Expansion Talk 2021

[SOWEGA Jacket]

OTOH, I have been disappointed over the years as we have said that we are specialists at facing and solving tough problems as engineers and management grads. But the school (more specifically the GTAA) has consistently failed to practice what we preach. Outside of Dr. Rice, we seem to have been lead by an unforgettable progression of administrators and bureaucrats. I am hoping that TStan proves to be the type of leader that our school has produced in so many other fields.

Agreed. GT has serious internal problems for us GT sports fan. I refuse to believe that GT is that inept. Instead I believe that we have administrators purposely making life hard for athletic and will cheer when sports come to an end. All the big time programs have one thing in common - the administration and athletics all pull in the same direction. At GT it’s the exact opposite. I’m really hoping that if Collins can bring us some success that Cabrera can be the guy to bring them all together. But I’m not holding my breath on that. Academia is just filled these days with folks who put there nose up at anything they deem beneath them. But if someone came after their little program in the school they’d act as if world peace was at stake. GT is GT’s worst enemy when it comes to athletics.

 

[bobongo]

I know the ACC is behind now. However, adding WVU, UCF, Tulsa, and Cincinnati will not help to catch up. (See I added more schools so you can't brush off my reply a "simply adding WVU".)

Tulsa has an enrollment of around 4,000.

 

[BurdellJacket]

yep, it’s the price y’all pay for my spare time. Kids are grown, wife still works. I stay as busy as possible. Yard work, preparing the house for sale, cleaned the garage, cook supper, roam Home Depot/Lowe’s, visit my mother, fish, etc. it’s a hard life I lead. The bad thing about it is that I can do all of that with my phone nearby which means I’m alert to ALL your posts and available for instant response. Truthfully I’ve become an addict. I’ve always been verbose, it’s a flaw I guess but I think I’ve learned it’s a necessity in my former job. Saying in detail what you think or want eventually makes it easier.

I understand you Technut. It was not with much difficulty that I also eased into retirement. And your verbocity reminds me of my wife. Her texts look like short stories.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

largemouth, crappie and bluegill and catfish on farm ponds south of Atlanta and along the Ocmulgee. can’t wait for trout season in the mountains though ! Interesting thing though, I’ve gotten into herping . There isn’t a spot around any pond or lake that dosent have an assortment of snakes. Rat snakes, copperheads, ring necks, racers. I want to find a cane break but I’m not sure I have the guts to grab it. As long as I’m outside and peaceful it’s all good though.

I live in the mountains. Cane break (timber rattlers) are not to be taken lightly.

 

[Technut1990]

I understand you Technut. It was not with much difficulty that I also eased into retirement. And your verbocity reminds me of my wife. Her texts look like short stories.

My grandmother raised me while my mom worked, she had a gift for gab, so much so she had a “article” in the local newspaper at the time, it was called “Thinking Out Loud”. She talked about local things like knitting and home grown toe-maters and of course when the time came politics. I’m blaming her, God rest her soul

 

[Technut1990]

I live in the mountains. Cane break (timber rattlers) are not to be taken lightly.

no sir and they can get pretty big, they give the Eastern Diamondback a run for their money, but a beautiful snake none the less

 

[Pointer]

largemouth, crappie and bluegill and catfish on farm ponds south of Atlanta and along the Ocmulgee. can’t wait for trout season in the mountains though ! Interesting thing though, I’ve gotten into herping . There isn’t a spot around any pond or lake that dosent have an assortment of snakes. Rat snakes, copperheads, ring necks, racers. I want to find a cane break but I’m not sure I have the guts to grab it. As long as I’m outside and peaceful it’s all good though.

Haven't fished the Ocmulgee, but I've always wanted to. I know who I'll ask for tips once I do though. In laws live in Statesboro so my goal is to make a pit stop there.

 

[MWBATL]

Interesting that a Kansas senator wants the DOJ to investigate ESPN for their involvement in the move to the SEC.
Grab the popcorn !

Just a politician doing what politicians do best...posturing. Nothing to see there.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Haven't fished the Ocmulgee, but I've always wanted to. I know who I'll ask for tips once I do though. In laws live in Statesboro so my goal is to make a pit stop there.

River fishing has small windows to work with. Old timers call it “when the River is right”. Timing is everything.

 

[orientalnc]

OK guys, fishing and the Kansas senator do not belong in this thread. I am leaving these posts in place for now, but let's keep the thread on the rails.

 

[GTLorenzo]

Positive news for the ACC Network. Still waiting on Comcast though.

Mediacom adds ACC Network as part of a carriage renewal deal for Disney and ESPN networks

ACC Network will be available to Mediacom cable subscribers beginning in September. The deal was made as part of a larger Disney renewal.

awfulannouncing.com

 

[TruckStick]

Positive news for the ACC Network. Still waiting on Comcast though.

