When it comes to conference realignment and tv.

Rivalries.

In a prominent podcast I listened to the host was asked "Why doesn't the SEC go after Arizona State, Oregon, or Washington to capture the Phoenix, Seattle, and west markets? It would get the SEC coast to coast like the B1G."

Answer by the host: "TV markets are so overblown these days, and that's from TV executives themselves. It is about the product you put on TV.

The number one way for the SEC to improve its product is to maximize its rivalries in conference. That is going after a Florida State and Clemson to lock rivalries within the conference. By doing so you are creating new rivalries with Georgia vs Clemson and Florida State as border wars, as an example.

Who would fans rather watch? Georgia vs Florida State or Georgia vs Arizona State or Washington?

For fans and tv viewers it is about the product you put out, it's not about what markets you are win now."

I thought that was good to hear since there seems to be a lot of talk about what is actually valuable to conference realignment and tv money.

As of right now it seems to be the product you put on TV, ala big brands which is amplified by great rivalries, and not so much being in specific markets within your conference.

In 2010, the important factor for conference realignment was "footprint".

Now and moving forward, it's "content".

i would agree, i would also postulate that america is changing and that change differs from region to region. the west coast doesn't seem to support football the same way that most of the rest of the US. so while their may be a lot of tvs on the west coast if they aren't tuning in due to lack of interest it doesn't really matter. the pac 12 in recent history has lagged behind other conferences on their media packages as well.

lastly time zones play a role.

Panama Red said:

---

In 2010, the important factor for conference realignment was "footprint".

Now and moving forward, it's "content".

---

You are correct. It is why the SECs top choices for expansion in 2010 was Texas A&M, Missouri, or Virginia Tech.

They wanted new states and markets.

Now it is acquiring the best content, which today would be Florida State, Clemson, etc.

The fact that they have major rivalries with current SEC teams just strengthens that content for what already are big brands in Clemson and FSU.

It was just interesting hearing it straight from the source of people in the industry today.

I thought this was about the cost of the chicken wrap at kyle field.

whoop1995 said:

---

I thought this was about the cost of the chicken wrap at kyle field.

---

The chicken wrap was good, but it wasn't over $10 good

Are chicken wraps still $24 or did inflation get those already super inflated prices too?

Quote:

---

i would agree, i would also postulate that america is changing and that change differs from region to region. the west coast doesn't seem to support football the same way that most of the rest of the US. so while their may be a lot of tvs on the west coast if they aren't tuning in due to lack of interest it doesn't really matter. the pac 12 in recent history has lagged behind other conferences on their media packages as well.

lastly time zones play a role.

---

I have to agree here. I live half a mile from Autzen Stadium and even on the best home last year (vs. Utah) did I even barely notice a difference in traffic around my neighborhood. There are Ducks fans all over town (obviously), but I really never notice a difference in traffic other than the Albertson's parking lot by the house is full so people can skip the (gasp)$20 parking and walk to Autzen.


Edit: That being said, I would love for a TAMU/UO home and home series, I would go to both games.

TV execs say that then go out and spend a trillion dollars on a conference that just added Maryland and Rutgers.

It's a bit of both, to be honest. Free TV over rabbit ears still exists, so footprint matters for the big four networks, but if the content isn't good nobody will watch. That's the Pac-12's biggest dilemma; their content is crap and their footprint is shrinking, not growing, due to emigration to the southern states. We all thought the Big 12 would crater but thanks to the Texas market they survived and I guess are about to swallow up parts of the Pac 10 and become a coast to coast conference themselves, as much out of desperation as anything else.

Streaming will dominate the market as time goes on, but for now the free TV market still has its say, and a larger market footprint means bigger charges for ad spots. It might be different in 10 to 15 years though, if broadband ever makes it way to the most remote rural areas. That's the one reason free TV and landlines can't go away; there are some places left that cell towers and satellites literally can't reach.

Toptierag2018 said:

---

In a prominent podcast I listened to the host was asked "Why doesn't the SEC go after Arizona State, Oregon, or Washington to capture the Phoenix, Seattle, and west markets? It would get the SEC coast to coast like the B1G."

Answer by the host: "TV markets are so overblown these days, and that's from TV executives themselves. It is about the product you put on TV.

---

Is there a reason you can't just say Josh Pate and Late Kick?

rootube said:

---

TV execs say that then go out and spend a trillion dollars on a conference that just added Maryland and Rutgers.

---

They weren't "just added". That was when markets were key. Needed to sell to cable companies so being in a state with people was a huge factor. That's changed. And they aren't driving big 10 money

When the new "super league" comes about, both of those teams will be left out.

Quote:

---

Why doesn't the SEC go after Arizona State, Oregon, or Washington to capture the Phoenix, Seattle, and west markets? It would get the SEC coast to coast like the B1G.

