(05-30-2014 03:03 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-29-2014 05:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Funny but the people I know in the ad industry if you ask them about ad rates based on TV market they laugh and say "we've invented computers since then."

They pay for audience reached not potentially reached.

But the discussion there was focusing on carriage fees, where reaching ten people who would keep subscribing anyway even if you dropped the channel can be less valuable than reaching one person who would drop the subscription (either altogether or the service tier) without that channel.

That is still not the same as "households in the market" ~ households in the market getting the channel may be the terms that the contract are written for, just as ad rates are per thousand "impressions" (CPM), but the carriage rates have a relationship with the size of the distinct cohort that has an appreciable risk of going elsewhere if the channel is not there.

Which often favors P5 conference that have areas around their most followed schools where cable having the conference vs satellite not would see satellite dishes disappearing like water on a hot griddle, or satellite having it when cable does not see satellite dishes springing up like forest mushrooms after a summer rain.

For a Go5 conference, the question whether that favors them or hurts them depends on whether their smaller audience tends to include a larger or smaller share of strongly committed fans. A larger share opens up hopes of, eg, media networks paying for the rights to drive cable company or ISP subscription to online streaming carriage.

But all the sports carriage fees except BTN in NYC have been based on STATE not MARKET. If a team from the league is in your state, you pay the state rate for having a team rather than the national rate.

If BTN could get state rate penetration in Texas just on the strength of adding Texas Tech it would make them worth billions despite being in a small market.

(05-29-2014 12:05 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:17 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:51 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  One thing that you have to credit the Sunbelt with is that the Conference has learned to make do without a lot of tv money. The article mentions the possibility that tv contracts for some of the G5 conferences might be lower this time around. You have to scroll down one or two to get to the story.
http://g5conferencenews.blogspot.com/

It's been my opinion for some time now CUSA's new line up will result in far less TV dollars when their next TV contract is rolled out. The SunBelt's TV money will likely stay about the same. While I agree there will likely be some realignment among CUSA and the SunBelt I think it will be more of a re-shuffling of the deck among to create more regional conferences. I do not see a conference featuring the "so called best of the three" being created just to compete with the AAC & MWC.

It is wishful thinking on my part, but it would make sense to see exit fees waived in order to settle this thing once and for all.

Actually the CUSA contract when renewed is expected to be the same of more. TV contracts (except for the P5) are based not upon the teams' performance, but the number of cable boxes in a market. That is because a cable provider pays a network a fee per box, not based upon ratings. If you have been reading about the dispute between CableOne and Viacom or Direct TV and Turner etc.... you will see that. That is why the AAC replaced the departing members with the Dallas, Houston, New Orleans, Orlando and Memphis markets. Had they not done so, then they would have lost even more ground. And it's why CUSA replaced their lost markets with Miami-Fort Lauderdale, San Antonio, Nashville, Norfolk/Tidewater, Charlotte and kept Dallas.

Ask anyone in the media business about that and they will confirm it. The SBC's problem is that except for Atlanta, they don't have any really big markets.

I didn't say that I like the way it is done. That 's just the way it is done.

Even so I dont think the TV money for any of the G5's is going to be significant enough to affect results on the field. I am not sure about the other markets in the Belt but I do know GaSou area is one of the fastest growing in the country. I cant remember if we a lumped in the Sav or Augusta media market but both continue to climb the list.

(05-30-2014 02:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Depends on what you mean by hyper-regional.

I'm thinking something like the southland footprint, Arklatex, as being hyper regional. If you go, say, Alabama or Miss, west to New Mexico, that's reasonably regional. Or Va down to Alabama or Miss is reasonably regional.

(05-30-2014 03:51 PM)DrBox Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 02:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Depends on what you mean by hyper-regional.

I'm thinking something like the southland footprint, Arklatex, as being hyper regional. If you go, say, Alabama or Miss, west to New Mexico, that's reasonably regional. Or Va down to Alabama or Miss is reasonably regional.

ArkLaTex would in my opinion be the very smallest viable region but if I were putting such a league together, my comfort level would be vastly improved if I could just plug Tulsa in or pick up Mississippi and Alabama.

