(10-07-2015 11:53 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:40 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  The number of cord cutters is 7 million those are the ones happy with espn3 vs TV well along with fans that only have their games shown on espn3. DirectV alone has 20 million households which equals about 50 million sets of eyes that can on any one of the 12 (possible 14) Saturdays that Western plays a football game they might click on one button and they have the game on their TV.

While espn3 is 100x better than no coverage it will not replace TV as the go to source. To watch a game on espn3 you must make 3 or 4 steps and changing games is not a click on the game is on...nope it's a click and buffering for 5 to 10 seconds while a fuzzy picture clears up. I carry the highest speed internet TW has and at any giving time there will be 4 of us using that...playing video games vs others, streaming movies, surfing the net, watching espn3. I'm usually the one watching SBC games on espn3 while I'm switching between 3 or 4 games on TV....

it may be my pc (it's 2 years old) but I would think it's the internet that's doing the lag with the fuzzy picture and sound needing 5 to 10 seconds to catch up. About 25 seconds to load a new game. No one does that but the sports fan that LOVES football. The causal fan surely doesn't.

Now as for these so called cord cutters....all they are doing is changing out one service for another and basically paying about 50% they use to for about 80% less content. If I had to guess I would say 50% of those 7 million upgraded their internet speed (MORE MONEY) since cutting the cord.

Not one of us is going to gain a ton of fans by TV but if you can put together a few great seasons with all your games on TV it raises the profile of that school to the ...CAUSAL FAN. Never being on TV and only on espn3 will never do that...even in the great years only the huge football fan is going to seek out espn3. Or the 20 something and honestly espn has already brain washed that fan...

if you're not P5 you're nothing. That's only reinforced because this fan had to find your game on espn3 ..not on TV

ESPN3 is moving more games to traditional TV with College Extra. If the SBC can get some guaranteed number of games on College Extra then that is the best of both worlds as far as exposure goes. Funding is another issue but hopefully they can get paid but it would be better than ASN.

Care to shed more light on what exactly is College Extra and how do you get it? Is it a special subscription? I know that I have ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, and everything else through ESPN3. Where does College Extra fit in?

(10-07-2015 11:53 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:40 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  The number of cord cutters is 7 million those are the ones happy with espn3 vs TV well along with fans that only have their games shown on espn3. DirectV alone has 20 million households which equals about 50 million sets of eyes that can on any one of the 12 (possible 14) Saturdays that Western plays a football game they might click on one button and they have the game on their TV.

While espn3 is 100x better than no coverage it will not replace TV as the go to source. To watch a game on espn3 you must make 3 or 4 steps and changing games is not a click on the game is on...nope it's a click and buffering for 5 to 10 seconds while a fuzzy picture clears up. I carry the highest speed internet TW has and at any giving time there will be 4 of us using that...playing video games vs others, streaming movies, surfing the net, watching espn3. I'm usually the one watching SBC games on espn3 while I'm switching between 3 or 4 games on TV....

it may be my pc (it's 2 years old) but I would think it's the internet that's doing the lag with the fuzzy picture and sound needing 5 to 10 seconds to catch up. About 25 seconds to load a new game. No one does that but the sports fan that LOVES football. The causal fan surely doesn't.

Now as for these so called cord cutters....all they are doing is changing out one service for another and basically paying about 50% they use to for about 80% less content. If I had to guess I would say 50% of those 7 million upgraded their internet speed (MORE MONEY) since cutting the cord.

Not one of us is going to gain a ton of fans by TV but if you can put together a few great seasons with all your games on TV it raises the profile of that school to the ...CAUSAL FAN. Never being on TV and only on espn3 will never do that...even in the great years only the huge football fan is going to seek out espn3. Or the 20 something and honestly espn has already brain washed that fan...

if you're not P5 you're nothing. That's only reinforced because this fan had to find your game on espn3 ..not on TV

ESPN3 is moving more games to traditional TV with College Extra. If the SBC can get some guaranteed number of games on College Extra then that is the best of both worlds as far as exposure goes. Funding is another issue but hopefully they can get paid but it would be better than ASN.

