North Carolina has officially been offered to join the Big Ten

[atlantagator86]

ACCecil:

I think you're on the right general track of where the TV programming is going as far as programs streaming, but there are 2 problems. First is bandwidth. I'm not a data expert, but I suspect it would be almost impossible for that may people around the word to try and steam individual programming all the time.

Second, there is only a VERY limited amount of programming that people would be willing to actually PPV. How much of what you watch on TV now would you actually be willing to buy PPV? If you're like most people, a good part of what you choose to watch is probably because it's "the only thing on", plus people like to flip around.

On a given Saturday, how many games to you watch or at least check in on during the course of the day? How would that change if it cost you $0.50 each time you changed the channel?

If TV went to a purely PPV model, TV viewership, across the board, would drop DRAMATICALLY and a lot of programming would disappear completely. And I think you as a Nole fan would miss the opportunity to flip over to see the end of a game the Gators were losing just because you don't subscribe to the SEC package.

The reality is that that's probably not going to happen.

The NFL has the PPV package for out of market games on DirecTV but they'll probably never make all NFL games PPV. If they did, they'd DRAMATICALLY reduce their audience. It's the same reason the football conferences want to be on the basic cable package and collect the much smaller carriage fee. They know that if they're lucky, probably only 10% of the people would even pay $5 a month for it if it were optional.

I can see TV operators allowing you more options based on general demographics, women's programming, family programming, sports programming, religious programming, but from a business standpoint, I think it would be suicide for the TV operators to allow you to pick and choose individual channels or go to any sort of PPV model. The TV operators don't want it and the TV networks don't want that either. It would kill them both.

Thanks for the kind words!

As for the Pac-12, yes there are teams they could add, but they would significantly weaken the Pac-12 and be the laughing stock of college football expansion if they added Fresno State, Boise State, UNLV and BYU to get to 16. Those 4 schools would not add much TV revenue, which means they would significantly reduce the revenue split of the existing members.

In expansion, and again I'm talking about overall resources and revenue potential, not just how good a football team is, a major conference needs to hit home runs or at least triples. The SEC had a home run in A&M and I think a solid triple with Mizzou. Big-10 had a home run with Nebraska and I'd say a triple with both Maryland and Rutgers. Pac-12 added a triple with CU and probably a strong double with Utah.

What's weakened the Big-12 and ACC is that they lost 2 home runs in NU and Texas A&M and 2 triples with CU and Mizzou and replaced that with a double in TCU and a borderline triple in WVU. The ACC has lost a triple in Maryland, will probably lose home runs FSU and Clemson, triples in GT and UVA and replaced them with doubles in UL, SU and Pitt. Both conferences will have weakened themselves dramatically, though the Big-12 would make up a lot of that ground if it got FU and Clemson.

If the Pac-12 did what you suggest, they would be adding 4 doubles at best. That won't happen. Now what could happen is lets say the Pac-12 couldn't get Texas but took home run OU and triple Texas Tech, which still expands the TV market. They could then justify adding one or 2 of those schools you mentioned to get to 16. So they don't have to take all 4 from the Big-12, but that's the only place they'll pick up and home runs or triples and they really need to have 2 of those to even consider expansion.

[atlantagator86]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

As far as tv programming goes, a la carte pricing isn't the panacea people make it out to be. Why? Because even the most popular programming (sports), are only in demand by half the population at most. Right now, ESPN gets money from just about every cable subscriber, whether or not that person watches. If a la carte prices were to take effect, ESPN would instantly lose half its revenue! Which means in order to pay the leagues ESPN caters to, the World-Wide Leader would have to charge subscribers double!

It's even worse for other popular channels that have decent ratings, but don't have the appeal of sports. In a la carte pricing, they could lose 2/3 of the people now paying for the channel. In the end, a la carte pricing would mean people actually paying more for less channels! Seems counter-intuitive, but the reality is, us sports watchers are supplementing HDTV and Food Network watchers, whom are in turn, supplementing the cost for us watching sports.

And personally, I don't think Apple TV is going to change things because in the end, people aren't going to accept less for more. Even now, Apple TV and the like are struggling to gain market share because people don't want to pay the same or more for less content.

Exactly! We use different words but we're saying the same thing.

