Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
ACC Network to be housed in Bristol
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1
ACC Network to be housed in Bristol
A little surprising that Charlotte wouldn't be the home base...

From Sports Business Daily

I don't know if this indicates anything about the nature of the network or if it's just a matter of logistics, but there you go.
09-19-2017 01:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,908
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #2
RE: ACC Network to be housed in Bristol
(09-19-2017 01:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  A little surprising that Charlotte wouldn't be the home base...

From Sports Business Daily

I don't know if this indicates anything about the nature of the network or if it's just a matter of logistics, but there you go.

They are cutting overhead costs by eliminating duplicated properties and facilities. As to what it means? I'd say they were less than optimistic about the profitability of this endeavor.
09-19-2017 02:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #3
RE: ACC Network to be housed in Bristol
(09-19-2017 02:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 01:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  A little surprising that Charlotte wouldn't be the home base...

From Sports Business Daily

I don't know if this indicates anything about the nature of the network or if it's just a matter of logistics, but there you go.

They are cutting overhead costs by eliminating duplicated properties and facilities. As to what it means? I'd say they were less than optimistic about the profitability of this endeavor.


Studios are mega expensive and personnel is expensive to move. It's simply a long term strategy to reduce overhead.
Anything more is just giving ACC haters some false hope.
09-19-2017 03:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #4
RE: ACC Network to be housed in Bristol
(09-19-2017 02:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 01:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  A little surprising that Charlotte wouldn't be the home base...

From Sports Business Daily

I don't know if this indicates anything about the nature of the network or if it's just a matter of logistics, but there you go.

They are cutting overhead costs by eliminating duplicated properties and facilities. As to what it means? I'd say they were less than optimistic about the profitability of this endeavor.

Well, it kind of struck me that way. If you're worried about the long term prospects of the network then don't dedicate more resources to it then you have to...seems like a sensible approach.

This also makes me think the ACC might not really add any schools during the next round of realignment. If you're not bullish on the prospects then further investments are a risk.
09-19-2017 03:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,908
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #5
RE: ACC Network to be housed in Bristol
(09-19-2017 03:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 02:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 01:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  A little surprising that Charlotte wouldn't be the home base...

From Sports Business Daily

I don't know if this indicates anything about the nature of the network or if it's just a matter of logistics, but there you go.

They are cutting overhead costs by eliminating duplicated properties and facilities. As to what it means? I'd say they were less than optimistic about the profitability of this endeavor.


Studios are mega expensive and personnel is expensive to move. It's simply a long term strategy to reduce overhead.
Anything more is just giving ACC haters some false hope.

Kool Aid anyone? Anyone?

Your subscriber base is going to have to show more enthusiasm in your channel than they do on Saturdays for actually watching your games. That ain't hating sport, it's just a fact of life, and one of which I'm sure that ESPN is very aware. The ACC remains in a virtual dead heat with the PAC for the lowest % of viewers from a large footprint. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that cable subscriptions for a conference network are heavily dependent upon loyal viewers. And if getting paid by actual viewers continues to look like the model that sponsors would prefer for the determination of the rates they pay for that time, then watch out!
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2017 03:34 PM by JRsec.)
09-19-2017 03:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #6
RE: ACC Network to be housed in Bristol
(09-19-2017 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 03:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 02:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 01:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  A little surprising that Charlotte wouldn't be the home base...

From Sports Business Daily

I don't know if this indicates anything about the nature of the network or if it's just a matter of logistics, but there you go.

They are cutting overhead costs by eliminating duplicated properties and facilities. As to what it means? I'd say they were less than optimistic about the profitability of this endeavor.


Studios are mega expensive and personnel is expensive to move. It's simply a long term strategy to reduce overhead.
Anything more is just giving ACC haters some false hope.

Kool Aid anyone? Anyone?

Your subscriber base is going to have to show more enthusiasm in your channel than they do on Saturdays for actually watching your games. That ain't hating sport, it's just a fact of life, and one of which I'm sure that ESPN is very aware. The ACC remains in a virtual dead heat with the PAC for the lowest % of viewers from a large footprint. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that cable subscriptions for a conference network are heavily dependent upon loyal viewers. And if getting paid by actual viewers continues to look like the model that sponsors would prefer for the determination of the rates they pay for that time, then watch out!

