1975 users online now!    CONTACT US | ADVERTISE | REGISTER       

About this Page -- This is a discussion on Who are the next additions to the SEC? Page 2. within the forum Tennessee Vols Football. Originally Posted by UTGhostHunter St. Louis is the #21 television market and Kansas City is #31. If you keep adding ...

Go Back   VolNation > Tennessee Vols Forums > Tennessee Vols Football

View Poll Results: Who will be the next two victims?
Virginia Tech 108 71.52%
University of Virginia 17 11.26%
Duke 4 2.65%
North Carolina 23 15.23%
North Carolina State 63 41.72%
Clemson 26 17.22%
Georgia Tech 15 9.93%
Florida State 28 18.54%
Louisville 7 4.64%
Other - throw one out there 9 5.96%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 151. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-30-2012, 03:47 PM   #16 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
TrueOrange's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Summer: Chattanooga; School year: St. Louis
Posts: 32,884
Likes: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTGhostHunter View Post
St. Louis is the #21 television market and Kansas City is #31. If you keep adding top thirty television markets to your conference, you will demand more money in contract negotiations which means more money for the member schools. It might suck, but it is purely business.
Both pretty much instantly became the third and fourth largest markets in our viewing footprint also

Last edited by TrueOrange; 05-30-2012 at 10:32 PM..
TrueOrange is online now  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 05-30-2012, 03:48 PM   #17 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
TrueOrange's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Summer: Chattanooga; School year: St. Louis
Posts: 32,884
Likes: 1,858
I feel like we just had one of these threads
TrueOrange is online now  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 05-30-2012, 03:48 PM   #18 (permalink)
Amatuer Analyst
 
UTGhostHunter's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Clarksville, AR
Posts: 1,131
Likes: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy123 View Post
The next two teams to join the S.E.C. will not necessarily geographically close to the other schools.
Here is why I say this. Suppose that the S.E.C. gets
14,000,000 each season for t.v. contract "X". This means that each member school will get $1,000,000 each season.
Now, let's imagine that the S.E.C. expands and schools such as Louisville or Clemson join the S.E.C.
The S.E.C. already has a presence in Kentucky and South Carolina t.v. markets. So, the t.v. contract dollar amount won't increase, so that would mean $14,000,000 divided by 16 member schools. This means that the season prior to the expansion, U.T. earned $1,000,000 for the t.v. contract. Now, with the 16 member S.E.C.
U.T. will earn $875,000. So, it will not financially be advantageous for those schools to join the S.E.C.
However; if you get a school from a large t.v. market area to join the S.E.C., then the t.v. contract will also increase. A market such as Houston, (A & M) St. Louis, (Missouri) Miami, (U of M) New York, Los Angeles, etc. will bring a larger t.v. contract to the S.E.C. and the member schools will earn more money.
You don't want to expand the conference and lose money in the process. such as $14,000,000 divided by 16 member schools.
It is likely that NONE of the schools on this list will really be in the S.E.C. when they expand.
So, by your assertion, the reason we brought in Texas A&M was to enter into television markets like Houston and Dallas-Ft. Worth, a pair of top ten television markets. Missouri was brought in for the markets in St. Louis (#21) and Kansas City (#31). By your own reasoning, the North Carolina and Virginia schools make the most sense as additions. If you add a North Carolina school, you gain access to the markets of Charlotte (#24), Raleigh-Durham (#27), and Greensboro-High Point-Winston-Salem (#46). Add a Virginia school and you make headway into Washington, D.C. (#9), Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News (#43), and Richmond-Petersburg (#58). If you can create a rivalry with Tennessee and Virginia Tech, you can own the Tri-Cities area, which is the #92 market. My point is that you will satisfy existing members and the financial considerations with such an addition.
__________________
If common sense were so common, more people would have it.
UTGhostHunter is offline  
VN Likes: 3
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 05-30-2012, 03:49 PM   #19 (permalink)
Senior Member

Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,420
Likes: 1,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCvol333 View Post
If your argument was correct the Big East Football TV deal would have been more lucrative than the SEC's as their was only 1 real TV market in the SEC last year (Nashville)

the Big East would have had Miami (South Florida), Louisville, Pittsburgh, upstate New York (Syracuse), NYC (Rutgers), etc

there is a lot more that matters other than TV markets - how good the brands are is incredibly important, how much people nationally care about those brands, how much people care in the home markets b/c that contributes to atmosphere, etc

people all over the country want to watch a night game in Death Valley, bama TN, GA FLA

rutgers vs south florida? not so much






Other than basketball, the S.E.C. has a better product to market than the "Big L east" does.
If the S.E.C. were in the markets that the "Big Least" is in, we would have better numbers.
Rudy123 is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 05-30-2012, 03:49 PM   #20 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
TrueOrange's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Summer: Chattanooga; School year: St. Louis
Posts: 32,884
Likes: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panthro View Post
I really can't see NCSU ever leaving UNC.
Yeah they're a bit more complexly tied together
TrueOrange is online now  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 05-30-2012, 03:50 PM   #21 (permalink)
Amatuer Analyst
 
UTGhostHunter's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Clarksville, AR
Posts: 1,131
Likes: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panthro View Post
I really can't see NCSU ever leaving UNC.
It's not that big a rivalry compared to a UNC-Duke. I also remember people saying that about Texas and Texas A&M.
__________________
If common sense were so common, more people would have it.
UTGhostHunter is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 05-30-2012, 03:51 PM   #22 (permalink)
Stir Stick
 
82_VOL_83's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Knoxvegas
Posts: 12,067
Likes: 4,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueOrange View Post
I feel like we just had one of these threads
Similar but different. The other thread made me want VN's opinion on who we thought would be the new teams.
82_VOL_83 is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 05-30-2012, 03:52 PM   #23 (permalink)
Senior Member

Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,420
Likes: 1,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTGhostHunter View Post
So, by your assertion, the reason we brought in Texas A&M was to enter into television markets like Houston and Dallas-Ft. Worth, a pair of top ten television markets. Missouri was brought in for the markets in St. Louis (#21) and Kansas City (#31). By your own reasoning, the North Carolina and Virginia schools make the most sense as additions. If you add a North Carolina school, you gain access to the markets of Charlotte (#24), Raleigh-Durham (#27), and Greensboro-High Point-Winston-Salem (#46). Add a Virginia school and you make headway into Washington, D.C. (#9), Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News (#43), and Richmond-Petersburg (#58). If you can create a rivalry with Tennessee and Virginia Tech, you can own the Tri-Cities area, which is the #92 market. My point is that you will satisfy existing members and the financial considerations with such an addition.


I tried to figure out why Florida State, Southern Miss, Clemson, Louisville, Va. tech, were not added to the S.E.C.
When a decision is made that doesn't make a lot os sense, then you follow the "money factor"
The only reason I could imagine for "A & M" and "Missouri" to be selected by the S.E.C. is for some type of financial gain for the S.E.C.
The only possible financial gain I could see was the t.v. market.
Rudy123 is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 05-30-2012, 03:56 PM   #24 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
TrueOrange's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Summer: Chattanooga; School year: St. Louis
Posts: 32,884
Likes: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTGhostHunter View Post
It's not that big a rivalry compared to a UNC-Duke. I also remember people saying that about Texas and Texas A&M.
Tied together differently.

Give me sec to find some of that stuff again, but what comes to mind immediately is that 3/4 of NC State's board of trustees are people elected (put in place) by UNC's Board of Governors

Got it:


Board of Trustees :: University Administration :: North Carolina State University

Quote:
North Carolina State University is a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina (UNC) system. According to The UNC Code, NC State shall have a board of trustees composed of thirteen persons: eight are elected by the UNC Board of Governors, four are appointed by the governor, and the remaining member is the president of the student government, ex officio.

The Board of Trustees shall promote the sound development of its institution within the functions prescribed for it, helping it to serve the people of the state in a way that will complement the activities of the other institutions and aiding it to perform at a high level of excellence in every area of endeavor. Each board of trustees shall serve as an advisor to the Board of Governors on matters pertaining to its institution and shall also serve as advisor to the Chancellor concerning the management and development of the institution.
Alabama | MrSEC

Quote:
As for NC State — a school oft-mentioned because no one believes North Carolina and/or Duke would move to the SEC — there would be some serious political issues to work out as well. NCSU is a “constituent institution” of the University of North Carolina system. In other words, the schools have a connection. We’re not talking Texas and Texas A&M, here.

State has a 13-person board of trustees. One member is the president of the student government. Four trustees are appointed by the governor. The remaining eight NCSU trustees are elected by the UNC board of governors.

