially cable, do conferences REALLY need to extend their footprints into EVERY state, making travel difficult?

Some leagues have no choice but to be far spread out. The WAC is what it is because no one else would join. The Pac-12 and MW are what they are because the western US is sparsely populated.

The P5 leagues who have conference networks absolutely benefit financially by having large footprints. Rutgers and Maryland, as bad as they have been in football, have gotten the BTN on basic cable in greater NYC and greater DC.

A P5-equivalent league for basketball (namely the Big East) benefits from a footprint extending from Providence to Omaha because of quality basketball which yields lucrative NCAA units. The Big East schools also have brand names, which makes a large footprint worthwhile for them.

At the G5 level, having big brands helps. This us why the AAC has by far the highest payout among G5 conferences. The MW comes in second in G5 revenue because they have some well known names like Boise State.

For the other three G5 leagues, there aren't really any big brand names that drive up TV viewership and revenue ro justify a large footprint. The MAC never got more money by extending into Orlando or Philadelphia or, well, Massachusetts (not really Boston) because those schools, when they were in the MAC, were not brand names. So the MAC, IMO, is getting it right by having a tight footprint.

C-USA and the Sun Belt aren't gaining any benefit by being spread out. I love my App State Mountaineers, and I'm proud of the #19 finish and 13-1 season, but App State doesn't help the Sun Belt command TV viewership like a Boise does for the MW or Houston/UCF/etc do for the AAC. At least not yet. This is why they should consolidate and divide geographically.

At the FCS and D1 non football level, having geographically tight conferences makes all the sense in the world. The MVC has been very successful at this. They cover only four Midwestern states and are routinely one of the best mid majors.

I find it hard to believe that someone in CA can't turn on their TV and watch the SEC or B1G network. I live near Boston and I have the PAC-12 network on my cable system.

(04-07-2020 03:58 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  I find it hard to believe that someone in CA can't turn on their TV and watch the SEC or B1G network. I live near Boston and I have the PAC-12 network on my cable system.

I live in VA and still have cable (Verizon Fios) and I pay extra just so I can have the LHN channel.. however no Pac 12 channel is available.

As far as footprints, with this pandemic forcing a majority of families inside.. streaming is now easier for the olds that hated apps to see the light that it's not that bad. When I subscribed to DAZN, I gave my dad in MD my sign in info so he too could watch boxing. For almost two years he never used it because it was "too complicated".. Now he can't get off of it, watching older fights right now. Too bad it's canceled early next month.

CFB pay structure needs to change when it comes to TV money. There's no way anyone can convince me that Michigan and Purdue deserve the same amount of money. Michigan in a bad season still drives more ratings/streams than an undefeated in October Purdue could muster.

This TV world of footprints is dying. People tune in for big name schools.

(04-07-2020 03:58 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  I find it hard to believe that someone in CA can't turn on their TV and watch the SEC or B1G network. I live near Boston and I have the PAC-12 network on my cable system.

I live in WY and can't get P12 w.o. separate subscription to SLING ($30). BTN,
ACC and SEC all come in fine on DTV. Hulu too for that matter.

(04-07-2020 03:58 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  I find it hard to believe that someone in CA can't turn on their TV and watch the SEC or B1G network. I live near Boston and I have the PAC-12 network on my cable system.

They probably can, if they have the "sports tier" package, where the BTN, SECN, CBS-SN, Tennis Channel, Deportes Mundial Futbol (made up), and a half-dozen out-of-market RSNs come as a bundle.

But BTN and SECN are getting fewer subscribers that way from 10 million Bay Area households than BTN does from Ohio's 10M or Florida's 10M. And they're getting less revenue per subscriber. (The 10M number is a vague approximation).

The footprint money is in 1) being on basic cable 2) for a premium price. that requires leverage, in the form of angry fans who will cancel / switch their cable if they can't see their favorite content.

That's why Fox News is so much more valuable than CNN. Even in months and years where CNN gets higher ratings, CNN's customers can switch to MSNBC or locally-run cable news channels and get a basically similar product. Fox News viewers can't really get their Fox News experience from an alternate source. That lets Fox News command a premium price.

