TV Markets

[Tugg Speedman]

Xghost ...

You completely understand the issue and how these conferences are put together.  And no where in the discussion is how good the team has been recently, academics or Geography (within reason).  Anyone worried about the women's field hockey team, and who they will play, will be excused from the room.

[WarriorDoc]

Xghost... I'm with you on some of the schools.  If we can get schools with rabid fan bases and commitment to basketball, you go for it until you get to 10 schools... Xavier, Gonzaga, Butler, Creighton...

I wouldn't put Dayton as high on the list as the schools above, but I wouldn't exclude them exclusively because of the Cincinnati/Dayton market issue.

In the same way, I wouldn't invite St. Louis exclusively because they're in the largest market.  I want no part of Duquesne and the like.

I still disagree with a bit of this perspective on St. Louis--we're living in a new world where TV contracts are built on market penetration and team potential first, and on history and tradition last. But I'm still sort of with you--I'm all for picking schools that sort of "optimize" on a total sum of variables, that is, TV market, fanbase, recent success, tradition, spending/dedication to b-ball, etc etc.  

But we're arguing Dayton here, and as AnotherMU84 rightfully said, I haven't incorporated much about academics, geography, etc.  But I think his point was, this is a b-ball conference, that's the focus.  But just for fun, let's incorporate what he suggested as far as other considerations.

I still think you exclude them for just about every reason possible.  We covered TV markets, there are a lot of schools ahead of them on that.  Recent success--Creighton, St. Louis, VCU, Butler, Xavier, etc clearly beat them there, with I believe most if not all of these teams having made the tourney last year or the year before.  VCU, Butler, and Xavier have cracked Elite Eights or better.  Dayton is behind in tradition as well--true they were runner up but in 1967, and they haven't cracked the Sweet 16 since 1984.  They have a very solid fanbase that fills the arena, but again, I think all the aforementioned teams except maybe St. Louis beats them in terms of attendance as well.  As far as spending on b-ball, Creighton and Xavier certainly beat them--I'm not sure about VCU and Butler but I would assume they are at least equal with Dayton if not higher.  Incorporating academics, Creighton, St. Louis, and Xavier are respected Jesuit universities--most rank very high regionally and St. Louis just trails Marquette nationally.  Butler is a very good liberal arts regional school.  Geographically these schools are all east of the Mississippi, barring Creighton which isn't TOO far, and they're mostly urban schools.

Why do we want Dayton again?  

[MU82]

If Nova and St Joe's are in the same conference, the conference gets the same TV revenue as if only Nova was in the conference.  With Nova only, everyone gets more money.  With Nova and St. Joes, everyone gets less money. 

I'm not saying this is true or untrue because I genuinely don't know.

But I wonder: Does the ACC get more or less money because UNC, Duke and NC State are all a stone's throw away from each other (and Wake is not exactly far away)?

[Tugg Speedman]

I'm not saying this is true or untrue because I genuinely don't know.

But I wonder: Does the ACC get more or less money because UNC, Duke and NC State are all a stone's throw away from each other (and Wake is not exactly far away)?

Yes, but the ACC was created in 1953 long before TV markets were ever an issue.  So, yes, if the ACC was going to be created in 2012, they would not have this many schools so close together in the same TV markets.  And because the ACC is not as geographically diverse, and not in large TV markets, it suffers in its total revenues.  True the SEC has a similar problem, but they compensate for it by winning the National Championship every year and putting five teams in the top 10.

Ditto the B1G (created in 1896) with Purdue/IU, NW/Ill, Mich/Mich State
Ditto the Pac-12 (created in 1915) with USC/UCLA, Stanford/Berkeley
Ditto the SEC (created in 1932) with Vandy/Tenn, Old Miss/MSU, Bama/Auburn

And this is why Fla State or Miami may not go to the SEC, because Florida already has those TV markets.  They would be good fits wtht he B1G or B12.  and on and on.

[Marcus92]

I'm not saying this is true or untrue because I genuinely don't know.

But I wonder: Does the ACC get more or less money because UNC, Duke and NC State are all a stone's throw away from each other (and Wake is not exactly far away)?

