KU is a better fit for Big 10 than Missouri

Fro--no one has accused Kansas of football competence (though they do have a BCS appearance...)

But what Kansas has is basketball inventory, which does garner significant ratings and national prominence. That basketball inventory will do for the Big 10 what Nebraska's football inventory is doing for the Big 10 now--it provides more AAA matchups and live events that the BTN can sell advertising for. And Kansas will add another dozen or so live events that CBS, ESPN, and the BTN can sell ad revenue around. That's the area where Kansas will make hay for the Big 10, and something that, in light of current events, is questionable for Missouri.

Yes, ratings aren't as great as football, but yet the basketball games are still being broadcast, and there are decidedly more basketball broadcast opportunities versus football opportunities. A Big 10 Kansas during the basketball season would assuredly provide a revenue boost that Missouri (or Nebraska) cannot provide for all of those opportunities, which would likely come close to equaling the impact Nebraska provides for football in the coming years.

As for KC ratings, being a part of the media, I would think that Shatel would have access to the Neilsen data necessary to back up a statement re: Kansas and KC.

And it doesn't matter if only 1/16th of St. Louis fans care for Illinois--when the regional broadcasts are decided by ABC, that St. Loius affiliate is routinely picking the Big 10 matchup over the Big XII one. It doesn't matter if the city is 95% Missouri fans--if the Missouri game isn't on TV, then it's a moot point--the Big 10 is getting the ad revenue and claiming that city as part of their broadcast footprint.

This expansion is about television inventory--Missouri doesn't bring in either sport what Kansas can at least do in one. And considering that the BTN already counts St. Louis as part of their footprint (and rightfully so), getting KC via Kansas would still count as a two-bagger and a wise choice IMO.

Plus, to hear TexAgs.com say it, Missouri is hot to trot for SEC action, where they would be net-new markets for that conference.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Didn't Shatel come from the KC market covering sports anyway before he landed at OWH? If so, I think he'd not only have Nielsen data to fall back on, but data from his coverage down there. That is if I'm remembering him coming from there correctly.

 
HuskerFanChuck said:
Didn't Shatel come from the KC market covering sports anyway before he landed at OWH? If so, I think he'd not only have Nielsen data to fall back on, but data from his coverage down there. That is if I'm remembering him coming from there correctly.
Click to expand...
Some people in the 'know' both currently and from college think Shatel is a turd, FWIW. And the reason he doesnt print, and nobody prints for that matter, ratings from KC to prove the KS pull, is because it doesnt exist. You cant prove something that is false. I just always get a kick out KC is ks thing, having lived/worked there or nearby for 25 years, i think i would know alittle about that as well. And having read Toms stuff since coming to NE and knowing personally people in the business from current and his college days I have a pretty good opinion about him as well

Matthew, i had a wonderfully worded long reply and then the website took a dump. But anyway short and sweet

#1. claiming that Ku BB out draws all MU sports combined is short sighted at best

#2 Ku is BB blue blood, they appear on ESPN/ESPN2 12 times in 2011-2012 for MBB, twice on CBS. MU by the way appears on ESPN/ESPN2 12 times also and CBS once. So not a big difference and clearly they are making money have Mizzou on the tube as well

#3 KU football doest draw jack squat compared to MU in the KC much less the state of MO, giving MO an ad advantage of MILLIONS of viewers per season.

#4 National/regionsl BB games draw a fraction of the viewer ship as CFB. Even with a greater number of games, there is only a fraction of the money made per ad as their is for a weekly FB game.

It could all be for not because who knows what is going to happen. KU is a fine pick over KSU, ISU, Baylor and so on. BUt there is a simple way to really put an end the argument. You say the big10 will carry MO without the Tigers. I ask, If by chance MU ends up inthe SEC. What chances do you give the big10 to carry MO televisions over SEC veiwer ship? I can tell you the SEC would kill the big10. Therefore, unless you are comfortable with a small % of MO TV's, the only way to get more is to get Mizzou.

anyway its all interesting to discuss, not that it really matters in most cases. I think it is a little funny that there was an article in the KC star 1 week ago by a life long ku fan and grad who covers college sports for the star. The article was about why ku should try to pair with MU to make themselves more desirable to conferences. The article talks about how MU is much more desirable and has more to offer than KU and its best for KU to try to pair with someone better off.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fro daddy said:
HuskerFanChuck said:
Didn't Shatel come from the KC market covering sports anyway before he landed at OWH? If so, I think he'd not only have Nielsen data to fall back on, but data from his coverage down there. That is if I'm remembering him coming from there correctly.
Click to expand...
Some people in the 'know' both currently and from college think Shatel is a turd, FWIW. And the reason he doesnt print, and nobody prints for that matter, ratings from KC to prove the KS pull, is because it doesnt exist. You cant prove something that is false. I just always get a kick out KC is ks thing, having lived/worked there or nearby for 25 years, i think i would know alittle about that as well. And having read Toms stuff since coming to NE and knowing personally people in the business from current and his college days I have a pretty good opinion about him as well

