header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Rankings ... ugh

 (Read 84258 times)

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17794
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1708 on: January 25, 2024, 12:36:54 AM »
Louis Mueller for Texas, is a solid choice.  There are others I like more, but I can't dispute going with one of the OGs that's still going strong through three generations of family pitmasters.


FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37789
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1709 on: January 25, 2024, 07:42:12 AM »
Smokey Ds in Des Moines is legit
the place in Lincoln NE I'd never heard of and is now an Ethiopian Restaurant
the place in South Dakota is way out west.  North of Rapid.
I'm in South Dakota this morning and still 5 and a half hours away
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25481
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1710 on: January 25, 2024, 08:54:26 AM »
Adding Stanford, Berkeley, and SMU just made it harder to disband the conference, if that were even a possibility.  I don't think anyone's getting out until the GOR assumed damages get small enough to pay your way out.
I forgot about SMU.

FSU, UNC and Miami all voted against the Cal twins and SMU joining.

The ACC is a conference, reluctantly.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25481
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1711 on: January 25, 2024, 09:13:49 AM »
That article got Illinois wrong.

Home - Chicago Culinary Kitchen
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17794
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1712 on: January 25, 2024, 09:29:57 AM »
I forgot about SMU.

FSU, UNC and Miami all voted against the Cal twins and SMU joining.

The ACC is a conference, reluctantly.
Unfortunately for them, those are the bylaws they agreed to when they signed the contracts.  Not gonna be very compelling in court to say "Yeah but I only signed up for the good stuff, not the stuff I don't wanna."


FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37789
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1713 on: January 25, 2024, 10:19:22 AM »
times have changed

"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12310
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1714 on: January 25, 2024, 10:21:54 AM »
The place in CA is about 6 hours from anywhere. 

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17794
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1715 on: January 25, 2024, 10:40:36 AM »
times have changed


Time were changing in 2011.  And 2010.  And 1996.  And 1992.  And 1991.

They probably should have thought about all of that, before signing an EXTREMELY long term deal in the midst of so much turmoil.

And that's exactly what they'll be told in court, should they choose to push it.  Which they haven't.  Which tells me they won't.  Because they know they can't.

MikeDeTiger

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2990
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1716 on: January 25, 2024, 10:43:38 AM »
True enough, I just don't think this one is going to erode nearly as quickly as a lot of folks assumed it would.

Their fundamental problem is that ESPN has their rights either way, so has no incentive to help spring them.  Only the B1G's TV partners would have any incentive, and it's apparent that for the time being, the juice just isn't worth the squeeze.

I think ESPN may have some incentive.  Assuming FSU and maybe one or two others turn on TVs at a higher rate--and I'm guessing they do--then those teams add exponential value to the SEC, and ESPN could have that value for less than the sum of its parts.  Meanwhile, they could drop the ACC entirely, because why would they care about an FSU-less, Clemson-less, Va. Techless (or whoever) ACC? 

Similar to Texas and OU joining the SEC.  UT/OU carry their own set of eyeballs with them, but moving to the SEC (or Big Ten) is not like moving anywhere else.  If those teams moved to the PAC 2 (or, just to be fair about this, let's say the PAC didn't implode and it was still the PAC 12), that's still mostly the extent of it....they carry that many eyeballs.  But the SEC/B1G have giant bases already built in, and now that many eyeballs are added on top of what UT and OU already bring.  Because they're conference teams, so now we all are interested in what's happening.  Why do I watch Tennessee play South Carolina?  Solely because as an LSU fan, it interests me to watch what's going on in the conference.  I hardly watch OU games, but I will be going forward.  Same would apply for Texas if I weren't married to a fan.  Same as right now I rarely watch FSU....but I would if they were an SEC team. 

So ESPN could not only keep their current SEC viewership, they could turn that entire viewership onto a few new teams, exploding those markets, and quit paying for ACC deadweight nobody is currently watching. 

I could be wrong, obviously, without having the benefit of the real numbers in front of me.  But that's my theory. 

Now, can ESPN sling enough $ to change anything?  Maybe not.  But like I say......water.  It may take eons, but it will win.  The ACC will be assimilated.  Resistance is futile. 