Except that I think the number of people who would actually be paying for even that most popular sports programming is MUCH lower than you think. I believe what you'd see is even though optimistically the number of people watching might be 2/3, what you'd actually see is many more people watching in groups or at friend's houses, so the actual number of people paying the fee for the sports programming is going to be MUCH smaller than 2/3.

[AzCatFan]

Originally Posted by atlantagator86

Exactly! We use different words but we're saying the same thing.

Except that I think the number of people who would actually be paying for even that most popular sports programming is MUCH lower than you think. I believe what you'd see is even though optimistically the number of people watching might be 2/3, what you'd actually see is many more people watching in groups or at friend's houses, so the actual number of people paying the fee for the sports programming is going to be MUCH smaller than 2/3.

I agree the number of people paying for individual programs would even be lower than the 50% I suggested. I'm just saying that 50% of Americans consider themselves to be sports fans and watch sports regularly on t.v. That doesn't mean that even the biggest game played, the Super Bowl gets a 50% share, as it hovers closer to 33%.

As far as PAC-12 expansion goes, Utah was added to get to 12 so the conference could add a Championship game. That alone made Utah attractive, and for that reason, I'd call Utah a ground-rule double that if the ball stayed in the park, would have most likely been a triple.

[rpmGator]

I think they should trade for the box, Carol Merrill is bringing down the aisle...

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by atlantagator86

ACCecil:

I think you're on the right general track of where the TV programming is going as far as programs streaming, but there are 2 problems. First is bandwidth. I'm not a data expert, but I suspect it would be almost impossible for that may people around the word to try and steam individual programming all the time.

No. It takes much less bandwidth than people think.

[HungaryGator]

ACCecil,
you've talked a lot about conference no longer being regional if they go to 16 members. That was undoubtedly true for the ACC as it took in a Northern wing it had never had before (BC, Pitt, Syracuse) but that was not the case for the Big 10 until they took in Rutgers and Maryland....and they might be able to swing a Midwest/Northeast bi-regional conference.

For the SEC I can tell you bringing in a North Carolina and a Virginia school absolutely would work. The SEC would then encompass the greater South (minus only Oklahoma which has always leaned Southern). The South is a distinct region with its own culture and history and I do not think it would be at all difficult to bring in 2 more from those two states nor do I think it would weaken the unity of the conference.

To me this is one of the great strengths of the 3 conferences that are clearly stronger than the others (the SEC, PAC and Big 10)....they are not just collections of schools they are representative of culturally distinct regions. The weaker conferences do not have/control/dominate distinct regions. If you're one of the former, your conference network will sell just fine. It will be overwhelmingly popular in that region - must see TV. If not, well.....

[HungaryGator]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

I agree the number of people paying for individual programs would even be lower than the 50% I suggested. I'm just saying that 50% of Americans consider themselves to be sports fans and watch sports regularly on t.v. That doesn't mean that even the biggest game played, the Super Bowl gets a 50% share, as it hovers closer to 33%.

As far as PAC-12 expansion goes, Utah was added to get to 12 so the conference could add a Championship game. That alone made Utah attractive, and for that reason, I'd call Utah a ground-rule double that if the ball stayed in the park, would have most likely been a triple.

The only one I could see the PAC adding would be UNLV...and only then if the state agreed to pump more money in to raise its academic profile and build a big stadium. The PAC sort of did the same for ASU the academics of which were not what the PAC would normally consider acceptable at the time they were admitted but which has steadily improved as Arizona grew steadily bigger and richer. Las Vegas is about the only significant market out there yet to be tapped and it is also the PERFECT location for a conference championship game. I've heard from some that there is some great fear of having it there or having a big bowl game there due to concerns about gambling but...I don't buy that anymore. You can easily gamble anywhere now with the internet.

Other than that though.....yeah I still think the only way the PAC could match the Big 10 and SEC would be to take in Bevo and his satellites.

[atlantagator86]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

I agree the number of people paying for individual programs would even be lower than the 50% I suggested. I'm just saying that 50% of Americans consider themselves to be sports fans and watch sports regularly on t.v. That doesn't mean that even the biggest game played, the Super Bowl gets a 50% share, as it hovers closer to 33%.

I wasn't really referring to market share or ratings though they're related. I'm talking about the percentage of people who would watch a Notre Dame/USCw game this year, versus if that game was PPV. That the viewing audience might be 2/3 of what it was this year, but the actual number of people who actually pay for the game being even far lower than that ... maybe 1/8th?!

