Television

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: Television

SDSU has ties to Sanford also, think nursing.

[jackrabbit1979]

Re: Television

I'm not too sure that KELO would even be in the picture. KELO has tied themselves to Sanford with their weather cams etc. KSFY has the Avera Webcams along with Avera Health Minute. I would guess that with SDSU's ties to Avera and Orthopedic Institute we should probably looking at the possiblity of a deal with KSFY or one of the cable providers.

Doesn't KDLT have sponsorship signs up in Frost above the seating sections, I thought I remember seeing there stuff there. I would guess they would be the first option down the road if they have already built a relationship with us.

[JimmyJack]

Re: Television

SDSU has ties to Sanford also, think nursing.

And T. Denny Sanford gave $5 million on behalf of Dana Dykhouse for the Dykhouse Center.

[BitsTD]

Re: Television

How is the Medicomm different from USD and Mid Continent? Its not as I believe SDSU is trying to connect with Midcontinent and probably the same terms as indicated in Terry's article.

Mid-Continent covers the largest television audience in SD. I did some homework today, because I don't want to give Midco any more money now they are showing U games. I found (according to Mediacom website) Sioux Falls and the outlying towns are not covered by Mediacom.

Very disappointed about this, but I don't know if I should be disappointed in my cable provider or my alma mater.

[jackmd]

Re: Television

I'm not too sure that KELO would even be in the picture. KELO has tied themselves to Sanford with their weather cams etc. KSFY has the Avera Webcams along with Avera Health Minute. I would guess that with SDSU's ties to Avera and Orthopedic Institute we should probably looking at the possiblity of a deal with KSFY or one of the cable providers.

Orthopedic Institute has no definite ties to Avera or Sanford, they are physician-owned and independent (like the Yankton Medical Clinic and the way it should be). Sanford and Avera are both fair game as far as I am concerned. Now, would I go for something like Sanford Field or Avera Court, NO THANK YOU!! (Unless, of course, we are talking about a $100 million or more) The Sanford School of Medicine at the University of South Dakota (where I am a professor BTW) is hard for me to spit out when I have to.

The fact right now is that SDSU is not interested in paying anyone to broadcast HOME events live in the immediate region. Making road games available is a much greater priority.

[Jacks-02]

Re: Television

Mid-Continent covers the largest television audience in SD. I did some homework today, because I don't want to give Midco any more money now they are showing U games. I found (according to Mediacom website) Sioux Falls and the outlying towns are not covered by Mediacom.

Very disappointed about this, but I don't know if I should be disappointed in my cable provider or my alma mater.

It is a bit disappointing that the replay and coaches show won't be shown in Sioux Falls, but considering I have season tickets and go to home games and can get the coaches shows for free on the internet its not that big of a deal.

The fact remains that this Mediacom deal gets us on the air in homes in our major recruiting markets, and gives SDSU more regional exposure than a MidContinent deal would.

From http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs...31/1002/sports

According to Phyllis Peters, communications director for Mediacom, the SDSU programming will air throughout the communities that the company serves in South Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota and in parts of Illinois and Wisconsin. Mediacom, a company with 1.5 million subscribers in 24 states...

So, while it may be discouraging that we can't see it in Sioux Falls, this deal is reaching a population twice the size of South Dakota.

And this is the best part:
No money will change hands in the Mediacom deal in part because it won't require much extra work by either party. SDSU will essentially take the feed that plays over its video boards and instantaneously syncs it to the audio feed from the radio, Burgers said.

So we are getting FREE advertising in our major recruiting markets of Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota and reaching 1.5 million homes while USD is PAYING MidContinent to broadcast home football games to 200 communities in North and South Dakota and possibly taking away from their already weak numbers of paying attendees.

[UTH]

Re: Television

One more reason for USD supporters to not come and spend their money in Vermillion/USD. As if that home schedule wasn't enough of a reason...

Go Jacks!!

The exact opposite has been the case for the Bison during the transition. Increased television coverage seems to have only increased fans' interest in the team and people's desire to be at the games.

However... I understand that, just because something is good for the goose, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's good for the gander, though. I'm just saying that it's worked pretty well up here.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: Television

More opportunities to see the team, more chance of getting interested. More interested people equals more fans. More fans means bigger attendance.

I have no doubt that the athletic department gets that & if they had enough money it would be done. The question is how you spend the money to bring in the mostbucks. Since our act attendance has grown pretty significantly over the last five years, I defer to their decision.