Mediacom adds ACC Network as part of a carriage renewal deal for Disney and ESPN networks

ACC Network will be available to Mediacom cable subscribers beginning in September. The deal was made as part of a larger Disney renewal.

awfulannouncing.com

Comcast is king. Get it and the channel/sharing gets a big boost. Get another national championship and/or many ACC teams have a good season than more eyes will be on it and get some momentum.

The problem we have is there are some bottom feeders in the conference like Wake, Syracuse, BC somewhat.

VT, UNC, GT, FSU, UM, Clemson need to be good this year.

add Notre Dame and UCF if the opportunity arises. Nobody else.

 

[bobongo]

Comcast is king. Get it and the channel/sharing gets a big boost. Get another national championship and/or many ACC teams have a good season than more eyes will be on it and get some momentum.

The problem we have is there are some bottom feeders in the conference like Wake, Syracuse, BC somewhat.

VT, UNC, GT, FSU, UM, Clemson need to be good this year.

add Notre Dame and UCF if the opportunity arises. Nobody else.

Syracuse was added for the New York market, and BC was added for the Boston market. But I don't think people up that way watch too much college football. I don't know all the factors involved, but it seems the best markets are not always the biggest.

 

[RonJohn]

Syracuse was added for the New York market, and BC was added for the Boston market. But I don't think people up that way watch too much college football. I don't know all the factors involved, but it seems the best markets are not always the biggest.

The number of people in a market that watch hasn't been a factor in media contracts in the last 20 years. The number of TV subscribers has been the only thing that matters. According to media analysts more than 80% of ESPN's revenue has come from subscriptions. ESPN has used sports fanatics enthusiasm to force TV providers to include ESPN in their lowest tiers of programming. As such, ESPN has wanted at least a small enthusiastic audience in large markets. If only 200,000 people in the 6.8 million TV NYC are fanatical about ACC sports, that has been more important than if every 509,000 TV subscriber in Tulsa were fanatical about ACC sports.

Things are changing, but when thinking about the previous to present business model, the number of people who watch didn't and doesn't make money. The number of TV subscriptions did/does. That is why getting NY State and getting Boston mattered to the TV contract.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Syracuse was added for the New York market, and BC was added for the Boston market. But I don't think people up that way watch too much college football. I don't know all the factors involved, but it seems the best markets are not always the biggest.

Yes, lots of factors and I am sure I don’t understand them all. One small aspect to marketing is to go into a large area and give your product exposure over an extended period of time. Atlanta’s only pro championship came with the Atlanta Chiefs. Decade after decade went by after that and some of us thought soccer would never catch on in this country but the slow relentless water wearing down stone finally has started paying off. So sometimes the moral is not how many fans watch in a given market but rather how many will watch 50 years from now.

 

[bobongo]

The number of people in a market that watch hasn't been a factor in media contracts in the last 20 years

Here we go again. If nobody watches it, it's not a factor in pulling in subscribers and carriers aren't going to pay for something that's just along for the ride. In the end, the number of people who watch is the only factor. It's just common sense.

 

[RonJohn]

Here we go again. If nobody watches it, it's not a factor in pulling in subscribers and carriers aren't going to pay for something that's just along for the ride. In the end, the number of people who watch is the only factor. It's just common sense.

Not for the last 20 years. ESPN has used sports fans to threaten to take away 30-40% of a TV providers subscribers. They have forced TV providers to include ESPN in their lowest (or just above broadcast TV only) packages. According to your statement, an 80 year old widowed grandmother with no interest in sports would not pay $8.50 per month for ESPN. However, in the real world she does. In order to get her Lifetime Movies channel, she needs a TV subscription. In order to get a TV subscription, she is required by the bundle to get ESPN. So, she pays for ESPN. She probably doesn't know how much she pays for ESPN, and she probably would pitch a fit if she did know.

I am not saying it is right. I am not saying it is a common sense business model. I am not saying it is an ethical business model. I am simply stating that this is the model that ESPN has been using. This is the reason that the TV subscriber size of a market has been much, much more important in media contracts than the size of the sports audience in that market, which is what you asked in the post I responded to. You stated that you didn't know the factors involved. That is the factor involved. Subscribers >>>>> viewers (according the ESPN's business model to this point in time)

 

[bobongo]

Not for the last 20 years. ESPN has used sports fans to threaten to take away 30-40% of a TV providers subscribers. They have forced TV providers to include ESPN in their lowest (or just above broadcast TV only) packages. According to your statement, an 80 year old widowed grandmother with no interest in sports would not pay $8.50 per month for ESPN. However, in the real world she does. In order to get her Lifetime Movies channel, she needs a TV subscription. In order to get a TV subscription, she is required by the bundle to get ESPN. So, she pays for ESPN. She probably doesn't know how much she pays for ESPN, and she probably would pitch a fit if she did know.