The model is to have a premium product with a very dedicated customer base, who can and will credibly threaten their cable providers if they are denied the product. Fox News, My Local Team, NFL national games. That's why MLB migrated from local TV to local cable in the first place--they had a product that people would, if they had to, pay a monthly fee for. Then you can use that as leverage with the cable company--you won't sign for Extended Tier, you want to be on Basic Tier. You use your fans to leverage the cable company to basically levy a tax on every subscriber.

As cord-cutting starts to bite, this model is starting to break down. Before, basic cable customers weren't especially price sensitive--they'd grumble, but there weren't great alternatives to having basic cable and 40-100 channels of content. Now, all you REALLY need your cable provider for is the actual cable (wire) and the internet, which delivers your Netflix, Youtube, Amazon Prime, any number of websites with video, etc.

In this environment, charging every subscriber in the NY area an extra $2 a month or whatever so that Rutgers fans and 20- and 30-something midwestern expats in NY don't revolt isn't as attractive a proposition. But BTN is tied in with SNY (Yankees games) and Fox News, so the cable providers aren't ready to go to the mattresses yet.

(04-07-2020 03:34 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Given that so many games are on TV, especially cable, do conferences REALLY need to extend their footprints into EVERY state, making travel difficult?

How quickly we forget. Recall:

The cannibalistic spread of conferences to include new markets outside their traditional markets was done in an attempt to broaden the appeal among TV viewers, In short, to have a more national, rather than regional, following of the conference to enhance the financial value of the conference TV contract. This was a somewhat reasonable thing for the power conferences to do. They had enough visibility nationally already that enhancing that was potentially within their reach.

The less visible conferences (currently dubbed G5) jumped to follow suit and to extend their footprints. This was a colossal mistake. The schools included in these conferences did not have sufficient national visibility to make their TV stock go up. Instead, they were saddled with increased travel costs, destroyed natural rivalries, and declining interest in the teams being included as conference mates, and too much pride to back away - except in a limited way - the SunBelt. The reality is that these conferences do not have a national following, and cannot gain that through proliferation. They are better served with a strong regional TV contract. A package of regional TV games with several G5 conferences collectively covering the country makes more sense.

So, in short, yes it does matter, but not in a one size fits all fashion. For the P54 conferences, a more spread out footprint can help. But for the G5 conferences, a more compact, regionally relative footprint makes more sense.

I would hope that in the next round of realignment the G5 conferences do that, and pare their membership, and that there are one or two more regional conferences formed to facilitate that move to regionally relevant, travel friendly, cost saving sensible conferences.

The footprint model is dead for the most part. The focus now is who can be the biggest draw, regardless of of where the schools are. Brand power is everything.

It confirms the fears I had almost a decade ago when the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland for their markets rather than going for better athletic brands.

10 years ago adding new states and markets was all the rage. Adding a school like Florida St to the SEC was seen as a duplication of markets. Now it’s about adding actual eyeballs rather than new cable subscribers.

Footprint matters in that you’d like schools to be close but not too close.

Close enough to avoid air charter and commercial flights as much as possible but you really don’t want sports editors and sports directors choosing between you and a conference member for space or time and you don’t want to compete for local sponsors or ticket buyers. After that it’s all about eyeballs watching.

(04-07-2020 03:34 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Given that so many games are on TV, especially cable, do conferences REALLY need to extend their footprints into EVERY state, making travel difficult?

Yes it matters. But perhaps not the way you think. College fans are about identity. The really big brands (Michigan, Wisconsin, Alabama, Florida, Penn State, Ohio State, Texas, Georgia, etc) are about state or regional pride. As such they pull from the entire state or region. So having more big brands in greater population regions greatly improves your value.

Second level brands tend to be more localized in fan base, and third level (most G5) have very little reach beyound core alumni and very local townees. The geographic value is not as great as the alumni base or more specifically the sports interested alumni base. (NYU has a pretty big alumni base, but pretty much zero alumni fan base).

College sports is basically minor leagues. Without the regional or alumni pride it would have as much appeal as NBA G-League. (And I fear that may be the path we are headed if they start paying athletes ... something independent of whether it's right or not, but I strongly suspect that alumni and regional pride will vanish if it becomes semi-pro).

(04-07-2020 11:41 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The footprint model is dead for the most part. The focus now is who can be the biggest draw, regardless of of where the schools are. Brand power is everything.

