Started By
Message
re: Why do people want to expand the SEC?
Posted on 6/10/19 at 10:43 am to Landmass
Posted on 6/10/19 at 10:43 am to Landmass
quote:
What are your reasons? Whatever they are, I'm sure they are stupid or short-sighted.
... what a great way to start an interesting dialogue. I'm sure you'll get some very reasoned opinions when you start out your question with an attack against the very people you are asking for an answer.
quote:
s it to see more match-ups or better games?
I'm open to further expansion if it increases the QUALITY of the league. Programs like Florida State, Clemson, Oklahoma, or Texas would be great additions IMO because they'd increase the quality of the league in most every sport.
I would like to see a pod system or some type of format where each SEC team only plays 3-4 league opponents on an annual basis. This would protect the big rivalries but with anywhere from 5-7 rotating opponents, it would make it so that every team played every other SEC team within a 2-3 year period. I'd like to see these long 14-year gaps between playing in certain venues done away with.
quote:
Is it to have less money distribution per team?
Maybe it would bring in MORE money. It all depends on the teams you bring in and the television deals that are made.
If the league expanded to say 20 teams and decided to play 10 conference games per team, that would make for 100 regular season SEC games played during a season.... way up from the current 56 SEC games currently played during a year. That's 44 additional SEC games packed into the same 14 week period of time. That's obviously worth a lot more money to a network which could in turn create more money to distribute despite an increase in the number of teams in the league.
quote:
you are not going to get the same piece of pie that we have today.
You sure act like you know everything. You're assuming that the current situation remains the same, but in fact the world is changing quickly.
Within 10 years, ESPN may not even be a player in these discussions. Companies like Amazon, Netflix and Hulu might be the big players in these negotiations.
Sure, if you stick with the current model of Nielsen television metrics, etc., the future looks worse. About half of Americans are realizing they are tired of paying the expensive price of ESPN when they don't watch sports.
But how many rabid CFB fans would pay far more money in order to watch their favorite sport during the Fall?
Currently most cable subscribers are paying around $9.00/month to get the ESPN Networks. While a sizable portion of the public is saying no to this and cutting the cord, most CFB fans would pay way more especially if the content was upgraded.
We may get to a point where Netflix or Hulu buys the rights for all major college sports: Football, Basketball, Baseball, Softball. Paying for a subscription would give a viewer access to every game however the cost for the Package might be $30/month for a year or $50/month if you go month-to-month.
While is seems pricey, don't you think most rabid fans would pay it if that was what it cost to watch their favorite sport?
2
Posted on 6/10/19 at 10:43 am to cave canem
quote:
Simply put MO is pumping around 18 million more per year into the SEC network alone than AL.
Posted on 6/10/19 at 10:45 am to Vecchio Cane
quote:Do you believe everything you read in the media?
Because, eventually, a Super Conference is going to form. At least that's what they've been telling us for 25 years.
The SEC wants to be first, or at least be out ahead and ready to grab the most favorable teams when the Supers are formed
There is no outside force moving to consolidate college sports into four super conferences. That's just crap that writers like to dream about. As was said above, some of y'all think this is SIM City. It's not.
There's nothing out there that is likely to entice the SEC to expand, compared to the situation in 2011 where the SEC had the opportunity to get into Texas (in a landscape where geographic footprint was key for television rights), or in the early 90s where expansion lead to the institution of a conference championship game. And, if the SEC doesn't see expansion as being in its self interest, there's no outside force that can compel it to expand.
At best, you could make a case for some kind of defensive move, but there is no realignment scenario where I can see the SEC saying, we have to go to 16 rather than let school X go to conference Y. The biggest fish out there are OU and Texas. If they want to go to the Pac-12, or the Big Ten, I can't see the SEC saying that we need to go to 16 to prevent that from happening. Let them go if that's what they want to do. It won't hurt the SEC one bit.
Posted on 6/10/19 at 10:47 am to Landmass
quote:
As for having four 4 team divisions, I'd love to see how the tie breakers would figure into that.
The NFL already has that figured out.
It would only be an issue if you have 3 teams with the same conference record. A tie breaker between two teams is easy to figure out, unless you're Ol' Most.
Posted on 6/10/19 at 10:49 am to BHMKyle
quote:
I'm open to further expansion if it increases the QUALITY of the league. Programs like Florida State, Clemson, Oklahoma, or Texas would be great additions IMO because they'd increase the quality of the league in most every sport.
