Realignment Rumblings re: UH

[StallionsModelT]

Is this also "fluff"?

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/comm ... e-jobs.ece

[ebrooks11]

Sounds like Herman is pumping boosters for cash.

He's rocking them like a Herman-cain

Huge stretch.

[smupony94]

Sounds like Herman is pumping boosters for cash.

He's rocking them like a Herman-cain

not your best work.

My luster wore off years ago

[Dutch]

He's rocking them like a Herman-cain

not your best work.

My luster wore off years ago

that's what happens when you turn 40. my days are numbered.

[couch 'em]

[quote="East Coast Mustang"]Sounds like Herman is pumping boosters for cash.

He's rocking them like a Herman-cain

not your best work.

My luster wore off years ago[/quote]
But not your bluster

[03Mustang]

Pretty sure Oregon would love the idea of playing and recruiting in Texas every year.

[Dutch]

Pretty sure Oregon would love the idea of playing and recruiting in Texas every year.

you gotta go back to 2009 to find the last time they didn't pull at least one kid from texas. usually 2-4 a year go there. they clean up in california.

[WordUpBU]

One thing to remember about media markets and realignment:

1- A school has to generate big local ratings in that market for it to be lucrative to a league, and not just in an "up" year. How is a team going to do with 6-6 year ratings?

2- The exception to this is if a league has a network they can get money due to large numbers of DEDICATED alumni forcing local providers to carry it at a high cost per subscriber (carriage fees)

So big state flagships with huge alumni bases like UMD & Rutgers can pull off the carriage fee thing (with a ton of help from Big Ten school alumni living in their home markets) but smaller fanbases don't do as well. TCU was a perrenial bcs buster in waiting and couldn't get the MWC's network wide coverage in DFW and couldn't get a high rate where they did get it on tv in DFW.

It's not just "pick team in market A and charge 50 cents per cable tv subscriber". You need leverage with the cable providers and ratings for the over air broadcasts.

[WordUpBU]

back on topic, go search the Nielson ratings, and find me two schools who can deliver more to a conference in terms of set top boxes in their region (as Delaney noted, it doesn't even matter if people in the market care about the specific schools b/c there are alumni that care about the conference and in turn, the cable network) that can deliver more than SMU & Houston.

This is the key. Temple is another school that will have a good argument, perhaps with the BIG10, moving forward if they continue to improve their football program.

PSU has that state blanketed solid for the B1G. Temple has more tv value for the ACC, Big 12, or SEC because of how deep Psu already delivers that market. Same with Pitt but Pitt does carry more value tv wise than Temple.

However the potential to carry the market is valuable and it's why Temple, UCF, SMU, UH, Memphis, Tulane, USF, and Cincinnati were all added after the Big East was raided either after 2003 or the last couple of years.

[Pony Boss]

One thing to remember about media markets and realignment:

1- A school has to generate big local ratings in that market for it to be lucrative to a league, and not just in an "up" year. How is a team going to do with 6-6 year ratings?

2- The exception to this is if a league has a network they can get money due to large numbers of DEDICATED alumni forcing local providers to carry it at a high cost per subscriber (carriage fees)

So big state flagships with huge alumni bases like UMD & Rutgers can pull off the carriage fee thing (with a ton of help from Big Ten school alumni living in their home markets) but smaller fanbases don't do as well. TCU was a perrenial bcs buster in waiting and couldn't get the MWC's network wide coverage in DFW and couldn't get a high rate where they did get it on tv in DFW.

It's not just "pick team in market A and charge 50 cents per cable tv subscriber". You need leverage with the cable providers and ratings for the over air broadcasts.

1) Where would Baylor fall in this? Waco is not that great of a TV market and neither BU, TCU and SMU combined get to the number of UT, Aggie or Tech alum in DFW.

You and TCU got in through other criteria than the one you are saying will be imposed on us. TCU and BU bring 0 value using this criteria that you just mentioned...essentially making you both freeloaders of the other publics.

[WordUpBU]

One thing to remember about media markets and realignment:

1- A school has to generate big local ratings in that market for it to be lucrative to a league, and not just in an "up" year. How is a team going to do with 6-6 year ratings?

