In the wake of USC and UCLA moving to the Big Ten, here is what every league in college football should do

#51
#51
bamawriter said:
People stream, but the numbers still show that more people watch live sports via over-the-air, satellite, and cable. Plus, when it comes to packages (including steaming services like Sling and YouTube TV), it doesn't matter whether a subscriber is actually watching the channel for it to make money. The services pay per subscriber fees. So it is absolutely true to say that new markets are driving these decisions.
Click to expand...

Go read that thread I posted. I argued the same position but Whosyourdoggy has some damn good points about it. It is about eyeballs.

My argument was that if SEC missed out on UNC, NC State would be a great second option to help North Carolina market. However, the numbers are not there to justify it. The team needs to bring ~$ 100 million or more in cost to even be considered by SEC. Very few programs bring that now.
 
#52
#52
volbound1700 said:
Go read that thread I posted. I argued the same position but Whosyourdoggy has some damn good points about it. It is about eyeballs.

My argument was that if SEC missed out on UNC, NC State would be a great second option to help North Carolina market. However, the numbers are not there to justify it. The team needs to bring ~$ 100 million or more in cost to even be considered by SEC. Very few programs bring that now.
Click to expand...
It's both. I think market is still a bigger deal than Whosyourdoggy says it is. Even in a streaming world, market matters. Streaming is not this gigantic sea change that everybody thought it would be.

You've never been able to pick and choose channels with the streaming providers to the extent we all thought you'd be able to. In the geographic footprints where Clemson and FSU reside, most (all?) of those televisions get the SECN, whether cable or streaming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bamawriter and volbound1700
#53
#53
05_never_again said:
It's both. I think market is still a bigger deal than Whosyourdoggy says it is. Even in a streaming world, market matters. Streaming is not this gigantic sea change that everybody thought it would be.

You've never been able to pick and choose channels with the streaming providers to the extent we all thought you'd be able to. In the geographic footprints where Clemson and FSU reside, most (all?) of those televisions get the SECN, whether cable or streaming.
Click to expand...

I can agree to that. Even he says market matters some. I still think FSU is far more attractive than Miami but UNC is mostly in play because of its market. UNC isn't a football powerhouse, it is, obviously, more known for its roundball. I think that is why UNC really wants to keep the ACC together because it is a great roundball league.
 
#54
#54
volbound1700 said:
I can agree to that. Even he says market matters some. I still think FSU is far more attractive than Miami but UNC is mostly in play because of its market. UNC isn't a football powerhouse, it is, obviously, more known for its roundball. I think that is why UNC really wants to keep the ACC together because it is a great roundball league.
Click to expand...
I think he'd be 100% spot on if the streaming services went true a la carte. The streaming providers, even though they aren't cable companies, have ended up being more similar to cable providers that most of us might have initially believed, both in price and through their offering of packages/tiers rather than a la carte.

Maybe I'm way off, but my guess is that Clemson and FSU football fans in the geographic footprints around those schools probably already have a package, whether cable or streaming, that includes the SECN. Yes, those two schools joining the conference brings eyeballs, but I don't think there is much bang for the buck at all in terms of new SECN subscriptions. More eyeballs on a channel that most people already have is great, they can sell that TV time for more money come contract renewal time, but the real needle mover they want is new people getting SECN.

In contrast, the sweet spot is when your conference expands into an area with a bunch of TVs that don't have the channel, which leads to fans in that area purchasing the channel. Maybe it isn't as gigantic as it was in 2012, but it is still a big deal.
 
Last edited:
#55
#55
Also, is that guy correct in having Texas not appearing in at least 10 Four Million Club game from 2015-19? That’s hard to believe.
 
Last edited:
#59
#59
n_huffhines said:
The realignment, IMO, is the worst part of all of it. I like where we're headed with super conferences, but this interim is so lame. The poaching of the Big East in 2004 was the beginning of the end for the tradition I grew up with. I can't wait until I flip channels and see USC playing Purdue in a conference game and wondering "who gives any **** at all?"
Click to expand...