I am not saying it is right. I am not saying it is a common sense business model. I am not saying it is an ethical business model. I am simply stating that this is the model that ESPN has been using. This is the reason that the TV subscriber size of a market has been much, much more important in media contracts than the size of the sports audience in that market, which is what you asked in the post I responded to. You stated that you didn't know the factors involved. That is the factor involved. Subscribers >>>>> viewers (according the ESPN's business model to this point in time)

So, if I understand you correctly, it doesn't matter if the channel offers a scintillating college football matchup with millions of viewers, or an infomercial selling cap snafflers. It's all the same because you're on the same TV package. Uh huh. I think it's obvious that ratings matter.

 

[RonJohn]

So, if I understand you correctly, it doesn't matter if the channel offers a scintillating college football matchup with millions of viewers, or an infomercial selling cap snafflers. It's all the same because you're on the same TV package. Uh huh. I think it's obvious that ratings matter.

The way I understand that ESPN would negotiate TV contracts for ESPN is as follows: ESPN would ask for an outrageous amount of money for the ESPN channel, and that ESPN be in every package that the carrier provides except the locals only package required by federal law. ESPN ensures that their TV contracts expire just before big sporting times, such as the week before Labor Day weekend (college football starting). The TV provider would push back. ESPN would start making media releases and putting a ticker on ESPN that "This TV provider is in danger of losing ESPN and you won't be able to watch college football. Please call this provider or switch to another provider". The sports audience is estimated to be between 30 and 40 percent of TV subscribers, so the TV provider is in danger of losing 30 or more percent of their subscribers for this one issue. The TV providers all caved and gave ESPN what they wanted.

You are correct that if ESPN was only an infomercial channel that nobody watched, that it wouldn't matter to TV providers. ESPN has played hardball and has used the 30-40 percent of TV subscribers who are sports fans to force TV providers to charge the 60-70 percent who are not sports fans large amounts for sports content.

Let's do some math to see if high ratings regions or high subscriber regions make more money. The estimates that I have seen are that 80-85% of ESPNs revenue comes from subscriptions and only 15-20% from ads. If 80% of ESPN's revenue is from subscriptions, and 60% of TV subscribers don't watch sports content, then that means that 48% of ESPN's revenue comes directly from subscriptions of people who don't watch sports. 48% of the NYC market of 6.8 million is more than 100% of Tulsa's 509,000. ESPN's business model to this point HAS to have large media market enthusiasm. They don't need large ratings, they just need 30% of subscribers who will leave if they don't get ESPN. If they have that, they can force the other 70% to pay for ESPN also.

 

[bobongo]

The way I understand that ESPN would negotiate TV contracts for ESPN is as follows: ESPN would ask for an outrageous amount of money for the ESPN channel, and that ESPN be in every package that the carrier provides except the locals only package required by federal law. ESPN ensures that their TV contracts expire just before big sporting times, such as the week before Labor Day weekend (college football starting). The TV provider would push back. ESPN would start making media releases and putting a ticker on ESPN that "This TV provider is in danger of losing ESPN and you won't be able to watch college football. Please call this provider or switch to another provider". The sports audience is estimated to be between 30 and 40 percent of TV subscribers, so the TV provider is in danger of losing 30 or more percent of their subscribers for this one issue. The TV providers all caved and gave ESPN what they wanted.

You are correct that if ESPN was only an infomercial channel that nobody watched, that it wouldn't matter to TV providers. ESPN has played hardball and has used the 30-40 percent of TV subscribers who are sports fans to force TV providers to charge the 60-70 percent who are not sports fans large amounts for sports content.

Let's do some math to see if high ratings regions or high subscriber regions make more money. The estimates that I have seen are that 80-85% of ESPNs revenue comes from subscriptions and only 15-20% from ads. If 80% of ESPN's revenue is from subscriptions, and 60% of TV subscribers don't watch sports content, then that means that 48% of ESPN's revenue comes directly from subscriptions of people who don't watch sports. 48% of the NYC market of 6.8 million is more than 100% of Tulsa's 509,000. ESPN's business model to this point HAS to have large media market enthusiasm. They don't need large ratings, they just need 30% of subscribers who will leave if they don't get ESPN. If they have that, they can force the other 70% to pay for ESPN also.

Ratings have to matter when it comes time to negotiate the next deal. The more viewers, the better the ratings. The better the ratings, the more subscribers it pulls in and the better the deal.