2- The exception to this is if a league has a network they can get money due to large numbers of DEDICATED alumni forcing local providers to carry it at a high cost per subscriber (carriage fees)

So big state flagships with huge alumni bases like UMD & Rutgers can pull off the carriage fee thing (with a ton of help from Big Ten school alumni living in their home markets) but smaller fanbases don't do as well. TCU was a perrenial bcs buster in waiting and couldn't get the MWC's network wide coverage in DFW and couldn't get a high rate where they did get it on tv in DFW.

It's not just "pick team in market A and charge 50 cents per cable tv subscriber". You need leverage with the cable providers and ratings for the over air broadcasts.

1) Where would Baylor fall in this? Waco is not that great of a TV market and neither BU, TCU and SMU combined get to the number of UT, Aggie or Tech alum in DFW.

Please understand I am not talking crap on SMU, Temple, UH, etc.

1- We'd do better than most here would expect but not well enough right now to merit an invitation had we been left out barring unique circumstances. The same issue over duplicating markets would apply.

1b- Actually BU, TT, and SMU all have just north of around 40k alumni in the metroplex. A&M is a tad over 50k. UT I think is higher but they, OU, and to a lesser extent A&M draw a lot of t shirt support. TCU has around 26k if I remember correctly. The alumni count isn't the issue, it's the extra t shirt fans for Ut/A&M and the west texas expats (TT) and Okie expats that drive any real edge in support over your school and mine in DFW which dwarves the alumni gaps considerably. With that said BU does pretty well in DFW, Centex, Austin, SA, and Houston tv ratings. We aren't anywhere near the Goliath of UT but we do respectably given time slots, opponent, competing games, and record.

You and TCU got in through other criteria than the one you are saying will be imposed on us. TCU and BU bring 0 value using this criteria that you just mentioned...essentially making you both freeloaders of the other publics.

2a- BU, TCU, Tech, OSU, and KSU largely duplicate market share their state flagships cover. Not any disagreement there.

2b- Tech also got in literally the exact way BU did with politics crashing what would have been a 10 team league according to TT's AD at the time. It wasn't a 12 team idea until Bob Bullock got involved.

2c- TCU's inclusion had everything to do with contract obligations (needed a 10th team FAST) and the fact that BYU, UL, WV were slow playing. Their ratings/wins made them appealing after those 3 but the opportunity they made the most of doesn't occur if 2 of the above list could/would move quick.


Either way I don't want to derail this any further. If you want to debate this with me I am happy to private message it as I'd prefer not to take this thread off course beyond this reply.

SMU has a lot of potential if they can consistently capture dallas TV sets in a big way. Morris appears to be turning things around and if he gets football as "in" as LB has hoops watch out.

[gostangs]

a few thoughts -

1) there is more great stuff happening in urban Dallas than in almost any urban core in the country. Not sure where the stagnant came from but it is laughably wrong. Its biggest issue is over development right now, not the reverse.

2) Its not just what you deliver - it is the ACCESS of the product (the conference) into a new market. When UCLA plays SMU there will be huge attention and lots of Texas TV's tuned to the game - because of the alumni that are here and others that are interested in those brands. Adding to the footprint is almost required of everyone but the SEC.

3) If the PAC expands what choice do they have? another Utah school? New mexico? Idaho? (there are more people in Rockwall than idaho) They have to go to Texas - and they aren't going to talk any Big 12 school that matters out of controlling their own destiny for the same money.

4) we have time - but not much. grant of rights controls all this, so get ready for a another round (possibly final) in three years. If we can hang onto Chad and keep BB high performing we have quite a bit to offer. We need to do some "starter kit" games with each of the P-5 when we can - other than the Big 12. If they think they don't need us, they better get ready for a new brand in town to add to the SEC.

Its almost last call - time to put on a nice dress, show some cleavage and see if we can get a date!!

[Pony Boss]

One thing to remember about media markets and realignment:

1- A school has to generate big local ratings in that market for it to be lucrative to a league, and not just in an "up" year. How is a team going to do with 6-6 year ratings?

2- The exception to this is if a league has a network they can get money due to large numbers of DEDICATED alumni forcing local providers to carry it at a high cost per subscriber (carriage fees)

So big state flagships with huge alumni bases like UMD & Rutgers can pull off the carriage fee thing (with a ton of help from Big Ten school alumni living in their home markets) but smaller fanbases don't do as well. TCU was a perrenial bcs buster in waiting and couldn't get the MWC's network wide coverage in DFW and couldn't get a high rate where they did get it on tv in DFW.

