Is the SEC regretting adding Missouri to the conference?

[CadaverDawg]

I know it's about the TV market, but is the TV market that great in Missouri? They sucked in football, they're horrible in baseball, and they aren't even dominating a weak SEC basketball conference like most felt they would.

I don't know if it's just the fact that Texas A&M brought the wow factor with Manziel this year or what...but I have just been kinda "meh" about Missouri from the start, and they have done nothing on the field or court to make me feel otherwise yet (no offense, MissouriDawg). I guess I just feel that the SEC could have gotten a better program with a TV market as big or bigger by going after an NCState or somebody like that.

Just wanted to see what everyone else thought of the additions so far.

 

[FISHDAWG]

I think they just need an adjustment period to learn "old-man" football

 

[Cow College]

I believe that Missouri is 4th in the sec in market size. Texas Florida and maybe Georgia ahead of them. So no I don't think they regret it

 

[CadaverDawg]

I believe that Missouri is 4th in the sec in market size. Texas Florida and maybe Georgia ahead of them. So no I don't think they regret it

Didn't realize that. Glad I asked.

 

[dorndawg]

I've long said there's no BCS program in America consistently doing less with more than Mizzou.

But to answer your question, I doubt they are regretting it at all financially - Mizzou opened up 2 top 30 tv markets, as well as a couple more in the top 150.

 

[dogeatdog]

Nope, it's all about money and the TV markets and they bring a big market so

financially speaking the answer is "no".

 

[DAWG61]

I like the addition of Mizzou

 

[Coach34]

Didn't realize that. Glad I asked.

plus, the SEC cant just add powerhouse after powerhouse- some teams have to be on the bottom

 

[UIUCDog]

I don’t like Mizzou in the SEC, but based strictly on athletic performance, I don’t see how NC State would be any better. They are generally mediocre in football, and slightly better than mediocre in basketball. They would be a more natural geographical and cultural fit, though.

 

[CadaverDawg]

plus, the SEC cant just add powerhouse after powerhouse- some teams have to be on the bottom

Obviously. At the same time, I would hardly call NCState a powerhouse either. I guess I was mainly looking from a competitive standpoint, and could the SEC have gotten a little bit more bang for the same TV market size?

 

[Philly Dawg]

I think its safe to assume....

that the SEC did not make the decision to add Missouri based upon their anticipated athletic performance in 2012-13.

 

[patdog]

Yeah. I'm not sure what the obsession some people seem to have with NC State is about. If/when the SEC expands into North Carolina, it won't be to take NC State.

 

[ckDOG]

No, but I regret that they weren't assigned to the West.

I'm much more confident about our future success against them in football versus A&M. Sleeping giant is waking now that they are out of UT's political shadow. I suppose you could make a similar argument for Missouri, but I see them adjusting in football much slower than the Aggies...

 

[Maroonthirteen]

I've long said there's no BCS program in America consistently doing less with more than Mizzou.

But to answer your question, I doubt they are regretting it at all financially - Mizzou opened up 2 top 30 tv markets, as well as a couple more in the top 150.

The SEC was already in those markets with the ESPN deal. I have been in St. Louis a number of weekends over the past few falls. I had no trouble watching us play football on TV. The Bama game a couple of years ago, I watched a portion of the 1st half at a restaurant. The the2nd half in the hotel lobby.....just to give one example.

 

[patdog]

But the SEC Network that will start next year would not have been in those markets if the conference hadn't added Missouri. Now every cable subsriber in the state of Missouri will be paying the SEC every month though their cable bill.

 

[InaccuratePredictionsDawg]

This is their first year in the conference & you are already passing judgment?..

...I see you are judging Missouri for having one sports years equal to about 40 sports years MSU has had since joining the SEC. If you are going to kick somebody out of the SEC for being ****** in football, basketball & baseball all in the same year, MSU would have been kicked out of the SEC by 1957.

 

[CadaverDawg]

...I see you are judging Missouri for having one sports years equal to about 40 sports years MSU has had since joining the SEC. If you are going to kick somebody out of the SEC for being ****** in football, basketball & baseball all in the same year, MSU would have been kicked out of the SEC by 1957.

Not solely on this year. I never really liked the pick up in the first place, and they just seem a little out of place to me...kind of like an above poster stated when it comes to regionally and culturally. I was just curious as to what others thought.

