Admittedly, I'm way late to the party on this article, but the beauty of social media is that you discover things you had not previously seen.
I know economic models show that a la carte pricing for cable channels is inefficient and will drive many channels out of business, but while I will gladly pay $4.96 for ESPN (or even $10.96) my satellite bill pushes $80 month, and for what? 125 channels that I don't watch, many I don't know that I have. I'd gladly pay premiums for those channels I do watch. My bet is my overall satellite bill goes down.
Springsteen was wrong. There are way more 57 channels with nothing on.
Although a few days, old, this article posted on the Nieman Journalism Lab by Ken Doctor makes interesting points regarding the importance of "signature content". Doctor points to the sucess of sports websites at creating this "signature content."
we see increased branding of stars at places like Time, The New York Times, Fox News, and ESPN. The sports network may be the classic business model of our age, and in its anchors and top analysts — many initially lured from daily newspapers — it has shown the way for many years now.
And it's not just the printed content. High profile sports governing bodies such as the NFL, the Olympics, and even the NCAA continue to extract large media rights fees from networks as networks seek "signature content". Heck, you could even argue the value in "signature content" spawned the Big Ten Nework, Pac-12 Network, Longhorn Network, etc.
As those prices rise, so do the costs for the consumer as the networks seek fees, something Doctor also addresses in his piece.
Forget “content wants to be free.” Now content wants a fee. And everyone from Time Inc to The New York Times to the Memphis Commercial Appeal to Hulu’s co-owners (Fox, Disney, and Comcast) see gold. They see another digital revenue stream, in addition to advertising or to cable subscription fees. Yet they are increasingly believing they’ve got to up the ante (and Hulu is raising new fundsto buy original programming) to compete and to win those consumer dollars.
Sports media has seen tremendous consolidation. Comcast bought NBC Universal and just today, USA Today purchased Big Lead Sports. The era of sports media oligopolies is here and "signature content" is the reason why.
Billy Cundiff and Kyle Williams were both trending topics on Twitter last night, but for all the wrong reasons. Cundiff missed a short field goal that would have tied the Ravens-Patriots game and was immediately eviscerated as if he had killed Santa. Williams fumbled twice in the late stages of the 49ers-Giants game to put the Giants in a position to win. Neither cost their team a Super Bowl (Scott Norwood) or an NCAA title (Chris Webber) or a World Series (Bill Buckner), yet the comparisons to those unfortunate instances prevail
In the era of finger pointing, Cundiff and Williams have done none of that. Cundiff answered questions from reporters, placing the blame on himself. Deadspin/Slate/NPR reporter/failed NFL training camp kicker Stefan Fatsis offered a trilogy (triumvirate?) of explanations of what went wrong on the kick, how Cundiff is handing himself, and how the scoreboard operator at Gillette Stadium was wrong. Cundiff still says he should have made the kick.
As for Williams, he takes to the air tomorrow with an appearance on the Dan Patrick Show.
Whether it is an organization that makes a mistake, or an individual, most of the public likes to hear ownership of the mistake, not shifting the blame (see Clemens, Roger and his steroid stories). I say most because there are the deranged people who think it is okay to take to Twitter to threaten folks. MLB Network reporter Trenni Kusinerek offers an interesting column on this, including some vicious threats on Williams (H/T @publiside for sharing on Twitter).
I know when I talk to my six-year-old (who wanted the Ravens to win) about sportsmanship and trying your best, I will point to Cundiff. Not the idiots who took to Twitter and wanted to hang Williams. Unfortunately, more of sports is becoming like the latter.
DISCLAIMER: This post is a personal rant. Please consider it my form of therapy.
In honor of this week's winter meetings, I've decided to declare myself a free agent. After 37 years, give or take, I can no longer handle being a Dodgers fan. As if the divorce and bankruptcy were not enough, Ned Colletti has officially gone beyond delusional. Re-signing Kemp was great, but giving Rivera, Ellis, Capuano, Lilly, Kennedy, Hairston, and possibly Harang multiple year contracts this off season is insane. Way to insight interest from a fan base by signing a bunch of mid-30s castoffs.
Did he not learn anything from his past mistakes? This is the same guy who signed Andruw Jones, Jason Schmidt, Juan Uribe and Juan Pierre. Ugh!
As I observe the conference realignment landscape, I have begun to wonder why universities align with others as "peer institutions". Duke University professor Charles Clotfelter uses a variety of unconventional methods to question the role of athletics in university missions in his recent book, Big-Time Sports in American Universities. His ideas got me thinking.
It seems pretty apparent that the SEC will add a 14th school, and Missouri seems like it is ready to start courting an invitation to the SEC prom. However, if I were Mike Slive, I'd tell Mizzou we appreciate the interest but we'd like to see someone else. And that someone else is Maryland.
I have concluded universities should forget the notion of "peer institutions". The only thing schools in this discussion have in common is football. But variables such as overall athletics, TV markets, and academics make for nice talking points, so they worth bringing into the equation.
From an athletic perspective, the two schools are relatively equal, although I'd argue Maryland is more competitive based on their Learfield Cup standings and diversity of sports offered.
Athletic revenues:
Maryland = $54.6M; Missouri = $61.0M (source: USA Today Athletics Finance Database) Both of these figures would be near the bottom third of the SEC.
Sports:
Maryland = 27; Missouri = 19 (Maryland sponsors women's lacrosse, a growing sport and one Florida just recently added. No other SEC school has that).
2010-11 Learfield Directors Cup Rank:
Maryland = 17th; Missouri = 41st (source: here) Among SEC schools, only Florida and Texas A&M finished ahead of Maryland.
From a TV market standpoint, it is not close. College Park is outside Washington, DC, a top 9 DMA, and near DMA 26. Mizzou is equidistant between DMAs 21 and 31.