This is why I keep referring back to the NY Times Geography of Football article on Realignment that gave estimates on the total number of fans a school has. Virginia Tech would be a great SEC addition bring in the markets of Virginia and Washington DC and their fan base 1.325M would place them 5th in Sec between Florida and LSU.

NC State would be a terrible addition. Their 468k fan base is only higher than Vanderbilt 's. maybe we get their entire state's higher subscription rates, but that's for the experts to decide. Boise State has 483k fans fwiw and Cincinnati comes in at an abissimal 322k.

By the fan numbers, the SEC should look at:
Texas 2.250M
Clemson 1.761M
Virginia Tech 1.325M
Nebraska 1.230M
Oklahoma 1.201M
West Virginia 959k
North Carolina 958k
Texas Tech 911k
FSU 813k
Kansas 768k
Oklahoma State 719k
BYU 709k
UConn 618k
Duke 536k
NC State 468k
TCU 370k
ECU 348k

Now if the next two SEC additions are a combination of tied schools, Texas and Texas Tech would add 3.161M fans, Virginia Tech and West Virginia would add 2.284M, and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would add 2.282M new fans. Now if the SEC gutted the Big 12 for Texahoma and KU and WVU, then add 6.808M more fans to the conference.
09-19-2017 05:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,908
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #7
RE: ACC Network to be housed in Bristol
(09-19-2017 05:30 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 03:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 02:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 01:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  A little surprising that Charlotte wouldn't be the home base...

From Sports Business Daily

I don't know if this indicates anything about the nature of the network or if it's just a matter of logistics, but there you go.

They are cutting overhead costs by eliminating duplicated properties and facilities. As to what it means? I'd say they were less than optimistic about the profitability of this endeavor.


Studios are mega expensive and personnel is expensive to move. It's simply a long term strategy to reduce overhead.
Anything more is just giving ACC haters some false hope.

Kool Aid anyone? Anyone?

Your subscriber base is going to have to show more enthusiasm in your channel than they do on Saturdays for actually watching your games. That ain't hating sport, it's just a fact of life, and one of which I'm sure that ESPN is very aware. The ACC remains in a virtual dead heat with the PAC for the lowest % of viewers from a large footprint. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that cable subscriptions for a conference network are heavily dependent upon loyal viewers. And if getting paid by actual viewers continues to look like the model that sponsors would prefer for the determination of the rates they pay for that time, then watch out!

This is why I keep referring back to the NY Times Geography of Football article on Realignment that gave estimates on the total number of fans a school has. Virginia Tech would be a great SEC addition bring in the markets of Virginia and Washington DC and their fan base 1.325M would place them 5th in Sec between Florida and LSU.

NC State would be a terrible addition. Their 468k fan base is only higher than Vanderbilt 's. maybe we get their entire state's higher subscription rates, but that's for the experts to decide. Boise State has 483k fans fwiw and Cincinnati comes in at an abissimal 322k.

By the fan numbers, the SEC should look at:
Texas 2.250M
Clemson 1.761M
Virginia Tech 1.325M
Nebraska 1.230M
Oklahoma 1.201M
West Virginia 959k
North Carolina 958k
Texas Tech 911k
FSU 813k
Kansas 768k
Oklahoma State 719k
BYU 709k
UConn 618k
Duke 536k
NC State 468k
TCU 370k
ECU 348k

Now if the next two SEC additions are a combination of tied schools, Texas and Texas Tech would add 3.161M fans, Virginia Tech and West Virginia would add 2.284M, and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would add 2.282M new fans. Now if the SEC gutted the Big 12 for Texahoma and KU and WVU, then add 6.808M more fans to the conference.

As an old SWC member, which pairing do you think the Hogs would like most to add? The reason I ask is I think it's about time that Arkansas got a little support. A&M helps you guys, but who next?
09-19-2017 05:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #8
RE: ACC Network to be housed in Bristol
(09-19-2017 05:30 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 03:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 02:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 01:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  A little surprising that Charlotte wouldn't be the home base...