Matthew, i had a wonderfully worded long reply and then the website took a dump. But anyway short and sweet

#1. claiming that Ku BB out draws all MU sports combined is short sighted at best

#2 Ku is BB blue blood, they appear on ESPN/ESPN2 12 times in 2011-2012 for MBB, twice on CBS. MU by the way appears on ESPN/ESPN2 12 times also and CBS once. So not a big difference and clearly they are making money have Mizzou on the tube as well

#3 KU football doest draw jack squat compared to MU in the KC much less the state of MO, giving MO an ad advantage of MILLIONS of viewers per season.

#4 National/regionsl BB games draw a fraction of the viewer ship as CFB. Even with a greater number of games, there is only a fraction of the money made per ad as their is for a weekly FB game.

It could all be for not because who knows what is going to happen. KU is a fine pick over KSU, ISU, Baylor and so on. BUt there is a simple way to really put an end the argument. You say the big10 will carry MO without the Tigers. I ask, If by chance MU ends up inthe SEC. What chances do you give the big10 to carry MO televisions over SEC veiwer ship? I can tell you the SEC would kill the big10. Therefore, unless you are comfortable with a small % of MO TV's, the only way to get more is to get Mizzou.

anyway its all interesting to discuss, not that it really matters in most cases. I think it is a little funny that there was an article in the KC star 1 week ago by a life long ku fan and grad who covers college sports for the star. The article was about why ku should try to pair with MU to make themselves more desirable to conferences. The article talks about how MU is much more desirable and has more to offer than KU and its best for KU to try to pair with someone better off.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the boards been doing that lately. Had that happen in another thread Wednesday night. Wonder what's going on.

As for your defense of Mizzou:

1. I don't think it's far fetched to claim that. It's not like either school is a football powerhouse that sells out their stadium regularly. And Kansas has a far better basketball pedigree, success, and fan support than Missouri.

2. In one year, when Mizzou was feigning basketball competence, they will get close to the number of appearances that Kansas did. But what about the other 15+ games that didn't make the boob tube? That's Big 10 Network inventory right there, and I would guarantee that 15 Kansas BTN games would draw better than 15 Missouri BTN basketball games.

In short, Kansas is a national brand and draw, not unlike Nebraska and football--Missouri isn't.

3. Again, I'll go with Shatel on this one. If you feel this strongly about it, challenge Shatel to provide his data, see if you can get him to recant or provide his. But considering his position within the media and prior history, he would have insight that may contrast or contradict your yellow-tinted view.

4. Yet, that fraction is repeated almost 3x over for basketball versus football. Frankly, if Basketball broadcasts weren't profitable, we wouldn't be seeing them. And the BTN has no plans to do away with their BBall broadcasts, so why not bring in a school that will help them maximize their profits during basketball season? Missouri won't do that, but a national draw like Kansas would.

A quality Kansas program, even if it brings in a quarter of the revenue a AAA football game would, would still generate more revenue, as there are more opportunities to broadcast basketball. At most, Nebraska or any other AAA Big 10 school will get three BTN football games. Kansas could easily have 15 games on the BTN that ESPN/CBS don't pick up.

Remember, it's about quality live inventory. Sure, Kansas doesn't move the needle for football, but neither does Missouri, save for what it can grab in-state. With the exception of Duke (and possibly Kentucky), there isn't another basketball program with a bigger following and fan support than Kansas.

5. If Missouri does go to the SEC, then it would be interesting to see what happens. The SEC TV presence is strong, but I believe that if St. Louis is still taking Big 10 broadcasts over the Big XII, the same thing will happen when the SEC rolls into town. And if KC is pro-Jayhawk like Shatel believes them to be, then Missouri may not be as attractive a SEC target as I originally thought.

 
matthew_m_g said:
fro daddy said:
HuskerFanChuck said:
Didn't Shatel come from the KC market covering sports anyway before he landed at OWH? If so, I think he'd not only have Nielsen data to fall back on, but data from his coverage down there. That is if I'm remembering him coming from there correctly.
Click to expand...
Some people in the 'know' both currently and from college think Shatel is a turd, FWIW. And the reason he doesnt print, and nobody prints for that matter, ratings from KC to prove the KS pull, is because it doesnt exist. You cant prove something that is false. I just always get a kick out KC is ks thing, having lived/worked there or nearby for 25 years, i think i would know alittle about that as well. And having read Toms stuff since coming to NE and knowing personally people in the business from current and his college days I have a pretty good opinion about him as well

