Clemson files Grant of Rights language lawsuit against the ACC (Update at #125)

I don’t know what the actual goal of the tv markets is. Is it subscriptions or viewership? I would think the subscriptions pay the bills and I would also think packages with espn, sec, and acc are just as common in those markets as they are down here. If they already have the markets locked down with subs, what do the teams really bring to the table?

 

Its about championships if tv is paying the conference.

 

Its about the biggest games, the teams consistently making the playoffs will drive the money.

 

I think it has to do with ad revenue. Larger Market = More Eyes = Higher Ad Rates = More Money from Networks.

 

This is the part that I have always had questions on. Would you rather have a team in a bunch of different states or just really good teams from one state? For example, would a conference with USF, Valdosta St., Coastal Carolina, UAB, and Memphis, be worth more TV wise than a conference with UF, FSU, Miami and UGAG (couldn't think of another Fl team)?

 

And the guys up in the wilder of bfe watch the big games just like we do. Geography only matters if the area has teams playing in big games.

 

You're thinking too much into it. Ad rates are based on market size. More larger markets = more higher rates = more money. Maybe I'm wrong - and someone please correct me if I am - but I think it's that simple.

Thus, while they are big brands, the SEC sees no value in adding FSU or UM because when they go to ESPN to sell the package, they already have Florida and all of its big markets and FSU and UM don't "bring" anything to the table in that respect.

But I get and agree with your point. I would think the specific brands would mean more. Also, this is the way it used to be when there was no or less streaming, etc. So, IDK, maybe the landscape has changed.

P.S. Ideally you would want the biggest team in each market.

 

My guess is it is net eyeballs on the broadcast vs. where the eyeballs are located. However, I would think that the advertiser has some control over what they believe important. It might not do a retailer much good to advertise with your latter grouping if they have no locations in Georgia or Florida, but do in MS, Alabama, and SC.

 

Total eyeballs are becoming more important than market and market share these days. Especially with streaming. Case in point, a Florida/FSU matchup with both in the top 10 will garner a prime time spot, even though they are both located in the same state. Whereas a matchup of Rutgers vs. UCLA, if both are 3-7 at the time, will likely be a game nobody watches, despite the fact the schools represent the two biggest markets in the US.

Markets and market share were the top concerns regarding conference expansion 15 years ago. Just as travel was a top concern 40 years ago. But things change. And now, total eyeballs is key, with geographic locales being a secondary concern.

 

Simple

numbers tuned in no matter where they live.

 

Very true. I'm speaking of a past paradigm that is clearly changing.

 

With linear (cable or over-the-air) most of the advertising time is controlled by the network, but a proportion (which varies) is controlled by the local outlet. The network portion is of interest to national advertisers who have customers everywhere, but of no use to an advertiser like Publix, which only wants to reach viewers in a few states. Publix would buy time on the local outlets to reach viewers in their customer areas. The ad business on standalone streamers (Netflix, Amazon, etc) is still being figured out