From Sports Business Daily

I don't know if this indicates anything about the nature of the network or if it's just a matter of logistics, but there you go.

They are cutting overhead costs by eliminating duplicated properties and facilities. As to what it means? I'd say they were less than optimistic about the profitability of this endeavor.


Studios are mega expensive and personnel is expensive to move. It's simply a long term strategy to reduce overhead.
Anything more is just giving ACC haters some false hope.

Kool Aid anyone? Anyone?

Your subscriber base is going to have to show more enthusiasm in your channel than they do on Saturdays for actually watching your games. That ain't hating sport, it's just a fact of life, and one of which I'm sure that ESPN is very aware. The ACC remains in a virtual dead heat with the PAC for the lowest % of viewers from a large footprint. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that cable subscriptions for a conference network are heavily dependent upon loyal viewers. And if getting paid by actual viewers continues to look like the model that sponsors would prefer for the determination of the rates they pay for that time, then watch out!

This is why I keep referring back to the NY Times Geography of Football article on Realignment that gave estimates on the total number of fans a school has. Virginia Tech would be a great SEC addition bring in the markets of Virginia and Washington DC and their fan base 1.325M would place them 5th in Sec between Florida and LSU.

NC State would be a terrible addition. Their 468k fan base is only higher than Vanderbilt 's. maybe we get their entire state's higher subscription rates, but that's for the experts to decide. Boise State has 483k fans fwiw and Cincinnati comes in at an abissimal 322k.

By the fan numbers, the SEC should look at:
Texas 2.250M
Clemson 1.761M
Virginia Tech 1.325M
Nebraska 1.230M
Oklahoma 1.201M
West Virginia 959k
North Carolina 958k
Texas Tech 911k
FSU 813k
Kansas 768k
Oklahoma State 719k
BYU 709k
UConn 618k
Duke 536k
NC State 468k
TCU 370k
ECU 348k

Now if the next two SEC additions are a combination of tied schools, Texas and Texas Tech would add 3.161M fans, Virginia Tech and West Virginia would add 2.284M, and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would add 2.282M new fans. Now if the SEC gutted the Big 12 for Texahoma and KU and WVU, then add 6.808M more fans to the conference.

That may be why some Carolina + Virginia Tech to the B1G rumors have surfaced in my area.
09-19-2017 08:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #9
RE: ACC Network to be housed in Bristol
I would theorize that the NC/VA schools are of more value to the B1G than they are to the SEC. It's a matter of demographics more than anything, but it also feeds into what Mike Slive said...the next movement will bring "very, very large conferences."

So perhaps we see 2 great Eastern conferences?

The Big 12 GOR was a measure to maintain control over the situation by the networks. Is the ACC GOR a similar tactic? What if the ACC Network is a stop gap measure? After all, the market is very bad for new linear channels right now...

While the B1G is imbedded with FOX, they still need ESPN exposure...

So maybe the best way for ESPN to get more B1G rights back is to really give them what they want so that the 1st and 2nd tier games can be back in the fold within a few years. ESPN doesn't need B1G 3rd tier rights or an ACC Network comprising mostly ACC 3rd tier rights. What they need is prime content to draw big audiences to their existing platforms and make their future streaming options more attractive.

While ESPN has spent time buying back 3rd tier rights for ACC schools, that simply makes it easier for them to control the situation. Not to mention, it gives them options.

What if its more like this?

SEC

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Missouri
Central: Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama
South: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
East: Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Kentucky, Louisville

B1G

West: Nebraska, Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern
Central: Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Notre Dame, Michigan, Michigan State
North: Ohio State, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers, Boston College
East: Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, NC State, Duke

What in the world the PAC would do, I don't know.
09-19-2017 10:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #10
RE: ACC Network to be housed in Bristol
(09-19-2017 05:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 05:30 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 03:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 02:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  They are cutting overhead costs by eliminating duplicated properties and facilities. As to what it means? I'd say they were less than optimistic about the profitability of this endeavor.