It's not just "pick team in market A and charge 50 cents per cable tv subscriber". You need leverage with the cable providers and ratings for the over air broadcasts.

1) Where would Baylor fall in this? Waco is not that great of a TV market and neither BU, TCU and SMU combined get to the number of UT, Aggie or Tech alum in DFW.

Please understand I am not talking crap on SMU, Temple, UH, etc.

1- We'd do better than most here would expect but not well enough right now to merit an invitation had we been left out barring unique circumstances. The same issue over duplicating markets would apply.

1b- Actually BU, TT, and SMU all have just north of around 40k alumni in the metroplex. A&M is a tad over 50k. UT I think is higher but they, OU, and to a lesser extent A&M draw a lot of t shirt support. TCU has around 26k if I remember correctly. The alumni count isn't the issue, it's the extra t shirt fans for Ut/A&M and the west texas expats (TT) and Okie expats that drive any real edge in support over your school and mine in DFW which dwarves the alumni gaps considerably. With that said BU does pretty well in DFW, Centex, Austin, SA, and Houston tv ratings. We aren't anywhere near the Goliath of UT but we do respectably given time slots, opponent, competing games, and record.

You and TCU got in through other criteria than the one you are saying will be imposed on us. TCU and BU bring 0 value using this criteria that you just mentioned...essentially making you both freeloaders of the other publics.

2a- BU, TCU, Tech, OSU, and KSU largely duplicate market share their state flagships cover. Not any disagreement there.

2b- Tech also got in literally the exact way BU did with politics crashing what would have been a 10 team league according to TT's AD at the time. It wasn't a 12 team idea until Bob Bullock got involved.

2c- TCU's inclusion had everything to do with contract obligations (needed a 10th team FAST) and the fact that BYU, UL, WV were slow playing. Their ratings/wins made them appealing after those 3 but the opportunity they made the most of doesn't occur if 2 of the above list could/would move quick.


Either way I don't want to derail this any further. If you want to debate this with me I am happy to private message it as I'd prefer not to take this thread off course beyond this reply.

SMU has a lot of potential if they can consistently capture dallas TV sets in a big way. Morris appears to be turning things around and if he gets football as "in" as LB has hoops watch out.

Agree with your points, I just want to make clear that other schools within P5 leagues would be in the same dilemma SMU is in right now if they were on the outside looking in. But I think SMU would do as well as the Big 12 privates if we were given that opportunity as well.

[blackoutpony]

There's one more round coming.... Let's just hope there's still 5 leagues when it's all said and done. If it's 4, we'd better hope it's 4x18 (which might not be enough), because otherwise..... Well.......

[East Coast Mustang]

and from another article. i've repeated this many times. SET TOP BOXES IS ALL THAT MATTERS IN RE-ALIGNMNET.

http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/big-ten-network-hits-the-nyc-jackpot-worth-tens-of-millions-of-dollars.html

Let’s do a little quick “back of the napkin math” on this massive victory for BTN. At last check, the channel charges a $1.00 fee per subscriber per month for those customers within the conference footprint, which NY/NJ now falls into thanks to Rutgers. Much like the “Is Andy Murray British or Scottish debate,” New Jersey gets to be a part of the NYC metropolitan area seemingly only when it’s convenient to someone looking to make money.

Cablevision has 3.1 million subscribers in the area. Time Warner has a little more than 2.6 million subscribers in New York state, many of them concentrated in the city. New Jersey has a fraction of that at just over 40,000. Let’s just be extra conservative and put the total number of subscribers that will now get BTN at 4 million.

Just from this deal alone, the Big Ten just pocketed an extra $48 million per year.

Forty. Eight. Million. Dollars. Per. Year.

And that’s just from one carriage agreement in New York City. Let’s not forget Baltimore, Philadelphia, Washington DC, and the rest of the I-95 corridor that BTN will look to expand into. Back in 2012, Sports Illustrated prophetically estimated that the Big Ten could make $200 million annually from television money on the east coast. And that number may now be on the low end of the spectrum.

Dutch is right....for now.

But I think the future of media is going to move away from behemoth cable providers....more Apple TV, Amazon Fire, Hulu, etc. and a la carte programming. How that will translate to conference realignment is tough to predict, but I think it's safe to safe that Rutgers cashed in at exactly the right time.