Southwest CT population has grown by 42%

[weyuo]

If UConn had been 10-2 last year, 10-2 or 11-1 the year before, had at least given Oklahoma the fight of it's life in the Fiesta Bowl there would be droves of Fairfield county peeps making the journey up I-91. Put a winner in the Rent and people will flock to the Rent. Now, in saying that I firmly agree that UConn should utilize NYC as much as possible to help promote the new league. Hosting a B-ball holiday tourney at Barclays or MSG(AAC/Big 12 Challenege, triple header games or something to that effect).

 

[zls44]

How about Gillette?

Definitely no.

Bob Kraft is on the BC BOT. Plus, well, its Bob Kraft.

 

[UCFBfan]

Like I've said elsewhere, faith in Maryland delivering the DC market (which is actually solid from a cable perspective regardless of how poorly they have played football lately) is what has allowed the Big Ten to have a speculative play in the NYC market with Rutgers. Jim Delany isn't dumb. He knows that the BTN is not going to be able to charge the same amount in the NYC market as it can in Columbus or Omaha. They're going to be willing to take less there to get basic carriage compared to DC and other markets because the NYC market itself is so huge. The thing is that I think a lot of people here are likely hoping that NYC is central to the Big Ten's plans, and I just have never seen that to be the case. Sure, it (and every conference) *wants* to own the NYC market, but they find it just as likely that national brand names like Penn State and Michigan do as much for carriage there as UConn would. (For that matter, the ACC sees the same thing with the likes of Notre Dame and Duke.) The Big Ten is banking Rutgers PLUS PSU/Michigan/Ohio State/Maryland/etc. being leveraged to get basic carriage in the NYC as opposed to Rutgers itself, which is something that a lot of people (not necessarily here, but nationwide) are missing in the strategy.

Now, I don't know if it is going to work. The problem is that if it doesn't work, I don't think the powers that be within the Big Ten believe that adding UConn would make it work, either. They legitimately think access to Penn State and Michigan games are as important to the prospects of the BTN in the NYC market as anything else and they'd rather wait 10 years for new shots at Texas, UVA and UNC. I'm telling you, the Big Ten is a *patient* group. They have certain targets and they'll wait for them. Maryland was one of those targets that they were waiting for, so that's why Rutgers got a lucky winning lottery ticket to come along when the Terps suddenly showed interest in moving. There is absolutely, positively zero desire for the Big Ten to expand to 16 for the sake of getting to 16. None. It has always about getting what the university presidents deem to be the "right" schools - AAU institutions with the right combo of national brand name value, long-time football tradition and TV value (whether in the form of a national name like Nebraska or demographically advantageous areas like Rutgers and Maryland).

So why add Rutgers at all then if NYC is not an end-goal for them? I understand what you're saying about Maryland and to be honest, I don't know enough about that area to know if people follow them or not. I do know that Rutgers has little to no following in Northern NJ, let alone CT. I know the DMA's and reports say differently but I dunno. So why did they go after RU and not grab Missouri? For all intents and purposes, Missouri wanted to go to the B1G and they brought that Mid-West market. Why go for Rutgers if what you say is correct about the NYC market not being a major target for them? Curious why you feel they went that route. Especially when Rutgers doesn't even bring a strong athletic program in ANY sport. (I know that doesn't factor all the time but why bring in a school that's going to be a bottom feeder year in and year out in all sports?)

 

[UC990411]

E US population has grown by the same amount since 1960, I understand your point but the title makes little sense

 

[buggsy]

So why add Rutgers at all then if NYC is not an end-goal for them? I understand what you're saying about Maryland and to be honest, I don't know enough about that area to know if people follow them or not. I do know that Rutgers has little to no following in Northern NJ, let alone CT. I know the DMA's and reports say differently but I dunno. So why did they go after RU and not grab Missouri? For all intents and purposes, Missouri wanted to go to the B1G and they brought that Mid-West market. Why go for Rutgers if what you say is correct about the NYC market not being a major target for them? Curious why you feel they went that route. Especially when Rutgers doesn't even bring a strong athletic program in ANY sport. (I know that doesn't factor all the time but why bring in a school that's going to be a bottom feeder year in and year out in all sports?)

If you think RU has "little to no following in Northern NJ" then I hate to tell you this, but you have "little to no knowledge" of what you are talking about.

Where in the world would you get this erroneous information, when everything data-wise (alumni base, television ratings in Northern NJ, media coverage by Northern NJ newspapers and radio, alumni donations breakdown by county, etc show the EXACT opposite of your silly statement.

This kind of talk just cripples one's credibility.