Studios are mega expensive and personnel is expensive to move. It's simply a long term strategy to reduce overhead.
Anything more is just giving ACC haters some false hope.

Kool Aid anyone? Anyone?

Your subscriber base is going to have to show more enthusiasm in your channel than they do on Saturdays for actually watching your games. That ain't hating sport, it's just a fact of life, and one of which I'm sure that ESPN is very aware. The ACC remains in a virtual dead heat with the PAC for the lowest % of viewers from a large footprint. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that cable subscriptions for a conference network are heavily dependent upon loyal viewers. And if getting paid by actual viewers continues to look like the model that sponsors would prefer for the determination of the rates they pay for that time, then watch out!

This is why I keep referring back to the NY Times Geography of Football article on Realignment that gave estimates on the total number of fans a school has. Virginia Tech would be a great SEC addition bring in the markets of Virginia and Washington DC and their fan base 1.325M would place them 5th in Sec between Florida and LSU.

NC State would be a terrible addition. Their 468k fan base is only higher than Vanderbilt 's. maybe we get their entire state's higher subscription rates, but that's for the experts to decide. Boise State has 483k fans fwiw and Cincinnati comes in at an abissimal 322k.

By the fan numbers, the SEC should look at:
Texas 2.250M
Clemson 1.761M
Virginia Tech 1.325M
Nebraska 1.230M
Oklahoma 1.201M
West Virginia 959k
North Carolina 958k
Texas Tech 911k
FSU 813k
Kansas 768k
Oklahoma State 719k
BYU 709k
UConn 618k
Duke 536k
NC State 468k
TCU 370k
ECU 348k

Now if the next two SEC additions are a combination of tied schools, Texas and Texas Tech would add 3.161M fans, Virginia Tech and West Virginia would add 2.284M, and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would add 2.282M new fans. Now if the SEC gutted the Big 12 for Texahoma and KU and WVU, then add 6.808M more fans to the conference.

As an old SWC member, which pairing do you think the Hogs would like most to add? The reason I ask is I think it's about time that Arkansas got a little support. A&M helps you guys, but who next?

It would have to be Texas. They are the team everyone circled on the calendar and couldn't wait to see if they lost that weekend in the Sunday paper.

As far as the other old SWC members, it's nice to play them OOC occasionally, but there is just no desire to play them yearly.

I wouldn't mind seeing OU and UT. Both schools would create tremendous matchups and OU would be a regional addition to the Ozark schools. I wouldn't mind having UT and ATM in separate divisions if Aggy is against the addition. Other additions that would help Regionalize the area are OU/OSU or KU/OU
09-19-2017 11:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,908
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #11
RE: ACC Network to be housed in Bristol
(09-19-2017 11:08 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 05:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 05:30 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 03:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  Studios are mega expensive and personnel is expensive to move. It's simply a long term strategy to reduce overhead.
Anything more is just giving ACC haters some false hope.

Kool Aid anyone? Anyone?

Your subscriber base is going to have to show more enthusiasm in your channel than they do on Saturdays for actually watching your games. That ain't hating sport, it's just a fact of life, and one of which I'm sure that ESPN is very aware. The ACC remains in a virtual dead heat with the PAC for the lowest % of viewers from a large footprint. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that cable subscriptions for a conference network are heavily dependent upon loyal viewers. And if getting paid by actual viewers continues to look like the model that sponsors would prefer for the determination of the rates they pay for that time, then watch out!

This is why I keep referring back to the NY Times Geography of Football article on Realignment that gave estimates on the total number of fans a school has. Virginia Tech would be a great SEC addition bring in the markets of Virginia and Washington DC and their fan base 1.325M would place them 5th in Sec between Florida and LSU.

NC State would be a terrible addition. Their 468k fan base is only higher than Vanderbilt 's. maybe we get their entire state's higher subscription rates, but that's for the experts to decide. Boise State has 483k fans fwiw and Cincinnati comes in at an abissimal 322k.