Also, you're right about MSU, but that's not what this thread is about. And I wasn't advocating kicking any team out...just didn't think Mizzou would have been a top choice.

Somebody tell me how the TV markets work...does the SEC make money regardless of the viewership in that region? In other words, if the product in all sports is terrible, thus resulting in low viewership numbers in a region, does the SEC feel the effects of this? Or is their money based on total possible market in the given area?

 

[InaccuratePredictionsDawg]

All I know is...

..not that long Missouri had a great football team, has recently seen its baseball team play in regionals & has been a pretty reliable power in basketball. I think it's just coincidence that the first year they join the SEC, they suck in all 3 sports. And Missouri wasn't invited to join the SEC because somebody had a gut feeling they would be a good fit. They bring in the St. Louis & Kansas City TV markets, which bleeds over into mid-western states the SEC previously didn't reach. That equals advertizing revenue & "growing the SEC brand." Adding Missouri was more a business decision than anything, but a good business decision. In the coming years they are going to field ranked teams in all 3 sports. At least that's what their sports tradition says is going to happen.

 

[engie]

Research Clay Travis' history on SEC expansion and SEC network. It's too complex and redundant to explain on here repeatedly.

Basically, Mizzou is worth initially $3-4 mil/yr additional for MSU/OM in year 1 -- with the potential to be worth $10 mil+/yr to us in upcoming seasons. They are also spending over $100 mil RIGHT NOW upgrading facilities and trying to become competitive in the new environment.

The SECnetwork is all about being demanded on BASIC cable in a subscriber base. Places that this demand is met, it's worth $1+/sub/mo -- whereas it's only worth $0.05-0.15 elsewhere. This is why having a tremendous number of subscribers is important.

When the dust settles on all this, the SEC will be worth about 30% more money(as a low estimate) than any other conferences -- because that's how many more people actually watch the programming -- which is what all the number crunching at the networks eventually comes back to. However, the primary motivation on the conference side(given current models) is TV markets -- and that's what shapes the landscape of expansion.

 

[esplanade91]

Do they add a market? Yes.

Do they make any sense outside of $? Not at all.

I regularly pop over to their forum just to see how they feel about the SEC and they've been bitching since they gave up 100 points in the fourth quarter to Georgia to start the football season about how they would have joined the B1G.

Every school including UK regularly ***** on the idea that the B1G is a respectable conference, while MU wishes they were a part of them. I don't like them being in the SEC, even if it does mean that some farmers in Kansas get to watch MSU every Saturday and that means $ for us. I would have rather added NCSU just for the simple fact that they're like us.

NCSU and MU, remove MU being #1 for that one week, don't have much difference between them in football success. NCSU is about to have their 2nd 1st round QB in 10 years.

 

[johnson86-1]

Obviously. At the same time, I would hardly call NCState a powerhouse either. I guess I was mainly looking from a competitive standpoint, and could the SEC have gotten a little bit more bang for the same TV market size?

We got the best college team in a big market. Had we taken NCState, they would have had to use the status of the SEC to surpass UNC as the most visible/important university in their tv market. That would be hard to do getting regular *** kickings in football and playing in a ****** basketball conference. If we're going to go to a 16 team conference, I actually hope we pick up NCSt. UNC would be preferable, but I'm not sure it will happen, and NCState would give us a team in a good tv market without picking up another team that MSU will have trouble competing with.

 

[Cow College]

They way that the B1G network is setup is that it costs about 20x more to get the network on a state and region with a B1G school. So it may cost .25 a month or me to get it on Directv but if I loved in Ohio it would probably cost $4.

On a side note I read this blog, which I am in no way affiliated, a lot.
http://businessofcollegesports.com/

 

[engie]

So, you preferred to take NCState thus basically removing ANY chance we'd get UNC once the ACC fully destabilizes? You are thinking much, MUCH too small picture in the realignment game.

Mizzou was the best "16th addition" available -- which is basically what they are. Even though they came earlier, they are the final piece to the SEC realignment puzzle. The next two will be from NC and VA - and make no mistake, in terms of "priority", those two states are higher on the priority ladder than Mizzou was.

