SEC Hoops?

[Sawyer]

Do you know what you're talking about? I guess you're going to need to explain that $ 15 Mil to me.

That's the difference between what each Big 10 team makes and what Mizzou makes from the Big 12.

 

[SilliSooner]

I laugh every time I see someone post that stat like it means something. To the Big Ten or any other conference looking at expansion a pile of human feces is worth as much as a conference championship in wrestling, rowing, volleyball, baseball, women's basketball, soccer, track, skiing, or any other minor sport. The only two sports that mater are Football and to a slightly lesser extent Men's Basketball. And even those are only part of the equation. The rest comes from TV markets, the ability to increase TV ratings, increasing advertising revenue, and for some conferences academics and research. Mizzou is pretty far from the weakest program in football or men's basketball.

Are you an expert at demographics? I ask that because I'd say to the Big 10 be careful what you wish for.

Right now, TV sports during the football season in the St. Louis market is split between the Cardinals (sometimes into October), the Rams, Mizzou and Illinois. So for the fan, it becomes this quandry - watch the Cardinals, if they're in a pennant race or tune in the Tigers. In most cases the St. Louis fan, if there's a conflict, will side with the Cards. Not so good for the Big 10.
Secondly, what if Illinois and the Tigers were playing at the same time? Will the Tigers pick up more fans because they're in the B10? Maybe, but how many do they sift away from Illinois? Do you think a Tigers vs. Northwestern or Wisconsin is a bigger draw than Tigers vs Texas or Kansas? I don't see it and I think for every advantage Mizzou is given, one is subtracted from the Illini. Not going to fly.

 

[seniorsooner]

Basically what is happening here is that Missouri is leaking a bunch of fraudulent BS to the media to 1)lean on the big 12 and 2)make themselves appear legitimate. I realize performance on the field/court/etc isn't the only factor in this, but poor little Missouri has won a grand total of two national championships in their entire history - a baseball title in the 50s and a men's track title in the mid 60s. So yes, they are approaching 50 years without a national title in any sport. Add this to the fact that they haven't won a conference title in football in over 40 years and they have never advanced to a final 4. Obviously they've got some insecurities up there as well they should.

 

[campbest]

Basically, Mizzou can't make money through winning...they need to do it by associations.

 

[MissouriFan]

Are you an expert at demographics? I ask that because I'd say to the Big 10 be careful what you wish for.

Right now, TV sports during the football season in the St. Louis market is split between the Cardinals (sometimes into October), the Rams, Mizzou and Illinois. So for the fan, it becomes this quandry - watch the Cardinals, if they're in a pennant race or tune in the Tigers. In most cases the St. Louis fan, if there's a conflict, will side with the Cards. Not so good for the Big 10.
Secondly, what if Illinois and the Tigers were playing at the same time? Will the Tigers pick up more fans because they're in the B10? Maybe, but how many do they sift away from Illinois? Do you think a Tigers vs. Northwestern or Wisconsin is a bigger draw than Tigers vs Texas or Kansas? I don't see it and I think for every advantage Mizzou is given, one is subtracted from the Illini. Not going to fly.

As someone that grew up in St. Louis and moved back here two years ago I can answer some of your questions. St. Louis absolutely loves the Cardinals for baseball but it's rare that it impacts a Mizzou football game and never impacts a Mizzou basketball game. When the Cards are in a pennant race you will see some people at Faurot Field wearing Cardinals gear and hear baseball talk/games on radios at tailgates. Thankfully a baseball series is played over several days and recent history shows people will still pay attention to the Tigers. The Rams are not a factor at all. Their fan base in St. Louis is smaller than Mizzou's and they play on Sundays. Actually it's kind of nice to watch MU play on Saturday and watch the Rams on Sunday.

I've seen people on out of state message boards mention the Illini and St. Louis but anyone that lives here could tell you STL is about 80% Mizzou and 20% Illinois. And that's being generous. It's not like KC where KU, MU, and KSU all have a large presence. In St. Louis I see MU hats, shirts, sweatshirts, house flags, license plate frames, and car window stickers everyday. I honestly don't remember the last time I saw anyone wearing an Illini shirt. Most of their fans for the Bragging Rights game seem to come in from southern Illinois.