By the fan numbers, the SEC should look at:
Texas 2.250M
Clemson 1.761M
Virginia Tech 1.325M
Nebraska 1.230M
Oklahoma 1.201M
West Virginia 959k
North Carolina 958k
Texas Tech 911k
FSU 813k
Kansas 768k
Oklahoma State 719k
BYU 709k
UConn 618k
Duke 536k
NC State 468k
TCU 370k
ECU 348k

Now if the next two SEC additions are a combination of tied schools, Texas and Texas Tech would add 3.161M fans, Virginia Tech and West Virginia would add 2.284M, and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would add 2.282M new fans. Now if the SEC gutted the Big 12 for Texahoma and KU and WVU, then add 6.808M more fans to the conference.

As an old SWC member, which pairing do you think the Hogs would like most to add? The reason I ask is I think it's about time that Arkansas got a little support. A&M helps you guys, but who next?

It would have to be Texas. They are the team everyone circled on the calendar and couldn't wait to see if they lost that weekend in the Sunday paper.

As far as the other old SWC members, it's nice to play them OOC occasionally, but there is just no desire to play them yearly.

I wouldn't mind seeing OU and UT. Both schools would create tremendous matchups and OU would be a regional addition to the Ozark schools. I wouldn't mind having UT and ATM in separate divisions if Aggy is against the addition. Other additions that would help Regionalize the area are OU/OSU or KU/OU

How would you feel about moving to 18 with Texa-homa? Obviously it would be great to land OU/UT and move to 16. But if Tech and OSU had to tag along how would Razorback fans feel about that?
09-19-2017 11:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #12
RE: ACC Network to be housed in Bristol
(09-19-2017 11:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 11:08 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 05:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 05:30 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Kool Aid anyone? Anyone?

Your subscriber base is going to have to show more enthusiasm in your channel than they do on Saturdays for actually watching your games. That ain't hating sport, it's just a fact of life, and one of which I'm sure that ESPN is very aware. The ACC remains in a virtual dead heat with the PAC for the lowest % of viewers from a large footprint. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that cable subscriptions for a conference network are heavily dependent upon loyal viewers. And if getting paid by actual viewers continues to look like the model that sponsors would prefer for the determination of the rates they pay for that time, then watch out!

This is why I keep referring back to the NY Times Geography of Football article on Realignment that gave estimates on the total number of fans a school has. Virginia Tech would be a great SEC addition bring in the markets of Virginia and Washington DC and their fan base 1.325M would place them 5th in Sec between Florida and LSU.

NC State would be a terrible addition. Their 468k fan base is only higher than Vanderbilt 's. maybe we get their entire state's higher subscription rates, but that's for the experts to decide. Boise State has 483k fans fwiw and Cincinnati comes in at an abissimal 322k.

By the fan numbers, the SEC should look at:
Texas 2.250M
Clemson 1.761M
Virginia Tech 1.325M
Nebraska 1.230M
Oklahoma 1.201M
West Virginia 959k
North Carolina 958k
Texas Tech 911k
FSU 813k
Kansas 768k
Oklahoma State 719k
BYU 709k
UConn 618k
Duke 536k
NC State 468k
TCU 370k
ECU 348k

Now if the next two SEC additions are a combination of tied schools, Texas and Texas Tech would add 3.161M fans, Virginia Tech and West Virginia would add 2.284M, and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would add 2.282M new fans. Now if the SEC gutted the Big 12 for Texahoma and KU and WVU, then add 6.808M more fans to the conference.

As an old SWC member, which pairing do you think the Hogs would like most to add? The reason I ask is I think it's about time that Arkansas got a little support. A&M helps you guys, but who next?

It would have to be Texas. They are the team everyone circled on the calendar and couldn't wait to see if they lost that weekend in the Sunday paper.

As far as the other old SWC members, it's nice to play them OOC occasionally, but there is just no desire to play them yearly.

I wouldn't mind seeing OU and UT. Both schools would create tremendous matchups and OU would be a regional addition to the Ozark schools. I wouldn't mind having UT and ATM in separate divisions if Aggy is against the addition. Other additions that would help Regionalize the area are OU/OSU or KU/OU

How would you feel about moving to 18 with Texa-homa? Obviously it would be great to land OU/UT and move to 16. But if Tech and OSU had to tag along how would Razorback fans feel about that?