 

[frankthetank]

So why add Rutgers at all then if NYC is not an end-goal for them? I understand what you're saying about Maryland and to be honest, I don't know enough about that area to know if people follow them or not. I do know that Rutgers has little to no following in Northern NJ, let alone CT. I know the DMA's and reports say differently but I dunno. So why did they go after RU and not grab Missouri? For all intents and purposes, Missouri wanted to go to the B1G and they brought that Mid-West market. Why go for Rutgers if what you say is correct about the NYC market not being a major target for them? Curious why you feel they went that route. Especially when Rutgers doesn't even bring a strong athletic program in ANY sport. (I know that doesn't factor all the time but why bring in a school that's going to be a bottom feeder year in and year out in all sports?)

Good questions. Here is what the Big Ten believes (or at least what the data has showed them):

(1) NYC isn't a great college sports market, but maybe one conference with the best combo of brand names can get market penetration there.

(2) NYC *does* have a critical mass of Big Ten alums overall already (particularly with Penn State, Michigan and Ohio State), so they have a puncher's chance of being that one conference.

(3) All things being equal, Joe Blow Casual Sports Fan in the NYC market is more likely to watch Rutgers over UConn and Syracuse (the ratings have tended to show this) for *football*. That doesn't mean that Rutgers has anywhere near the interest of the NYC pro teams, but relative to the other colleges in the Tri-State area, it has demonstrated to have had the highest level of football interest year-to-year. A lot of fans tend to think that having a "following" means that it needs to be like Yankees fandom or on par with Ohio State fans in Ohio, but that doesn't necessarily need to be the case.

So, I don't want to say that the NYC market was NOT a major target for the Big Ten. My last post might have sounded that way. What I really mean is that the Big Ten is not going to blindly go after the NYC market at all costs at the expense of trying to get, say, Virginia or North Carolina in 10 years. The way I read it is if that if this particular combo of schools can't crack the NYC market, then adding the likes of UConn and/or Syracuse on top of them probably won't move the needle any further, either. (Once again, this is about football, football, football. NOT basketball.) So, the Rutgers addition may very well end up being a failure from an NYC market delivery standpoint. However, that's not necessarily a good thing for UConn. I find it more likely that would just make the Big Ten presidents more resolved to go after the 110% "sure things" whenever they expand again (e.g. UNC, Florida State, etc.).

 

[TouchdownHusky]

I'd be on board for any series that followed a format of: one away game, one game at Rentschler and one neutral site game at . . . say a Yankee Stadium. Just as long as there is a true home game to balance going to an Ann Arbor, East Lansing, Happy Valley, etc.

 

[pepband99]

Frank - I agree with some of what you're saying, but it still has one missing piece.

Why would a cableco in, say, Pennsylvania, allow to be taken for a big uptick on their per-subscriber rates, if Rutgers is left to not carry NYC? The BTN has had strength in numbers, up until now, in getting "B1G markets" to pay their way. Will an outlier break the ranks?

Also - this becomes more interesting, factoring in the B1G market expats in NYC that you mention. Does Rutgers + those expats deliver the market? If not (and I don't think it does), does UConn put it over the top? Really the same question as before, but with the added expat presence.

I, for one, will be watching very VERY carefully at the NY area carriage dispute that's bound to happen with Cablevision and the BTN.

 

[CL82]

Good questions. Here is what the Big Ten believes (or at least what the data has showed them):

.

(3) All things being equal, Joe Blow Casual Sports Fan in the NYC market is more likely to watch Rutgers over UConn and Syracuse (the ratings have tended to show this) for *football*. That doesn't mean that Rutgers has anywhere near the interest of the NYC pro teams, but relative to the other colleges in the Tri-State area, it has demonstrated to have had the highest level of football interest year-to-year. A lot of fans tend to think that having a "following" means that it needs to be like Yankees fandom or on par with Ohio State fans in Ohio, but that doesn't necessarily need to be the case.

Frank, I think that this is a misinterpretation of the ratings. The NYC DMA includes Nothern New Jersey, NYC, and SW Connecticut. RU's NYC DMA ratings are a product of delivering Northern New Jersey when Rutgers has a successful football team, and nothing more than that. Because Northern New Jersey is very densely populated, that means decent numbers. The ratings certainly don't show that "Joe Blow Casual Sports Fan in the NYC market is more likely to watch Rutgers over UConn and Syracuse." That distinction was irrelevant to the B1G because cable suscribers are cable suscribers regardless of which side of the Hudson they are located.

 

[UCFBfan]

If you think RU has "little to no following in Northern NJ" then I hate to tell you this, but you have "little to no knowledge" of what you are talking about.

Where in the world would you get this erroneous information, when everything data-wise (alumni base, television ratings in Northern NJ, media coverage by Northern NJ newspapers and radio, alumni donations breakdown by county, etc show the EXACT opposite of your silly statement.

This kind of talk just cripples one's credibility.

