1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Grantland so far

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Alma, Jul 14, 2011.

Page 30 of 63
  1. Mystery Meat II

    Mystery Meat II Well-Known Member

    If all the sports move with football when a school gets promoted/relegated, then that makes life pretty difficult for school ADs and coaches. If it's just football, then it's confusing when you're in the ACC except when your football team is occasionally in CUSA. And the gap between the SEC and Sun Belt, for example, is astronomical and would result in a lot of beatdowns even by your Vandys and Ole Misses.

    Best way to make this work, at least in the glorious and untarnished land of theory, is 12 football-only conferences split in three tiers along regional lines. 10 teams in the top tier conferences, 10 in the mid tier conferences, then the rest in the low conferences. You play everyone in your conference and three teams of your choosing.

    Top tier conference champions face off in the playoffs for the national title. Bottom two teams get sent to the middle tier, to replaced by the top two teams in the middle-tier conferences. Those bottom two go to the lowest tier and are replaced by that tier's top two teams. You could also have playoffs to determine the second-tier and third-tier champions, if you so desired.

    Tiebreaker would be head-to-head, followed by non-conference play performance (using a formula combining record and strength of schedule). That gives schools a reason to care about non-conference scheduling and allows for a rivalry or two to resume if the schools are no longer in the same tier.

    Would not work, of course, because college football is too entrenched. You'll never see relegation in any sport; even American soccer, which wants so desperately to be like its European counterparts that it grafts Euroish names onto its clubs in a feeble effort to replicate them (Real Salt Lake?), doesn't do this. But hey, so long as we're hanging out in Theory ...
     
    Mystery Meat II, Sep 27, 2011
    #349
  2. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    Even here?

    Really?
     
    93Devil, Sep 27, 2011
    #350
  3. jr/shotglass

    jr/shotglass Well-Known Member

    Just to touch on one thing, I don't even consider the other sports in an idea like this.

    I've been told not to. Everyone tells me that football drives everything else, so why should I care how a relegation theory would affect the field hockey team?
     
    jr/shotglass, Sep 27, 2011
    #351
  4. Mystery Meat II

    Mystery Meat II Well-Known Member

    There's a difference between "football drives everything" and "academics and the other sports don't exist in this discussion." Otherwise, Boise State probably WOULD be in a major conference by now. Instead, their poor academics, mediocre TV market and inability to be competitive in almost any other sport helps to keep them on the outside.

    That's why I don't get the argument for TCU to be in the Big 12 or SEC. They add nothing to the conference that they don't already get from A&M or Texas/Texas Tech. The Big East has no Texas presence and TCU is the best of the non-BCS schools in that state, so it makes perfect sense for them. But not the Big 12 or SEC.
     
    Mystery Meat II, Sep 27, 2011
    #352
  5. Brian

    Brian Well-Known Member

    Brian, Oct 4, 2011
    #353
  6. 93Devil

    93Devil Well-Known Member

    93Devil, Oct 4, 2011
    #354
  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    It may have been a throwaway idea since he is in with Eggers. I think the print thing is pure vanity. Who is going to pay $20 for that?

    There is a not-so-small difference between a reprinted version of content from a website and his book. The book was original; it wasn't comprised of small pieces of content you could have read online for free over time. It was also available through a network of distributors with a bit more reach than McSweeney's.

    Assuming this is purely Simmons, I now think he may be delusional. He may fancy himself McSweeney's-like -- and that wouldn't be a bad thing to be -- but if that is the goal, how long is ESPN going to keep lending its name to it? Is it doing it just to placate him with a vanity project to keep him writing?
     
    The Big Ragu, Oct 4, 2011
    #355
  8. Double Down

    Double Down Well-Known Member

    I haven't heard any financial stuff since, but the first month Grantland was in operation, Rovell tweeted that it brought in $10 million in ad revenue. Obviously that number is going to be high, since it probably represented the initial buy-in that Subway and Klondike did, but I would say that ESPN will be happy to lend its name to and money to Simmons project as long as it keeps making money. Or not losing money. People act like ESPN gives Simmons so much. Well, think of how much money they pay their on-air talent. What are they paying Simmons compared to what they pay Berman? I bet it's a drop in the bucket. I they spend more on Berman than they pay the entire staff of Grantland, easily. I'm fairly certain they do a lot more stuff in the name of vanity than give Simmons his own treehouse.

    As for the McSweeneys stuff, almost all the books Eggers publishes aren't done with the intention of making money or selling a ton of books. This is like the equivalent of a literary zine. But I bet it sells a ton more copies that short stories with Zadie Smith and Denis Johnson.
     
    Double Down, Oct 4, 2011
    #356
  9. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Even with that stable of writers, I can't imagine operating expenses are too great. So if they are pulling in $10 million a month in ad revenue, well, all I can say is God Bless Bill Simmons and God Bless ESPN. Even if that is true, and not doubting it, I still have to think that McSweeney's thing is pure vanity.
     
    The Big Ragu, Oct 4, 2011
    #357
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    OK. .... Now you have me thinking DD. How the hell is that website generating $10 million a month in ad revenue?!?!?

    Based on the number of hits I just found (compete.com, for example), it's CPM would have to be 250 times the advertised rate of WSportsJournalists.com, for example. Who would pay that for something that gets a fraction of the readers, even if they are considered desirable readers for whatever reason?

    Is there something here that I am missing?

    Edit: Prorated for the year, that would be almost half of the ad revenue Sports Illustrated brought in last year. Except, minus the printing, mailing costs and the obviously greater cost of staffing, so it would presumably be much more profitable than SI.

    The only thing I can think of is that they are bundling products, and that report attributed the revenue to Grantland. For example, buy an ad page in ESPN the magazine for $X dollars and we'll give you a page on Grantland.
     
    The Big Ragu, Oct 4, 2011
    #358
  11. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Another thought. ... You said $10 million. I assumed $10 million a month because of how you put it.

    If it is on pace for $10 million a year, it sounds like a lot to me, but that is way more conceivable. Was that it?
     
    The Big Ragu, Oct 4, 2011
    #359
  12. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    That's pretty much how newspapers were able to show "profit" with their online operations between say 2001 and 2008.
     
    LongTimeListener, Oct 4, 2011
    #360
Page 30 of 63
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page