And the only reason I'd say such a small area of the US could be viable is because I saw map some place of the major economic areas of the US and ArkLaTex is a confluence of three of the eight major areas of economic activity and the only place remotely similar is the west coast.

(05-30-2014 04:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 03:51 PM)DrBox Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 02:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Depends on what you mean by hyper-regional.
I'm thinking something like the southland footprint, Arklatex, as being hyper regional. If you go, say, Alabama or Miss, west to New Mexico, that's reasonably regional. Or Va down to Alabama or Miss is reasonably regional.

ArkLaTex would in my opinion be the very smallest viable region but if I were putting such a league together, my comfort level would be vastly improved if I could just plug Tulsa in or pick up Mississippi and Alabama.

And the only reason I'd say such a small area of the US could be viable is because I saw map some place of the major economic areas of the US and ArkLaTex is a confluence of three of the eight major areas of economic activity and the only place remotely similar is the west coast.

Assuming you could get them all--

Your core

Houston
SMU
UTSA
Texas St
Arky St
UL-L
Tulane
Tulsa

Now you could fill in the footprint or expand with schools like LaTech, S Miss, UAB, Troy, UTEP, NM, NMst, N Tx, Rice, Memphis, etc. You could go heavier in Texas and Louisiana or you could expand to Miss, Alabama, Tenn, or New Mexico.

(05-30-2014 04:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 04:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 03:51 PM)DrBox Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 02:16 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Depends on what you mean by hyper-regional.
I'm thinking something like the southland footprint, Arklatex, as being hyper regional. If you go, say, Alabama or Miss, west to New Mexico, that's reasonably regional. Or Va down to Alabama or Miss is reasonably regional.

ArkLaTex would in my opinion be the very smallest viable region but if I were putting such a league together, my comfort level would be vastly improved if I could just plug Tulsa in or pick up Mississippi and Alabama.

And the only reason I'd say such a small area of the US could be viable is because I saw map some place of the major economic areas of the US and ArkLaTex is a confluence of three of the eight major areas of economic activity and the only place remotely similar is the west coast.

Assuming you could get them all--

Your core

Houston
SMU
UTSA
Texas St
Arky St
UL-L
Tulane
Tulsa

Now you could fill in the footprint or expand with schools like LaTech, S Miss, UAB, Troy, UTEP, NM, NMst, N Tx, Rice, Memphis, etc. You could go heavier in Texas and Louisiana or you could expand to Miss, Alabama, Tenn, or New Mexico.

At risk of inflating the ego.

Only have to get one.

All it takes is one of SMU and Houston to start calling schools saying this is what we wish to do and the commitments will come in.

(05-30-2014 03:23 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 03:03 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-29-2014 05:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Funny but the people I know in the ad industry if you ask them about ad rates based on TV market they laugh and say "we've invented computers since then."

They pay for audience reached not potentially reached.

But the discussion there was focusing on carriage fees, where reaching ten people who would keep subscribing anyway even if you dropped the channel can be less valuable than reaching one person who would drop the subscription (either altogether or the service tier) without that channel.

That is still not the same as "households in the market" ~ households in the market getting the channel may be the terms that the contract are written for, just as ad rates are per thousand "impressions" (CPM), but the carriage rates have a relationship with the size of the distinct cohort that has an appreciable risk of going elsewhere if the channel is not there.

Which often favors P5 conference that have areas around their most followed schools where cable having the conference vs satellite not would see satellite dishes disappearing like water on a hot griddle, or satellite having it when cable does not see satellite dishes springing up like forest mushrooms after a summer rain.

For a Go5 conference, the question whether that favors them or hurts them depends on whether their smaller audience tends to include a larger or smaller share of strongly committed fans. A larger share opens up hopes of, eg, media networks paying for the rights to drive cable company or ISP subscription to online streaming carriage.

But all the sports carriage fees except BTN in NYC have been based on STATE not MARKET. If a team from the league is in your state, you pay the state rate for having a team rather than the national rate.

If BTN could get state rate penetration in Texas just on the strength of adding Texas Tech it would make them worth billions despite being in a small market.

BTN with one school in state is $1 person subscriber household, with two B!G Ten schools in a state its $1.10 per subscriber household.

I think the national rate for BTN is 60 or 70 cents right now.