Sure. I believe there was an article posted here last month but not sure if it is the one below. I believe this replaces Gameplan and is available on a number of networks but not all - like Comcast, which sucks for me. I don't know how it works with each provider but may only be available on certain tiers or packages.

http://sportsvideo.org/main/blog/2015/09...ege-extra/

Quote:Live events will be accessible to customers of AT&T U-verse and DIRECTV – which is now part of the AT&T family – Bright House Networks, Cox, Time Warner Cable, Verizon FiOS and select NCTC members at launch beginning Saturday, September 5 with the start of the 2015-16 football season. Any additional providers to carry ESPN College Extra will be announced at a later date.

Here is the schedule for this weekend: http://espn.go.com/espncollegeextra/

A lot of FCS and DII games right now but App @ GSU is on there. As well as PC @ Coastal if anyone cares.

I think if the SBC could get a few football, basketball, and baseball games each week then it would be a good deal.

(10-07-2015 11:13 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 10:15 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 10:46 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 06:51 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  Not that you asked but heres how I see it.
what ASN offers that espn3 does not is access to the casual viewer. This is how you build a national brand or grow a fan base.
People who do not follow the sbc might happen across a good game on a local station or begin watching because its on each week. However if its on espn3 the only people who will watch is those fans who actively seek it out to watch therefore there isnt any interest from potentially new fans.
I do agree that some form of online streaming will be the future but whats to stop sinclair broadcasting from starting their own online content delivery system. Even the ovc has this. Which works just as well as espn3 and is free.

I am exposed to cusa games every weekend whether I want to or not.
much like I used to watch ga so. Games on pbs because they were on.

The casual viewer is moving away from television. What this offers is for the avid College Football fan who's dream of a Saturday is to sit in front of the television with a remote for the entire day. Provided ASN has an affiliate in that market that actually picks up the games...that person is likely to flip by and watch for a couple minutes.

That being said, that doesn't help the SBC because our biggest issue is that most of our schools are located in markets without an ASN affiliate, making it very difficult for the local bars and what not to pick up the game.

Lets say App State played Georgia Southern on ASN. While that game might be available widely in Birmingham, AL and Charlotte...the actual fans of the two schools who lived in Statesboro and Boone would be SOL.

We'd be biting off one hand to feed the other.

Boone is technically in Charlotte's tv market, so they get Charlotte OTA stations.

ASN also has stations in Greensboro and Raleigh, so App would actually get great coverage across the state. Their game against ODU was available in all three major metro areas in NC and maybe even more (I don't remember the full list of networks picking that game up). It was great exposure for them. I'd love to see the ratings for that game, but I imagine they were pretty good. They definitely got considerably more viewers than an ESPN3 stream ever would.

In our first two seasons, Charlotte was getting 20,000-30,000 viewers per game that was carried OTA in Charlotte. ESPN3 streams average, what, a few thousand? There is clear value for branding in having your games available over the air.

I fully expect to see ESPN reach a deal with the SBC like they have for the MAC and AAC. They have nothing to lose. ASN picks up the production costs and ESPN3 gets to carry it for digital viewers.

ASN gets more quality content to put on their network. Viewers get more options. Everybody wins.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

Considering Charlotte has pretty consistently been at the top of the ratings for noon games on the local channel that airs our games, I'd be willing to bet that the App-ODU game was one of the most watched noon games in Charlotte and probably other NC markets that carried the game.

Not many marquee matchups happen at noon these days since the major networks want to have those on during prime time, so ASN gave App a great opportunity to capture casual football fans around the state that would likely rather watch a local(ish) team play than two random teams from a P5 conference.

(10-07-2015 06:01 AM)cleburneslim Wrote:  http://sbgi.net/tv-stations/
im not sure about what stations people get each in each teams market, but I count a likely 7 of the eventual 12 football schools are located very near one or more sinclair stations. Leaving out ark st and the louisiana schools and troy.
Also there is one in little rock but not in dallas/fort worth. So an 8-6 split

so it would be good for a little over half of the conference home markets also it would allow viewers in the 6 non represented teams to be watched in various market out of their home markets.

