So, you're saying that it's not about quality. Does that mean that given a choice, as many people would want to watch Rutgers-San Diego St or East Carolina-Nevada as would want to watch Alabama-Auburn or Ohio St-Michigan? I usually understand your arguments, OPA (although I don't understand the undying love for the BE). But this time the argument just seems silly. I understand the need for inventory. But if that inventory sucks and will not draw eyeballs, it's like that tree that fell all by itself in the forest. Did it really make a sound?
I think you're missing the point.
This is not about "quality."
Yes, of course, a game involving Ohio State or USC or Alabama is going to be a more attractive game for avid college football fans than one involving Bowling Green or UTEP.
That's obvious.
And that's okay. Those games will always be hyped games that attract intense college football fans.
I have never suggested that the BE will somehow dominate the Big Ten or the Pac 12 or the SEC.
My discussion has nothing to do with those power conferences.
My discussion deals with the new TV strategy that is emerging in college football and the strategy that the BE is pursuing. It's just smart and it recognizes the importance in access to eyeballs.
The BE is now going to have access to a number of large markets - Houston, Dallas, San Diego, Memphis, Orlando et al. That access will necessarily enhance the value of the TV package - not because the teams are great, but because the markets that those teams serve have a lot of eyeballs.
And, while the quality of the product can be very important, when the TV markets are small - Alabama and South Carolina - ESPN is willing to invest in teams like Bowling Green and other MAC schools for weekday games on TV, because even without the hype the thirst for the game is such that those games still attract a lot of eyeballs. A MAC game or a BE game during the week is cheap content that draws viewers and advertising dollars - maybe not mega dollars, but apparently enough to satisfy the most powerful force in TV. Indeed, although hype would be great, I'm pretty sure that ESPN is content that the lack of SEC or Big Ten or Pac 12 hype for those MAC games does not make the produce not profitable. Clearly such games are profitable. And so ESPN is willing to pay for those games. What matters is that it is cheap content that draws an audience.
What the conferences are trying to do now is to expand their geographic coverage - so that there are even more eyeballs interested in the games played by their teams. So, the BE's idea of expanding nationally affords it greater TV leverage because there are more potential eyeballs available to the conference match-ups.
That's the value in what the BE and the new "National Conference" are doing - and with what the Big Ten and Pac 12 are now doing. Greater access to more eyeballs is the driving force in college football in my opinion.
And, again, the mere fact that I respect what the BE is trying to do, does not mean that I have a "love affair" with the conference. And it does not mean that I am not loyal to SU Football.
Somebody said here recently and I can't agree more.
Just because somebody says something positive about an opponent or an old conference does not mean that the observer is somehow a turn coat.
I can respect my opponent without "having a love affair" with the opponent. And, I can respect the strategy that the BE is pursuing without "having a love affair" with the conference or without being disloyal to my team.
On this board, it seems, if it involves an opponent, the knee jerk reaction is to hate and to denigrate. And with respect to the BE, the reaction is to hope for its destruction.
I just don't get that kind of thinking.
