When I was 8 or 9 I saw the Pittsburgh Panthers on TV and went told me dad that I didn't know Pittsburgh had two NFL teams...

(01-25-2013 09:57 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  I can't wait to watch Tulsa skull drag Temple.

I can't wait to watch Temple vote to keep ECU as a football-only member of the nBE. ;-)

(01-25-2013 10:36 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 09:57 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  I can't wait to watch Tulsa skull drag Temple.

Temple will probably never beat us.

They are going to be our new Tulane.

Pillowscreamer will still figure out a way to find a moral victory with his uber dope tv market skills.

Sounds like fight'n words. Bring that tough talk to Philly. Temple ain't afraid of a little fight -- just ask our former coach John Chaney: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51-4sJTf7iQ

Panicstricken, you're funny.

Maybe this is old news to some of you but I missed this NYT article which was recently posted on the InsideTulsa board. In lieu of all the realignment that has occurred the article is a little obsolete, but I think makes a great point that needs to inform any and all discussions about relative market values. I don't know if the formula used here is valid, but certainly it is trying to get at the real issue. I think product on the field is way more important to a conference in the long term than its market size or potential. However, in the short term this article certainly lends weight to the arguments Scream has been repeating over and over. On the other hand it also demonstrate that tiny Tulsa actually has more market value than a Houston or a Tulane and that we are not nearly as far behind a SMU or a Temple as a superficial consideration of population might indicate.

http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09...ent-chaos/

say what you want about tulsa.....they can play football with anyone.

I just thought about something.

According to ESPN's NCAA football video games... UCF has a rivalry with Tulsa. That puts all of our (video game) rivalries (except for Marshall) into one conference if Tulsa joins. I guess thats a perk.

(01-26-2013 12:21 PM)GameParson Wrote:  Maybe this is old news to some of you but I missed this NYT article which was recently posted on the InsideTulsa board. In lieu of all the realignment that has occurred the article is a little obsolete, but I think makes a great point that needs to inform any and all discussions about relative market values. I don't know if the formula used here is valid, but certainly it is trying to get at the real issue. I think product on the field is way more important to a conference in the long term than its market size or potential. However, in the short term this article certainly lends weight to the arguments Scream has been repeating over and over. On the other hand it also demonstrate that tiny Tulsa actually has more market value than a Houston or a Tulane and that we are not nearly as far behind a SMU or a Temple as a superficial consideration of population might indicate.

http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09...ent-chaos/

Interesting...

I wonder what criteria they use at ESPN to determine TV contract projections? There are things we haven't discussed like the cost of advertising in regions. ESPN would likely charge the most for advertisements in the Northeast and West Coast -- which is probably one of the reasons the PAC contract is so high. It would also make sense that since the Big East has replaced Northeastern teams with lower mid-western universities, that the value of the Big East contract would also be affected.

(01-25-2013 11:11 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(01-25-2013 10:43 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  My girlfriend freshman year thought Temple was in Temple Texas. She was hot so I forgave her

When I was 9, I thought that Stanford was in Stamford, CT and all the announcers were just pronouncing the name of the school incorrectly.

Don't forget Samford University, which is in Alabama.

A lot of people get that one wrong.

(01-26-2013 12:21 PM)GameParson Wrote:  Maybe this is old news to some of you but I missed this NYT article which was recently posted on the InsideTulsa board. In lieu of all the realignment that has occurred the article is a little obsolete, but I think makes a great point that needs to inform any and all discussions about relative market values. I don't know if the formula used here is valid, but certainly it is trying to get at the real issue. I think product on the field is way more important to a conference in the long term than its market size or potential. However, in the short term this article certainly lends weight to the arguments Scream has been repeating over and over. On the other hand it also demonstrate that tiny Tulsa actually has more market value than a Houston or a Tulane and that we are not nearly as far behind a SMU or a Temple as a superficial consideration of population might indicate.

http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09...ent-chaos/

That article has been debunked many times over for the past 1.5 years.

Clifton: If you have a link to one of those "debunks" I would love to read it. Today was the first time I had seen it. To be honest I immediately questioned some of the methodology employed, but it is certainly asking the right questions

Those of us who do spend our money on advertising are very interested in how many true prospects for my product are actually watching this event. We have zero interest in how many people with no interest in my product (or this event) are capable of tuning in.

(01-20-2013 12:32 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/TU...TLIN401120

\\\


Lets hope so as Tulsa to NBE is the best of the rest and force to play
.............ECU fans knows from experience!

(01-26-2013 01:50 PM)GameParson Wrote:  Clifton: If you have a link to one of those "debunks" I would love to read it. Today was the first time I had seen it. To be honest I immediately questioned some of the methodology employed, but it is certainly asking the right questions

Those of us who do spend our money on advertising are very interested in how many true prospects for my product are actually watching this event. We have zero interest in how many people with no interest in my product (or this event) are capable of tuning in.