That said, they are still a very, very good addition -- and given time will fit in perfectly here. They are NO worse "outsiders" than Arkansas and South Carolina were when they first got in. aTm's PERFECT cultural fit(which many of us realized long ago) -- along with their football surgence -- has spoiled people to the transition that ALL the other expansion schools have had to go through here in order to "fit in"...

 

[DerHntr]

5th largest. TN edges them out by around 400k people.

It is still amazing that MS has the second smallest population (only Ark is smaller but by less than a hundred thousand with current estimates) and is one of the three states with two teams in it in the SEC.

 

[UIUCDog]

They are a better geographical/cultural fit for the B1G. They could compete more easily in football there, the B1G is a much better basketball conference, and they fit in with the other midwestern universities better.

I understand that this sort of thing is not really much of a factor in all of the realignment, but nonetheless, I’m with you in feeling like they don’t belong.

 

[futaba.79]

State recruits Missouri for students...........

especially se MO. State has more Missouri kids than NC kids. State seems to be an attractive option for Missouri HS students.

 

[HD6]

Lot OF emphasis in THAT post.

 

[engie]

MAYBE you can dedicate another WHOLE segment to it on YOURshow**

 

[pattersondawg]

That is not the least bit true. I read a Mizzou board daily and they are overwhelmingly in favor of being in the SEC. Nothing more than a handful of people have visions of being in the Big 10, and those are likely the old guard that wanted the Big 10 over 20 years ago and can't let go of it.

To the original topic, Mizzou being down this year has nothing to do with the decision to add them to the league. Those decisions are not made to see who can make the biggest splash in year 1, that's absurd.

 

[esplanade91]

So, you preferred to take NCState thus basically removing ANY chance we'd get UNC once the ACC fully destabilizes? You are thinking much, MUCH too small picture in the realignment game.

Mizzou was the best "16th addition" available -- which is basically what they are. Even though they came earlier, they are the final piece to the SEC realignment puzzle. The next two will be from NC and VA - and make no mistake, in terms of "priority", those two states are higher on the priority ladder than Mizzou was.

That said, they are still a very, very good addition -- and given time will fit in perfectly here. They are NO worse "outsiders" than Arkansas and South Carolina were when they first got in. aTm's PERFECT cultural fit(which many of us realized long ago) -- along with their football surgence -- has spoiled people to the transition that ALL the other expansion schools have had to go through here in order to "fit in"...

UNC is never joining the SEC. Not without Duke. Duke would have been a fantastic 16th team, so I'm still not with you on the Mizzou bandwagon.

Had we not added Mizzou, we'd be in the Duke/UNC sweepstakes with the ability to add VT too. Now we MAY add VT and hopefully get someone else who doesn't suck. We really shot ourselves in the foot if we indeed did plan on adding UNC.

This brings me back to NCSU. VT and NCSU? Because we're sure as hell not getting UNC.

ETA: We might suck, but we're a charter member. Take that with a grain of salt, but we helped shape college baseball the same as Alabama or Tennessee helped shape college football, and you can't discount that. Mizzou could be in the SEC for another 100 years and I don't think they'll ever contribute to anything more than allowing alumni for the other 13 schools watch their games in hotels or their homes in Kansas City and the surrounding area.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Of course there are no regrets. Missouri was well within in the conference's Top 2 targets what with them being the only D-I BCS university in a state with two top media markets.

 

[patdog]

When push comes to shove, UNC will come without Duke when they are faced with the option of letting the SEC take NC State instead and seeing NC State pass them for dominance in North Carolina.

 

[esplanade91]

When push comes to shove, UNC will come without Duke when they are faced with the option of letting the SEC take NC State instead and seeing NC State pass them for dominance in North Carolina.

That's one way of looking at it, but I have to respectfully disagree. Unlike UT-A&M, the two universities have a lot of respect for each other

When the possibility, because this is all hypothetical of course, was to get Duke instead of Mizzou, I'm going to take Duke every time. You're talking about a loyal and national fanbase that has a bandwagon range across the globe.

I don't care much for how MU's on the field/court performances have played into people's minds. USC was garbage in football when we added them and they are still bad at basketball. They "fit in" though. Their sucking at sports is not why I'm anti-MU, for the record.

 

[DAWG61]

When UNC is presented with the number of dollars they will get every season by joining the SEC and the realization that by turning down that amount of cash will ensure it goes in NCState's pocket they will dump Duke faster than you dumped that fat chick you got drunk and banged. Yea we know about her.

