Michigan Game Transportation

[upstater]

Mary Sue Coleman, the President of the University of Michigan, is retiring next July so I don't think she will have much of an impact on conference expansion. Jim Delany only cares about making money. No disrespect intended but I don't think UConn would add much in regards to tv markets.

If it was up to my friends and I, all road Michigan games would be played at Met Life stadium. Unfortunately we don't have the authority to make that happen. It seems like Dave Brandon, Michigan's athletic director, is only trying to schedule teams who are willing to travel to Ann Arbor without a return trip since the Big Ten is going to a 9 game conference schedule. I know that your athletic director is a Michigan alum so hopefully Brandon will make an exception and Michigan will be back in East Hartford some time soon.

Uh, the one thing UConn does add is TV markets. People can criticize the football all they want, but UConn's TV market is a lot more lucrative than the vast majority of the B1G. 30th TV market in the country but then 1/3rd of the state's population is in the NYC DMA. Taken together, it's a big market with the highest per capita income in the country. UConn makes $24.8m a year in licensing revenues. When SNY picked up UConn's tier 3 rights, it started charging $2.50 a month from its previous charge of $1.60 when it only had the NY Mets (who aren't actually a big draw in Conn.). Not only that, but the channel moved from the regional sports tier to Basic Cable. That's $2.50 each month from each and every cable TV set in Ct. (over a million). The Uconn women pull very high ratings. For instance, when the UConn women played on SNY, twice last season they were the highest rated show on all cable and over-the-air television. In NYC and all of NY and NJ, the UConn women knocked a Syracuse men's Big East bball game against Providence to tape delay.

 

[michigannyc]

Uh, the one thing UConn does add is TV markets. People can criticize the football all they want, but UConn's TV market is a lot more lucrative than the vast majority of the B1G. 30th TV market in the country but then 1/3rd of the state's population is in the NYC DMA. Taken together, it's a big market with the highest per capita income in the country. UConn makes $24.8m a year in licensing revenues. When SNY picked up UConn's tier 3 rights, it started charging $2.50 a month from its previous charge of $1.60 when it only had the NY Mets (who aren't actually a big draw in Conn.). Not only that, but the channel moved from the regional sports tier to Basic Cable. That's $2.50 each month from each and every cable TV set in Ct. (over a million). The Uconn women pull very high ratings. For instance, when the UConn women played on SNY, twice last season they were the highest rated show on all cable and over-the-air television. In NYC and all of NY and NJ, the UConn women knocked a Syracuse men's Big East bball game against Providence to tape delay.

Given the Big Ten already added Rutgers, you really think adding UConn would be beneficial (not a rhetorical question)? From what I've heard, the Big Ten wants to expands its reach nationally. I've heard the Big Ten would like to add Texas, FSU, UNC, UVA, and/or Georgia Tech. I am not sure if it is plausible to add these schools but do you think adding UConn would be more lucrative? If so, UConn's AD should be on the phone non-stop all day every day with Jim Delany. If UConn equals more dollars, Jim will listen.

 

[upstater]

Given the Big Ten already added Rutgers, you really think adding UConn would be beneficial (not a rhetorical question)? From what I've heard, the Big Ten wants to expands its reach nationally. I've heard the Big Ten would like to add Texas, FSU, UNC, UVA, and/or Georgia Tech. I am not sure if it is plausible to add these schools but do you think adding UConn would be more lucrative? If so, UConn's AD should be on the phone non-stop all day every day with Jim Delany. If UConn equals more dollars, Jim will listen.

UConn is not AAU and does not have very good football. So they don't qualify.

I was just pointing out that TV is not a strike against UConn. That's all. Delany knows very well about UConn's TV numbers because UConn's TV licensing and production is arranged by IMG, and Delany has close IMG connections. He knows exactly how big UConn's market stretches and the levels of penetration.

Read this:

Rutgers was accepted into the Big Ten last fall, with the widespread belief that the conference wanted a foothold in the New York metropolitan area. But while intending no disrespect to Rutgers, Tranghese said: “A lot of people don’t understand what makes New York tick. The two schools with the biggest impact in the New York market have been Syracuse and Connecticut.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/s...-starting-over-again.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[whaler11]

One might say that Tranghese doesn't know what makes television tick. It's not 1979 anymore.