You can throw all of those out the window, with the exception of Oklahoma. If the SEC expanded, it would be for a Wake Forest, Duke, Indiana, Maryland, etc. to bring in more TV sets. Your big teams are not going anywhere unless someone elsewhere triggers a Big 12 collapse. Even then, the only candidates would be the Oklahoma schools, Kansas schools, and possibly Texas (If A&M allows it).
Florida would nix any other Florida schools. SC would nix Clemson. Kentucky would nix Louisville. A&M would probably nix any other Texas school.
This post was edited on 6/10/19 at 10:50 am
Posted on 6/10/19 at 10:50 am to NocaHomas Teepee
quote:
Any expansion will be driven by determining what TV markets the new schools add to the conference's footprint.
This was true 5 years ago but not necessarily anymore. As viewers cut the cord, geography means less and less. Soon it will be the shear size of the fan base that matters most. Which programs will bring in the most subscribers to a subscription network? That is what will matter most in the not so distant future.
Posted on 6/10/19 at 10:53 am to BHMKyle
quote:
This was true 5 years ago but not necessarily anymore. As viewers cut the cord, geography means less and less. Soon it will be the shear size of the fan base that matters most. Which programs will bring in the most subscribers to a subscription network? That is what will matter most in the not so distant future.
You're partly correct.
As long as OTA like CBS exists, TV market size matters, although I agree with you that it is of declining importance.
ETA- And I know you fricking down-voted the 2003 SEC-W Banner post, Landmass
This post was edited on 6/10/19 at 10:55 am
Posted on 6/10/19 at 11:00 am to Landmass
quote:
You can throw all of those out the window, with the exception of Oklahoma.
So you've negotiated with these schools personally?
quote:
If the SEC expanded, it would be for a Wake Forest,
No it wouldn't. The SEC would never expand by adding a school with one of the smallest levels of support in all of major athletics. This is just stupid.
quote:
If the SEC expanded, it would be for a Wake Forest, Duke, Indiana, Maryland, etc. to bring in more TV sets.
This is outdated thinking. It was true 5 years ago but its quickly becoming less of a factor as more and more tv viewers switch to subscription services like Hulu, YouTube, etc. and away from traditional cable.
Ten years ago adding Mizzou made sense because all college football fans had to pay for traditional cable in order to view ESPN or the SEC Network. So picking up large media markets like St. Louis and Kansas City made sense. Depite 60% of tv viewers in those markets never watching college football, they had to pay for it if they wanted cable.
Now days though there is competition and those 60% of viewers can cut the cord and still watch netflix of get their HBO by subscribing direct.
This means the future of Sports Television is targeting those 40% of regular viewers who do care and want to watch their sports. Since the likely future of all TV watching is through direct subscription, its about targeting individual fans rather than geographic markets.
This means Alabama is about to increase dramatically in their value (huge fan base) while Missouri's value drops exponentially. It soon won't matter how many people live in KC and STL, its about how many Mizzou fans there are that care enough to subscribe to a viewing service.
Posted on 6/10/19 at 11:02 am to BHMKyle
quote:
This was true 5 years ago but not necessarily anymore. As viewers cut the cord, geography means less and less.
Is this true? Cord cutting is gaining steam because the internet can offer packages that didn't exist 5 years ago....packages that include traditional channels like ESPN.
Isn't "TV market" still important to the hybrid models that are disrupting traditional cable services since they are using preferred channels?
I'm admittedly ignorant of how this works. Not trying to argue.
Posted on 6/10/19 at 11:02 am to NocaHomas Teepee
quote:
As long as OTA like CBS exists, TV market size matters, although I agree with you that it is of declining importance.
It certainly does for now. But in 20 years there is a good chance the major networks won't be able to outbid the large tech companies for the biggest games.
In 20 years, geography will mean nothing when it comes to putting a value on a college sports program. It will all be about how many viewers that program generates.
Posted on 6/10/19 at 11:05 am to BHMKyle
quote:
It certainly does for now. But in 20 years there is a good chance the major networks won't be able to outbid the large tech companies for the biggest games.
To be honest, I can't wait until someone like YouTube decides to use their frick You levels of money to buy exclusive broadcasting rights to a Super Bowl, Final 4, World Series, or other big live sporting event.
Once that happens the paradigm will completely change.
Posted on 6/10/19 at 11:05 am to BHMKyle
quote:
In 20 years, geography will mean nothing when it comes to putting a value on a college sports program. It will all be about how many viewers that program generates.
Posted on 6/10/19 at 11:10 am to WorkinDawg
The subscription services like Hulu and Youtube depend far less on ad revenue. They make their money direct from the consumers who pay for the subscription.