It confirms the fears I had almost a decade ago when the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland for their markets rather than going for better athletic brands.

10 years ago adding new states and markets was all the rage. Adding a school like Florida St to the SEC was seen as a duplication of markets. Now it’s about adding actual eyeballs rather than new cable subscribers.

Well ..... the reason the B1G and the SEC are making so much more than the other P5 are those conference networks, which rely on cable subscriptions.

It's probably not a coincidence that B1G revenues boomed after Rutgers and Maryland joined.

Cable subscribers and "eyeballs" are the same thing. The difference now compared to 2011 is the emergence of streaming, but streaming still means paying for content, like cable.

(04-07-2020 03:34 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Given that so many games are on TV, especially cable, do conferences REALLY need to extend their footprints into EVERY state, making travel difficult?

Media companies sell advertising spots on these games to big, rich compnies. Add the advertisers into the formula and you will gain a new appreciation for the value of footprint.

(04-07-2020 05:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2020 11:41 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The footprint model is dead for the most part. The focus now is who can be the biggest draw, regardless of of where the schools are. Brand power is everything.

It confirms the fears I had almost a decade ago when the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland for their markets rather than going for better athletic brands.

10 years ago adding new states and markets was all the rage. Adding a school like Florida St to the SEC was seen as a duplication of markets. Now it’s about adding actual eyeballs rather than new cable subscribers.

Well ..... the reason the B1G and the SEC are making so much more than the other P5 are those conference networks, which rely on cable subscriptions.

It's probably not a coincidence that B1G revenues boomed after Rutgers and Maryland joined.

Cable subscribers and "eyeballs" are the same thing. The difference now compared to 2011 is the emergence of streaming, but streaming still means paying for content, like cable.

Well yeah.. that was during the time of everyone having cable.. Now those same advertisers want to spend the same amount of money to push their product at a 7pm EST kickoff between Purdue and Minnesota?

As much as I hate the Big 12 leadership from the top. the one thing they got correct was the distribution of rights. Tier 1 and 2 is for all the schools to eat.. Tier 3 is where the brand power comes in and they get paid appropriately. Be interesting to follow the next couple seasons in regards to the stream numbers ESPN plus pushes with a lot of Big 12 schools signed to them as a Tier 3.

How much of a compact footprint can you really have as a G5 league?

Is there really any meaningful savings in travel savings if the Sun Belt East teams to replace trips to Louisiana and Arkansas with trips to Boca Raton, Miami, Kentucky, and West Virginia? Nope.

G5 contracts are going up, CFP payouts are going to go up when the CFP is expanded, going for expansion based on geography in the G5 is a really, really dumb idea.

In college football and basketball especially, rivalries matter. Teams spread out across the country is not a good thing, especially for a G5 conference. In the old SWC we had true rivalries. A&M vs Texas, SMU vs TCU, Texas vs Arkansas, etc. It's nice to meet an opponent without having to fly across the country. Especially in G5 conferences, 4 or 5 states is enough.

(04-08-2020 12:31 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  How much of a compact footprint can you really have as a G5 league?

Is there really any meaningful savings in travel savings if the Sun Belt East teams to replace trips to Louisiana and Arkansas with trips to Boca Raton, Miami, Kentucky, and West Virginia? Nope.

G5 contracts are going up, CFP payouts are going to go up when the CFP is expanded, going for expansion based on geography in the G5 is a really, really dumb idea.

Thing is, though, college football still has a heavily regional aspect to it. It's no surprise that three most powerful P5 conferences also are the most geographically cohesive. That builds rivalries and fan interest, and ultimately brand value.

People *everywhere* like to see a *local* rivalry because they know the bitterness that comes from that. That's why fans across the country tune in for USC - UCLA, FSU - Miami (and Florida), Army - Navy, Oklahoma - Texas, Georgia - Florida, Michigan - Ohio State, etc. Notre Dame vs USC is really the only exception, and that works because ND is a "national" school.

Geographic dispersion creates "who cares" attitudes among fans. Like it or not, if someone is closer to you, there is more likely to be a rivalry attitude. FAU vs UNT has zero rivalry content. FAU vs FIU, absolutely, ditto with UNT vs Texas State.