If State’s administration decided that their school would be better off in the SEC, it appears from afar that at least two of the eight trustees put in place by UNC’s board would have to okay the move. And that’s if all the other non-UNC-elected trustees favored the move. And that’s if a vote to switch conferences only requires a 7-6 majority.
TrueOrange is online now  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 05-30-2012, 03:58 PM   #25 (permalink)
all the bacon u have
 
SCvol333's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 3,859
Likes: 1,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy123 View Post
Other than basketball, the S.E.C. has a better product to market than the "Big L east" does.
If the S.E.C. were in the markets that the "Big Least" is in, we would have better numbers.
That's exactly the point - TV markets don't matter near as much as people think - they only matter if people care about your product in those markets and how likely, if you moved in, you would be to get a reasonable share of the market

the main thing you focus on is keeping the product great and then the markets will come b/c you will have national appeal

if you can do both - a la A&M then adding makes a lot of sense - if you can't or are in a bind and need an ad for scheduling you sacrifice one or the two but not both - so MO is a product sacrafice, but at least you get a market

the main reason for the MO move though imo was that balanced out the A&M add - which was a perfect add from a product (think long-term) and TV market standpoint - you don't only get big markets, you get big markets that give a ^%$* about football and you can then get share for your conference in many of those

product is always more important though
SCvol333 is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 05-30-2012, 03:59 PM   #26 (permalink)
Amatuer Analyst
 
UTGhostHunter's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Clarksville, AR
Posts: 1,131
Likes: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy123 View Post
I tried to figure out why Florida State, Southern Miss, Clemson, Louisville, Va. tech, were not added to the S.E.C.
When a decision is made that doesn't make a lot os sense, then you follow the "money factor"
The only reason I could imagine for "A & M" and "Missouri" to be selected by the S.E.C. is for some type of financial gain for the S.E.C.
The only possible financial gain I could see was the t.v. market.
I think with A&M, you could argue that there were football and recruiting considerations there, but at the end of the day, I think you do have to follow the money. That said, I still think the SEC wants to remain reasonably regional, making robbing the ACC the most realistic option. The only concern there is the increase in the buyouts that was added due to a concern over the conference being picked apart. I personally think that was done to discourage ACC teams from joining the SEC. Ultimately, I think the SEC will provide sufficient assurances to the schools to convince them to make the move. My guess is the defectors will be NC State and Virginia Tech.
__________________
If common sense were so common, more people would have it.
UTGhostHunter is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 05-30-2012, 04:03 PM   #27 (permalink)
Amatuer Analyst
 
UTGhostHunter's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Clarksville, AR
Posts: 1,131
Likes: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueOrange View Post
Tied together differently.

Give me sec to find some of that stuff again, but what comes to mind immediately is that 3/4 of NC State's board of trustees are people elected (put in place) by UNC's Board of Governors

Got it:


Board of Trustees :: University Administration :: North Carolina State University



Alabama | MrSEC
I hear what you're saying, but allow me to provide this counter. What would be the impetus for North Carolina to block the move? Again, they are particularly heated rivals. We aren't talking about officials who have a major stake in the football aspect of things. If there is this link, couldn't UNC potentially benefit from this new connection. I understand what the writers are saying could be a fight, but I'm not seeing the point of the fight.
__________________
If common sense were so common, more people would have it.
UTGhostHunter is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 05-30-2012, 05:32 PM   #28 (permalink)
Respects the "Process"
 
Kurtastrophe's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Johnson City, TN
Posts: 3,623
Likes: 1,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueOrange View Post
I feel like we just had one of these threads
Same flavor. Different texture.
Kurtastrophe is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 05-30-2012, 07:34 PM   #29 (permalink)
Stir Stick
 
82_VOL_83's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Knoxvegas
Posts: 12,067
Likes: 4,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTGhostHunter View Post
I hear what you're saying, but allow me to provide this counter. What would be the impetus for North Carolina to block the move? Again, they are particularly heated rivals. We aren't talking about officials who have a major stake in the football aspect of things. If there is this link, couldn't UNC potentially benefit from this new connection. I understand what the writers are saying could be a fight, but I'm not seeing the point of the fight.
Good point since the entire UNC system could seemingly benefit from the SEC monies....
82_VOL_83 is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Old 05-30-2012, 07:38 PM   #30 (permalink)
Mythodical Validvictorian
 
thebjd's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Peachtree City, Ga
Posts: 7,016
Likes: 2,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueOrange View Post
I feel like we just had one of these threads
Glitch in the Matrix.
thebjd is offline  
Reply With Quote TOP
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27