omniorange
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10,144
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Syracuse
Location:
|
RE: ACC May Increase Number Of Conference Games for Network Inventory (Teel Article)
(06-14-2016 10:58 AM)nzmorange Wrote: (06-13-2016 11:24 AM)omniorange Wrote: (06-12-2016 04:57 PM)nzmorange Wrote: (06-12-2016 04:32 PM)omniorange Wrote: (06-12-2016 03:53 PM)nzmorange Wrote: MIZZOU went to the SEC CG 2x in fb and had a strong basketball team. Last a checked, I think that they had a better (bigger) stadium and gym (albeit mildly from my memory), better academics, and a history w/ A&M. Also, they have markedly more manageable fans.
What Mizzou may have accomplished after they joined the SEC is immaterial to this discussion. Yes, they did have history with A&M, but then the second pick was going to the SEC East where WVU has far more history in regular season games - 31 games against SEC East teams versus 6 for Mizzou.
In terms of football, WVU has the much better winning percentage, 3 BCS Bowl wins over an SEC champ (Georgia), B12 champ (Oklahoma), and ACC champ (Clemson). WVU consistently scored in the Top 20 of national fan favorite college football teams conducted by TNS for ESPN from the mid 2000s through the time the decision by the SEC was made. But Mizzou did have a larger stadium, high 60K versus 60K for WVU.
Both have similar mens' basketball history, with the Tigers having the overall edge but recent basketball history should have given the edge to WVU when the decision was being made.
Still the fact that you chose to cite outside factors such as academic history, facilities, and manageable fan bases wrecks your entire contention that markets play no factor whatsoever. Unless you are so naive as to believe that decision makers are willing to go beyond the actual athletic accomplishments of a program but ignore markets.
So I go back to a question I asked you so, so long ago and I don't recall you ever answering - if Rutgers were located in Rhode Island and Maryland was located in Delaware and PSU still wanted eastern partners, do you truly believe they would be in the Big Ten now? I certainly don't.
Cheers,
Neil
I very clearly mean TV markets.
And no, what the school did immediately after joining isn't immaterial. It shows that the school was very capable when they were added. I forgot to include that MIZZOU was the reigning Big XII basketball champ when they were added, too. History isn't irrelevant, but all other factors being equal, what have you done for me recently is more important, and MIZZOU wins that.
Also, your theory that fans and academics don't impact content quality is also wrong. Much of the point of collegiate academics is to be an advertising vehicle for the school. Students and prospective students are the target of that advertisement - that's heavily driven by academics. Schools with a better academic alignment produce more valuable content - all factors being equal. MIZZOU wins that for the SEC.
With regards to history, I don't disagree that looking at football and the east are more important than all sports and the west, but cherry picking just football and just the east isn't accurate.
To answer your question, the B1G probably would have added anyone PSU wanted unless the school's in question literally brought nothing to the rest of the conference. Even then, it's a "maybe." Neither of us has enough information to say for sure.
Feel free to answer any of my questions 
Well, I don't see precisely where you asked a question, at least of me. But if you believe the above bolded statement, which I actually concur with, then isn't that advertising stronger if done in the markets of NYC, Baltimore and DC rather than Providence and Wilmington?
Also, you often like to link the article about PSU getting "roving" eyes, which I also think is too often ignored. But you seem to forget this article where Delany specifically talks about the importance of the NYC - DC corridor and those markets.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id...-is-itself
But the Big Ten didn't add Maryland or Rutgers for their fan bases and certainly not for their athletic prowess in the major sports (sorry, lacrosse fans). It added them for their locations, and what the existing Big Ten brand -- the one that netted a record $284 million in revenue last year and continues to grow despite mostly disappointing on-field results in recent years -- can do with a more frequent presence in these markets.
"It's a lot about that," Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany told ESPN.com on Tuesday from New Jersey, where he's attending the announcement of Rutgers' admission to the league. "There's a lot of awareness of different sports brands in different parts of the world, but it's very hard to get beyond awareness if you're not there. Now that we're here, we expect to work awful hard and be impactful.
"Whether you're talking expansion or bowl relationships, you're always looking at where your people are," Delany said. "Where you're going to recruit your students, where you're going to recruit your student-athletes, where your alumni live. So every analysis takes into consideration where you are, where you'd like to become stronger, where you can move.
"We're conscious of that in everything that we do."
It was front of mind in these moves, which Delany described as "an Eastern initiative with a Penn State bridge." The league will set up a satellite office on the East Coast as it looks to enhance its presence.
Cheers,
Neil
1. If a game is played in NYC and nobody watches, does it convince anyone to go to PSU? If your answer is no, then your theory is sunk. If your answer is yes, then I'd love to hear how.
2. A) Most statements regarding media markets are self serving statement by Jim. There's a reason why those aren't allows in court as an exception to hearsay, but statements against interest are. Not all statements are created equal. "We added to capture new markets and strengthen the league" sounds a lot better than "we added because we were terrified that one of our biggest competitors was going to steal one of our most valuable assets." One is said to build confidence amongst fans who are better at cheering for their favorite team than economics. The other is said in an accidental moment of honesty.
B) Your link didn't mention anything other than putting games in front of alumni and prospective students. It didn't say anything about media dollars. If your point is that schools like to play in front of alums and prospective students, then I agree. If your point is that the local market size makes a school's TV contract somehow higher (which is what I though we were arguing about), then I agree. When I say irrelevant, I mean (and always have meant) in terms of $.
3. The sentences that end in "?" are questions. I even made it easy for you in post #209 by beginning the questions with asterisks ("*").
1) Of course people in NYC watch games played by PSU. They did that prior to Rutgers joining the conference. As for your overall point, there have been actual studies released that have shown how athletic programs both by their own success as well as by new conference affiliation has resulted in slight increases in Admissions applications from potential students that wasn't there previously. The Stanford study from 2014 is one of these. Again, slight evidence, but not none either. I emphasize the none since you have an annoying habit of taking stances to the extreme such as "markets play no factor whatsoever" and now this.
2a) So Delany's statements on markets are "self-serving" while Alvarez' statements regarding PSU getting roving eyes are not?
2b) It didn't need to talk about media $$$ since the fact that the BTN in both New Jersey and Maryland are now on at either full-price or an adjusted rate higher than the out-of-state-rate but not quite full-price like Philly whereas previously they were only on at the out-of-state rates of 10 cents a month means additional monies to the BTN coffers. Please note that the Big Ten didn't even attempt to renegotiate their national contracts when they added Maryland and Rutgers and they didn't wait until the expiration of those contracts to invite them. They knew $$$ was going to come in via the BTN. Or do you think Delany and the presidents of Big Ten institutions are that intellectually challenged as to invite those two schools and have them bring nothing in terms of $$$ immediately?
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index....iders.html
3) Sorry I missed your questions in post 209. I couldn't get beyond the fact that you thought Mizzou was the "best" candidate out there and better than WVU in terms of sport content in the two major sports. Especially since it took a while for the SEC to decide that after A&M.
Cheers,
Neil
(This post was last modified: 06-14-2016 02:22 PM by omniorange.)
|
|
/
ACC May Increase Number Of Conference Games for Network Inventory (Teel Article)