Think of it in a non-sports way. A huge Game of Thrones fan is going to pay for HBO so they can watch their show. If they pay for the HBO ap on their Roku or they pay for it by paying for HBO on Hulu, etc., HBO could care less whether they are located in New York City (the largest TV market) or some tiny town in the middle of nowhere Mississippi. It doesn't matter. That one viewer is paying HBO either way.
This is the future of most all TV.
Think of it in a non-sports way. A huge Game of Thrones fan is going to pay for HBO so they can watch their show. If they pay for the HBO ap on their Roku or they pay for it by paying for HBO on Hulu, etc., HBO could care less whether they are located in New York City (the largest TV market) or some tiny town in the middle of nowhere Mississippi. It doesn't matter. That one viewer is paying HBO either way.
This is the future of most all TV.
Posted on 6/10/19 at 11:10 am to NocaHomas Teepee
quote:
To be honest, I can't wait until someone like YouTube decides to use their frick You levels of money to buy exclusive broadcasting rights to a Super Bowl, Final 4, World Series, or other big live sporting event.
Once that happens the paradigm will completely change.
I agree. It's coming fast too.
Posted on 6/10/19 at 11:19 am to Landmass
Don't want to but believe we will wind up with 4, 16 school super conferences and allow the smallers to chart their own path
Posted on 6/10/19 at 11:19 am to BHMKyle
quote:
BHMKyle
What exactly are you arguing? My whole point is that the conference is not going to add anyone because the money is not there like it used to be. Your geographic point seems to fall in line with that.
So maybe if the SEC added anyone else, it would be a major program, but the facts remain that:
1. ESPN money is not there like it used to be
2. Any new deal would likely distribute less money to each school than we are getting now based on the "old" model of pay tv service
3. YouTube, Amazon, Netflix, Hulu etc. are not currently major players in the sports market so there is nobody to pick up the slack
4. Probably the most important point... Millenials don't care as much about live sports than previous generations
Posted on 6/10/19 at 11:25 am to Landmass
16 is a nice number with 4 pods of 4. Play 3 teams in your pod and 2 from the other 3 every year for 9 games. Therefore, you play every team in the conference twice every 4 years. Also, have a 2 game sec playoff to make more $. You will need a couple leagues to jump to 16 to get the rules changed
This post was edited on 6/10/19 at 11:27 am
Posted on 6/10/19 at 11:30 am to Landmass
quote:
What exactly are you arguing? My whole point is that the conference is not going to add anyone because the money is not there like it used to be.
I'm saying that you don't know what you are talking about. You are basing your assumptions on outdated models.
Who knows if the SEC will expand? I don't. But with changing dynamics I do believe its possible that adding teams to the league could create additional revenue and therefore create a larger distribution per school. It all depends on the teams that are added and when it takes place. In the current situation it probably doesn't make sense. But within a few years after more folks have cut the cord and are willing to pay a subscription service to watch their TV, its entirely possible.
quote:
1. ESPN money is not there like it used to be
Which is why ESPN is likely going to be irrelevant in this discussion in the near future. Again you're thinking is outdated. The next big players are going to be Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, or maybe even Facebook.
quote:
2. Any new deal would likely distribute less money to each school than we are getting now based on the "old" model of pay tv service
Yes, correct. But that "old" model will soon be obsolete. The new model might create a situation in which adding quality could increase the distribution per school.
quote:
3. YouTube, Amazon, Netflix, Hulu etc. are not currently major players in the sports market so there is nobody to pick up the slack
They will be soon. They've sat out on sports because the current model caused conferences and even professional leagues like the NFL, NBA, etc. to sign giant contracts that often go out decades into the future. Once these contracts come close to expiring, the new media will insert themselves into the equation.
The SEC deal with ESPN lasts through 2023 I believe. I would think by then there is a chance ESPN has a lot of new competition.
Why do you think Hulu is already advertising during every college football game with Kirk Herbstreit in the commercials? That's not a coincidence.
quote:
4. Probably the most important point... Millenials don't care as much about live sports than previous generations
Certainly true with baseball and some other sports. Not necessarily true for the NBA which actually attracts millennials. NFL does well with them too.
Posted on 6/10/19 at 11:36 am to Landmass
Not sure who is dumber:
The folks that want to expand
or
The folks who are scared to play a 9 game conference schedule
The folks that want to expand
or
The folks who are scared to play a 9 game conference schedule
Posted on 6/10/19 at 11:48 am to Landmass
A&M, although they are annoying makes sense. Missouri on the other hand is the step child but they bring in some big time money.... I think if the SEC were to expand it should definitely be Oklahoma and then I think University of Virginia could be an interesting addition with their recent basketball and baseball success.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News