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17794
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1717 on: January 25, 2024, 10:52:30 AM »
I think ESPN may have some incentive.  Assuming FSU and maybe one or two others turn on TVs at a higher rate--and I'm guessing they do--then those teams add exponential value to the SEC, and ESPN could have that value for less than the sum of its parts.  Meanwhile, they could drop the ACC entirely, because why would they care about an FSU-less, Clemson-less, Va. Techless (or whoever) ACC? 

Similar to Texas and OU joining the SEC.  UT/OU carry their own set of eyeballs with them, but moving to the SEC (or Big Ten) is not like moving anywhere else.  If those teams moved to the PAC 2 (or, just to be fair about this, let's say the PAC didn't implode and it was still the PAC 12), that's still mostly the extent of it....they carry that many eyeballs.  But the SEC/B1G have giant bases already built in, and now that many eyeballs are added on top of what UT and OU already bring.  Because they're conference teams, so now we all are interested in what's happening.  Why do I watch Tennessee play South Carolina?  Solely because as an LSU fan, it interests me to watch what's going on in the conference.  I hardly watch OU games, but I will be going forward.  Same would apply for Texas if I weren't married to a fan.  Same as right now I rarely watch FSU....but I would if they were an SEC team. 

So ESPN could not only keep their current SEC viewership, they could turn that entire viewership onto a few new teams, exploding those markets, and quit paying for ACC deadweight nobody is currently watching. 

I could be wrong, obviously, without having the benefit of the real numbers in front of me.  But that's my theory. 

Now, can ESPN sling enough $ to change anything?  Maybe not.  But like I say......water.  It may take eons, but it will win.  The ACC will be assimilated.  Resistance is futile. 

Right now the ACC deal is so bad, they already own FSU content for pennies on the dollar.  They'd have to pay a LOT more for that content, in the SEC.  So the question is, where's the balance?  Where's the breakeven point between the additional eyeballs they can bring to the SEC, and what they'd have to pay incrementally for it, versus maintaining the status quo and paying FSU and the ACC almost nothing for that content?

However aside from all that, there could be some value to ESPN, in keeping FSU away from the B1G and its rival television partners.

But also, ESPN is currently being viewed as a losing property by Disney and is being shopped around.  It's uncertain going forward that they're going to have ANY money to throw around.  Which is another reason to doubt ESPN's willingness to become involved in springing FSU or anyone else, from the ACC.  That would cost them additional money they probably don't currently have to spend.


847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25481
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1719 on: January 25, 2024, 11:10:15 AM »
Probably should make an ACC thread.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

MikeDeTiger

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2990
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1720 on: January 25, 2024, 12:16:46 PM »

But also, ESPN is currently being viewed as a losing property by Disney and is being shopped around.  It's uncertain going forward that they're going to have ANY money to throw around.  Which is another reason to doubt ESPN's willingness to become involved in springing FSU or anyone else, from the ACC.  That would cost them additional money they probably don't currently have to spend.

I've heard that.  Is that supposed to mean ESPN isn't profitable?  That would surprise me.  

Plus, out of all of Disney's arms, I'd think their recurring massive movie/TV failures that have been losing them $ hand over fist would blot out any concerns about ESPN, if not actively make ESPN the cash cow that pays the other bills in the meantime.  Their movie/TV dept. is on a massive run of losses, and their streaming service continues to hemorrhage $.  I imagine the theme parks are still doing well, but I don't know.  

In both directions--the fact I thought ESPN is successful, and the fact I know their film/streaming branches aren't--I'm surprised they want to dump ESPN.  

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17794
  • Liked:
Re: Rankings ... ugh
« Reply #1721 on: January 25, 2024, 12:23:09 PM »
I've heard that.  Is that supposed to mean ESPN isn't profitable?  That would surprise me. 

Plus, out of all of Disney's arms, I'd think their recurring massive movie/TV failures that have been losing them $ hand over fist would blot out any concerns about ESPN, if not actively make ESPN the cash cow that pays the other bills in the meantime.  Their movie/TV dept. is on a massive run of losses, and their streaming service continues to hemorrhage $.  I imagine the theme parks are still doing well, but I don't know. 

In both directions--the fact I thought ESPN is successful, and the fact I know their film/streaming branches aren't--I'm surprised they want to dump ESPN. 

Big-time live action sports still make money, but I wonder what percentage of ESPN/2/U/News/Ocho daily programming, is big-time live action sports?  Gotta be a tiny fraction.  And all the rest of their daily programming, is total crap and is losing money.

 

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.