Imagine how the numbers would change for a game people didn't care about. There's a LOT of games I watch just because they're on that I wouldn't watch at all if I had to pay even a dollar. How many of you would honesty tune in to watch Mississippi State play Kentucky if it was going to cost $1?

Bottom line that I think we both are saying is that there's a LOT more money in networks making viewership easy to as many homes as possible as opposed to PPV.

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

As far as PAC-12 expansion goes, Utah was added to get to 12 so the conference could add a Championship game. That alone made Utah attractive, and for that reason, I'd call Utah a ground-rule double that if the ball stayed in the park, would have most likely been a triple.

Utah was a quality addition for the Pac-12. I said "solid double" by which I meant between a double and a triple. CU and Utah were really the last 2 logical teams they could take outside of the Big-12. I completely understood why they took them.

[atlantagator86]

Originally Posted by HungaryGator

The only one I could see the PAC adding would be UNLV...and only then if the state agreed to pump more money in to raise its academic profile and build a big stadium. The PAC sort of did the same for ASU the academics of which were not what the PAC would normally consider acceptable at the time they were admitted but which has steadily improved as Arizona grew steadily bigger and richer. Las Vegas is about the only significant market out there yet to be tapped and it is also the PERFECT location for a conference championship game. I've heard from some that there is some great fear of having it there or having a big bowl game there due to concerns about gambling but...I don't buy that anymore. You can easily gamble anywhere now with the internet.

I have UNLV on my secondary candidate list above as well but their resume is kind of weak. It's a decent size school with about 28,000 students but I believe their academic reputation is pretty bad. In addition, the school has only been around since 1957, which means they don't have a lot of wealthy alumni and I don't think the school has a lot of financial resources either. It's probably more comparable to UCF or USF than the other Pac-12 schools and I think I'm being generous.

The other thing I suspect might hurt UNLV is that while Las Vegas is a big TV market, it's largely transient with a lot of transplants from other Pac-12 schools, which means that while the Pac-12 might not have a Nevada school, they probably already own the TV market. Adding UNLV may not expand the Pac-12 footprint as much as people think.

I don't see a Pac-12 championship game in Las Vegas because the city doesn't have a suitable stadium. Even if UNLV expanded their current 36,000 seat stadium, it might be to what, 50,000?!?! Certainly not suitable for a Pac-12 championship game when there are several NFL stadiums in Arizona, California and Washington. The location might be ideal but the facilities aren't. The only way I could see it happening is if UNLV and the city of Las Vegas go in together and built an NFL caliber stadium so they can begin hosting the Pac-12 championship and maybe host a bigger bowl game. But that's unlikely.

[HungaryGator]

Originally Posted by atlantagator86

I have UNLV on my secondary candidate list above as well but their resume is kind of weak. It's a decent size school with about 28,000 students but I believe their academic reputation is pretty bad. In addition, the school has only been around since 1957, which means they don't have a lot of wealthy alumni and I don't think the school has a lot of financial resources either. It's probably more comparable to UCF or USF than the other Pac-12 schools and I think I'm being generous.

The other thing I suspect might hurt UNLV is that while Las Vegas is a big TV market, it's largely transient with a lot of transplants from other Pac-12 schools, which means that while the Pac-12 might not have a Nevada school, they probably already own the TV market. Adding UNLV may not expand the Pac-12 footprint as much as people think.

I don't see a Pac-12 championship game in Las Vegas because the city doesn't have a suitable stadium. Even if UNLV expanded their current 36,000 seat stadium, it might be to what, 50,000?!?! Certainly not suitable for a Pac-12 championship game when there are several NFL stadiums in Arizona, California and Washington. The location might be ideal but the facilities aren't. The only way I could see it happening is if UNLV and the city of Las Vegas go in together and built an NFL caliber stadium so they can begin hosting the Pac-12 championship and maybe host a bigger bowl game. But that's unlikely.

All your points are true. The only thing is (aside from Bevo and his satellites) where else is the PAC gonna go? Taking UNLV is sort of an investment in the future. They did something similar with ASU which probably wasn't ready at the time it was admitted either but has since grown into a member which pulls its own weight academically and otherwise. For this to happen though, they'd probably need to lean on the legislature of Nevada and get them to cough up more money to bring UNLV up to scratch earlier than would otherwise be the case. UNLV is far from ideal but at least they (the state of Nevada really) have potential. Every other state out there (Idaho. Montana, New Mexico, Wyoming) isn't worth bothering with put together! Their population is just too tiny. One good sized city has more than those entire states put together.

