Started By
Message
re: So adding Clemson and FSU to the SEC was not a bad idea after all...
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:26 am to Mister Tee
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:26 am to Mister Tee
While I had/have no problem with it, the truth is having multiple competitive conferences is a good thing for college football. The next step is for the Big 12 to add a couple of teams allowing them to have a legit conference championship.
1
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:33 am to GurleyGirl
I can't wait for Clemson fans to realize what happens when you lose a QB like Watson. Everyone thinks the back up will be a monster too, and they never are. See the post Cam, Tebow, Jameis, Manziel, etc. team records.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:38 am to Mister Tee
I agree that adding both would help the conference. Clemson might would join if asked but FSUcks had a chance and wussied out and would probably do the same if asked again. To them being a big fish in a little pond is better than being a little fish in a big pond.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 8:49 am to Mister Tee
quote:
The SEC is fricking clueless.
No, you are clueless toward conference expansion. The driving force for expansion is revenue which is mostly TV revenue... not championships. Neither of these schools expands the TV base. aTm brought in the Dallas and Houston TV market. Mizzou brought in the St Louis and Kansas City market.
SEC schools just brought in a record share this year over 40 plus million apiece. Clemson and FSU would only dilute that share since they do not expand the market base. The schools that have been most discussed for expansion have been VaTech (Richmond/DC market) and NCState (Charlotte market). However neither of these schools have showed much interest.
I will add there is a consideration that a school needs to be able to compete in the league and also offer the full spectrum of league sports.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:01 am to ipodking
quote:
Florida and South Carolina are too scared of FSU and Clemson to have them in the conference
I get the troll but it doesn't make sense.
UF plays FSU every year.
USCe plays Clem every year.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:15 am to Mister Tee
In the last 6yrs clemsons had tajh Boyd and deshaun Watson. Watson was essentially the ACC version of Cam Newton. Let's all settle down and come back to earth here. It wasn't too long ago that we had a qb that went 25-5 and had three straight 11 win seasons. Right now the ACC as a whole has better qb play and that's all. Plus from a financial and media standpoint adding Clemson brings nothing to the table
Posted on 2/10/17 at 9:17 am to Mister Tee
That would kill the acc and send unc and uva to the big 10
Posted on 2/10/17 at 12:34 pm to vandelay industries
quote:
I know schools like FSU & Clemson would only mean an overlap in the areas that already have SECN, but from a $$$ perspective, is there any upside (or none at all) having a few extra potential marquee matchups that could attract attention on a national level? Or does it not really amount to much, compared to getting some more SECN subscriptions? I seriously don't know one way or the other... anyone more knowledgeable have the answer to this?
As far as TV revenue goes adding the taterheads and FSU would be a no-gainer ... Law of Diminishing Returns are about to kick-in on TV revenues as evidenced by recent news about ESPN. Not to mention their TV markets are already covered by SC and UF.
If Auburn were to leave the SEC for the ACC let's say ... it would not hurt our TV revenue because Alabama would retain TV revenue in the state of Alabama for the SEC.
The ACC might gain some TV revenue in Bama I'm sure. And regardless of the OP's affiliation, I'm just using Auburn as an example. The same would apply if Vandy were to leave the SEC for the ACC.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 12:35 pm to FourThreeForty
quote:
Despite their talent, do you think either of them could go through the SEC gauntlet like Alabama?
I'm sorry but the SEC is just not a gauntlet anymore.
Unless you are playing Bama, no other program is all that special, or no more than any other P5 conference.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 12:38 pm to Mister Tee
frick Clemson
Posted on 2/10/17 at 1:28 pm to TigahJay
Does Maryland even have a football team? I know you have basketball, but when are you going to have football there?
Posted on 2/10/17 at 1:34 pm to Mister Tee
Clemson and FSU bring nothing to the SEC Table. Their two NC were a result of playing in the weak ACC, and would actually take away from the SECs run. Two additional good programs would have meant the SEC would eat itself, especially during the BCS era.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 2:27 pm to Mister Tee
Posted on 2/10/17 at 2:29 pm to Mister Tee
quote:
Mister Tee
Simple-minded
Posted on 2/10/17 at 2:35 pm to Irons Puppet
In another thread we were kind of discussing what a la carte pricing for cable would do to ESPN and the contracts that funnel so much money to things like the SEC Network.
Someone suggested that if that were to happen, the new formula isn't "footprint," but rather how many fans that would be willing to pay a subscription fee a school had.
As a Gamecock fan, living in SC, dunno the breakdown seems kind of even in the state, maybe I'm wrong though.
But I can't see either school having substantial fans out of state a team like Alabama or even Georgia has.
Really be interesting to see how many fans of each school would pay $10 a month or so (or football season package?) for the SEC Network (or just an individual school).
As a consumer I actually think SEC Network would be worth it, IF -
I can pick any darn game I want to watch while it is going on. My team, some other game I might be really interested in.
Guess I'm talking about streaming, not cable. But $10 a month for one school if I really only watch the football games for that school is kind of steep.