As long as I get A&M and UT on the yearly schedule, we wouldn't care. Heck, might as well make Mike Slive's "very very large conferences " comment true and offer Kansas and West Virginia to secure the final valuable pieces left in the Big 12.

During the SEC team takeover on the SEC Network, Arkansas showed a ton of games against old SWC foes. I thought it was a bit much, but the hogs did do pretty well against those schools recently. Right now the fan base is split into two groups: 1) those that only know the SEC years and 2) those that remember the SWC days. It wasn't perfect in the SWC as Texas did Texas politics and the officiating wasn't fair as the hogs were the only non-Texas school and were not allowed to have any Arkansasans officiate those games which meant a pure Texan officiating crew.
09-20-2017 12:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,908
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #13
RE: ACC Network to be housed in Bristol
(09-20-2017 12:38 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 11:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 11:08 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 05:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 05:30 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  This is why I keep referring back to the NY Times Geography of Football article on Realignment that gave estimates on the total number of fans a school has. Virginia Tech would be a great SEC addition bring in the markets of Virginia and Washington DC and their fan base 1.325M would place them 5th in Sec between Florida and LSU.

NC State would be a terrible addition. Their 468k fan base is only higher than Vanderbilt 's. maybe we get their entire state's higher subscription rates, but that's for the experts to decide. Boise State has 483k fans fwiw and Cincinnati comes in at an abissimal 322k.

By the fan numbers, the SEC should look at:
Texas 2.250M
Clemson 1.761M
Virginia Tech 1.325M
Nebraska 1.230M
Oklahoma 1.201M
West Virginia 959k
North Carolina 958k
Texas Tech 911k
FSU 813k
Kansas 768k
Oklahoma State 719k
BYU 709k
UConn 618k
Duke 536k
NC State 468k
TCU 370k
ECU 348k

Now if the next two SEC additions are a combination of tied schools, Texas and Texas Tech would add 3.161M fans, Virginia Tech and West Virginia would add 2.284M, and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would add 2.282M new fans. Now if the SEC gutted the Big 12 for Texahoma and KU and WVU, then add 6.808M more fans to the conference.

As an old SWC member, which pairing do you think the Hogs would like most to add? The reason I ask is I think it's about time that Arkansas got a little support. A&M helps you guys, but who next?

It would have to be Texas. They are the team everyone circled on the calendar and couldn't wait to see if they lost that weekend in the Sunday paper.

As far as the other old SWC members, it's nice to play them OOC occasionally, but there is just no desire to play them yearly.

I wouldn't mind seeing OU and UT. Both schools would create tremendous matchups and OU would be a regional addition to the Ozark schools. I wouldn't mind having UT and ATM in separate divisions if Aggy is against the addition. Other additions that would help Regionalize the area are OU/OSU or KU/OU

How would you feel about moving to 18 with Texa-homa? Obviously it would be great to land OU/UT and move to 16. But if Tech and OSU had to tag along how would Razorback fans feel about that?

As long as I get A&M and UT on the yearly schedule, we wouldn't care. Heck, might as well make Mike Slive's "very very large conferences " comment true and offer Kansas and West Virginia to secure the final valuable pieces left in the Big 12.

During the SEC team takeover on the SEC Network, Arkansas showed a ton of games against old SWC foes. I thought it was a bit much, but the hogs did do pretty well against those schools recently. Right now the fan base is split into two groups: 1) those that only know the SEC years and 2) those that remember the SWC days. It wasn't perfect in the SWC as Texas did Texas politics and the officiating wasn't fair as the hogs were the only non-Texas school and were not allowed to have any Arkansasans officiate those games which meant a pure Texan officiating crew.