People are moving away from traditional viewing however relatively slowly and to what extent still remains to be seen. There will be likely never a time in our lives that no one is watching college football on television.
also as for the casual viewer flipping channels, if one in a hundred, who doesnt watch, pauses and watches the fourt quarter and become familiar with ark st. Then thats more than he will ever do on espn3. He will never flip through and watch ark st from all the games available there. Espn3 is where espn sends content they do not intend on airing its like digging through the trash for what someone threw out rather than cruising down the aisle and picking it up off the shelf. Only people who would actively search for the game will watch which means no new fans. Boise has a national name because people who had never heard of them saw them on television. Tv is the best way to get your product out there to be purchased.

As I've mentioned in other posts, the Little Rock affiliate is KATV 7.2
If you are on Dish, Direct, and AT&T you do not get 7.2. If you are on Comcast you do but it only serves a portion (large portion) of the Little Rock metro area. I think there is only one other cable company that carries 7.2

So unless you are on one of those two cable systems you can not be a casual viewer. If you are on Dish, Direct, ATT, or another cable system you can only see it with an antenna or you can get some of the ASN content via the extra subscription to a sports package but if the choice is ODU vs. Marshall for MASN (a regular pick-up of ASN) or North Texas vs. AState, MASN is going with the ODU-Marshall game the sports package may not help you see the game you want.

I'm not knocked out by ASN but it is only the second season so I'm not ready to write it off.

(10-07-2015 10:54 AM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 10:15 AM)Niner National Wrote:  They definitely got considerably more viewers than an ESPN3 stream ever would.

You sure about that? Direct TV carries the ESPN3 games on TV and I know many times if a game is close I care about or even just coming down to the last few minutes I'll just surf over to whatever ESPN3 it's on if it's not on my cable. I honestly don't even know what ASN is and I have the sports tier.

It is obviously going to vary considerably depending on which team is playing. I'm sure some AAC teams do fairly well with ESPN3 numbers, but it was reported after last season that MAC teams averaged about 3,000 viewers. That's terrible.

ASN isn't on a sports tiers, its a network of over the air stations all over the country. It's the same thing as Raycom Sports. Living in North Carolina, I know you know what Raycom is.

(10-07-2015 11:13 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 10:15 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 10:46 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 06:51 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  Not that you asked but heres how I see it.
what ASN offers that espn3 does not is access to the casual viewer. This is how you build a national brand or grow a fan base.
People who do not follow the sbc might happen across a good game on a local station or begin watching because its on each week. However if its on espn3 the only people who will watch is those fans who actively seek it out to watch therefore there isnt any interest from potentially new fans.
I do agree that some form of online streaming will be the future but whats to stop sinclair broadcasting from starting their own online content delivery system. Even the ovc has this. Which works just as well as espn3 and is free.

I am exposed to cusa games every weekend whether I want to or not.
much like I used to watch ga so. Games on pbs because they were on.

The casual viewer is moving away from television. What this offers is for the avid College Football fan who's dream of a Saturday is to sit in front of the television with a remote for the entire day. Provided ASN has an affiliate in that market that actually picks up the games...that person is likely to flip by and watch for a couple minutes.

That being said, that doesn't help the SBC because our biggest issue is that most of our schools are located in markets without an ASN affiliate, making it very difficult for the local bars and what not to pick up the game.

Lets say App State played Georgia Southern on ASN. While that game might be available widely in Birmingham, AL and Charlotte...the actual fans of the two schools who lived in Statesboro and Boone would be SOL.

We'd be biting off one hand to feed the other.

Boone is technically in Charlotte's tv market, so they get Charlotte OTA stations.

ASN also has stations in Greensboro and Raleigh, so App would actually get great coverage across the state. Their game against ODU was available in all three major metro areas in NC and maybe even more (I don't remember the full list of networks picking that game up). It was great exposure for them. I'd love to see the ratings for that game, but I imagine they were pretty good. They definitely got considerably more viewers than an ESPN3 stream ever would.