(05-30-2014 03:23 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  But all the sports carriage fees except BTN in NYC have been based on STATE not MARKET.
If a team from the league is in your state, you pay the state rate for having a team rather than the national rate.

Yes, the sports carriage fees with the large subscriber television networks define the markets state by state, not by broadcast media markets ... they are, after all, not broadcasters, so the reach of a signal from their broadcast tower(s) is not an issue for them. It's either as far as the wire (for cable or TV over IP) reaches or anywhere that can see the satellite.

But the negotiating leverage is still the high commitment viewers subscribing to that subscription television provider.

Small cable systems may be de facto sub-state markets, but they often allow the big systems to be the price leaders, and treat that as a market price in making their decision.

Quote: If BTN could get state rate penetration in Texas just on the strength of adding Texas Tech it would make them worth billions despite being in a small market.

Except that billions versus the relatively smaller number of highly committed TTech fans in the state would make it something that the big cable systems would resist granting, for the same reasons that they resisted paying full rate in Philadelphia.

(05-30-2014 04:46 PM)utpotts Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 03:23 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 03:03 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-29-2014 05:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Funny but the people I know in the ad industry if you ask them about ad rates based on TV market they laugh and say "we've invented computers since then."

They pay for audience reached not potentially reached.

But the discussion there was focusing on carriage fees, where reaching ten people who would keep subscribing anyway even if you dropped the channel can be less valuable than reaching one person who would drop the subscription (either altogether or the service tier) without that channel.

That is still not the same as "households in the market" ~ households in the market getting the channel may be the terms that the contract are written for, just as ad rates are per thousand "impressions" (CPM), but the carriage rates have a relationship with the size of the distinct cohort that has an appreciable risk of going elsewhere if the channel is not there.

Which often favors P5 conference that have areas around their most followed schools where cable having the conference vs satellite not would see satellite dishes disappearing like water on a hot griddle, or satellite having it when cable does not see satellite dishes springing up like forest mushrooms after a summer rain.

For a Go5 conference, the question whether that favors them or hurts them depends on whether their smaller audience tends to include a larger or smaller share of strongly committed fans. A larger share opens up hopes of, eg, media networks paying for the rights to drive cable company or ISP subscription to online streaming carriage.

But all the sports carriage fees except BTN in NYC have been based on STATE not MARKET. If a team from the league is in your state, you pay the state rate for having a team rather than the national rate.

If BTN could get state rate penetration in Texas just on the strength of adding Texas Tech it would make them worth billions despite being in a small market.

BTN with one school in state is $1 person subscriber household, with two B!G Ten schools in a state its $1.10 per subscriber household.

I think the national rate for BTN is 60 or 70 cents right now.

Used to be 30 cents but that was a bit back.

(05-30-2014 10:22 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 03:23 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  But all the sports carriage fees except BTN in NYC have been based on STATE not MARKET.
If a team from the league is in your state, you pay the state rate for having a team rather than the national rate.

Yes, the sports carriage fees with the large subscriber television networks define the markets state by state, not by broadcast media markets ... they are, after all, not broadcasters, so the reach of a signal from their broadcast tower(s) is not an issue for them. It's either as far as the wire (for cable or TV over IP) reaches or anywhere that can see the satellite.

But the negotiating leverage is still the high commitment viewers subscribing to that subscription television provider.

Small cable systems may be de facto sub-state markets, but they often allow the big systems to be the price leaders, and treat that as a market price in making their decision.

Quote: If BTN could get state rate penetration in Texas just on the strength of adding Texas Tech it would make them worth billions despite being in a small market.

Except that billions versus the relatively smaller number of highly committed TTech fans in the state would make it something that the big cable systems would resist granting, for the same reasons that they resisted paying full rate in Philadelphia.

But it comes down to fan interest and engagement not size of Nielsen TV market.

BTN was able to leverage NYC into paying in-state rates for BTN with Rutgers because the most watched regular season college football game on ESPN involved Rutgers, same for ESPN2, same for ESPNU. While in percentage of market a top Rutgers game will draw in NYC a fraction of what a top Auburn or Bama game will draw in Birmingham (because NYC is arguably the nation's least interested market in college football while Birmingham is undisputed most interested) the raw numbers of viewers in each market are pretty close.