I can't begin to speak to numbers. But I think UNC and Duke both help bring the ACC more money as they're truly national programs. Duke-UNC (or UNC-Kentucky, Duke-UCLA, etc.) is a draw for ESPN anywhere in the country. My guess is that from a men's basketball perspective, Duke and UNC bring more value to the ACC than all the other teams put together. But the realignment trend suggests that still pales in comparison to Big Ten and SEC football money.

[Tugg Speedman]

I can't begin to speak to numbers. But I think UNC and Duke both help bring the ACC more money as they're truly national programs. Duke-UNC (or UNC-Kentucky, Duke-UCLA, etc.) is a draw for ESPN anywhere in the country. My guess is that from a men's basketball perspective, Duke and UNC bring more value to the ACC than all the other teams put together. But the realignment trend suggests that still pales in comparison to Big Ten and SEC football money.

Yes for basketball, but Football is the issue.  Duke is nothing in FB.

If basketball was that big a deal, then why is Uconn still homeless?

[Marcus92]

Yes for basketball, but Football is the issue.  Duke is nothing in FB.

If basketball was that big a deal, then why is Uconn still homeless?

Completely agree. I think you missed the last sentence of my last post.

[WarriorDoc]

Perhaps slightly off topic, but can anyone comment on some of the desirable b-ball schools (UConn, Memphis, Temple) potentially dropping their football with all this madness taking place?

I assume UConn will never drop.  But with the mediocrity (actually, plain awful) programs that Memphis and Temple have, you'd think they'd at least consider it to join a legitimate b-ball conference.  With numbers thrown out that only 25 or so football programs breaking even or better, I assume these sorry programs can't be doing too hot.  Is there a point where they lose so much money they just have to drop the program? 

[ATL MU Warrior]

Because the networks agree they cannot measure viewers accurately anymore.  Advertisers know this so they buy markets and penetration.  What TV markets are you in and how many TV sets can get that channel.

This is very very wrong.

[Tugg Speedman]

This is very very wrong.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/report-tv-ratings-not-accurate-27051/

http://voices.yahoo.com/nielsen-ratings-accuracy-fairytale-88549.html

http://www.cornellsun.com/node/23180

http://voices.yahoo.com/the-myth-television-ratings-why-nielsen-2009513.html?cat=2

[ChicosBailBonds]

Another, yes ratings and accuracy are in question but that isn't the point, advertisers still buy based on those ratings.  The ratings aren't perfect.  Just as Comscore isn't perfect for online tracking.  Nevertheless you need a system to set those rates, perfect or imperfect. 

[ATL MU Warrior]

http://www.christianpost.com/news/report-tv-ratings-not-accurate-27051/
http://voices.yahoo.com/nielsen-ratings-accuracy-fairytale-88549.html
http://www.cornellsun.com/node/23180
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-myth-television-ratings-why-nielsen-2009513.html?cat=2

The point isn't that Nielsen ratings are or are not accurate.  They extrapolate a lot of data from a pretty small sample...there is going to be error.  They are, however, the currency of the industry, flawed or not.

The point is that you claimed this lack of accuracy was changing how advertisers look at and buy TV.  As a person who has been in the media planning and buying field for 20 years and now works at the largest media services conglomerate in the world, I can tell you that this is 100% total BS. 

I can further tell you that no network sales executive is ever going to "agree that they can't measure viewers accurately anymore" because 1) networks don't measure viewers, and 2) that would totally undermine his ability to do his job.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The point isn't that Nielsen ratings are or are not accurate.  They extrapolate a lot of data from a pretty small sample...there is going to be error.  They are, however, the currency of the industry, flawed or not.

The point is that you claimed this lack of accuracy was changing how advertisers look at and buy TV.  As a person who has been in the media planning and buying field for 20 years and now works at the largest media services conglomerate in the world, I can tell you that this is 100% total BS. 

I can further tell you that no network sales executive is ever going to "agree that they can't measure viewers accurately anymore" because 1) networks don't measure viewers, and 2) that would totally undermine his ability to do his job.

Ding ding ding.

[Benny B]

A lot of confusion here and mixing of issues.  You all make good points, you're all right to an extent but also there are some other details that need explaining.