[atlantagator86]

Originally Posted by HungaryGator

All your points are true. The only thing is (aside from Bevo and his satellites) where else is the PAC gonna go?

You don't have to tell me! I've been arguing the Pac-12 has no viable options except the Big-12 since the day they took CU and Utah. Actually since before then.

If the Pac-12 can't pull at least 2 solid programs from the Big-12, they really just need to stay at 12 teams. Expansion just to get to 16 is going to hurt the conference.

[OaktownGator]

Pac needs Texas and Oklahoma to expand successfully.

With those two, they could take two other relative lightweights and be okay from a SOS and public perception perspective.

One interesting alternative could be to think out of the box... errr, out of the country, and go with University of British Columbia. They play football and hoops. Strong academics. Good size market, although I don't know how much BC folks pay attention to college sports. NHL is a given, but beyond that?

[AzCatFan]

When the PAC-8 expanded to 10 in 1978, it wasn't about expanding footprints or t.v. markets. Good thing too, because highly unlikely the U. of Arizona would have been invited, since Tucson is a small market, and ASU has a larger share of the Phoenix market. No, expansion back then was about reduced travel costs, and the UA President did a good job convincing the USC Chancellor that trips to Tucson/Tempe were cost effective. The UA President also knew that aligning with PAC schools would increase UA's presence both athletically and academically. Interestingly enough, ASu was at first resistant about joining the PAC. They were the big fish in the small WAC pond, and revered ASu football coach Frank Kush wanted to stay that way, or at least delay entrance to the PAC for a few years. Fortunately, the state of Arizona has just one Board of Regents, packed with UA grads back then, that shoved ASu into accepting the PAC's offer.

Today, no school other than Texas and Oklahoma would add anything to the PAC-12. UNLV offers central location, and nothing else. If the city ever built a new football stadium, and if the state of Nevada poured a lot of money into making UNLV a legitimate research institution...but truthfully, I don't see either happening. Just not enough demand from football fans to spend the money on a new stadium in Vegas. Nor do I see UNLV ever becoming a major research institution.

[atlantagator86]

Originally Posted by OaktownGator

Pac needs Texas and Oklahoma to expand successfully.

With those two, they could take two other relative lightweights and be okay from a SOS and public perception perspective.

Texas and OU would definitely be ideal, but if for some reason Texas wouldn't or couldn't go, I think the Pac-12 COULD get away with OU, Okey State, Texas Tech and one of those fillers.

I also wouldn't entirely rule out the Kansas Jayhawks as a dark horse as a 4th team. Almost 30,000 students. AAU school. Large endowment. Great in basketball. 50,000 seat football stadium with average home attendance around 40,000. And while Kansas may not have large TV markets, KU has a huge following in Kansas City which is a good market. With their biggest out of state rival Mizzou out of the Big-12, and if 2 of their current rivals (OU and OSU) went to the Big-12, they might offer the Big-12 more than some of those other schools.

Just saying that it's possible for the Pac-12 to have a good expansion without Texas. But they MUST at least get OU.

Originally Posted by OaktownGator

One interesting alternative could be to think out of the box... errr, out of the country, and go with University of British Columbia. They play football and hoops. Strong academics. Good size market, although I don't know how much BC folks pay attention to college sports. NHL is a given, but beyond that?

Interesting thought but do they even play American style football? I see that they're considering joining the NCAA Division 2. And they only have a 3,500 seat (yes that is 3 thousand 5 hundred) seat stadium. About the size of most American high schools.

But it would be an interesting thought.

[j7]

Originally Posted by atlantagator86

Bottom line that I think we both are saying is that there's a LOT more money in networks making viewership easy to as many homes as possible as opposed to PPV.

Not to mention the fan base the networks create. Especially the major over-the-air networks, though less so nowadays. An extreme example would be if all football games were pay-per-view then the number of viewers would decrease, probably significantly though the revenue could possibly be comparable. The problem would be that as a result of the decreased viewers, the number of not-yet football fans would also decrease, probably significantly, thus reducing the future market IMHO.