I remember those events well. The Big 12 officiating was some better but Texas benefited from some screwy calls there like the non-fumble against Iowa State that should have been the difference in the game. Nebraska got an extra down against Missouri and a few other gems. I would think we would need to keep A&M separate from an Arkansas / Texas division, but that's about it.
09-20-2017 02:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #14
RE: ACC Network to be housed in Bristol
(09-20-2017 02:13 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-20-2017 12:38 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 11:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 11:08 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 05:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As an old SWC member, which pairing do you think the Hogs would like most to add? The reason I ask is I think it's about time that Arkansas got a little support. A&M helps you guys, but who next?

It would have to be Texas. They are the team everyone circled on the calendar and couldn't wait to see if they lost that weekend in the Sunday paper.

As far as the other old SWC members, it's nice to play them OOC occasionally, but there is just no desire to play them yearly.

I wouldn't mind seeing OU and UT. Both schools would create tremendous matchups and OU would be a regional addition to the Ozark schools. I wouldn't mind having UT and ATM in separate divisions if Aggy is against the addition. Other additions that would help Regionalize the area are OU/OSU or KU/OU

How would you feel about moving to 18 with Texa-homa? Obviously it would be great to land OU/UT and move to 16. But if Tech and OSU had to tag along how would Razorback fans feel about that?

As long as I get A&M and UT on the yearly schedule, we wouldn't care. Heck, might as well make Mike Slive's "very very large conferences " comment true and offer Kansas and West Virginia to secure the final valuable pieces left in the Big 12.

During the SEC team takeover on the SEC Network, Arkansas showed a ton of games against old SWC foes. I thought it was a bit much, but the hogs did do pretty well against those schools recently. Right now the fan base is split into two groups: 1) those that only know the SEC years and 2) those that remember the SWC days. It wasn't perfect in the SWC as Texas did Texas politics and the officiating wasn't fair as the hogs were the only non-Texas school and were not allowed to have any Arkansasans officiate those games which meant a pure Texan officiating crew.

I remember those events well. The Big 12 officiating was some better but Texas benefited from some screwy calls there like the non-fumble against Iowa State that should have been the difference in the game. Nebraska got an extra down against Missouri and a few other gems. I would think we would need to keep A&M separate from an Arkansas / Texas division, but that's about it.

I know Arkansas fans look forward to playing LSU the most every year lately, and more expansion would probably decrease our chances to play them yearly, but if we replaced them with Texas yearly...very few complaints expected.
09-20-2017 11:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,900
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #15
RE: ACC Network to be housed in Bristol
(09-20-2017 11:19 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  I know Arkansas fans look forward to playing LSU the most every year lately, and more expansion would probably decrease our chances to play them yearly, but if we replaced them with Texas yearly...very few complaints expected.

I don't see Arkansas not playing LSU annually unless a mass Western expansion occurred like the Texoma-4.

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Missouri, Arkansas
South: Texas A&M, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama, Auburn
East: Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

This would only be to appease Texas A&M to not be in the same division as Texas.
09-20-2017 11:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,908
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #16
RE: ACC Network to be housed in Bristol
(09-19-2017 05:30 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 03:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 02:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 01:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  A little surprising that Charlotte wouldn't be the home base...

From Sports Business Daily

I don't know if this indicates anything about the nature of the network or if it's just a matter of logistics, but there you go.

They are cutting overhead costs by eliminating duplicated properties and facilities. As to what it means? I'd say they were less than optimistic about the profitability of this endeavor.


Studios are mega expensive and personnel is expensive to move. It's simply a long term strategy to reduce overhead.
Anything more is just giving ACC haters some false hope.

Kool Aid anyone? Anyone?

Your subscriber base is going to have to show more enthusiasm in your channel than they do on Saturdays for actually watching your games. That ain't hating sport, it's just a fact of life, and one of which I'm sure that ESPN is very aware. The ACC remains in a virtual dead heat with the PAC for the lowest % of viewers from a large footprint. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that cable subscriptions for a conference network are heavily dependent upon loyal viewers. And if getting paid by actual viewers continues to look like the model that sponsors would prefer for the determination of the rates they pay for that time, then watch out!

This is why I keep referring back to the NY Times Geography of Football article on Realignment that gave estimates on the total number of fans a school has. Virginia Tech would be a great SEC addition bring in the markets of Virginia and Washington DC and their fan base 1.325M would place them 5th in Sec between Florida and LSU.