Take that and add the fact that NYC is one of the nation's better college basketball markets and BTN offers a very attractive slate of hoops games and BTN was able to leverage that into in-state rates.

Of course there is no better example of the power of fan engagement than ESPN's mis-step with LHN. The folks in Bristol never accounted for the number of engaged fan bases that would lobby against being forced to pay their TV provider for LHN, since their problems getting adoption LHN has been picking up other school content to try to erode some of the opposition.

(05-31-2014 12:27 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  But it comes down to fan interest and engagement not size of Nielsen TV market.

Precisely. I don't know why it leads out with a "But", that's what I said two comments back:

Quote: That is still not the same as "households in the market" ~ households in the market getting the channel may be the terms that the contract are written for, just as ad rates are per thousand "impressions" (CPM), but the carriage rates have a relationship with the size of the distinct cohort that has an appreciable risk of going elsewhere if the channel is not there.

People confuse it with the size of the market, both for the common internet commentary reason that media market sizes are easy to google, and because they often have only a shaky idea of how TV, both broadcast TV and cable, gets paid for. "We bring a market" is an easy thing to say, but if what it means is that "under the terms of existing contracts we can force cable providers to pay this much money even though relatively few people will be tuning in and relatively few people care whether or not we are on their cable package", what it also means is weakening that conference's bargaining position in the next round of media negotiations.

And what a conference is looking for in media terms is a school that strengthens its bargaining position, not one that weakens it.

And part of that goes to whether there is any win in the combination with the existing schools. After all, even without Rutgers, when ABC had regional coverage of games, it often put the Big Ten game on in the New York area, not because it draw great ratings, but because it drew better ratings than the alternatives would have. Certainly no individual school draws eyeballs in NYC like Rutgers, Syracuse and, I guess maybe Notre Dame, but take the Big Ten as a group, and it could well slot in at fourth behind those three.

On a smaller scale but the same basic idea, if there is a large enough core of committed followers of a particular Go5 conference, there are likely to be opportunities to leverage that for improved exposure. But it seems unlikely that there is some magic realignment that will do that. Its more a case of investing the effort into a slow build, and hoping that there is time to reap the benefits before realignment driven from further up the ladder knocks the table over.

This is an excellent time to be putting that hard work in, since P5 conference realignment has largely stabilized. There could well be another aftershock or two at the Go5 level, but we over the coming five to ten years, we are not likely to see the wholesale changes of the past five years that have burned through so much conference brand equity.

If we were in the pre-CFP revenue days a G5 aftershock would practically be a given. CUSA and MWC formed basically because the members creating each league looked over what they had done to deal with the realignment of the day and determined it was not a good fit after all.

In the southern/eastern G5 there are likely as many schools unhappy about the current alignments as schools happy.

While everyone pretty well knows Cincinnati and UConn hate the outcome, along the grapevine there is talk that Houston's leadership is not happy because they feel the AAC is too eastern oriented and has sacrificed football quality in pursuit of markets and basketball. The AD at Memphis talking to a peer about how the AAC is working out said "We paid X million to join the conference we formed 20 years ago." It's no secret that USM and Marshall are disappointed as well and there have been other CUSA AD's unhappy to learn that CUSA accounting practices over-stated revenue compared to the accounting practices of the conferences they left.

The CFP revenue stream distribution handcuffs schools in their ability to deal with their frustration like C-USA and MWC did years ago, the question is will their unhappiness rise to a level that they are willing to tackle those problems?

(05-31-2014 12:15 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 04:46 PM)utpotts Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 03:23 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 03:03 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-29-2014 05:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Funny but the people I know in the ad industry if you ask them about ad rates based on TV market they laugh and say "we've invented computers since then."

They pay for audience reached not potentially reached.

But the discussion there was focusing on carriage fees, where reaching ten people who would keep subscribing anyway even if you dropped the channel can be less valuable than reaching one person who would drop the subscription (either altogether or the service tier) without that channel.

That is still not the same as "households in the market" ~ households in the market getting the channel may be the terms that the contract are written for, just as ad rates are per thousand "impressions" (CPM), but the carriage rates have a relationship with the size of the distinct cohort that has an appreciable risk of going elsewhere if the channel is not there.