[atlantagator86]

Originally Posted by j7

Not to mention the fan base the networks create. Especially the major over-the-air networks, though less so nowadays. An extreme example would be if all football games were pay-per-view then the number of viewers would decrease, probably significantly though the revenue could possibly be comparable. The problem would be that as a result of the decreased viewers, the number of not-yet football fans would also decrease, probably significantly, thus reducing the future market IMHO.

Great point!

Consider how the popularity of the NHL's has changed in the past few decades. As a kid living in Florida in the 70s, the NHL was on TV and fairly popular. Not like the NFL, NBA or MLB but there was definitely a following. After they lost the national TV deal, the overall popularity dropped.

The NHL was an afterthought for most of the country until the 90s and early 2000s when ESPN was carrying a few games a week and most of the playoffs and Stanley Cup games. They carried some games off and on in the 80s, but relatively few games. Once it was on ESPN the popularity increased and teams popped up in places like Atlanta, Nashville, Tampa, Miami and Carolina.

And then the popularity has tanked again since ESPN stopped carrying games and it moved to Versus/NBC Sports in 2004. The games are still on but because they are now on a fairly obscure network that many people don't get, the NHL is no longer marketed where people see it and no longer "front of mind". And the popularity has dropped dramatically - made even worse this year by the lockout.

And it's not that the NHL went away. The games are still on NBC Sports and fans can purchase any NHL game they want on PPV. But it's no longer easy access to games.

I can only attest first-hand about Atlanta but when the Thrashers arrived in town and games were on ESPN, the popularity of the sport exploded with kids. There were so many youth leagues being created in both ice and roller hockey that they built several new facilities. Most of the high schools had both ice and roller teams. In many cases, schools had 3 roller hockey teams and an ice team.

Suddenly, at almost the exact time the NHL left ESPN, the number of kids starting in the youth leagues dropped DRAMATICALLY, almost overnight! Many of the kids who were already in leagues continued to play for a while but the number of new kids starting dropped to a small trickle. A couple of years ago when my oldest son started to play high school roller hockey, the entire city was down to just a handful of high school teams. There were 2 or 3 schools who still fielded multiple teams but most were consolidated with kids from multiple feeder schools. I suspect other non-hockey cities have seen a similar trend.

The easy accessibility of these sports on TV goes hand in hand with the popularity and support for a sport. If it's not front of mind with fans and kids, the popularity will wane quickly.

Same thing would happen with college football, though maybe not at the same level as it's affected the NHL. We super Gator fans might continue to watch Gators games on PPV, but the popularity of college football would drop and as you say, few new fans wouldn't be created.

[OaktownGator]

Originally Posted by atlantagator86

Texas and OU would definitely be ideal, but if for some reason Texas wouldn't or couldn't go, I think the Pac-12 COULD get away with OU, Okey State, Texas Tech and one of those fillers.

Okie State and Texas Tech seem like long shots for the Pac from an academic and cultural standpoint... although I can see the Pac taking some Texas school to get in that market if they can't get Texas.

I also wouldn't entirely rule out the Kansas Jayhawks as a dark horse as a 4th team. Almost 30,000 students. AAU school. Large endowment. Great in basketball. 50,000 seat football stadium with average home attendance around 40,000. And while Kansas may not have large TV markets, KU has a huge following in Kansas City which is a good market. With their biggest out of state rival Mizzou out of the Big-12, and if 2 of their current rivals (OU and OSU) went to the Big-12, they might offer the Big-12 more than some of those other schools.

Just saying that it's possible for the Pac-12 to have a good expansion without Texas. But they MUST at least get OU.

I think you're right that Kansas lands somewhere if the Big 12 breaks up. I was thinking maybe Big Ten, put Pac might work.

Interesting thought but do they even play American style football? I see that they're considering joining the NCAA Division 2. And they only have a 3,500 seat (yes that is 3 thousand 5 hundred) seat stadium. About the size of most American high schools.

But it would be an interesting thought.

I'm pretty sure they play Canadian football, but would think they could get someone to coach them our game if they wanted to make this kind of move.

The facilities OTOH... huge investment would be needed in a stadium and probably training facilities to compete. I didn't even look up the size of their stadium... crazy small. Good catch.

But for a university that is trying to make an international name, getting television exposure and revenues from the Pac would be worth significant investment if the Pac would have them. Culturally and academically they should be a pretty good fit.

[The_Graygator]

Well, they sure as heck wouldn't want South Carolina... they'd win the conference every year. lol