The recipe for success in CFB is simple:

Schools that have big, passionate, statewide/multi state wide fan bases playing other schools that have big, passionate, state wide/multi state wide fan bases that share a common history/culture

So it’s no surprise that conferences like the SEC and B1G are the most successful as they maximize the number of these schools and those matchups

People tune into Michigan vs Wisconsin, Iowa vs Penn State, Michigan State vs Minnesota and Ohio State vs Nebraska. They tune in to Florida vs Tennessee, Alabama vs Auburn, LSU vs A&M and Georgia vs Arkansas

(04-08-2020 12:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 12:31 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  How much of a compact footprint can you really have as a G5 league?

Is there really any meaningful savings in travel savings if the Sun Belt East teams to replace trips to Louisiana and Arkansas with trips to Boca Raton, Miami, Kentucky, and West Virginia? Nope.

G5 contracts are going up, CFP payouts are going to go up when the CFP is expanded, going for expansion based on geography in the G5 is a really, really dumb idea.

Thing is, though, college football still has a heavily regional aspect to it. It's no surprise that three most powerful P5 conferences also are the most geographically cohesive. That builds rivalries and fan interest, and ultimately brand value.

People *everywhere* like to see a *local* rivalry because they know the bitterness that comes from that. That's why fans across the country tune in for USC - UCLA, FSU - Miami (and Florida), Army - Navy, Oklahoma - Texas, Georgia - Florida, Michigan - Ohio State, etc. Notre Dame vs USC is really the only exception, and that works because ND is a "national" school.

Geographic dispersion creates "who cares" attitudes among fans. Like it or not, if someone is closer to you, there is more likely to be a rivalry attitude. FAU vs UNT has zero rivalry content. FAU vs FIU, absolutely, ditto with UNT vs Texas State.

I don't disagree it's good for individual schools to have close rivalries to sell tickets, but those don't drive media rights contracts. All of the P5 is less regional than ever. The SEC added Texas A&M and Mizzou, the B1G added Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers, the Big 12 added West Virginia, the Pac-X added Colorado and Utah. And of course the AAC has a huge footprint but they're not after regional rivalries for their members (nor should they be). Clearly TV money has been driving expansion in the top 6 FBS conferences, and there is a reason for that.

The MAC and MWC are pretty much set as far as geography, can't really improve their footprints much.

That leaves the Sun Belt and CUSA. Now you could make a few trades like trading Texas State or UNCC to give App State and Texas State close rivals but a complete geographic reshuffling doesn't have any real benefit. It's a wash on travel costs for Sun Belt East teams to give up playing western Sun Belt teams to play teams in southern Florida, Kentucky, and West Virginia.

(04-08-2020 12:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2020 12:31 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  How much of a compact footprint can you really have as a G5 league?

Is there really any meaningful savings in travel savings if the Sun Belt East teams to replace trips to Louisiana and Arkansas with trips to Boca Raton, Miami, Kentucky, and West Virginia? Nope.

G5 contracts are going up, CFP payouts are going to go up when the CFP is expanded, going for expansion based on geography in the G5 is a really, really dumb idea.

Thing is, though, college football still has a heavily regional aspect to it. It's no surprise that three most powerful P5 conferences also are the most geographically cohesive. That builds rivalries and fan interest, and ultimately brand value.

People *everywhere* like to see a *local* rivalry because they know the bitterness that comes from that. That's why fans across the country tune in for USC - UCLA, FSU - Miami (and Florida), Army - Navy, Oklahoma - Texas, Georgia - Florida, Michigan - Ohio State, etc. Notre Dame vs USC is really the only exception, and that works because ND is a "national" school.

Geographic dispersion creates "who cares" attitudes among fans. Like it or not, if someone is closer to you, there is more likely to be a rivalry attitude. FAU vs UNT has zero rivalry content. FAU vs FIU, absolutely, ditto with UNT vs Texas State.

I disagree, at least for a middling school like Purdue or Cincinnati.

Cincinnati wants to play good teams that get us national attention.

No one cares if we play Ball State or Western Kentucky or Bowling Green (all within 3 hours of us). We'd much rather play UCF or Houston or San Diego State on ESPN2 than have our games on a regional sports network because we're playing a team that no one cares about.

(04-07-2020 03:34 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Given that so many games are on TV, especially cable, do conferences REALLY need to extend their footprints into EVERY state, making travel difficult?

Cable? What is cable?