Palmetto Proving Grounds

• Reply
• Quote
• Rate Up Rate Down

• Reply
• Quote
• Rate Up Rate Down

• Reply
• Quote
• Rate Up Rate Down

GamecockTripp said...

I thought all of this realignment was based on population and the number of TV sets? FSU and/or Miami make sense. Florida has about 19 million people and is the 4th most populated state in the union. However, SC only has 4.6 million people and is ranked #24.

If the Big 12 is going to raid the ACC then any of the North Carolina schools (#10, 9.6 million), either UVA or VT (#12, 8 million), or GT (#9, 9.8 million) make a lot more sense than Clempson. Clempson may have "big time football" and look like a school they would be interested assuming all things are equal. I just can't believe they would look at a school in a state with half the people of other states available.

• Reply
• Quote
• Rate Up Rate Down

ceece said...

Here's the deal with expansion as I understand it.

The Big 12's rumored expansion and the SEC's recent (and further rumored) expansion are based on 2 different principles to maximize the revenue.

The SEC's expansion is being driven by markets because they plan to launch its own network. To increase revenue, the market share must be increased. The conference must be in the footprint of whatever cable providers the network is being sold to.

The Big 12 has left all tier 3 rights with the individual schools. Thus, no conference network. Thus, no need to constrict the search to specific, profit maxing, markets. The Big 12 is expanding to increase its football marketability, it's brand if you will, to maximize its Tier 1 and 2 revenues. ESPN and Fox are already in every single household in America. FSU eyeballs are going to watch FSU regardless of its affiliation, same with Clemson. ESPN could care less about the market, they are the market. The reason why it's more valuable is because by adding a quality brand, ESPN can package more games that they would deem 'marquee' games.

Look, I'm not claiming that Clemson is the end all be all of college football. Not even close. But, of the teams that are possible aquisitions, Clemson and FSU move the needle more than any other, except for ND. The 2011 viewership figures show that FSU and Clemson were easily the most viewed ACC teams last year. While the number of eyeballs won't directly tie to cable subscriptions, it clearly shows that Clemson and FSU are valued commodities that people will watch. FSU had 31 million viewers last year and Clemson had just over 28 million viewers. That total was more than GT, VT, Maryland and BC combined (the 4 major markets that I see lobbied as more valuable assets than Clemson). Clemson had 4 million more viewers last year than Miami.

The only relevance that 'market' has on the Big 12 is exposure. I think adding Clemson gets the big 12 quality exposure in the Atl, Gville/Sptbrg/Asheville and Charlotte markets.

Downvote away now.

"Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

• Reply
• Quote
• Rate Up Rate Down

ceece said...

Here's the deal with expansion as I understand it.

The Big 12's rumored expansion and the SEC's recent (and further rumored) expansion are based on 2 different principles to maximize the revenue.

The SEC's expansion is being driven by markets because they plan to launch its own network. To increase revenue, the market share must be increased. The conference must be in the footprint of whatever cable providers the network is being sold to.o

The Big 12 has left all tier 3 rights with the individual schools. Thus, no conference network. Thus, no need to constrict the search to specific, profit maxing, markets. The Big 12 is expanding to increase its football marketability, it's brand if you will, to maximize its Tier 1 and 2 revenues. ESPN and Fox are already in every single household in America. FSU eyeballs are going to watch FSU regardless of its affiliation, same with Clemson. ESPN could care less about the market, they are the market. The reason why it's more valuable is because by adding a quality brand, ESPN can package more games that they would deem 'marquee' games.

Look, I'm not claiming that Clemson is the end all be all of college football. Not even close. But, of the teams that are possible aquisitions, Clemson and FSU move the needle more than any other, except for ND. The 2011 viewership figures show that FSU and Clemson were easily the most viewed ACC teams last year. While the number of eyeballs won't directly tie to cable subscriptions, it clearly shows that Clemson and FSU are valued commodities that people will watch. FSU had 31 million viewers last year and Clemson had just over 28 million viewers. That total was more than GT, VT, Maryland and BC combined (the 4 major markets that I see lobbied as more valuable assets than Clemson). Clemson had 4 million more viewers last year than Miami.

