Williams & Blum pod - 8.1.21

[theshadow]

We lack the upper crust ultra-wealthy big business exec alumni, as well as the next-best rich lawyer and doctor alumni tier. Our alumni overall are just not very rich compared to other AAU/P5 schools.

ISU has plenty of deep-pocketed alumni. What the AD needs is for those people to care about sports. That's the disconnect.

 

[Thorongil Clone]

Any time that subject comes up it’s only 2-3 posts before it blows up the whole thread. It’s very well known, no reason to start down that road.

What he said. And besides, more importantly, there's a plenty good road in the Cave to discuss important issues. Too bad more people aren't interested. A greater balance of (non-troll) viewpoints would be a good thing there.

 

[brentblum]

I really doubt this statistic. How can you have the 8th most Fortune 500 CEOS when you don't have close to that in fortune 500 companies?
Also just having them in state doesn't mean they are ISU fans or alums.

Just because I was referenced in this thread. When I tweeted this, Iowa State was tied for 9th with most Fortune 500 CEOs with an undergraduate degree from Iowa State with six at the time. Now, some of those CEOs are no longer CEOs (see the gentleman at Boeing) and several of the companies are not based in the state of Iowa. But yes, Iowa State was in top 10. Here is the list as compiled in December, 2019.

No College Degree
23
U of Wisconsin System
13
Harvard
10
SUNY System
10
UPENN
8
West Point
8
Texas A&M
8
Purdue
7
Cornell
6
Iowa State
6
U Michigan
6
Stanford
6
U of Wisconsin - Madison
6

 

[SolarGarlic]

Brent Blum tweeted last year that we were 8th in the country for CEO's of Fortune 500 firms.

You think lawyers are rich? Get a clue.

Some of you need to step up and be somebody and quit waiting to get your ass kissed or creating excuses why u don't give.

Just say u can't afford $100 or don't want to give. That approach it respectable.

Not your best pitch

 

[BCClone]

What he said. And besides, more importantly, there's a plenty good road in the Cave to discuss important issues. Too bad more people aren't interested. A greater balance of (non-troll) viewpoints would be a good thing there.

Agree. Just seen too many threads get shoved there when that issue arises. Be good if we could discuss anything without trolls, but that has not been possible in my observations.

 

[Mr.G.Spot]

Not your best pitch

You are correct. Definitely not a great pr pitch, but it is truthful. I kept giving when it probably didn't make sense. I am not your normal audience. I don't give to be recognized nor do I need to be asked.

Trust me: the CC would not turn down a $10 donation. If you, as reference only, want a thank you from Jamie, then send a check in and say "I will keep writing these checks, but I want acknowledgement ". He will set a program to do this.

In my experience, people either do the right thing or they find reasons/excuses to not do the right thing in areas like giving to the CC.

 

[t-noah]

I can't really see how that would work out since ESPN is the driver of all things in college football. They could just show SEC games and whatever is left over would be taken up by FOX or a network, but who would watch it? It would be sort of like a choice between watching the NFL or watching Arena League or CFL. The audiences in the best-of-the-rest conference would be tiny compared to what an SEC game could generate, unless I miss my guess, and subsequently, the money wouldn't be nearly as good.

In the age of streaming, there are a lot of things possible now that weren't before. There are more fans of non-elite programs than there are of elite programs (by a wide margin).

Everyone seems to think that ESPN is the giant controller of everything, but their big contracts have put them in all sorts of trouble, to the point where people are questioning whether Disney should sell them off.

I'm operating under the assumption that, of those who do passionately support a favorite, there will be a large number of fans ranging from disillusioned to downright angry about being excluded from a "super conference", and that will have an effect on their potential draw.

This will be the question. Do fans of the left behind teams watch SEC & B1G national tv games? Do they tune in to CFP's? I don't plan on it.

I think this is ESPN and the big leagues plan to have a two tier revenue system and try and keep a "national audience and only pay 32-40, (possibly 48 teams) at 3-4X the revenue of the other teams.

I hope cooler heads prevail and media companies with money step up, if it comes to it, who are willing to compete (w sec/espn).

I won't support espn anymore, nor the CFP's if the sec expands to a larger tier 1 NFL-lite league with limited power teams under 64. So many others won't either. It will backfire on espn, may take time, but it will.

So many reasons College football to collectively (other than sec/espn) circle the wagons and find a 'partial solution' to start, later a better and more equitable solution to this mess. I think it will happen and college football will continue the way most of us want. It could get ugly first. Not fun to think our school, and so many others, could be left out of the party.

 

[Die4Cy]

This is the last round of media negotiations for these conferences where the payouts are tied to TV ratings.

Next round will all be about engagement--how long your fans stay in the game feed, how much do they interact with ads targeted to them, how much they spend on those ads, are they providing marketable social media interactions, if there is a betting app involved, are they using it. The tightest personal experience between fan and game is going to be the one that monetizes the most for the media provider, and naturally, the institutions for bringing those fans to that experience. It is going to be heavily data driven, and that data will be available to the advertisers and partners almost instantly. Money won't be tied up in conferences or markets any longer, it will be free to flow wherever it is most rewarded for being.

An arthritic medium like ESPN is trying to straddle the grave here. They can't give up on the current model, they have built all their infrastructure around it, and even if they do see the cracks in the foundation, for the time being it remains profitable. Their only hope is to house the best brands under their roof so that a more efficient model cannot develop without ESPN at the table. Hang on for as long as possible. It really is about survival in their case, but they aren't built to do it right.

Find the partner who can do that right, and work with them to build a fan experience that people crave. Cause ESPN isn't it, as the numbers prove.