re: Are we going to insist that any expansion stay in the South?

quote:

---

Will you still feel its a mistake when expansion changes the SEC's relationship with ESPN enough that instead of $17 million a year SEC programs are making $40+ million a year?

---

This is it exactly.

Alot of ignorance in this thread saying it "should not be about tv markets" and then turning RIGHT around and proving that you know practically nothing about how/why ANY of this is working.

Expansion was never about tv RATINGS. Those aren't going to go up all that significantly, if at all, from expansion. It's about tv MARKETS and VOLUME to supply the forthcoming SECnetwork in football season. An "SEC" market is anywhere that a high enough percentage of the subscriber base demands the SECnetwork in order to get it on their basic subscriber packages @ a much, much higher price than it goes for anywhere else in the country. No, St Louis and KC do not care about Mizzou to the same extent that Birmingham cares about Bama, but they dang sure care enough to get the network on their basic subscriber package.

Let's take Virginia Tech and one of the North Carolina schools and move the conference office to Richmond. To hell with those yankees.

quote:

---

Let's take Virginia Tech and one of the North Carolina schools and move the conference office to Richmond.

---

Nashville would be my choice.

What he is saying is that ratings matter more to the network than us. If we eventually start a real SEC network like the Big 10 Network, then he is very much right. If St Louis and Kansas City really could care less about Mizzou, then they are worthless. But if 10 % of their markets demand the SEC network from the cable and providers it is a lot more money because they will have to provide it to all of the market... Birmingham may be a city where 60% of the market wants to watch SEC football, but that only matters to ESPN for advertising sales. They still only get a maximum number of packages sold to the cable company there. Each consumer in that market may be worth more since more watch the product, but there are so many more consumers in the larger market that it balances out. Especially since advertising then would be national versus how the current SEC network works.

quote:

---

So it's ok to have a large market even if no one watches your product?

---

And you once again prove you know nothing about how NETWORK packagaes work.

quote:

---

The SEC would be able to demand what they want from ESPN and CBS whether Mizzou joined or not.

---

No, we wouldn't. We had already gotten what we were worth on the free market, and it was becoming less than the B1G was worth. That is why we were forced to act.

quote:

---

You pick teams that improve your profile and sustain your image.

---

bullshite. Otherwise, FSU and Clemson would already be in.

quote:

---

The TV "markets" will take care of themselves.

---

No, they won't. Unless your OK with the B1G outpacing us by 25-30% on the money side. We were forced to act in this expansion, because the initial tv deal was much worse than we realized at the time.

quote:

---

Did I mention how dumb you are?

---

Yes, you said it twice... while you didn't post a damn thing that had ANY basis in the financial reality of the situation. Another ranter gump running their mouth about things they don't understand...shocking, I know.

This is ALL about the forthcoming SECNetwork, which will air in 2014 along with a 9-game SEC conference schedule. That is what is driving expansion. That channel is worth $1+/sub/mo in states where the SEC is represented. It's worth $0.10/sub/mo everywhere else. You do the math(actually, that is probably asking too much from you). In the terms of this network, Oklahoma is worth less than HALF of what the NC and Virginia markets are for us.

that gump doesn't get it no need to waste your time arguing with him. pretty funny that he keeps calling you a dumbass

Add OU and OSU. Put them in the West. Move Gumps and Barners to East. Scheduling problem finally solved.