Matthew, i had a wonderfully worded long reply and then the website took a dump. But anyway short and sweet

#1. claiming that Ku BB out draws all MU sports combined is short sighted at best

#2 Ku is BB blue blood, they appear on ESPN/ESPN2 12 times in 2011-2012 for MBB, twice on CBS. MU by the way appears on ESPN/ESPN2 12 times also and CBS once. So not a big difference and clearly they are making money have Mizzou on the tube as well

#3 KU football doest draw jack squat compared to MU in the KC much less the state of MO, giving MO an ad advantage of MILLIONS of viewers per season.

#4 National/regionsl BB games draw a fraction of the viewer ship as CFB. Even with a greater number of games, there is only a fraction of the money made per ad as their is for a weekly FB game.

It could all be for not because who knows what is going to happen. KU is a fine pick over KSU, ISU, Baylor and so on. BUt there is a simple way to really put an end the argument. You say the big10 will carry MO without the Tigers. I ask, If by chance MU ends up inthe SEC. What chances do you give the big10 to carry MO televisions over SEC veiwer ship? I can tell you the SEC would kill the big10. Therefore, unless you are comfortable with a small % of MO TV's, the only way to get more is to get Mizzou.

anyway its all interesting to discuss, not that it really matters in most cases. I think it is a little funny that there was an article in the KC star 1 week ago by a life long ku fan and grad who covers college sports for the star. The article was about why ku should try to pair with MU to make themselves more desirable to conferences. The article talks about how MU is much more desirable and has more to offer than KU and its best for KU to try to pair with someone better off.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the boards been doing that lately. Had that happen in another thread Wednesday night. Wonder what's going on.

As for your defense of Mizzou:

1. I don't think it's far fetched to claim that. It's not like either school is a football powerhouse that sells out their stadium regularly. And Kansas has a far better basketball pedigree, success, and fan support than Missouri.

2. In one year, when Mizzou was feigning basketball competence, they will get close to the number of appearances that Kansas did. But what about the other 15+ games that didn't make the boob tube? That's Big 10 Network inventory right there, and I would guarantee that 15 Kansas BTN games would draw better than 15 Missouri BTN basketball games.

In short, Kansas is a national brand and draw, not unlike Nebraska and football--Missouri isn't.

3. Again, I'll go with Shatel on this one. If you feel this strongly about it, challenge Shatel to provide his data, see if you can get him to recant or provide his. But considering his position within the media and prior history, he would have insight that may contrast or contradict your yellow-tinted view.

4. Yet, that fraction is repeated almost 3x over for basketball versus football. Frankly, if Basketball broadcasts weren't profitable, we wouldn't be seeing them. And the BTN has no plans to do away with their BBall broadcasts, so why not bring in a school that will help them maximize their profits during basketball season? Missouri won't do that, but a national draw like Kansas would.

A quality Kansas program, even if it brings in a quarter of the revenue a AAA football game would, would still generate more revenue, as there are more opportunities to broadcast basketball. At most, Nebraska or any other AAA Big 10 school will get three BTN football games. Kansas could easily have 15 games on the BTN that ESPN/CBS don't pick up.

Remember, it's about quality live inventory. Sure, Kansas doesn't move the needle for football, but neither does Missouri, save for what it can grab in-state. With the exception of Duke (and possibly Kentucky), there isn't another basketball program with a bigger following and fan support than Kansas.

5. If Missouri does go to the SEC, then it would be interesting to see what happens. The SEC TV presence is strong, but I believe that if St. Louis is still taking Big 10 broadcasts over the Big XII, the same thing will happen when the SEC rolls into town. And if KC is pro-Jayhawk like Shatel believes them to be, then Missouri may not be as attractive a SEC target as I originally thought.
Click to expand...
I live in KC on the Missouri side and I would concur with Fro daddy. I think the fan base on the Missouri side is more pro MU than KU. If the B1G took KU can they force the cable & dish outlets on the Missouri side put BTN on the lowest tier to generate those fees? If they took MU could they force those on the Kansas side? I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that Missouri has a lot more TV's than Kansas does so if we are talking money that favors MU.

As far as Basketball goes, I think Matthew m g's argument doesn't hold up either. If the the number of basketball games were to make up for the revenue in football wouldn't basketball be the big money maker in this equation? Since basketball plays games at about a 3 to 1 clip wouldn't they be making the big $$$$ and not football?