The only relevance that 'market' has on the Big 12 is exposure. I think adding Clemson gets the big 12 quality exposure in the Atl, Gville/Sptbrg/Asheville and Charlotte markets.

Downvote away now.

• Reply
• Quote
• Rate Up Rate Down

ceece said...

Here's the deal with expansion as I understand it.

The Big 12's rumored expansion and the SEC's recent (and further rumored) expansion are based on 2 different principles to maximize the revenue.

The SEC's expansion is being driven by markets because they plan to launch its own network. To increase revenue, the market share must be increased. The conference must be in the footprint of whatever cable providers the network is being sold to.

The Big 12 has left all tier 3 rights with the individual schools. Thus, no conference network. Thus, no need to constrict the search to specific, profit maxing, markets. The Big 12 is expanding to increase its football marketability, it's brand if you will, to maximize its Tier 1 and 2 revenues. ESPN and Fox are already in every single household in America. FSU eyeballs are going to watch FSU regardless of its affiliation, same with Clemson. ESPN could care less about the market, they are the market. The reason why it's more valuable is because by adding a quality brand, ESPN can package more games that they would deem 'marquee' games.

Look, I'm not claiming that Clemson is the end all be all of college football. Not even close. But, of the teams that are possible aquisitions, Clemson and FSU move the needle more than any other, except for ND. The 2011 viewership figures show that FSU and Clemson were easily the most viewed ACC teams last year. While the number of eyeballs won't directly tie to cable subscriptions, it clearly shows that Clemson and FSU are valued commodities that people will watch. FSU had 31 million viewers last year and Clemson had just over 28 million viewers. That total was more than GT, VT, Maryland and BC combined (the 4 major markets that I see lobbied as more valuable assets than Clemson). Clemson had 4 million more viewers last year than Miami.

The only relevance that 'market' has on the Big 12 is exposure. I think adding Clemson gets the big 12 quality exposure in the Atl, Gville/Sptbrg/Asheville and Charlotte markets.

Downvote away now.

• Reply
• Quote
• Rate Up Rate Down

• Reply
• Quote
• Rate Up Rate Down

• Reply
• Quote
• Rate Up Rate Down

scswampfoxx said...

No bro. Lets use some logic. Why did the Big 12 take WVU? If it is only about TV households then why aren't Boston College and Rutgers being discussed? The only thing you really read about Georgia Tech is going to the BIG. All three of those places have TONS of TV Households.

Advertisers want people that will actually watch college football. Have you ever been to or watched a BC, Rutgers, or Georgia Tech game. All of those schools are in places with very large populations, yet they never sell out their small 50,000 seat stadiums. What does that tell you about their fan bases and viewership? I guess all of their fans are watching with all of their TV households!

Advertisers realize people will watch FSU and Clemson because they have rabid fan bases. These teams also are consistently good to great (for their conference and level of play), attract tons of attention within their viewing areas (something BC, Rutgers, and GT would die for), and have tradition (I hate Clemson but there is a reason they always try to talk about their past).

I would be willing to bet those two schools are way more valuable to potential advertisers then BC or Rutgers. Georgia Tech has potential because it is in an area where college football is popular (I'm surprised they don't have a bigger fan base). The problem GT has is that Atlanta is a professional sports city (and a pretty bad one at that because their teams are notorious for a lack of support!). VT has the same problem with everyone in VA loving the Redskins. Finally, most people in GA don't give a damn about Tech.

Clemson on the other hand has a rabid fan base that will watch all of their games. Plus we watch their games hoping they will lose. FSU fans will also watch their games hoping they will lose. In essence, you are going to have a lot more people watching Clemson football than many of the other choices you can think of.