In our first two seasons, Charlotte was getting 20,000-30,000 viewers per game that was carried OTA in Charlotte. ESPN3 streams average, what, a few thousand? There is clear value for branding in having your games available over the air.

I fully expect to see ESPN reach a deal with the SBC like they have for the MAC and AAC. They have nothing to lose. ASN picks up the production costs and ESPN3 gets to carry it for digital viewers.

ASN gets more quality content to put on their network. Viewers get more options. Everybody wins.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

You sound satisfied with being relegated to obscurity.

(10-07-2015 08:38 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:13 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 10:15 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 10:46 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 06:51 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  Not that you asked but heres how I see it.
what ASN offers that espn3 does not is access to the casual viewer. This is how you build a national brand or grow a fan base.
People who do not follow the sbc might happen across a good game on a local station or begin watching because its on each week. However if its on espn3 the only people who will watch is those fans who actively seek it out to watch therefore there isnt any interest from potentially new fans.
I do agree that some form of online streaming will be the future but whats to stop sinclair broadcasting from starting their own online content delivery system. Even the ovc has this. Which works just as well as espn3 and is free.

I am exposed to cusa games every weekend whether I want to or not.
much like I used to watch ga so. Games on pbs because they were on.

The casual viewer is moving away from television. What this offers is for the avid College Football fan who's dream of a Saturday is to sit in front of the television with a remote for the entire day. Provided ASN has an affiliate in that market that actually picks up the games...that person is likely to flip by and watch for a couple minutes.

That being said, that doesn't help the SBC because our biggest issue is that most of our schools are located in markets without an ASN affiliate, making it very difficult for the local bars and what not to pick up the game.

Lets say App State played Georgia Southern on ASN. While that game might be available widely in Birmingham, AL and Charlotte...the actual fans of the two schools who lived in Statesboro and Boone would be SOL.

We'd be biting off one hand to feed the other.

Boone is technically in Charlotte's tv market, so they get Charlotte OTA stations.

ASN also has stations in Greensboro and Raleigh, so App would actually get great coverage across the state. Their game against ODU was available in all three major metro areas in NC and maybe even more (I don't remember the full list of networks picking that game up). It was great exposure for them. I'd love to see the ratings for that game, but I imagine they were pretty good. They definitely got considerably more viewers than an ESPN3 stream ever would.

In our first two seasons, Charlotte was getting 20,000-30,000 viewers per game that was carried OTA in Charlotte. ESPN3 streams average, what, a few thousand? There is clear value for branding in having your games available over the air.

I fully expect to see ESPN reach a deal with the SBC like they have for the MAC and AAC. They have nothing to lose. ASN picks up the production costs and ESPN3 gets to carry it for digital viewers.

ASN gets more quality content to put on their network. Viewers get more options. Everybody wins.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

You sound satisfied with being relegated to obscurity.

Fcs is obscure and cable tv is headed that way too

(10-07-2015 08:38 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:13 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 10:15 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 10:46 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 06:51 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  Not that you asked but heres how I see it.
what ASN offers that espn3 does not is access to the casual viewer. This is how you build a national brand or grow a fan base.
People who do not follow the sbc might happen across a good game on a local station or begin watching because its on each week. However if its on espn3 the only people who will watch is those fans who actively seek it out to watch therefore there isnt any interest from potentially new fans.
I do agree that some form of online streaming will be the future but whats to stop sinclair broadcasting from starting their own online content delivery system. Even the ovc has this. Which works just as well as espn3 and is free.

I am exposed to cusa games every weekend whether I want to or not.
much like I used to watch ga so. Games on pbs because they were on.

The casual viewer is moving away from television. What this offers is for the avid College Football fan who's dream of a Saturday is to sit in front of the television with a remote for the entire day. Provided ASN has an affiliate in that market that actually picks up the games...that person is likely to flip by and watch for a couple minutes.

That being said, that doesn't help the SBC because our biggest issue is that most of our schools are located in markets without an ASN affiliate, making it very difficult for the local bars and what not to pick up the game.