Which often favors P5 conference that have areas around their most followed schools where cable having the conference vs satellite not would see satellite dishes disappearing like water on a hot griddle, or satellite having it when cable does not see satellite dishes springing up like forest mushrooms after a summer rain.

For a Go5 conference, the question whether that favors them or hurts them depends on whether their smaller audience tends to include a larger or smaller share of strongly committed fans. A larger share opens up hopes of, eg, media networks paying for the rights to drive cable company or ISP subscription to online streaming carriage.

But all the sports carriage fees except BTN in NYC have been based on STATE not MARKET. If a team from the league is in your state, you pay the state rate for having a team rather than the national rate.

If BTN could get state rate penetration in Texas just on the strength of adding Texas Tech it would make them worth billions despite being in a small market.

BTN with one school in state is $1 person subscriber household, with two B!G Ten schools in a state its $1.10 per subscriber household.

I think the national rate for BTN is 60 or 70 cents right now.

Used to be 30 cents but that was a bit back.

Originally didn't the Big Ten Network hold out on some cable companies so that they would not
be placed as a premium channel or have additional costs?

(05-31-2014 10:27 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 12:15 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 04:46 PM)utpotts Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 03:23 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 03:03 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  But the discussion there was focusing on carriage fees, where reaching ten people who would keep subscribing anyway even if you dropped the channel can be less valuable than reaching one person who would drop the subscription (either altogether or the service tier) without that channel.

That is still not the same as "households in the market" ~ households in the market getting the channel may be the terms that the contract are written for, just as ad rates are per thousand "impressions" (CPM), but the carriage rates have a relationship with the size of the distinct cohort that has an appreciable risk of going elsewhere if the channel is not there.

Which often favors P5 conference that have areas around their most followed schools where cable having the conference vs satellite not would see satellite dishes disappearing like water on a hot griddle, or satellite having it when cable does not see satellite dishes springing up like forest mushrooms after a summer rain.

For a Go5 conference, the question whether that favors them or hurts them depends on whether their smaller audience tends to include a larger or smaller share of strongly committed fans. A larger share opens up hopes of, eg, media networks paying for the rights to drive cable company or ISP subscription to online streaming carriage.

But all the sports carriage fees except BTN in NYC have been based on STATE not MARKET. If a team from the league is in your state, you pay the state rate for having a team rather than the national rate.

If BTN could get state rate penetration in Texas just on the strength of adding Texas Tech it would make them worth billions despite being in a small market.

BTN with one school in state is $1 person subscriber household, with two B!G Ten schools in a state its $1.10 per subscriber household.

I think the national rate for BTN is 60 or 70 cents right now.

Used to be 30 cents but that was a bit back.

Originally didn't the Big Ten Network hold out on some cable companies so that they would not
be placed as a premium channel or have additional costs?

As I recall a number of cable companies countered BTN's offer by offering to pay more but place on a premium tier or in a sports package. Think BTN held firm across the board.

(05-31-2014 11:04 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-31-2014 10:27 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Originally didn't the Big Ten Network hold out on some cable companies so that they would not
be placed as a premium channel or have additional costs?

As I recall a number of cable companies countered BTN's offer by offering to pay more but place on a premium tier or in a sports package. Think BTN held firm across the board.

Exactly. The BTN conceded on carriage rates in Philly, but not on placing the channel on Basic Cable.

(05-29-2014 10:36 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  G5 schools will realign when they realize they won't be getting a big fat check from TV. G5 has to really work on getting butts in seats. That's where the real money is. Get those season ticket holders and boosters to the games and TV money will just be the icing on the cake. It's great to get your name out there, but the money just isn't there for the G5 teams. And I agree that there shouldn't be a conference of just Texas schools, but of a certain region and allow for easier travel for teams and fans. IF you have a spread out conference then it better have divisions to make it more compact. JMO

Excellent post.

As I read this thread (and countless others about what makes Program X, Y, or Z attractive to a conference), I keep thinking.....how about you just invest in your sport's facilities, attract as many local fans as possible, and do everything it takes to win?

All this supposed value of 'major markets' seems like pipe dreams to me if you can't win and local fans aren't interested because of a variety of reasons, the least of which is competition from other nearby college and professional squads for their entertainment dollars.