As someone that grew up here in St. Louis the amount of support the Tigers have these days is amazing. Growing up in the 80's and 90's here I don't remember seeing much Mizzou apparel around town, there was some but not much. Over the last six or seven years though it has apparently exploded. The Cardinals will always be king in St. Louis but there is no question for football and basketball this is a Missouri Tigers city.

 

[Sawyer]

Mizzou makes plenty of money through winning. They made more from the Big 12 over the past few years than they would have if money were divided evenly, actually. But the Big 12 contract is still crap.

Adding Missouri to the Big 10 isn't about the increase in actual TV audience. It's more about TV sets, period. The Big 10 gets money for every Big 10 Network subscriber (I believe it's 50 cents/month per subscription, but I could be wrong). If the Big 10 adds Missouri, that will cause Missouri cable and satellite providers to add the Big 10 Network to more standard packages. Adding just a few million more subscribers brings in tons of cash... 3,000,000 new subscribers = $18,000,000 annually from the state of Missouri... whether they're watching the Cardinals or the Tigers (the Rams, being an NFL team that plays on Sundays, isn't really an issue...).

I really don't think Mizzou's goal is to put pressure on the Big 12. Their goal is to join the Big 10. All the smoke around this isn't just coming from a few leaks on Mizzou's side. The Big 10 obviously wants to expand, and they obviously want to go past just 12 teams (unless the one addition is Notre Dame, and they don't join unless the Big 10 goes bigger than that). Missouri may not be the most attractive option for the Big 10, but they are within the top 5 IMO.

 

[SilliSooner]

Mizzou makes plenty of money through winning. They made more from the Big 12 over the past few years than they would have if money were divided evenly, actually. But the Big 12 contract is still crap.

Adding Missouri to the Big 10 isn't about the increase in actual TV audience. It's more about TV sets, period. The Big 10 gets money for every Big 10 Network subscriber (I believe it's 50 cents/month per subscription, but I could be wrong). If the Big 10 adds Missouri, that will cause Missouri cable and satellite providers to add the Big 10 Network to more standard packages. Adding just a few million more subscribers brings in tons of cash... 3,000,000 new subscribers = $18,000,000 annually from the state of Missouri... whether they're watching the Cardinals or the Tigers (the Rams, being an NFL team that plays on Sundays, isn't really an issue...).

I really don't think Mizzou's goal is to put pressure on the Big 12. Their goal is to join the Big 10. All the smoke around this isn't just coming from a few leaks on Mizzou's side. The Big 10 obviously wants to expand, and they obviously want to go past just 12 teams (unless the one addition is Notre Dame, and they don't join unless the Big 10 goes bigger than that). Missouri may not be the most attractive option for the Big 10, but they are within the top 5 IMO.

Once again, I'm going to ask where you get your numbers. I ask that because I'm a numbers guy and hate to see bogus numbers spouted like they were factual. See your erroneous figures up above and we'll also apply a little logic.

1) Not everyone who subscribes to cable in Missouri will sign up for the Big 10 package. Facts show that only a small portion of cable subscribers load up for the premium packages.

2) For arguments sake, let's say 50% of cable subscribers take the premium packages. And then to be generous, we'll allow that 80% of that 50% (or 40% of the gross) selects the Big 10 package.

3) Well and good. So now 40% of the premium cable subscribers will follow your Tigers. So here's the catch. As of last year the TOTAL number of cable subscribers in Missouri was 955,000. Not premium subscribers but TOTAL. 955,000 total. 40% of that equates to 382,000 subscribers.

4) 382,000 subscribers x $ 6 = $ 2.23 million per year which is whole bunch off the $ 18 million you stated in the above paragraph.

 

[topcat]

If the Big10 gets 50 cents of my direcTV bill, they can cancel channel 610 for me.

 

[jwg]

The SEC deal is worth 11 million per team, about 3 million more than the Big 12. Since the cost of withdrawing from the Big 12 is essentially 8 million X 2. this is not a particularly attractive option.

Although television is important it is a minor contribution in the overall athletic budget not to mention the overall university budget. By far the main contribution to athletic departments are tickets sold for home football games.