You contradict yourself. You say you like the idea of super-conferences but consider the idea of USC playing Purdue a joke. Well, you're going to get a lot of games like USC vs. Purdue with super-conferences. That's the reality--and the problem. I think all of this realignment is terrible and stupid, precisely because each conference will have far too many teams--and you'll get a lot of games between two teams in, say, the SEC that one would NEVER have associated with the SEC through the years. In a 20-team conference, you'll have programs wanting to hang flags on the walls for coming in 5th. It's all a bad joke, IMO. And, mind you, a 20-team conference will be B-A-D for programs like ours, which don't have elite status. Do you think that adding another 4/6/8 solid to good football programs to the SEC--including some with bigger profiles and recruiting advantages--will help Tennessee? I've got news--it won't. Financially, being a member of a super-conference might help all the schools in the conference--but it's not going to help us win championships, that's for sure. Let's be clear about that.
 
#60
#60
At this point, what if the 12-16 best brands from the ACC, Big 12, and Pac 12 just broke away and formed their own conference? There wouldn't be any true blue bloods, but there also wouldn't be any Wake Forests or Washington States to keep up either. It wouldn't be SEC or B1G money, but it would be way closer than anything these conferences as they exist can get, even with expansion.
 
#61
#61
turbovol said:
You contradict yourself. You say you like the idea of super-conferences but consider the idea of USC playing Purdue a joke. Well, you're going to get a lot of games like USC vs. Purdue with super-conferences. That's the reality--and the problem. I think all of this realignment is terrible and stupid, precisely because each conference will have far too many teams--and you'll get a lot of games between two teams in, say, the SEC that one would NEVER have associated with the SEC through the years. In a 20-team conference, you'll have programs wanting to hang flags on the walls for coming in 5th. It's all a bad joke, IMO. And, mind you, a 20-team conference will be B-A-D for programs like ours, which don't have elite status. Do you think that adding another 4/6/8 solid to good football programs to the SEC--including some with bigger profiles and recruiting advantages--will help Tennessee? I've got news--it won't. Financially, being a member of a super-conference might help all the schools in the conference--but it's not going to help us win championships, that's for sure. Let's be clear about that.
Click to expand...

I figure USC would be in a division with west coast teams in the hypothetical superconference
 
#62
#62
volbound1700 said:
It isn't about that, it is about the value they drive and their fanbase size. Geography isn't as important anymore because people stream and we have moved away from regional broadcasts.

Clemson ranks 19th in viewership (1.74 million viewers per game) and FSU 25th (1.27 million viewers per game)

Miami is 35th (1.038 million viewers per game), North Carolina 36th (1.032 million viewers per game), and Virginia 52nd (611,000 viewers per game).

Based on these stats, FSU > Miami. FSU sells more merchandise, sells out their games, and has more viewers. No way SEC picks Miami over FSU.

Here was a breakdown provided by the Georgia fan in that thread explaining potential candidates (He also listed OU, Texas, UCLA, and USC for some reason even though they already moved)

6 Oklahoma — 3.46M
9 Notre Dame — 2.84M
10 Oregon — 2.57M
13 Texas — 2.26M
19 Clemson — 1.74M
22 Oklahoma State — 1.58M
25 Florida State — 1.27M
28 Cincinnati — 1.216M
29 UCLA — 1.18M
32 Southern Cal — 1.11M
35 Miami — 1.038M
36 North Carolina — 1.032M
37 Utah — 994K
38 Washington — 985K
40 West Virginia — 948K
46 Stanford — 778K
47 Arizona State — 739K
49 Boise State — 657K
51 Louisville — 616K
52 Virginia — 611K
54 Pittsburgh — 550K
55 Kansas — 540K
56 Wake Forest — 526K
57 NC State — 525K
59 Washington State — 483K
61 Georgia Tech — 459K
62 Virginia Tech — 447K
64 Colorado — 366K
67 Arizona — 337K
69 Oregon State — 321K
76 California — 222K
77 Syracuse — 219K
84 Boston College — 156K
97 Duke — 64K
Click to expand...
Where did this list come from? Anyone have a link for full list? For a baseline, it would be interesting to compare SEC and BIG10 to this “candidate” list. For all the people favoring Clemson, they are flavor of the month and as soon as they drop off, which they will do because that’s how it works, their #’s will sink like the Titanic, plus their history says they are more mediocre than good!. If I am Sankey or School Prez I reject Clemson. I’d go UNC, Oregon, Miami, and Cincinnati. The expansions are turf wars! Then if you go 4 more, add Clemson, FSU, WVU (they care about football and get coverage into six bordering states!), then flip a coin on the last one!
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top