Waquoit
Mr. Positive
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 35,876
- Reaction Score
- 99,536
Pretty sure it started when he had that brief success in Buffalo.Had to Google it…. Says they came out in 1998. Nothing to do with BC.
Pretty sure it started when he had that brief success in Buffalo.Had to Google it…. Says they came out in 1998. Nothing to do with BC.
The Dallas Metro area has almost 8 million people and is one of the fastest growing in the world and SMU is actually in that area. UConn is not even in a metro area and the closest one is 1.2 million and shrinking.I just can't believe that carriers would pay for the ACCN because of SMU. The 8th most popular program in their own city. It just doesn't make any sense. Dallas has a population of 1.2M. CT has a population of 3.6M. What are we doing here?
So UConn's reach is half the state of Connecticut because half the state's population is New York centric, not Connecticut. Is that suppose to be a selling point?And a whopping 10 of them care about SMU. Meanwhile half of CT's population lives in the NYC TV market which is #1 in the US.
That is TV households. The Dallas-Fort Worth population is about 6.6 million. I don’t think SMU is a popular school, but if the ACC Network is on 3 million TVs at in market rate, that is a net positive for the ACC.His point still stands. Even if those 3 million people were divided equally among the eight programs in the region, which they are not, it still is a far smaller share than Connecticut which is the only college show available for the states 3,000,000+ people.
If the ACC is still concerned with markets over brands, then they deserve everything that is about to happen to them in the next few years. People do not care about SMU vs any ACC team. People do care about UConn vs half of their old rivals. A UConn v Duke basketball game would deliver more viewers than the highest rated SMU football game lmaoThat is TV households. The Dallas-Fort Worth population is about 6.6 million. I don’t think SMU is a popular school, but if the ACC Network is on 3 million TVs at in market rate, that is a net positive for the ACC.
Really? SMU? Guaranteed Dallas TV sets will be tuned to a TX or TAMU SEC game before watching SMU vs. BC, SU etc.Dallas-Fort Worth is the #5 TV market in US. That is ~3 million.
I agree that nobody will care about SMU playing ACC schools. But, that is not my point.Really? SMU? Guaranteed Dallas TV sets will be tuned to a TX or TAMU SEC game before watching SMU vs. BC, SU etc.
His point still stands. Even if those 3 million people were divided equally among the eight programs in the region, which they are not, it still is a far smaller share than Connecticut which is the only college show available for the states 3,000,000+ people.
Yeah, I am not clear about the "ACC network" and how that delivers profits to ACC members. If it works identically to the big 10 network then your point is a good one.That is not how it works, though .... do we think the population of NYC is watching Rutgers football? The answer is no... but they are still paying for BIG10 network and that's what matters in conference realignment with traditional media contracts. SMU in that regard makes plenty of sense in a football heavy market. Same for SDSU when Big12 takes them.
Yeah, I am not clear about the "ACC network" and how that delivers profits to ACC members. If it works identically to the big 10 network then your point is a good one.
I wonder if the Big12 is gonna care when we win 8 football games this season.
Posting under Key since its Thamel. Wazzu is losing 40% of its revenues. Looks like they will either fold into the Mtn West or try to make a new conference if Cal and Stanford stick around. From below, the matter of the P12 consultant has bubbled up...did they hire bad advise?
![]()
Schulz: WSU in 'bad spot' after Pac-12 'breakup'
Washington State University president Kirk Schulz said he and AD Pat Chun need "to roll up our sleeves and get to work" in the wake of Pac-12 defections.www.espn.com
"At the end of the day, us doing something on the East Coast, unless it's a hell of a lot of money, there's just no way to make it work," Schulz said.
He said that Washington State and Oregon State are waiting out the courtship between the ACC and Stanford and Cal.
"Schulz said it was "a secondary issue" at this point when asked specifically about Kliavkoff's future, but "if we choose to rebuild a conference around those four schools, is George that guy? All of that then becomes a forefront issue instead of a secondary issue." He did say that if Stanford and Cal stay, any creative solution pushing the Pac-12 forward would likely require a different media consultant. Kliavkoff hired Doug Perlman of Sports Media Advisors, who did not have extensive experience in the college sports space.
"To me, when something happens like this," Schulz said about a media consultant, "we need a new set of people to start with a clean chalkboard.""
No, the problem with UConn being G5 in realignment is Fox has UConn for pennies.
UConn has to explore every opportunity to increase its profile and revenue. The combination of bootstrapping football, demonstrating value in the UConn brand, and being a leader in exploiting the new media environment would be very helpful.One option UConn has would be to start making noise about Apple.
Yes, this is what we're discussing. The cable systems are under no obligation to jack up each customer's bill especially in an era when they've lost 40% of their customers to streaming.I agree that nobody will care about SMU playing ACC schools. But, that is not my point.
Historically, in the linear channel cable bundle model, the conference networks get 2 rates: in market and out of market. For example, Rutgers is in the NYC media market so NYC pays the in market rate for the Big 10 Network. It is assumed that SMU, since it is in the Dallas/Forth Worth market, would bring the ACCN the in-market rate. The difference between the 2 rates could be $1/month per subscriber. So, adding SMU could add up to $3 million per month. or $36 million per year to the ACC Network in subscriber fees.
It is crazy, but that is what has happened although I agree with you. The fact that the ACC is even thinking about captive cable subs to financially justify expansion tells you why the ACC has failed conference realignment.Yes, this is what we're discussing. The cable systems are under no obligation to jack up each customer's bill especially in an era when they've lost 40% of their customers to streaming.
UCLA has a hockey team?I have Direct TV here in Arizona and I have BTN, SEC, and ACCN. I needed to get a sports package to watch Bruins hockey and those 3 networks are part of the package.