I'm not a marketing expert, but I think advertising pricing is done by households per region/market on any given day, time, and event. So the prices are partially set by that exposure component (region population with TV sets) but then adjusted based on those other factors.

So lets look at the Superbowl for an example. They would base the pricing of viewship predictions from previous Superbowls then they would factor the teams playing: Baltimore vs San Fran. They would then expect an increase in viewers in those two regions so they would increase the prices in those metros. This is why the NFL likes when Philly, Chicago, New York, Boston, San Fran, etc are in the Superbowl because advertising is more expensive in those metros.

While college football is not the NFL, there has been a shift towards that direction with the new TV contracts and the pricing equations they use to calculate those packages. That's why expansion has mainly be driven by metro regions (households with TVs) as that is a standard TV marketing tool to evaluate advertisement pricing.

(01-26-2013 01:50 PM)GameParson Wrote:  We have zero interest in how many people with no interest in my product (or this event) are capable of tuning in.

I think that for clients with vision, growth potential would be worth something.

(01-26-2013 07:16 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  That's why expansion has mainly be driven by metro regions (households with TVs) as that is a standard TV marketing tool to evaluate advertisement pricing.

Not really--you're still selling the advertising based on projected audience, not just on potential audience. 25,000 households in Tulsa get about the same ad revenue as 25,000 households in New York, if somehow you had the same demographic/gender/income profile.

TV households are key when you're spreading a conference network to new areas. The reason that TV households have played a big role in non-SEC non-Big Ten realignment is that the cupboard is pretty bare. The teams will good attendance and big fanbases are already in power conferences. The ACC picked Pitt and Syracuse and Louisville, not Rutgers or Houston or Temple. The Big EAst's expansion choices were a lot less attractive.

So say you're choosing between 2 teams who each averaged 28,000 attendance in the BCS era, like San Diego State or Southern Miss. Let's just assume that their TV audiences are about the same. It makes sense to take San Diego State, who could easily improve on that number by not sucking. Southern Miss can't really argue that they're going to do better than that number.

(This sets aside cases like Boise State where their attendance doesn't match their TV fanbase.)

(01-26-2013 07:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-26-2013 07:16 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  That's why expansion has mainly be driven by metro regions (households with TVs) as that is a standard TV marketing tool to evaluate advertisement pricing.

Not really--you're still selling the advertising based on projected audience, not just on potential audience. 25,000 households in Tulsa get about the same ad revenue as 25,000 households in New York, if somehow you had the same demographic/gender/income profile.

TV households are key when you're spreading a conference network to new areas. The reason that TV households have played a big role in non-SEC non-Big Ten realignment is that the cupboard is pretty bare. The teams will good attendance and big fanbases are already in power conferences. The ACC picked Pitt and Syracuse and Louisville, not Rutgers or Houston or Temple. The Big EAst's expansion choices were a lot less attractive.

So say you're choosing between 2 teams who each averaged 28,000 attendance in the BCS era, like San Diego State or Southern Miss. Let's just assume that their TV audiences are about the same. It makes sense to take San Diego State, who could easily improve on that number by not sucking. Southern Miss can't really argue that they're going to do better than that number.

(This sets aside cases like Boise State where their attendance doesn't match their TV fanbase.)

Actually, the ad revenue in different areas can be very different. For instance, during the Presidential election this year, Ohio and Virginia became some of the most expensive ad markets due to the large demand for political ads compared to limited supply available.

The ad revenue is also different in metros on a daily basis. In NYC and Tulsa there will be 1 Fox affiliate, 1 CBS affiliate, etc. But in NYC, that affiliate is in more households with higher projected audiences (most of the time). That is why they rank TV markets differently than metro size: http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets

When you are talking about the ACC taking Syracuse, Pitt, and Louisville, you also have to take into consideration that the living alumni of these schools do not always remain in the cities where their schools are located. It's well known that Syracuse fans venture all over New York and into NYC, and Pitt fans spread all over the western part of PA. So they pick up not only the ratings in the cities where the school is located, but the other affiliates around the state where those supporters/living alumni are located. So the ACC did pick up schools with large amounts of living alumni who spread into and around major cities/regions. On a side note -- those 3 schools were selected also to try to provide stability to that conference by increasing basketball prominence and reuniting old rivalries.

(01-26-2013 07:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-26-2013 07:16 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  That's why expansion has mainly be driven by metro regions (households with TVs) as that is a standard TV marketing tool to evaluate advertisement pricing.

Not really--you're still selling the advertising based on projected audience, not just on potential audience. 25,000 households in Tulsa get about the same ad revenue as 25,000 households in New York, if somehow you had the same demographic/gender/income profile.

TV households are key when you're spreading a conference network to new areas. The reason that TV households have played a big role in non-SEC non-Big Ten realignment is that the cupboard is pretty bare. The teams will good attendance and big fanbases are already in power conferences. The ACC picked Pitt and Syracuse and Louisville, not Rutgers or Houston or Temple. The Big EAst's expansion choices were a lot less attractive.

So say you're choosing between 2 teams who each averaged 28,000 attendance in the BCS era, like San Diego State or Southern Miss. Let's just assume that their TV audiences are about the same. It makes sense to take San Diego State, who could easily improve on that number by not sucking. Southern Miss can't really argue that they're going to do better than that number.

(This sets aside cases like Boise State where their attendance doesn't match their TV fanbase.)

Basically, the thinking is all mid-majors are similar in that they are only interesting when they win. When they win, they can become major factors in that market. Thus a mid major in New York or Houston is more valuable than one in Las Crueces or Reno.

The strategy I see from a network point of view is this. Mid majors deliver their market when they win. Half of any league is going to be winners and half will be losers. Create a mid major league of all mid majors all in big metro areas--and you will be getting pretty good AQ type ratings every year in half of those big cities. With the new BCS rules, games with the top few teams will likely have some BCS implications--thus there could be some games with national implications. There is a strategy that actually makes sense underlying the nBE construction that will result in a better paycheck.

(01-27-2013 01:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-26-2013 07:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-26-2013 07:16 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  That's why expansion has mainly be driven by metro regions (households with TVs) as that is a standard TV marketing tool to evaluate advertisement pricing.

Not really--you're still selling the advertising based on projected audience, not just on potential audience. 25,000 households in Tulsa get about the same ad revenue as 25,000 households in New York, if somehow you had the same demographic/gender/income profile.

TV households are key when you're spreading a conference network to new areas. The reason that TV households have played a big role in non-SEC non-Big Ten realignment is that the cupboard is pretty bare. The teams will good attendance and big fanbases are already in power conferences. The ACC picked Pitt and Syracuse and Louisville, not Rutgers or Houston or Temple. The Big EAst's expansion choices were a lot less attractive.

So say you're choosing between 2 teams who each averaged 28,000 attendance in the BCS era, like San Diego State or Southern Miss. Let's just assume that their TV audiences are about the same. It makes sense to take San Diego State, who could easily improve on that number by not sucking. Southern Miss can't really argue that they're going to do better than that number.

(This sets aside cases like Boise State where their attendance doesn't match their TV fanbase.)

Basically, the thinking is all mid-majors are similar in that they are only interesting when they win. When they win, they can become major factors in that market. Thus a mid major in New York or Houston is more valuable than one in Las Crueces or Reno.

The strategy I see from a network point of view is this. Mid majors deliver their market when they win. Half of any league is going to be winners and half will be losers. Create a mid major league of all mid majors all in big metro areas--and you will be getting pretty good AQ type ratings every year in half of those big cities. With the new BCS rules, games with the top few teams will likely have some BCS implications--thus there could be some games with national implications. There is a strategy that actually makes sense underlying the nBE construction that will result in a better paycheck.

Bingo. Love the way you're thinking. I wouldn't be surprised if that is what the big wigs at the Big East are saying behind closed doors.

(01-27-2013 01:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-26-2013 07:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-26-2013 07:16 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  That's why expansion has mainly be driven by metro regions (households with TVs) as that is a standard TV marketing tool to evaluate advertisement pricing.

Not really--you're still selling the advertising based on projected audience, not just on potential audience. 25,000 households in Tulsa get about the same ad revenue as 25,000 households in New York, if somehow you had the same demographic/gender/income profile.

TV households are key when you're spreading a conference network to new areas. The reason that TV households have played a big role in non-SEC non-Big Ten realignment is that the cupboard is pretty bare. The teams will good attendance and big fanbases are already in power conferences. The ACC picked Pitt and Syracuse and Louisville, not Rutgers or Houston or Temple. The Big EAst's expansion choices were a lot less attractive.

So say you're choosing between 2 teams who each averaged 28,000 attendance in the BCS era, like San Diego State or Southern Miss. Let's just assume that their TV audiences are about the same. It makes sense to take San Diego State, who could easily improve on that number by not sucking. Southern Miss can't really argue that they're going to do better than that number.

(This sets aside cases like Boise State where their attendance doesn't match their TV fanbase.)

Basically, the thinking is all mid-majors are similar in that they are only interesting when they win. When they win, they can become major factors in that market. Thus a mid major in New York or Houston is more valuable than one in Las Crueces or Reno.

The strategy I see from a network point of view is this. Mid majors deliver their market when they win. Half of any league is going to be winners and half will be losers. Create a mid major league of all mid majors all in big metro areas--and you will be getting pretty good AQ type ratings every year in half of those big cities. With the new BCS rules, games with the top few teams will likely have some BCS implications--thus there could be some games with national implications. There is a strategy that actually makes sense underlying the nBE construction that will result in a better paycheck.

great post...agree

if the nbe stays together it will only get better and the new teams will get better, it will challenge everybody. mark my words, in bb an fb this conference will be as good as the acc...we gotta get navy to join in 14.