[Nidaros]

Re: Television

The exact opposite has been the case for the Bison during the transition. Increased television coverage seems to have only increased fans' interest in the team and people's desire to be at the games.

However... I understand that, just because something is good for the goose, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's good for the gander, though. I'm just saying that it's worked pretty well up here.

Good points about NDSU. SDSU NEEDS TO FOLLOW ITS OWN PLAN FOR MARKETING. If we followed NDSU on everything, then we could be in big trouble. SDSU probably has a better statewide following then NDSU has in ND whereas NDSU has a heavy concentration in the Fargo-Moorhead area. I believe the population of Brookings would have to mulitply 8 times to catch up with FM. So there is a different target from a marketing angle.

I dont see many Bison flags flying in Casselton(20 miles west of Fargo) despite the spring scrimmage being held there. The state wide following in ND might be in UND's favor, but no doubt Fargo is very solid for NDSU. Also a friend who lives west of Enderlin called me the Sunday morning after the NDSU/SDSU game and congradulated me on the win. He said he was so tired of the Fargo TV going on and on about a undefeated season. So the upset was very funny to him. So there is some thing to be said about the NDSU PR out in the hinderland of ND. (We can all improve.)

I do concede the fact that the lakes area including Detriot lakes, Fergus Falls and several Minnesota communities is much stronger in support of NDSU, then say the following of SDSU in towns like Lake Benton, Tyler and Ruthton. I have sited a bison flag near Fergus Falls. SDSU does not have a big following in boarder towns of Mn and maybe because its underpopulated. Just my take, and I think our staff people work hard at SDSU. We need to have a good product and we need to work on promotion. Over time good things will happen at SDSU. We need to beat the Bison on the field and not copy all their procedures.

[Jacks-D1]

Re: Television

The exact opposite has been the case for the Bison during the transition. Increased television coverage seems to have only increased fans' interest in the team and people's desire to be at the games.

However... I understand that, just because something is good for the goose, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's good for the gander, though. I'm just saying that it's worked pretty well up here.

It's my understanding that NDSU, UND, Montana, Montana St, and Wyoming all have many sporting events that are broadcast live. Now we can add USD to this list. SDSU is not on the list. In my opinion, they should be. D1 schools have their games on TV. SDSU does not. They need to start.

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: Television

It's my understanding that NDSU, UND, Montana, Montana St, and Wyoming all have many sporting events that are broadcast live. Now we can add USD to this list. SDSU is not on the list. In my opinion, they should be. D1 schools have their games on TV. SDSU does not. They need to start.

There is a huge difference between NDSU, UND, Montana, Montana State, Wyoming than in SDSU (and USD). All of the above mentioned communities have their own television broadcast stations. It is a heck of a lot easier to get a local, community TV station to broadcast locally-sponsored athletics, than it is to get the SF stations on board. In our case, it takes money; in our case, our attendance is growing rapidly w/o live televised games; in USD's case, their attendance can't grow (it's sold out every time...ha).

Having said that, it is easier for USD to enter a deal to buy TV broadcasts (not financially easier) because regardless of the weather, fair-weather fans are OK. So we're televising a home game and all week, the weather warns that it is going to rain like hell on Saturday. What do you think happens?

Bottom line...SDSU will do it when it makes economic sense for the department. I know right now they don't believe that.

[Nidaros]

Re: Television

There is a huge difference between NDSU, UND, Montana, Montana State, Wyoming than in SDSU (and USD). All of the above mentioned communities have their own television broadcast stations. It is a heck of a lot easier to get a local, community TV station to broadcast locally-sponsored athletics, than it is to get the SF stations on board. In our case, it takes money; in our case, our attendance is growing rapidly w/o live televised games; in USD's case, their attendance can't grow (it's sold out every time...ha).

Having said that, it is easier for USD to enter a deal to buy TV broadcasts (not financially easier) because regardless of the weather, fair-weather fans are OK. So we're televising a home game and all week, the weather warns that it is going to rain like hell on Saturday. What do you think happens?

Bottom line...SDSU will do it when it makes economic sense for the department. I know right now they don't believe that.