The Big Ten Network, Pac 12 Network, the former Mtn West Network...those are different animals and we need to treat them differently to understand them.  

In the case of the Big Ten Network, they are their own channel and get carriage fees from television providers.  The amount of those fees is dynamic based on their core territories.  As an example, in the Big Ten states they will get a lot more per subscriber then in a non core territory.  Let's keep the math simple and say they get $1.00 per subscriber per month from the television distributors in the core territories.  In the non core territories (where a school doesn't exist..California, New York, Texas, etc), they may receive $0.15 per subscriber per month.  They may also be relegated to a sports tier, further reducing the number of eyeballs.  Both amounts above are illustrative only.

So when the Big Ten goes and grabs Rutgers or Maryland, it doesn't matter if there is 1 Rutgers fan watching or 10 million in the NY area.  This is because that area now becomes a "core territory" and thus they are going to open up a huge population paying them $1.00 a month rather than $0.15 a month, whether the people actually watch or not.  That's their strategy, and a smart one. It's also unique to the fact they own their network.

Now, those of us on this side of the table when that deal comes up will tell the Big Ten they are full of crap and no way are we going to give you that much money in that newly added core territory for a school very few watch.  Then the fireworks start, the Big Ten says they'll pull the channel down throughout the USA, Ohio State fans in Columbus get furious, Illinois fans in Chicago, etc, etc....on the flip side, the network gets hurt also because in actuality not a ton of people switch during these disputes yet they miss out on a ton of revenue when all those channels are off the air.  


This is totally different than the situation when someone like ESPN or NBC Sports or SNY owns your rights.  In those cases, adding a second school in Philadelphia (to use the example people are going with) might add some incremental value, but the question is how much.  How many people from Philly are going to watch St. Joe's that aren't already watching Villanova?  What is that incrementality?  Ultimately, what does it mean for ESPN, NBC Sports, SNY, etc...can they leverage that into higher subscription fees from cable, satellite, telco (not if they are in contract)...more importantly can they leverage more advertising revenue?


One thing is virtually certain, we aren't going to be starting our own network because if we do, I can tell you many on my side of the business aren't going to carry it...just as many of us right now are not carrying the Pac 12 network for the same reason.  The costs don't justify the return.  As such, we're going into a situation where someone is going to buy our rights (ESPN, NBC Sports Channel, etc) and we need a conference that is attractive to that purchaser so they can recoup and make money on what they are buying.

This sounds like the stage is being set for a remake of a movie I saw a decade ago:

Cast of Characters:
ESPN as A&M Records
Big Ten Network as Sony Music Entertainment
FirstRow.eu as Napster
Apple TV as iTunes
Mickey Mouse as the RIAA
DirecTV as Tower Records
Dick Ebersol as himself

And introducing:
The NFL as Metallica
and MLB as Dr. Dre

This is one script I'm anxious to see play out.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This sounds like the stage is being set for a remake of a movie I saw a decade ago:

Cast of Characters:
ESPN as A&M Records
Big Ten Network as Sony Music Entertainment
FirstRow.eu as Napster
Apple TV as iTunes
Mickey Mouse as the RIAA
DirecTV as Tower Records
Dick Ebersol as himself

And introducing:
The NFL as Metallica
and MLB as Dr. Dre

This is one script I'm anxious to see play out.

Everyone saw that movie and the industry is hell bent to make sure it isn't repeated.  That nightmare has been talked about often.

There is also the very big difference in the amount of dollars (Billions) that have been committed to sports rights through 2026 already...on the books...much different than the music industry.  It didn't cost appreciably more to make an album vs one song...now most buy a song, not an album.  That is seismically different than television where you can't rely on people just buying one show from time to time.  An entertainment company cannot make content that way due to the expense. 

We'll see what happens.  The experts predicted Apple iTV would be on the market 12 months ago, still not here and no deals done with Apple by the content owners.  I think they will come out with a TV, an eloquent one at that, but I don't see them being able to wrestle away significant content without that content provider (whomever it is), paying a dear price on the back end as a result.  In short, this doesn't end up like the music industry.  Parts of it might, but the music industry disaster course is unlikely to be taken by the television side for any number of reasons.