 

[Spidey.sixpack]

I agree with this. What does UNC owe to Duke that makes them a package deal? They can schedule non-conference basketball games against each other.

 

[SheltonChoked]

And you would be wrong to do so by the tune of at least $10,000,000/ year in TV money.

The SEC is finished with 2 school states.

You may not like it but that is the way it is.

The next 2 schools will come from North Carolina (UNC, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest) and Virginia (UVA, VA Tech).

 

[DAWG61]

A loyal and national fanbase for arguably a top 3-5 basketball program still only gets 1/5th the amount of tv viewers that even an average SEC football team gets. Duke basketball can't begin to compete against the guaranteed tv dollars that are now locked into the SEC by adding the St. Louis and Kansas City markets. It's about money man. Football destroys basketball. Every. Single. Time. Duke is 3rd on the list of North Carolina targets. Only one of them will be lucky enough to get into the SEC. It'll be UNC unless they decide to make the worst financial mistake for their University. NCState is praying they are that dumb. VTech is smiling the whole time. They know they get first choice over UVA and can't wait to say yes.

 

[johnson86-1]

Yeah. I'm not sure what the obsession some people seem to have with NC State is about. If/when the SEC expands into North Carolina, it won't be to take NC State.

If we want North Carolina TV market, we'll have to at least be ready to take NC State. Only way to get UNC to come would be to tell them they have 1 month to decide, and then we're offering NC State. If Mizzou is not able to adjust to the competition, UNC may not be worried about NC State being in the SEC. Hopefully the experience of A&M and UT will make UNC too scared to allow NCSU to jump to a better conference. A&M being in the SEC completely changes the dynamic of that relationship, and NC State being in the SEC could do the same to UNC and NC State, but I'm not sure it will if NC State is a bottom feeder in the SEC. Surely NCState could frog leap Vandy and UK relatively quickly, and there's no reason it can't be on the same level as UT and USCe in the medium term (or at least what I think USCe will be in general, not what they've been the last two years). I would think UGA and UF are the only schools with the built-in advantages that are significantly better than NC State's.

 

[dawgs.sixpack]

Somebody tell me how the TV markets work...does the SEC make money regardless of the viewership in that region? In other words, if the product in all sports is terrible, thus resulting in low viewership numbers in a region, does the SEC feel the effects of this? Or is their money based on total possible market in the given area?

well when it comes time to negotiate with CBS and ESPN, we can point at the population in the SEC footprint for leverage. and when it comes to the upcoming SEC network, every cable subscriber in the SEC footprint will lively have the SEC network on their basic cable, which means millions of subscribers in the state of missouri will have a little bit of their cable bill going to the SEC.

so while huge ratings in missouri might help a little bit, just having it a part of the SEC footprint is really about all that matters.

 

[engie]

UNC is never joining the SEC. Not without Duke. Duke would have been a fantastic 16th team

This is proof that you haven't paid close attention to this realignment game and really shouldn't be commenting -- and what's driving the two players that matter(SEC and B1G). There is an almost 100% chance on the day that the ACC is no longer a viable option that Duke and UNC end up in separate conferences. They will have no other choice -- and NONE of us are taking them both.

Patdog can vouch for the fact that I've been right on conference realignment(especially regarding the ACC) since day 1. Initially, almost everyone here disagreed with me. http://forums.sixpackspeak.com/show...rence-Expansion(-related)&highlight=expansion

Had we not added Mizzou, we'd be in the Duke/UNC sweepstakes with the ability to add VT too. Now we MAY add VT and hopefully get someone else who doesn't suck. We really shot ourselves in the foot if we indeed did plan on adding UNC.

No, we didn't. We played it ABSOLUTELY perfectly to get UNC. They saw what happened when a 100+ year little brother in Texas A&M basically become dominant over the "big brother" that had beaten them down for all eternity in YEAR ONE. They saw recruiting -- and they know it's going to get worse for Texas before it gets better. We showed them the EXACT blueprint of what will happen to them if they spurn our offer. How do you not see that we played this card perfectly?

This brings me back to NCSU. VT and NCSU? Because we're sure as hell not getting UNC.

We will see -- because the common sentiment in Chapel Hill and among the vast majority of their fanbase disagrees with you.