Jack#1fan:

I just don't understand why some folks have a hard time understanding what you just posted. Its like we should be keeping up with the Jones family next door. Sports adminstration does not work that way. Each institution has to find their own way. I am not a sports admin expert, but I do understand numbers and whether they are red or black. When the bottom numbers start turning red, then maybe an alternative to no television will be the answer. I just watched the YSU game on medicomm, we are getting our money's worth out of it. Kudos to Jimmy Jack and others who have put this arrangement with Mediacom together.

[filbert]

Re: Television

TV rights are a business decision. Since SDSU athletics need to break even at least, you have to make your decisions based on the dollars.

Let's say that on a nice, bright, crisp November 1 Saturday Afternoon, SDSU will get 12,000 for the Missouri State game this year.

Let's also say that instead of nice weather, it's crummy enough that of the 12,000 who would otherwise have come out, 5,000 walk-up fans stay home. At $12 a head (GA price) that's $60,000. So instead of having a crowd of 12,000, it's cut down to 7,000. Not a bad turnout for a cold, wet, nasty November day, right?

Now let's also spend $5,000 more to get the game on KELO. (Yeah, I pulled $5k out of my posterior. But as you'll see, that cost isn't the big one to consider.) Because of that, another 3,000 people who would otherwise have braved the elements, instead stay home to watch it on TV. So, not only have you gone from a good-weather crowd of 12,000 to a hard-core bunch of 4,000 fans, you're also out:

$60,000 for pre-tv walkup loss due to weather
$ 5,000 for the price to put it on TV PLUS
$36,000 for the harder-core walkups who stayed home because it's on TV.

So, putting the game on TV cost you not $5,000 but $41,000. And that's not counting concession sales.

The numbers will vary, of course, based on lots and lots of factors, but regardless of how you run the numbers, you're looking at a significant income hit if you get bad weather.

SDSU Athletics' budget is highly dependent on ticket revenue. IMHO they need to diversify that revenue further, with more/larger corporate sponsors, additional fundraising, and merchandising, before they can afford to put the ticket revenue at risk.

You can disagree with SDSU's stand on putting games on TV, but to do so requires that you believe that the additional cost will be offset by future income, AND believe that your current financials are good enough that you can afford to risk your present income for that future income. Reasonable people can disagree, I suppose.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: Television

I believe what you are trying to say is that your costs go up with television and bad weather. But you could also argue that your oppotunites lost costs go up in bad weather without television. How they balance out is difficult to determine in advance. While my opinion is that we are undervaluing the opportunities lost cost, I cannot argue that the people making the decision have been far more successful in getting "butts in the seats" than most everyone expected. Therefor, it is not that big of an issue for me.

[filbert]

Re: Television

I believe what you are trying to say is that your costs go up with television and bad weather. But you could also argue that your oppotunites lost costs go up in bad weather without television. How they balance out is difficult to determine in advance. While my opinion is that we are undervaluing the opportunities lost cost, I cannot argue that the people making the decision have been far more successful in getting "butts in the seats" than most everyone expected. Therefor, it is not that big of an issue for me.

No, I'm not talking about costs, I'm talking about revenue. I'm saying that revenue goes down with inclement weather. Revenue goes down MORE with inclement weather and TV, unless you find someone willing to pay you for broadcast rights, rather than you having to pay them to carry your game.

If you can reach the point where your risk of revenue loss due to the TV factor is offset by the revenue gain by selling broadcast rights, then it becomes a correct business decision to sell the broadcast rights.

The problem is determining how many people would go to a game in inclement weather that's broadcast on TV, vs. how many of those people would stay home to watch it there. That's how you have to determine your break-even point.

Maybe for a football game (assuming an average crowd of 10-12,000) that number is 500. Maybe it's 5,000. We don't really know.

But what I'm doing is just walking through what you have to look at if you're SDSU Athletics and want to make a rational economic decision to maximize your revenue.

To the argument that putting games on TV will lead to future revenue in the form of increased ticket and merchandise sales and increased donations . . . that becomes more difficult to discuss intelligently without doing what I suspect would be a rather expensive market analysis, to determine the point of maximum net income.

There is a point at which more media exposure won't get you very much more market penetration. I have no idea where that is. But it's not a bad thing to have people wanting more of your product. Scarcity is not always bad, economically. It's the old supply-demand curve.

There's a combination of market exposure and price that maximizes both current and future value for SDSU athletics. Those points may not be the same for both current revenue and future revenue potential. People get advanced degrees studying this kind of stuff.

I'm getting a headache . . .