Honestly, I don't have the numbers, but from what I understand Football is the cash cow EVEN AT KU, in this entire equation and hasn't that been proven time and time again because you never hear about KU from any of these talks. They are mentioned by some blogger or some poster on a message board, well other than the KU to the Big East rumors.

Does anybody know how much TV revenue KU basketball generates? What are the conference TV contracts for their Basketball leagues? What does the BTN make on B1G Basketball compared to Football? I think if we could see those numbers we might better understand why a hoops power like KU just isn't very attractive in this entire conference reshuffling. This whole thing is driven by money and basketball just can't create what Football does even though it has 3 times the inventory.

 
Your STL comments you keep making are complete bulls**t. A simple ABC regional/national coverage map shows that infact the big10 is never taken over the big12 game, and in most cases it is not taken over Pac10/SEC national games either. in looking at nearly every weeks map for the past 3 years showed me that only in cases that the Big10 had a national game with 80% national viewship were those games ever the game in STL. And that was only the case when the second game was not a big12 game. In other words your full of it.

I could continue to actually look up facts and truths about what i am saying, but whats you stop you from making up the same stuff you have been and stating it as fact. You dont have to take my word for it, you know the one who lived/worked in and around KC for most of my life, has most of my friends and family there, or the KU alum and writer who lives there, thats all fine. You can ignore that MO is on TV as much as KS in basketball and 2 to 3 times more often that KU in football. You can continue to ignore the differences in Nielsen ratings of 2-3 times the viewership for regular season CFB over MBB games and 50% to 100% greater ratings in major bowl and championships over the NCAA tourney. You can ignore the down trend of viewership for NCAA tourney championships from Neilson (down more than 30% and an avg. of 10 million viewers from the previous 2 decades) and even wash over the fact that out of all MBB Championship games from 1975-2010 KU has two of the lowest rated games ranking at #31 of 35 games and nothing higher than #13, which featured DUKE. You can still continue to claim KU as one of the 3 most followed teams in MBB, a complete crock and that MBB generates as much money as CFB ($281 million among all d-1 MBB teams in 2010 or over $1 Billion among d-1 CFB teams in 2010). You can do all of those things because frankly we will never agree when I am saying things that can be supported and you are not...

I ussually enjoy your opinion and posts, but your just wrong here. You dont believe so and thats fine. We will have to agree to disagree. I conpletely agree that NE is a major National brand. KU basketball is a major Regional brand. And CFB destroys CBB.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Matthew,

After re-reading my post i dont want you to think i am attacking you. It comes a little stong, but its not intended that way. its just good banter and no hard feelings. I find that sometimes my writing style doesnt alway come out how it would if we were at a tailgate just shooting the stuff and having a freindly debate.

again, no hard feelings. :cheers

 
probably a moot argument anyways until the big 12 members do this again:



for another year or two.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Any talk putting Jayhawks ahead of Tigers enrages them... We really are much more of a national brand, but we share a state with another BCS school (today) while Mizzou does not and that state is half the size of theirs. KU is a way more national brand and seems to garner a lot more interest outside of KS/MO. I am not sure how it will lay out, ironcally I would like to be wehre the Tigers are more than any other team. THe Border War is awesome, and I don't care if some on the Huskerboard find it quaint, it is a great rivalry and I love to hate them!

 
fro daddy said:
Matthew,

After re-reading my post i dont want you to think i am attacking you. It comes a little stong, but its not intended that way. its just good banter and no hard feelings. I find that sometimes my writing style doesnt alway come out how it would if we were at a tailgate just shooting the stuff and having a freindly debate.

again, no hard feelings. :cheers
Click to expand...
Fro--don't worry, I understand where you're coming from. :)

And lets be honest--you may not want to admit this, but this may be a touchy subject. I could honestly say I would be greatly concerned were I a fan of Missouri right now.

So don't worry about offending me--we're all good. :wasted

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And Kansas to the B1G has been coming up in discussions more and more lately, especially since Syracuse and Pitt are off the table now (though Pitt was never really in it to begin with, save for 16-team scenarios.)

Mark Slablach (ESPN): http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/6991560/acc-move-raises-more-expansion-questions-college-football

If the Big Ten had to expand, Notre Dame would be a target along with Missouri, Rutgers and Kansas, which are AAU members.
Click to expand...
Steve Sipple, LJS: http://my.journalstar.com/post/Husker_Extra_Group/Husker_Extra/blog/will_big_tens_hand_be_forced.html

Missouri and/or Rutgers? Really? Talk about yawners. The Big Ten takes its basketball very seriously, so Kansas intrigues me.
Click to expand...
Plus, let's remember that Delaney, himself, is a basketball man. He knows the value of Basketball and its expansion of programming on the network.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top