---

Uh, those places aren't Southeast! Granted OU is a stretch, but if that's the case, maybe it's time to rename the conference to the Dominant Football Conference (DFC)

DFC!
DFC!
DFC!

Not quite the same ring to it.

It's always about the revenue. If the most increase in revenue at the time means reaching new states, then that's the move. Once those are reached, if the most increase in revenue is rivalries, then that's the new move. It's always about the more-money boys.

saw em off said:

---

Quote:

---

Why doesn't the SEC go after Arizona State, Oregon, or Washington to capture the Phoenix, Seattle, and west markets? It would get the SEC coast to coast like the B1G.

---

Uh, those places aren't Southeast! Granted OU is a stretch, but if that's the case, maybe it's time to rename the conference to the Dominant Football Conference (DFC)

DFC!
DFC!
DFC!

Not quite the same ring to it.

---

Or the "Football University Conference Killer."

They were the most recent additions to the B10 before their record breaking TV contract, so Maryland and Rutgers who add zero traditional rivalry's certainly did not hurt their value. The B10 appears to be following this same market approach by adding LA to the fold. This adds a rivalry game but it seems like the B10 is proceeding with prioritizing market size. And it seems to be working OK for them so far.

So the single most valuable commodity to Aggie football is, 'sip football?

That must mean the most valuable commodity to 'sip football is thief football….

rootube said:

---

They were the most recent additions to the B10 before their record breaking TV contract, so Maryland and Rutgers who add zero traditional rivalry's certainly did not hurt their value. The B10 appears to be following this same market approach by adding LA to the fold. This adds a rivalry game but it seems like the B10 is proceeding with prioritizing market size. And it seems to be working OK for them so far.

---

no one claimed it "hurt the value."

the new model is content as a poster said above. people want to see USC play. if it was predominately about market now, they would have also added Cal and/or Stanford

BMX Bandit said:

---

rootube said:

---

They were the most recent additions to the B10 before their record breaking TV contract, so Maryland and Rutgers who add zero traditional rivalry's certainly did not hurt their value. The B10 appears to be following this same market approach by adding LA to the fold. This adds a rivalry game but it seems like the B10 is proceeding with prioritizing market size. And it seems to be working OK for them so far.

---

no one claimed it "hurt the value."

the new model is content as a poster said above. people want to see USC play. if it was predominately about market now, they would have also added Cal and/or Stanford

---

The fact that the conference with the largest TV contract is following the opposite approach seems to contradict the OP's theory.

I've always believed that this was a flawed approach by the B10, but so far the market disagrees with the OP's hypothesis. Maybe that changes in the future but right now there is zero evidence to support this argument.

Another hilarious footnote from this whole thing is that the B10 pretends to value academics as one of their highest criteria, but Stanford and Cal were sitting there for the taking and the B10 went for owning Los Angeles instead.

Quote:

---

The fact that the conference with the largest TV contract is following the opposite approach seems to contradict the OP's theory.

---

No offense, but this is not a fact at all. The OP is correct.

There are plenty of article out there from people that are in the know on this like Staples and Pate explaining why "footprint" is no longer the driving factor. As I said, its content now.

Panama Red said:

---

Quote:

---

The fact that the conference with the largest TV contract is following the opposite approach seems to contradict the OP's theory.

---

No offense, but this is not a fact at all. The OP is correct.

There are plenty of article out there from people that are in the know on this like Staples and Pate explaining why "footprint" is no longer the driving factor. As I said, its content now.

---

In the know????

You are talking about the opinions of bloggers and reporters. I'm telling you there is a major conference who is following the opposite path and so far they are doing so with great financial success.

I personally agree with this opinion that you shouldn't chase media markets but again it's difficult to argue with the success of the B10. Who are clearly doing exactly that by chasing large media markets.

Here is the link to what I was referring to in the OP. He mentions that even the ESPN CEO of content said that it's rivalries and the quality of the content you put out that matters these days, not TV markets.

That was 2012, when they added Rutgers and Maryland.

The SEC would not have added Missouri and the B1G would not have added Rutgers and Maryland had the current TV landscape existed back then.

I think because the SEC is so established they don't need to worry about going anywhere.

What it comes down to is this.

Would a neutral fan rather tune into
Arizona State vs Georgia

or

Florida State vs Georgia

Not to mention fans FSU vs Georgia is much more likely to develop into a real rivalries being a couple hour drive from each others, than being across the country apart.

Thought this thread would be about Hostess girls

I watch every football game I can, but if there's a bunch on and not A&M, next I'm going to the best matchup. Now, that doesn't mean the closest score obviously, but these are some factors for me:

1. What's on the line? If it doesn't eliminate the loser from something, pride for one or both teams is enough.

2 The crowd MUST be in the game. Even if am rooting against the home team, it better be loud enough to annoy me and want to change the channel.

