DanHogan
- 145 comments
- 10 likes given
- 27 likes received
Bio not provided
@AM a Carolina fan That's the piece that has changed over the years. We have so many more options for buying tickets than before. It used to be your first call for bowl tickets was your school. Now, it's stubhub.
As a Big Ten fan who is used to playing games out of region, I hope there is some effort to group fans of the same team together to some extent. It is always fun to sit in a far-away place like that with fans of your own team.
Something in Dubai would be great if a service academy had a tie-in and plenty of troops serving near-by could be afforded some leave and short-distance travel to see it.
Is this a short-term concern that will happen every time a school changes leagues where non-conf timing is different?
What's really needed is some sort of variation on RPI for football. Is there a reason they can't just duplicate the formula? Is it because there are fewer games?
I'd use this same logic in looking at non-conference scheduling. Teams are looking to schedule opponents often a number of years in advance and have to guess just how good that team is going to be. This is one of the reasons that scheduling arrangements are so appealing to me. If there is some room to adjust opponents here and there during the summer, there's a better chance that lopsided games can be avoided.
You've said for a while that the Big Ten and SEC would slowly pull away from the Big 12 in terms of revenue in the coming years. How does this year fit into that larger picture? Is this a one-time instance where they are ahead?
That article makes it sound like Raycom is the *key* roadblock holding the channel back. Or, at least it is the first roadblock. The article says there is no rush and that it could happen a few years after the SEC Network (if then), but it doens't say what would be if Raycom wasn't standing in the way. (That's at least a little reassuring in that our logic saying they would create one wasn't totally off-base.)
So, how crazy would it be for ESPN to buy Raycom Sports from Raycom? They have all of the resources that ESPN is going to need to build the two networks and they are located in Charlotte with a heavy focus on the southeast.
@John at MrSEC @DanHogan @viciousdawg I stand corrected!
@viciousdawg @DanHogan Yes, exactly, that was John's article at the time. He wants to (or, at least wanted to) expand that arrangement to include all 14 teams on both sides. I see it as a way of *not* adding the 9th conference game and still lets everyone schedule one more tough BSC squad if they want. And I assume other challenge games wouldn't have to be the last game of the year and could be defined by the conferences or even the ESPN.
@John at MrSEC @SEC 1 If the SEC really is that strong (and, yes, for the time being I think it is), then beating all of that lower competition from other leagues should be easy.
@KellyJones2 I would think the target now should be 10 *BCS* games and not 10 conference games. We'd effectively never see an SEC team play outside the SEC other than the bowl games.
The 6-game requirement is an interesting component of this, though. We've seen so many sub-par teams playing in December seeing that all they have to do is beat 4 push-overs and then steal 2 conference games. If you force them to win 3 out of 8 conference games, that's a bit better. But, if a team is playing 10 opponents at the BCS level, they're forced to win 4 times against reasonably good teams. This will be the first time I've ever typed this, but I'm not sure the 6-win requirement should be increased at that point. To go 6-6 with 10 BCS games, you'd almost have to beat another bowl eligible team or two along the way to get there.
@SouthernBoiSB I personally doubt it will ever happen with so few non-conf games to spare, but I really like the concept. Maybe an SEC/ACC alignment does make sense and could incorporate the existing in-state games (first read that idea on this site). Otherwise, I'm not holding my breath.
The fact that some teams would be forced into it is probably a good thing since the current way hasn't shown signs of working until now. But, the real benefit to me is the idea that opponents could be finalized as late as the spring of the previous year. There wouldn't be as much flexibility as the basketball challenges, but there would still be a reduced risk of a match-up between high-tier and mid- to low-tier BCS programs. As an example, Michigan State has a series lined up with Oregon in a few years. Imagine Oregon continues to fly high and MSU slides a bit more. That match-up doesn't help either program -- or at least doesn't provide enough up-side to balance the loss of a home game.
Do you have an opinion on how the bundling / a la carte debate will go? At one end of the spectrum is the current tiered model with only a few bundles. At the other end is the end-customer choosing one-by-one all of the individual channels. I'd tend to think that neither extreme will work.
And, no, you won't end up spending less -- at least not by a meaningful amount -- even with more choices to add/remove channels.
@John at MrSEC Gotcha. I've read your thoughts on SEC's future earnings but I couldn't remember if you had said anything about the two conferences compared to each other.. other than the idea that they would be in the same ballpark.
John, you've spelled out where you think the SEC money is going to be and why you think that. Have you ever done the same for the Big Ten so we can see the two side-by-side? Obviously, we're looking at a lot of uncertainty in numbers, but it would be interesting to see how you see the two doing head-to-head.
@safety guy It isn't so much about wanting it or not wanting it. It's more about getting ESPN and the carrier to agree on a price. Both will be looking for leverage.
@John at MrSEC @BonzaiB A lot of people (I think incorrectly) tried similar logic in the NY area with Yes and BTN. Perhaps the relationship between the provider and the carrier becomes that much more important to both, but I can't see any of the providers in the south not carrying ESPN. I could see some small-time bundling happening in the interest of getting a deal done. Maybe a deal for ESPN/ESPN2 gets extended, LHN finally finds its way to an a la cart, and SEC Net lands on basic. But, I don't see any real strong-arming one way or the other.
So, this deal takes a few games per week away from the ESPN
networks. Are they following the Tier 3 model that gives CBS/ESPN the first
choices? Or are they following more of a Pac 12 Net model that
reserves more higher valued content for the conference Net?
@Jimisawesome Absolutely. Due diligence. And, to my knowledge, we don't know how much work they did on those 20 or so schools. Really, "doing their homework" could be anywhere from deep ongoing discussions with university leadership to reading their Wikipedia page.
@sojourner Vandy and the B1G have a tremendous amount to offer one-another institutionally. The CIC is a huge asset to the academic and research side of the schools (emphasis on schools). To illustrate, Arkansas's research endowment is just above a billion dollars and is #5 in the SEC. They would be in a virtual tie for #12 ahead of only Maryland and Rutgers if added to the B1G. That's also why there has been some serious rumors about the B1G inviting Johns Hopkins Lacrosse to play in the conference and be the first associate member.
I would imagine every university president in the Big Ten would demand that Delany and crew do their homework on Vandy before even considering research small-timers like Maryland and Rutgers. I certainly would.