Not that he isn't right about Rutgers... They entry into the Big 10 seems to have been met with yawns.

 

[SubbaBub]

Given the Big Ten already added Rutgers, you really think adding UConn would be beneficial (not a rhetorical question)? From what I've heard, the Big Ten wants to expands its reach nationally. I've heard the Big Ten would like to add Texas, FSU, UNC, UVA, and/or Georgia Tech. I am not sure if it is plausible to add these schools but do you think adding UConn would be more lucrative? If so, UConn's AD should be on the phone non-stop all day every day with Jim Delany. If UConn equals more dollars, Jim will listen.

Upstater is correct. With UConn, the BTN could charge $2-3 a month for every cable system in the State ~1M cable households. The political juice to make that happen is there. So that's $24-36M, more than enough to cover our revenue share. Neither RU or Maryland will bring that much, they don't penetrate their markets as well, though they may be larger. Delany actually already knows this, it's the Presidents and boosters who don't.

 

[J187Money]

Upstater is correct. With UConn, the BTN could charge $2-3 a month for every cable system in the State ~1M cable households. The political juice to make that happen is there. So that's $24-36M, more than enough to cover our revenue share. Neither RU or Maryland will bring that much, they don't penetrate their markets as well, though they may be larger. Delany actually already knows this, it's the Presidents and boosters who don't.

This is probably the best way this has been said on this board. And it has been said about 1000 times.

 

[michigannyc]

UConn is not AAU and does not have very good football. So they don't qualify.

I was just pointing out that TV is not a strike against UConn. That's all. Delany knows very well about UConn's TV numbers because UConn's TV licensing and production is arranged by IMG, and Delany has close IMG connections. He knows exactly how big UConn's market stretches and the levels of penetration.

Read this:


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/sports/ncaabasketball/left-behind-uconn-ponders-starting-over-again.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0[/quote]

I can tell you are much more knowledgeable regarding the TV markets than I am. As someone who has walked the streets of Manhattan on football Saturdays, I agree that Rutgers doesn't seem to have a large following in NYC. However, I haven't seen UConn fans packing the bars either. What I have seen are many Notre Dame, Michigan, OSU, and Penn State fans. I am aware that tv ratings are not based on the number of fans who show up to a bar or the number of fans sporting a t-shirt in the streets. In my opinion Notre Dame would have turned more television sets to the Big Ten Network in the NY market. However Rutgers is the closest team so there may be less outrage by New Yorkers if they are forced to pay higher cable bills for the Big Ten Network than if a team from Indiana was added. New York is clearly a pro-sports city. The vast majority of New Yorkers couldn't care less about college sports and having to pay more for cable for something most don't want probably wouldn't go over well.

As a Michigan fan I only care about two things when it comes to conference expansion. Michigan having a tough enough schedule so that the team can qualify for the four team playoffs even if we have 1 loss and for me to be able to go to the games without having to spend an arm and a leg. If I were running UConn, I would hire as many people from Pennsylvania as possible for the football staff and recruit the state as hard as possible. There is no other state in the region with as much talent and PSU/Pitt are down right now so there is an opening for a team to land recruits. I would then add as many games with top tier opponents as possible. If you have to travel to Florida, Texas, Alabama, Oregon, and LSU without a return trip, so be it. If you occassionally pull off a win and combine that with your strong bball program and attractive tv market (if your numbers are correct), I don't see how UConn could be left out in the cold when conference expansion is complete.

 

[upstater]

Good post. Don't sleep on the talent UConn is already getting however. Twice we've been top 5 for putting players in the NFL draft. Twice in the last couple years we had 5 players get picked. There are a lot of UConn faces in the NFL, more than say Louisville. So we're not doing bad on talent. I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[Adios]

Don't forget the rest of New England. When was the last time Michigan came to New England?

Aside from a 50 year rivalry with Yale, this is our biggest home game ever. I give Yale football complete respect.

 

[whaler11]

Good post. Don't sleep on the talent UConn is already getting however. Twice we've been top 5 for putting players in the NFL draft. Twice in the last couple years we had 5 players get picked. There are a lot of UConn faces in the NFL, more than say Louisville. So we're not doing bad on talent. I agree with the rest of your post.