3. It can't be sloppy, both teams bring their A games. Team A didn't take cupcake team B seriously so they were upset is NOT entertaining.

4. The refs should not be a topic of discussion. I had 0 fun watching the AFC championship and the Superbowl for the same reason. The NFL is becoming less and less watchable but at least in college the play is typically so much more sloppy, college teams rarely capitalize via the refs because there's a million other things going wrong with the play to be so focused on ticky tack calls usually.

Rivalry games almost always hit all these points which is why I will watch the iron bowl, which I couldn't care less about, over just about anything else. Rivalries are good TV. I for one, am glad the greatest football state in the country finally has the only rivalry out there that really matters.

If you can take off your maroon goggles for a minute you'd realize this SHOULD BE THE GREATEST RIVALRY IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL but we have not held up our end of the deal. Who let Ohio and Michigan in? Who cares about that garbage.

Toptierag2018 said:

---

That was 2012, when they added Rutgers and Maryland.

The SEC would not have added Missouri and the B1G would not have added Rutgers and Maryland had the current TV landscape existed back then.

---

I think you are ignoring something obvious, like the fact that the B10 just added the only two teams from the second largest TV market in the country. Do you think that's a coincidence? I'd say it's more of a strategy by the B10, who again has the biggest TV deal of any conference.

I never understood their strategy either, but so far, you can't argue with the results. I expect their TV deal will only grow when it comes time for renewal. Maybe in the future none of this will matter but today it seems pretty relevant.

Toptierag2018 said:

---

Here is the link to what I was referring to in the OP. He mentions that even the ESPN CEO of content said that it's rivalries and the quality of the content you put out that matters these days, not TV markets.

---

I've seen this, and I agree with him, but I'm pretty sure Josh wasn't in the room when the B10 signed their mega media deal. The B10 footprint is like a heat map of the largest TV markets. It completely ignores the fact that USC, UCLA, Rutgers and Maryland play in front of half full stadiums but the TV people don't seem to care.

OriolePete said:

---

If you can take off your maroon goggles for a minute you'd realize this SHOULD BE THE GREATEST RIVALRY IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL but we have not held up our end of the deal. Who let Ohio and Michigan in? Who cares about that garbage.

---

Historically, when the Ags do well Texas does not and vice versa.

Our recruiting also, generally speaking, is inversely proportional.

We were never like the state of Florida where 3 teams could all be competing for the national championship. And I would argue one reason being Florida, Florida State, and Miami were not all in the same conference.

We effectively neutered Texas recruiting by offering the option to play for the only Texas school in the SEC.

Recall where Texas had their sights set - the Pac 12. Well, why aren't they still pursuing that course?

I maintain it's to return to their dominance in recruiting by negating the impact we've had in the SEC. And that goes for OU as well.

I'm not so sure the NIL is going to improve things like I'd hope. At least in the past 10 years we have elevated our national brand.

But when it comes to Texas kids, historically, more often than not, we have played second fiddle in recruiting.

My concern is history will repeat itself.

rootube said:

---

Toptierag2018 said:

---

That was 2012, when they added Rutgers and Maryland.

The SEC would not have added Missouri and the B1G would not have added Rutgers and Maryland had the current TV landscape existed back then.

---

I think you are ignoring something obvious, like the fact that the B10 just added the only two teams from the second largest TV market in the country. Do you think that's a coincidence? I'd say it's more of a strategy by the B10, who again has the biggest TV deal of any conference.

I never understood their strategy either, but so far, you can't argue with the results. I expect their TV deal will only grow when it comes time for renewal. Maybe in the future none of this will matter but today it seems pretty relevant.

---

The difference is USC is a mega blue blood brand. They are a great product to watch due to how well known they are, even if they were in Idaho.

Same reason the SEC grabbed OU and Texas. it wasn't because the SEC really wanted the OKC market.

Well if the only thing that matters is eyeballs on sets every Saturday, the Big 10 has played it perfectly. They have teams coast to coast. But I'm not sure Rutgers mattered to them anyway. No one in the State of New Jersey even pays attention to them. But since state schools in the mid-Atlantic and New England states aren't really football powerhouses, there has always been a strong following of the Big 10. In fact, a lot of kids head to the Midwest for college.

If you ask me, the most valuable commodity a man can have is his word. If you ain't got your reputation, then you ain't got nothing. How's anyone supposed to trust you if you can't even trust yourself? Hell, I remember this one old boy who used to go around....

What were we just talking about?

If the most valuable commodity an entity can have is their word, then tu football would be worthless.

I love the football elite fan. They complain about the game but actually know very little about it. You are the guy that complains that they holding on every play when the are usually legal. Give us a break.

Bias on a fan site???? On heavens!

You sound like my 82 year old dad who loves to complain about how stupid the fans on his school's message board are, yet keeps going back to find more things to piss himself.

It's

A

Game.