See this is the point where you have to ponder some things as a school.
I'm quite sure Alabama would have three or four times what South Carolina in subscription headcount if they sold their access directly to consumers with no SEC Network or ESPN or anything.
But while they might be one of the very few schools that could make a real go at doing that, I'm not sure the revenue would be better than being part of something like HULU for SEC sports.
Actually that model would be far better for pulling in subscriptions for football fans outside of the South.
I'm sure there are lots of nutty football fans in Iowa even that would pay $10 a month for the kind of access I'm talking about in addition to whatever they pay for Iowa, Iowa State, or the Big10 Network.
Alabama alone? Not so much.
If Alabama, Georgia, LSU, or A&M could make more money marketing themselves alone, my take is it would be marginally more profitable than marketing the SEC.
But it might not be, at least for all of those schools even. And I think having a "healthy" Mississippi State is even beneficial to Alabama in a lot of ways.
Someone suggested that if that were to happen, the new formula isn't "footprint," but rather how many fans that would be willing to pay a subscription fee a school had.
As a Gamecock fan, living in SC, dunno the breakdown seems kind of even in the state, maybe I'm wrong though.
But I can't see either school having substantial fans out of state a team like Alabama or even Georgia has.
Really be interesting to see how many fans of each school would pay $10 a month or so (or football season package?) for the SEC Network (or just an individual school).
As a consumer I actually think SEC Network would be worth it, IF -
I can pick any darn game I want to watch while it is going on. My team, some other game I might be really interested in.
Guess I'm talking about streaming, not cable. But $10 a month for one school if I really only watch the football games for that school is kind of steep.
See this is the point where you have to ponder some things as a school.
I'm quite sure Alabama would have three or four times what South Carolina in subscription headcount if they sold their access directly to consumers with no SEC Network or ESPN or anything.
But while they might be one of the very few schools that could make a real go at doing that, I'm not sure the revenue would be better than being part of something like HULU for SEC sports.
Actually that model would be far better for pulling in subscriptions for football fans outside of the South.
I'm sure there are lots of nutty football fans in Iowa even that would pay $10 a month for the kind of access I'm talking about in addition to whatever they pay for Iowa, Iowa State, or the Big10 Network.
Alabama alone? Not so much.
If Alabama, Georgia, LSU, or A&M could make more money marketing themselves alone, my take is it would be marginally more profitable than marketing the SEC.
But it might not be, at least for all of those schools even. And I think having a "healthy" Mississippi State is even beneficial to Alabama in a lot of ways.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 2:50 pm to Sunbeam
quote:
If Alabama, Georgia, LSU, or A&M could make more money marketing themselves alone, my take is it would be marginally more profitable than marketing the SEC. But it might not be, at least for all of those schools even. And I think having a "healthy" Mississippi State is even beneficial to Alabama in a lot of ways.
I do not think there is one school that could be profitable if they established their own network (ie Longhorn Network). The State populations and Alumni do not support it. UF is the only overall Athletic Program that is competitive enough year round to generate enough interest.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 3:33 pm to Irons Puppet
quote:
I do not think there is one school that could be profitable if they established their own network (ie Longhorn Network). The State populations and Alumni do not support it. UF is the only overall Athletic Program that is competitive enough year round to generate enough interest.
Not so sure on this.
$10 a month is a number I pulled out of my butt. But let's do the numbers.
12 months x $10 = $120 a year from each subscription.
$120 x 400,000 = $48,000,000 - and that's clear money, with no sharing or ESPN taking some off the top. Revenue straight from the consumer, with no filtering (though it would take a staff of some sort to just do the filming and streaming - certainly could be done a lot cheaper than ESPN though).
So the real question is: are there 400,000 crazy Gump fanatics willing to pay $10 a month for this (we already know they are crazy enough to kill trees and put their junk in the face of drunks)?
What might not be possible for weaksauce like the Longhorn network might be feasible for Alabama.
After all, sometimes volume isn't the solution. Sometimes it takes toothless fanaticism, and Texans... they just don't know.
Best of all they won't care if there are enormous blank broadcasting spots - like only 13 games and a spring game worth of content. Maybe they will go all out and cover spring and fall practice live (as far as Saban will let them).
Actually a good barometer for how it might go for a school is spring game attendance. That is for the hardcore.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 3:45 pm to Godawgs4
Personally I don't think the ACC would've beaten either the Big Ten or the Pac Twelve in a round robin.....much less the SEC. And before ACC apologists start crying about their 10-4 edge over the SEC last year, please remember that the Pac Twelve beat the ACC 2-0 and the SEC beat the Pac-12 3-0. Looks like rock,scissors, paper to me.
Posted on 2/10/17 at 3:49 pm to FourThreeForty
quote:
the SEC gauntlet
Are you referring to all the teams your fan base constantly berate as being mediocre?
Posted on 2/10/17 at 4:22 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Maybe just put these teams in something called Division 1 Football and let them play for a championship. Conferences are too big already.
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News