NC State would be a terrible addition. Their 468k fan base is only higher than Vanderbilt 's. maybe we get their entire state's higher subscription rates, but that's for the experts to decide. Boise State has 483k fans fwiw and Cincinnati comes in at an abissimal 322k.

By the fan numbers, the SEC should look at:
Texas 2.250M
Clemson 1.761M
Virginia Tech 1.325M
Nebraska 1.230M
Oklahoma 1.201M
West Virginia 959k
North Carolina 958k
Texas Tech 911k
FSU 813k
Kansas 768k
Oklahoma State 719k
BYU 709k
UConn 618k
Duke 536k
NC State 468k
TCU 370k
ECU 348k

Now if the next two SEC additions are a combination of tied schools, Texas and Texas Tech would add 3.161M fans, Virginia Tech and West Virginia would add 2.284M, and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would add 2.282M new fans. Now if the SEC gutted the Big 12 for Texahoma and KU and WVU, then add 6.808M more fans to the conference.

It's the ACC that should be studying these numbers. If they let Virginia Tech and N.C. State head to the SEC and grabbed Texa-homa they would have solidly put their network on the map. Too bad Tobacco Road torpedoed that back in 2010-1. But as you can see from your numbers Texa-homa would pay for itself nicely if the SEC made that play.
(This post was last modified: 09-22-2017 11:37 PM by JRsec.)
09-22-2017 11:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,458
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 376
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #17
ACC Network to be housed in Bristol
(09-22-2017 11:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 05:30 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 03:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 03:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-19-2017 02:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  They are cutting overhead costs by eliminating duplicated properties and facilities. As to what it means? I'd say they were less than optimistic about the profitability of this endeavor.


Studios are mega expensive and personnel is expensive to move. It's simply a long term strategy to reduce overhead.
Anything more is just giving ACC haters some false hope.

Kool Aid anyone? Anyone?

Your subscriber base is going to have to show more enthusiasm in your channel than they do on Saturdays for actually watching your games. That ain't hating sport, it's just a fact of life, and one of which I'm sure that ESPN is very aware. The ACC remains in a virtual dead heat with the PAC for the lowest % of viewers from a large footprint. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that cable subscriptions for a conference network are heavily dependent upon loyal viewers. And if getting paid by actual viewers continues to look like the model that sponsors would prefer for the determination of the rates they pay for that time, then watch out!

This is why I keep referring back to the NY Times Geography of Football article on Realignment that gave estimates on the total number of fans a school has. Virginia Tech would be a great SEC addition bring in the markets of Virginia and Washington DC and their fan base 1.325M would place them 5th in Sec between Florida and LSU.

NC State would be a terrible addition. Their 468k fan base is only higher than Vanderbilt 's. maybe we get their entire state's higher subscription rates, but that's for the experts to decide. Boise State has 483k fans fwiw and Cincinnati comes in at an abissimal 322k.

By the fan numbers, the SEC should look at:
Texas 2.250M
Clemson 1.761M
Virginia Tech 1.325M
Nebraska 1.230M
Oklahoma 1.201M
West Virginia 959k
North Carolina 958k
Texas Tech 911k
FSU 813k
Kansas 768k
Oklahoma State 719k
BYU 709k
UConn 618k
Duke 536k
NC State 468k
TCU 370k
ECU 348k

Now if the next two SEC additions are a combination of tied schools, Texas and Texas Tech would add 3.161M fans, Virginia Tech and West Virginia would add 2.284M, and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would add 2.282M new fans. Now if the SEC gutted the Big 12 for Texahoma and KU and WVU, then add 6.808M more fans to the conference.

It's the ACC that should be studying these numbers. If they let Virginia Tech and N.C. State head to the SEC and grabbed Texa-homa they would have solidly put their network on the map. Too bad Tobacco Road torpedoed that back in 2010-1. But as you can see from your numbers Texa-homa would pay for itself nicely if the SEC made that play.


I wouldn't give that Silver article in The NY Times much credibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
09-23-2017 10:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 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, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.