TV Market DMAs:
Maryland = Washington, DC (9th) and Baltimore (26th)
Missouri = St. Louis (21st) and Kansas City (31st) (source: Nielsen) This would give the SEC a solid presence in three Top 10 DMAs (Atlanta, Washington DC & Houston)
From an academic perspective, Maryland is far superior than Mizzou in most research measures, though Mizzou is ahead of Maryland in alumni giving measures.
Academic Ranks (source: 2010 Annual Report by The Center for Measuring University Performance at Arizona State University). 53 universities ranked in the Top 25 in at least one of nine research measures. Maryland did; Missouri did not. Vanderbilt and Texas A&M were the only other SEC institutions to do so.
Research expenditures: Maryland = 39; Missouri = 78
Endowment assets: Maryland = 158; Missouri = 129
Annual giving: Maryland = 64; Missouri = 56
Doctorates awarded: Maryland = 21; Missouri = 59
Maryland ranks tied for 55th in the latest U.S. News & World Report ranking of top universities (just ahead of Texas A&M); Missouri ranks 90th (source: U.S. News & World Report)
If something other than competitiveness in football matters in conference realignment, Maryland should be the choice for the SEC. Plus, a turtle is infinitely more fun as a mascot than a 3rd SEC team with a tiger.
The economic forces of supply and demand will have a direct impact on New York Mets ticket prices in 2012.
Team officials have abandoned their previous pricing strategy of four color-coded ticket levels based on the attractiveness of the opponent and the date of the game in favor of what is known as "dynamic pricing."
In essence, the same seat at Citi Field could have a different price for each of the 81 home games. And for any individual game, that seat's price now can fluctuate daily, based on how much demand there is for the upcoming game.
Good summary article here on the Mets' decision to move to dynamic ticket pricing in 2012. This is rapidly becoming the standard in baseball with the Giants and Cardinals using it already.
Interestingly, one of my students asked the Kansas City Royals about this last week during our trip to visit their operation. The executive said, essentially, while they are open to anything, he did not think it would work in that market.
And that is true. In order for dynamic pricing to work, the market needs to be strong enough to create demand. The performance of the team or the market size have the greatest ability to create demand. Neither of those work for the Royals. Instead, the team employs different price points or bundling strategies for "premium" games against the Red Sox and the Yankees, the only teams which create significant demand issues for the Royals.
I am often asked if this would work in college, and I think the answer, at least for football, is no. Not enough inventory (81 MLB games v. 5-7 CFB games) and the fact that college football games are all-day events, not something someone decides to do on a whim. College basketball won't work either because schools push season tickets so they can force people to buy tickets to watch Double-Directional State v. Big Time U. in December. There is usually no demand for those games.
Curley Center Chat Addresses Coverage of Initial Eligibility
While NCAA rules limit when a college coach can talk about an incoming student-athlete, media members almost invariably focus on standout high school students headed for college or pursue in-depth stories about recruiting.
Along with those somewhat opposing perspectives come ethical issues that touch on everything from privacy to the potential high-stakes pressure of intercollegiate athletics. And that backdrop poses problems for everyone involved—coaches, the media and the student-athletes themselves.
The related ethical challenges, responsibilities for all parties involved and even typical outcomes will be discussed at 1 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 28, during an online chat conducted by the John Curley Center for Sports Journalism at Penn State.
"Issues in Covering Initial Eligibility" is free, and people may access and participate in the session by visiting http://sportsjourn.psu.edu/chats online.
Participants include: Coquese Washington, women's basketball coach at Penn State, and Steve Wieberg, a sports writer who focuses on intercollegiate athletics for USA Today.
Malcolm Moran, the Knight Chair in Sports Journalism and Society and director of the Curley Center, will serve as moderator. The hour-long session will focus on journalism coverage of recruits, recruiting and many related issues with insights and opinions from the perspective of of a coach as well as that of a journalist.
In addition, the user-friendly format of the online chats allow for abundant interaction and questions from participants all over the world. Others involved with intercollegiate athletics, fellow journalists, college students and sports fans all may ask a question, comment or follow along by simply navigating to the chat online.
The Curley Center explores issues and trends in sports journalism through instruction, outreach, programming and research. The Center's undergraduate curricular emphasis includes courses in sports writing, sports broadcasting, sports information, sports, media and society, and sports and public policy, which is cross-listed with the Penn State Dickinson School of Law.
The John Curley Center for Sports Journalism at Penn State University routinely offers informative discussions about the nexus of media and sport and this week's topic should be of interest to anyone who covers college athletics and recruiting.
I received an email late Friday indicating it was in and ready for pickup, which I finally got around to this morning. From what University did the book come? The University of New Mexico, of course.
This ad really needs no explanation, except, where are the Bama Bangs? Auburn fans apparently did not like it. Oh, yeah, people here in Fayetteville protested because the local Old Navy was selling LSU gear.
The NCAA.com Power Rankings are based solely on team statistics. Unlike traditional polls that allow individuals to subjectively rank the "best" teams in their opinion, these rankings are simply based on current stats for both offense and defense, taking into account teams’ ability to produce positive results on both ends of the field.
A strength-of-schedule factor is also included to reward teams that play more BCS opponents. The same SOS factor carries across the whole season for a team, meaning the weekly shift in ranking is accounted for completely by that week’s statistics.
I guess I did not realize the NCAA was in the business of ranking FBS teams (thanks @DrSaturday for the tip), a seemingly meaningless exercise since the NCAA does not sponsor a championship in FBS. Nonetheless, here are the Week 1 Power Rankings according to the NCAA in which Virginia (?!?) is in your top 5. And, oh yeah, be sure to click on "shop" while there to help the non-commercial endeavor.
