Theyve been a top 10 team for most of that, so yes, theyre going to get airtime.
Is there a bigger loser in conference realignment than Mizzou?
- Thread starter UNIGuy4Cy
- Start date
Theyve been a top 10 team for most of that, so yes, theyre going to get airtime.
Uh...no, again. The contracts are negotiated and paid off TV sets in the markets reached, not ratings. The assumption by the networks (right or wrong) is that TV sets will equal ratings due to the loyality of college football fans and the quality of the product on the field.
Thank you--and Alabama, LSU, Georgia, South Carolina, etc., have all been in the top ten in the last 10 years in football. Thanks for making my point.
If it's ESPN, that's one thing. If it's ESPN on ABC, that's an entirely different thing - the local station gets to air whichever game they want to air (which I know because when I lived in the Quad Cities I was always holding my breath as to whether WQAD would air the regional Iowa State game or would go with the regional Big 10 game because they could choose what they wanted).
Yeah.. no. ESPN is going to pay off of how they make money. They make money off of ratings, so that's what theyre going to pay based on (or that's what theyre going to bid based on when\if the contract gets opened to multiple bidders)
Otherwise, the big east wouldve had the largest contract ever with its presence in the northeast.
Please folks. If you are arguing Big XII vs. SEC in terms of TV contract and popularity right now, you're bringing a knife to a gun fight. I'm not an SEC apologist. I have been a fan of the Big 8/Big XII since 1968. I'm just stating the facts.
But that has nothing to do with why TAMU and MU will somehow make ESPN, and thus the SEC more money. Its revenue driving teams aren't changing.
SEC games will not be televised on a ABC/ESPN broadcast in the Midwest. Local network (ABC) decides what game will be shown. Think you missed the point of his post.
Uh, no...please read the previous posts. The SEC GAINS TV sets with the addition of aTM and MIZZOU. Not that hard to figure out. I didn't make up the rules. For good or ill, that is the way it is.
It gains some ratings (tv sets are irrelevant.. they matter only to the big 10 and its per-subscriber funded network). But 2 additional teams also have to be paid. Think of it as the reverse of what happened with the big 12 when NU\CU left. We all got more when they left.
This is so totally wrong it's laughable. The network (ie: ABC New York) decides where the games are televised, not the local affiliate. Please...
That one still has me laughing. I actually found the the schools and fan bases to be very similar. I'm sad to see Mizzu leave.
Oxford.:biglaugh:
I don't disagree that there will be more SEC teams to split the pot. But clearly all involved are betting the pot will be bigger. Again, if not, why would they bother to expand. We'll see....And last time I checked, there are some pretty sharp people (excluding aTm and MIZZOU) who are involved in the negotiations.
Uh Huh....Have been to England as well as lived in Europe.
Also have been to Columbia more then a few times.
You seem a bit defensive. Best if you call it a night rather then go to an opposing teams message board and pick fights.
Please....
Last edited:
Again, my friend, since I am a MIZZOU grad and I assume you are not, I think I bring a little more "cred" to this discussion. And thanks for the geographic "mine is bigger..." Which yes, I have lived in Europe as well. Despite my diploma, I am a life-long ISU fan. This discussion is purely speculation regarding the $$$ of the new TV contract and should be treated as such.
Actuallly--full disclosure, I cheer for all three. I lived in Ames for 20 years, went to ISU for 2 years. Got my degree from MIZZOU. My wife is a TN grad and my daughter is a Soph. at TN and I'm a season ticket holder. So yes, there it is, I'm conflicted!:twitcy:
