|
Replies: 34
| visibility 435
|
110%er [3989]
TigerPulse: 100%
35
|
|
|
|
 |
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
24
|
Clemson is attractive
Dec 19, 2012, 12:21 PM
|
|
to the Big 12.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [42]
TigerPulse: 52%
5
|
Re: If expansion is really about "TV Markets" riddle me this...
Dec 19, 2012, 12:21 PM
|
|
isn't that rating based on viewers per total tvs? just because we have a higher rating doesn't equate to a higher total number of viewers.
a lower rating in atlanta or new york = a lot more actual tv viewers than a higher rating in greenville due to total population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [10883]
TigerPulse: 100%
45
Posts: 12942
Joined: 2012
|
Many of you know, as well as the $EC, we (as Clemson fans)
Dec 19, 2012, 7:50 PM
|
|
will still proabably watch usuc play and will get our views just b/c we would like to watch our rival lose.
Don't even act like you don't, many of you know you watch the games.
If you're like me, you become the biggest fan of whoever they are playing and pull hard for them all 4 quarters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [10883]
TigerPulse: 100%
45
Posts: 12942
Joined: 2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [42]
TigerPulse: 52%
5
|
highest rated vs largest = big difference***
Dec 19, 2012, 12:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aficionado [158]
TigerPulse: 58%
12
|
Re: If expansion is really about "TV Markets" riddle me this...
Dec 19, 2012, 12:30 PM
|
|
Greenville is not a top 5 TV market. Greenville-Spartanburg-Asheville DMA is about the 35th largest TV market based on households. the study you reference is for college football tv markets based on mkt penetration/ % of tvs (not # of tvs). Greenville does have a high % of college football fans. In fact, Greenville had the #2 market for the SC-LSU game on ESPN this year (behind Birmingham), which doesn't help Clemson's cause because it shows the SEC has great exposure in Greenville w/o Clemson. But the real # that is driving expansion are cable subscribers for the entire state for valuing a conference network. Therefore, USC cover Greenville and Clemson brings nothing to the pot in terms of the valuation formula.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7930]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 13705
Joined: 2002
|
that's it
Dec 19, 2012, 12:59 PM
|
|
and that's why Clemson will most likely never get an SEC invite...we bring little additional in revenue to the conference. We are much more valuable to the Big12.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4906]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
So you are saying that drawing a large # of viewers from #35
Dec 19, 2012, 1:41 PM
|
|
market is not valuable?
Would love to see a comparison of # of viewers of Ga Tech in Atlanta market vs. # of viewers of Clemson in Greenville market.
Would be willing to bet that the net # of viewers for Clemson is higher.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1363]
TigerPulse: 96%
28
|
you're missing the point
Dec 19, 2012, 2:43 PM
|
|
The SEC wants new TVs, not a new team on TVs they already have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7930]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 13705
Joined: 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expert [1102]
TigerPulse: 79%
26
|
Might help for Big 12 bid, but Clemson brings nothing to SEC
Dec 19, 2012, 12:48 PM
|
|
in terms of market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7930]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 13705
Joined: 2002
|
Having grown up in Greenville but no longer a resident
Dec 19, 2012, 12:57 PM
|
|
I can assure you it's not in the top 5 largest tv markets...this was simply a sampling from a few yrs regarding top tv markets for college football game telecast for ESPN.
You can't take from that a translation that because of this Clemson is a great attractive fit for the SEC. Included in these numbers I'm certain are large numbers of GT, UGA, and obviously SC fans along with Tenn and other ACC schools. Clemson is more attractive to the Big 12 than we are to the SEC but there is no overlap like is produced in the Gville like there is with SC.
Also this a percentage of TV's in that market that are watching ESPN college football. If you notice Birmingham AL and Columbus Ohio are the top two. I wonder who they are tuning it to watch at a rabid pace????
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [5704]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Obviously, statistics show the problem to be that
Dec 19, 2012, 1:09 PM
|
|
1) Greenville is the top market in only 2 out of 3 years
-or-
2) Greenville is a top market every other year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [746]
TigerPulse: 100%
22
|
here is the thought process behind "TV markets"...
Dec 19, 2012, 1:16 PM
|
|
Conferences are looking at creating their own networks (like the Big10 network, etc) and this is the primary reason expanding a "footprint" is more important right now.
When a person signs up for a cable package, they pay for every channel in the package whether or not they watch it. Everyone has ESPN and pays about $5 a month whether or not they watch it even once.
Advertising dollars come from how many people watch the game, so obviously the more total viewers a team generates, the more money a network can make.
So there are two factors that generate money for the networks. How many subscribers and how many viewers. If a conference expands by adding a team from a new market, then they can sell their network (ie, Big10 network) in that new market, so they make more money from everyone with a TV... and they make money from the advertising dollars generated from how many people watch the game.
So the conferences right now would rather expand their "footprint" since the amount they can potentially make off the additional subscribers and the advertising revenue of maybe a lesser viewed team is greater than what they can potentially make off just adding a team with a great number of viewers but not adding any new subscribers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
20
|
Very true.***
Dec 19, 2012, 1:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4787]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
espn is bundled with the "expanded" basic on charter,as is
Dec 19, 2012, 4:58 PM
|
|
espn2.unless you want to throw in the "u" you don't have to purchase a separate package.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
20
|
Re: espn is bundled with the "expanded" basic on charter,as is
Dec 19, 2012, 5:12 PM
|
|
You probably know more about it than I do, Sarg. The guy I responded to is what I have been told. The SEC Network will be interesting to see how they do it, when it's announced. They have the advantage of having watched how the others have done it. When I piece information together, I conclude and/or suspect, don't know, but suspect that when the SEC announces the formation of the SEC Network, they will announce SEC school members numbers 15 and 16.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
20
|
Take a look at the population bases of FSU and GT.
Dec 19, 2012, 1:22 PM
|
|
Both of them are in state capitals. They both have great tradition. FSU is not so removed from their glory years, thus making them a national brand. GT is a former member of the SEC. So, they both have a lot going for them. But you are not going to see them in the SEC either.
I think as mentioned above, the Big 12 would be good for clemson. Yes, the longer travel $uck$. But the football would be good. And you would be in what is perceived to be one of the Big 4 conferences (SEC, PAC, Big 10 and Big 12). Look at the big bowl arrangements: The Sugar has both the SEC and Big 12 and will pay out $80 million. The Rose has the PAC and Big 10 with a $80 million pay out. Now look at the Orange. It has the ACC and somebody else, with a much smaller payout of $55 million. If I was clemson, I'd jump at the chance to get into the Big 12.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Legend [12529]
TigerPulse: 72%
47
Posts: 21078
Joined: 2005
|
Re: Take a look at the population bases of FSU and GT.
Dec 19, 2012, 1:26 PM
|
|
Neilly,
You are such a coot tool. You just can't help yourself with some of the bs you spew. GT is a former member so that will help them for some reason. FSU being not so removed from their glory years. They are definitely well beyond the time of their "glory years"
Clemson is as much a national brand right now as FSU is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
20
|
Re: Take a look at the population bases of FSU and GT.
Dec 19, 2012, 1:35 PM
|
|
No, clemson is not a national brand. FSU still is. And outsiders have said as much when talking about SEC expansion. And GT would still have some support in the SEC. Believe whatever you want. But neither of them nor clemson will be going into the SEC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Legend [12529]
TigerPulse: 72%
47
Posts: 21078
Joined: 2005
|
Re: Take a look at the population bases of FSU and GT.
Dec 19, 2012, 1:47 PM
|
|
Tell yourself whatever you want to tell yourself Neilly.
Clemson.
Is.
A.
National.
Brand.
For.
Football.
And I could give a **** about your SEC. Trust us. We will be fine. If anything this conference expansion is going to close the gap on your might SEC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7930]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 13705
Joined: 2002
|
I live in the population base of GT as you call it...
Dec 19, 2012, 8:40 PM
[ in reply to Take a look at the population bases of FSU and GT. ] |
|
NOBODY HERE CARES ABOUT GT....NOBODY...NOT A SOUL....they all love OTHER SCHOOLS....UGA.....AUBURN...ETC. NOBODY AT ALL CARES ABOUT GT HERE IN ATLANTA......NOBODY.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dynasty Maker [3408]
TigerPulse: 97%
34
|
It's really more about "TV states" than "TV markets"***
Dec 19, 2012, 1:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valley Legend [12529]
TigerPulse: 72%
47
Posts: 21078
Joined: 2005
|
Re: It's really more about "TV states" than "TV markets"***
Dec 19, 2012, 1:29 PM
|
|
The Greenville-Spartanburg-Asheville TV market is currently ranked at number 36 nationally according to Nielsen. So either way the poster is correct.
1. We have a lot of TV viewers
2. We have a lot of people that actually watch the product
The ACC is about to renegotiation with UL and ND coming on and will be on the same level as the Big 12 so take that for whatever its worth. To me it doesn't matter. Clemson is going to get picked up by a major conference or stay in an upgraded ACC. Conferences (outside of SEC) would be knocking down doors for us just because we have a big time football brand
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Warrior [4906]
TigerPulse: 100%
37
|
^^ Get's it..
Dec 19, 2012, 1:37 PM
|
|
To your Pakistan point, if it was only about the market then Boston College would have been a coup for the ACC.
Just as GaTech may be in Atlanta but no one cares.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4403]
TigerPulse: 99%
36
|
Don't forget the Charlotte Market Also ....
Dec 19, 2012, 1:38 PM
|
|
Charlotte is relativelly close ... huge market there also .... its settled then, Clemson to the SEC
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [942]
TigerPulse: 59%
24
|
Guys, to *ell with the SEC. Stop wasting brain cells on why
Dec 19, 2012, 1:42 PM
|
|
they should take us in. All of our energies should be focused on getting into the Big 12.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26692]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 46370
Joined: 2010
|
Not to single out your post, but "all our energies" should
Dec 19, 2012, 1:45 PM
|
|
be focused on WINNING!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1346]
TigerPulse: 100%
28
|
Re: If expansion is really about "TV Markets" riddle me this...
Dec 19, 2012, 2:35 PM
|
|
Total eyeballs are key for a TV market, whether you measure it in penetration (rating) or absolute TV count/guesstimate.
But I also think affiliation is key. It's reasonable to think Clemson will convert more TVs in Greenville through Charlotte (if you want to include that market) to the SEC overall than a Big XX. Since there is already affiliation, you would expect a Clemson or ACC fan in the region to watch, say, an Ole Miss game if it didn't conflict with the Clemson schedule. But an Iowa game? A Kansas game? Wisconsin?
I'm pretty sure a big network like ESPN or a conference specific one is interested in more than the expansion team audience. WVU was leveraged to get into the DC market where there are already Big 12 fans who may not care a hoot about WVU. It makes bringing broadcasts to the market more profitable. Or maybe simply profitable.
And it's why ATL is an attractive market to most conferences. Maybe not the PAC 12....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member [27]
TigerPulse: 19%
3
|
So adding Clemson would help in Charlotte more than NCSU?
Dec 19, 2012, 3:24 PM
|
|
You have to think more wolfpack fans are in Charlotte than Tiger fans to begin with. I think it also safe to assume that there are more Gamecocks than there are Tigers in Charlotte. If the SEC adds NCSU instead of Clemson, all of those Gamecock fans in Charlotte now pay in-state SEC network rates (~.80 per month) instead of out of state (~.10). Adding Clemson would add a dew more viewers in Charlotte, but any SEC network subscribers would be at the cheap rate and wouldn't bring enough $ to influence anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member [27]
TigerPulse: 19%
3
|
Cities don't matter...states do
Dec 19, 2012, 3:19 PM
|
|
The B1G network gets .80 per subscriber for states containing a B1G school and .10 per subscriber for states without one. You can assume the SEC Network will have a similar pricing model. SC is already covered from that perspective.
On a side note, the viewers you would bring to the SEC tv table aren't really that impressive anyway. Only 25% of the people in SC consider themselves Clemson fans to begin with (per Wall Street Journal polling). Of that 25% what percentage of Clemson fans currently already watch SEC football when they aren't watching Clemson? The Saturday primetime slots are dominated by SEC programming so you don't have much choice if you are a southerner who watches college football.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [21947]
TigerPulse: 86%
53
Posts: 18472
Joined: 2007
|
Re: If expansion is really about "TV Markets" riddle me this...
Dec 19, 2012, 3:21 PM
|
|
People in Green ills already watch the SEC. That's why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Playmaker [358]
TigerPulse: 96%
16
|
Re: If expansion is really about "TV Markets" riddle me this...
Dec 19, 2012, 7:57 PM
|
|
This is easy..the SEC doesn't need to add because they already have the greenville market...name me one clemson fan that doesn't watch the South Carolina game to see if they lose..its that easy
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [580]
TigerPulse: 25%
20
|
You are spot on. And we watch you guys on Raycom to see if
Dec 19, 2012, 8:39 PM
|
|
you lose AND to support Swofford's son who is an employee of Raycom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 34
| visibility 435
|
|
|
50
