Short answer, yes.
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
It happenin
- Thread starter HelenaHandBasket
- Start date
How about a long answer? Because I've been in Twitter arguments with people who think NMSU and UTEP are better choices than UM and MSU because of "market". Their "market" (El Paso/Las Cruces metro) is about the same size as the state of Montana population-wise, but their attendance is about 1/3 of Montana's. Nobody goes to games, nobody cares about the games (at either school), and they've sucked for years. Meanwhile, the state of Montana comes to a screeching halt every Saturday during football season and it's been proven time and again that when a Montana school is on ESPN, U, 2 or whatever those games get way more eyes than the average MWC game.
So I'll ask again: what good is a larger "market" if that market couldn't give two shits about the team? If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
garizzalies
Well-known member
Good lord. California people.That went completely over your head didn’t it? Especially the part that raising more revenue through student fees is going to push right now our budget between $50-55 million. What is Montana’s again? That’s right around $25 million.
If you know anything about the Sacramento area, because of the Kings, this region wants nothing but highest level sports. The reason they don’t come out for Montana and Idaho is: you don’t move the needle in Big Sky/FCS.
I mean hell, look at someone like Kennesaw State. They are in the Atlanta metro. Just started football 10 years ago. FCS doesn’t sell there! It’s why Georgia State also went FBS as immediately as they could.
Just today your land-grant school announced their head count for Fall 2024 is the largest enrollment of any university in the history of the State of Montana? Where is the UM toiling at these days?
Face it, until the State of Montana grows a very significant metropolis in one of its two college towns, you both will be still minor players in the grand scheme of things. And judging by the growth of Bozeman, it will be MSU that gets the nod over UM first when they finally decide to have 16 or more sports.
But keep on with the “nice” or “cute” comments. It’s obvious the UM doesn’t teaching a critical thinking skills course amongst its offerings.️
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Notice how smugly he looks down his nose to brag about the most deplorable conditions as if he enjoys smelling others’ farts
Yes, MT sucks. Please tell all your “many” friends. Spread the word far and wide.
oldngrizzly
Well-known member
Actually I do.You will notice how many agree with me and comment after my post.You may not like me but the fact is you commented and clarified what I said. A few of us on here are willing to stand up and say what they think and not care what others think.And by the way my user name is:
oldngrizzly
Last edited:
Advertisers are sold on potential viewing market, and that 'market' is usually restricted to DMA.
it's just crazy. You can HOPE someone is watching or you can KNOW someone is watching. No wonder so much marketing $$ is flushed down the toilet.
Hope isn't a strategy.
MissoulaMarinerFan
Well-known member
I've said it a couple of times, Everett, but the attraction would be the potential number of viewers, not the actual number watching or butts in seats. The number of potential CA market viewers crushes the number of potential and/or actual MT market viewers. It is dumb, but that is how ad deals work.
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
I have barely read any of the Sac homie threads, but a larger market does matter to some extent. It is about possible eyeballs for advertising and revenue from said advertising. This is something Sacramento has that Missoula doesn't. What we don't know if how much weight that has compared to what Montana has to offer.
OrgonGriz
Well-known member
The PAC12 looks to add more institutions sooner than later. Air Force is said to be a target of the AAC to join Army and Navy.
If I was the PAC12 I’d pass on Tulane and Memphis with markets sizes #50 and #51 and I jump on Air Force as Colorado Springs is #86 market side but would bring along Denver viewers and #17 size.
The PAC12 should also go after UNLV a Vegas is the #40 tv market. I’d do that even if you have to bring along Nevada Reno at #103 market.
Keep in mind Eugene Oregon is #119 tv market but it brings along Portland at #23.
The MWC looks to loose more schools regardless and could fall below that magic 6 teams to remain a conference. I highly doubt they are going to want to fold up shop. But it will be harder to infill with FBS teams in my opinion. I think several top level FCS programs will get invites to keep the MWC afloat.
Something else to think about is Missoula is the #161 tv market, Bozo is #184 Fargo #114, Sioux Falls, #111, Rapid City #169.
Places like Corvallis Oregon don’t even list in the top #210 tv markets yet we know the pull some from Portland but not enough to hane been included in the Big10. Same goes for WSU and they pull some from the Spokane market at #64. The decision to keep them out were based on performance!
So I know market sizes play a major decision. But so does performance. That said I think UM, MSU, NDSU, SDSU all have strong shots at getting invites to the MWC. SAC might to but I think there would fall more to the market size at #20.
Certainly interesting times for us football fans of all fan bases.
I think buckle up!
If I was the PAC12 I’d pass on Tulane and Memphis with markets sizes #50 and #51 and I jump on Air Force as Colorado Springs is #86 market side but would bring along Denver viewers and #17 size.
The PAC12 should also go after UNLV a Vegas is the #40 tv market. I’d do that even if you have to bring along Nevada Reno at #103 market.