It's called living in Northern NJ for 23 years of my life and having my family live there for the rest of my life. So take your credibility argument and shove it. I know what the data shows, I also know what reality shows me in my daily life and every time I head back to visit family every month.

 

[huskymedic]

It's called living in Northern NJ for 23 years of my life and having my family live there for the rest of my life. So take your credibility argument and shove it. I know what the data shows, I also know what reality shows me in my daily life and every time I head back to visit family every month.

 

[upstater]

Exactly. My understanding is that carriage fees and the tier a channel is provided in are applied end to end for the entire DMA. Therefore even if Rutgers fans demanding the channel amount to 10% of the customers in the DMA, if they are loud enough they can warrant the channel on a more basic tier and "tax" the rest of the customers who could otherwise care less. For UConn to matter to the B1G, Rutgers alone would have to fail to land the BTN on the appropriate tier commanding the highest per household carriage fee. Hypothetically if they take the BTN from Gold to Silver, and Uconn + Rutgers takes it from Silver to Bronze, a modest increase in per household fee * the number of households in the massive DMA would still be a lucrative business decision.

The reason I was asking if there was an opportunity to chunk out Fairfield county, is that alone might be enough to push UConn over the hump from a revenue standpoint. Hartford/New Haven + Fairfield is a large market. If the fairfield households were taken out of the volume variable that Rutgers might capitalize on by themselves and replaced solely in our sphere of influence that might be enough to take our projected revenues over the bar of the current split per school in the major conferences and thereby make us a profitable addition or at least break even. If that were the case, the impact on our state would be worth getting our congressional leaders involved in pushing the conversation.

In my opinion its worth valuing the opportunity.

Why would they be applied across the entire DMA? Cable companies obtain licenses by region, not DMA. There are different cable companies licensed in each area. You can have one cable company in the heart of New Brunswick that refuses to add BTN, while another on the border of PA carries it. They might be the same DMA but the decision comes down to the individual cable companies. This is why I made my original point that for the purposes of cable, Connecticut should be treated as a whole.

 

[OkaForPrez]

Why would they be applied across the entire DMA? Cable companies obtain licenses by region, not DMA. There are different cable companies licensed in each area. You can have one cable company in the heart of New Brunswick that refuses to add BTN, while another on the border of PA carries it. They might be the same DMA but the decision comes down to the individual cable companies. This is why I made my original point that for the purposes of cable, Connecticut should be treated as a whole.

Just my assumption, happy to be corrected.

 

[Stinger92860]

E US population has grown by the same amount since 1960, I understand your point but the title makes little sense

Bug up your arse? Lol

 

[buggsy]

It's called living in Northern NJ for 23 years of my life and having my family live there for the rest of my life. So take your credibility argument and shove it. I know what the data shows, I also know what reality shows me in my daily life and every time I head back to visit family every month.

So you're admitting every single possible factor proves you wrong, but since you hate RU and lived in NJ at one time, you're right and everyone that disagrees with you, including all the presidents of Big Ten Schools and Jim Delany are wrong? Got it.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Stinger92860]

So you're admitting every single possible factor proves you wrong, but since you hate RU and lived in NJ at one time, you're right and everyone that disagrees with you, including all the presidents of Big Ten Schools and Jim Delany are wrong? Got it.

Thanks for playing.

Bugsby, I only have a small sample which is about 60+ relatives located between the shore and Bergen, but there is not one Rutgers fan in the bunch. The focus is on the giants, yanks and Knicks. As I think about it there is little interest in college football in general. As far as college interest it's mainly Bball. The sample includes a mix of college grads and non-college and I believe they are a good representation of the the total population.

 

[UCFBfan]

Bugsby, I only have a small sample which is about 60+ relatives located between the shore and Bergen, but there is not one Rutgers fan in the bunch. The focus is on the giants, yanks and Knicks. As I think about it there is little interest in college football in general. As far as college interest it's mainly Bball. The sample includes a mix of college grads and non-college and I believe they are a good representation of the the total population.

I will add, and leave it here, that a large majority of my friends in high school went to RU. I graduated in '99 so they were in college around the time RU got better at football. Many of them are big sports fans yet not a single one owns season tix or follows RU sports. As odd as this sounds because it's a silly sounding comment, none of them even post things on social media after a big RU win. Contrast that to my friends from college and even ones that didn't go to UConn. Many have season tix and follow UConn football and bball closely.

I know what the numbers say. My point is, I don't know many family, friends, or acquaintances who live in Northern NJ who follow RU sports. That was the point of my original post. There definitely wouldn't be an outcry to get BTN so they can see RU like there was a few years back in CT to add SNY so we could see UConn.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Vowelguy]

Since 1975, Fairfield Cty's population has increased 18%, or +140k.

There are 167 counties that have added more people in that time span.