Keep in mind Eugene Oregon is #119 tv market but it brings along Portland at #23.
The MWC looks to loose more schools regardless and could fall below that magic 6 teams to remain a conference. I highly doubt they are going to want to fold up shop. But it will be harder to infill with FBS teams in my opinion. I think several top level FCS programs will get invites to keep the MWC afloat.
Something else to think about is Missoula is the #161 tv market, Bozo is #184 Fargo #114, Sioux Falls, #111, Rapid City #169.
Places like Corvallis Oregon don’t even list in the top #210 tv markets yet we know the pull some from Portland but not enough to hane been included in the Big10. Same goes for WSU and they pull some from the Spokane market at #64. The decision to keep them out were based on performance!
So I know market sizes play a major decision. But so does performance. That said I think UM, MSU, NDSU, SDSU all have strong shots at getting invites to the MWC. SAC might to but I think there would fall more to the market size at #20.
Certainly interesting times for us football fans of all fan bases.
I think buckle up!
What you're saying makes total and complete sense, and I personally think the MWC would be so much better going after Montana, Montana State, NDSU, and SDSU in the long run than they would be going after Sac State, UC Davis, Utep and NMSU. No one gives a shit about those latter teams, even when they're winning, and the former 4 schools bring traditions and excellence unmatched by the other potential choices.
But unfortunately SACAT is correct. The people who make the decisions about this by and large do not care about tradition, excellence, or fan engagement. They want potential eyeballs on their games, even if the MonDak schools give them more actual eyeballs. I don't think it's the right strategy, but it's more than likely the one they will pursue.
Marketing has become very sophisticated over the last 15 years. Traditional media like linear tv for example is based on both reach and frequency to the target market. Advertisers of a grand scale (larger then your local shop owner) are sold based on delivery to their target or TRP's which are rating points. The larger the market the easier it is to delivery the advertising based on scale. What HHB has eluded to is the unique nature of finding advertisers who are looking for the specific demographic and psychographics of the combination of Sports, College football, Montana, UofM etc to deliver their advertising needs. Yes its about how many people tune in but also who tunes in, for how long and which advertisers would value that audience. Media planners on both the client and platform side of the equation spend a lot of time dealing with this formula. This is before any consideration of product is considered like availability, market share, penetration etc are thrown into the mix. Yes advertising is purchased by DMA but it's also done on larger delivery scale. That's why KPAX charges one thing, ESPN+ another, national or regional carries etc.
Bottom line you need a combination of both carrier (media outlets ), Market (size, demo) and advertisers to get the payout everyone is hoping for. Thats why a conference gets the big money and the school shares in it. Only real viable exception I can think of is Notre Dame. It's possible not necessarily probable but someone needs to take on the project, hence the conferences.
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
PAC has already tapped the Denver market with CSU. I just don't see any reason for them to consider the AFA, and for them, it probably makes more sense to align with Army/Navy. I still believe that the PAC would like to add Memphis, Tulane, UTSA, and probably UNLV. I don't think they want UNR, especially if it means passing on UTSA.
Last edited:
oldngrizzly
Well-known member
it is ongoing as we type.
Short question: how have the Sacramento, Portland and Denver markets helped the bsc?
But it actually ISN'T how it works. Perhaps for the first year, but then everyone knows the ratings share and advertisers will use those. If people aren't watching, they'll invest elsewhere.
MissoulaMarinerFan
Well-known member
Sure - but that is a big part of how the initial deal is struck - we're both in agreement - it is dumb and makes no sense, but....If it didn't work....then tv deals wouldn't be done that way. The math probably maths out down the road for FBS conferences (eventually more possible eyes turn into more actual eyes and therefore more purchasing over time), but it doesn't (as you said) work for small, FCS (seen as "D2" conferences) and because of that - those conferences (like the Big Sky) take what they can get.
Like you said, those partners do invest elsewhere....3 or 4 years down the line when the deal expires. Then the conferences re-up or look for a better deal.
And the little FCS conferences just get whatever scraps come their way and "please sir can I have some more" it.
Last edited:
MissoulaMarinerFan
Well-known member
No because there is zero serious outside interest in the BSC. It was...not the best move doing that thinking it would translate to more dollars in later deals.
SDHornet
Well-known member
Markets matter because it's the TV executives that are driving all this realignment and the conference presidents are all about the money. As much as we all like to get on here and argue about whose stadium is louder and colder and beat our chest about which program won 3 of the last 4 BSC championships, ultimately some suit somewhere will crank out a valuation that determines who is "deserving" of a conference/FBS invite...and more than likely the conference presidents will go along with that recommendation. That's why markets matter. You don't have to agree with it, you just have to accept it.
SDHornet
Well-known member
Recruiting.
Academies are hard to measure...their fan bases are spread quite literally across the globe.