Lets say App State played Georgia Southern on ASN. While that game might be available widely in Birmingham, AL and Charlotte...the actual fans of the two schools who lived in Statesboro and Boone would be SOL.

We'd be biting off one hand to feed the other.

Boone is technically in Charlotte's tv market, so they get Charlotte OTA stations.

ASN also has stations in Greensboro and Raleigh, so App would actually get great coverage across the state. Their game against ODU was available in all three major metro areas in NC and maybe even more (I don't remember the full list of networks picking that game up). It was great exposure for them. I'd love to see the ratings for that game, but I imagine they were pretty good. They definitely got considerably more viewers than an ESPN3 stream ever would.

In our first two seasons, Charlotte was getting 20,000-30,000 viewers per game that was carried OTA in Charlotte. ESPN3 streams average, what, a few thousand? There is clear value for branding in having your games available over the air.

I fully expect to see ESPN reach a deal with the SBC like they have for the MAC and AAC. They have nothing to lose. ASN picks up the production costs and ESPN3 gets to carry it for digital viewers.

ASN gets more quality content to put on their network. Viewers get more options. Everybody wins.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

You sound satisfied with being relegated to obscurity.

What on earth are you talking about? Far be it for me to be skeptical that the Charlotte metro area somehow gives App State great television ratings. 20K Nationally is terrible numbers.

I have no idea what the numbers are on ESPN3 for the SBC, but acting like getting 20K viewers is something amazing is pretty insane. Far be it for me to think that the SBC can do better, and reach far more people in the process.

(10-07-2015 04:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 06:01 AM)cleburneslim Wrote:  http://sbgi.net/tv-stations/
im not sure about what stations people get each in each teams market, but I count a likely 7 of the eventual 12 football schools are located very near one or more sinclair stations. Leaving out ark st and the louisiana schools and troy.
Also there is one in little rock but not in dallas/fort worth. So an 8-6 split

so it would be good for a little over half of the conference home markets also it would allow viewers in the 6 non represented teams to be watched in various market out of their home markets.

People are moving away from traditional viewing however relatively slowly and to what extent still remains to be seen. There will be likely never a time in our lives that no one is watching college football on television.
also as for the casual viewer flipping channels, if one in a hundred, who doesnt watch, pauses and watches the fourt quarter and become familiar with ark st. Then thats more than he will ever do on espn3. He will never flip through and watch ark st from all the games available there. Espn3 is where espn sends content they do not intend on airing its like digging through the trash for what someone threw out rather than cruising down the aisle and picking it up off the shelf. Only people who would actively search for the game will watch which means no new fans. Boise has a national name because people who had never heard of them saw them on television. Tv is the best way to get your product out there to be purchased.

As I've mentioned in other posts, the Little Rock affiliate is KATV 7.2
If you are on Dish, Direct, and AT&T you do not get 7.2. If you are on Comcast you do but it only serves a portion (large portion) of the Little Rock metro area. I think there is only one other cable company that carries 7.2

So unless you are on one of those two cable systems you can not be a casual viewer. If you are on Dish, Direct, ATT, or another cable system you can only see it with an antenna or you can get some of the ASN content via the extra subscription to a sports package but if the choice is ODU vs. Marshall for MASN (a regular pick-up of ASN) or North Texas vs. AState, MASN is going with the ODU-Marshall game the sports package may not help you see the game you want.

I'm not knocked out by ASN but it is only the second season so I'm not ready to write it off.

FWIW---Ive heard some folks claim that Sinclair is trying to purchase a national cable network and use it as a national 24-hr outlet for ASN programming. That might change things a bit.

(10-07-2015 08:52 PM)runninjoe Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 08:38 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:13 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 10:15 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 10:46 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  The casual viewer is moving away from television. What this offers is for the avid College Football fan who's dream of a Saturday is to sit in front of the television with a remote for the entire day. Provided ASN has an affiliate in that market that actually picks up the games...that person is likely to flip by and watch for a couple minutes.

That being said, that doesn't help the SBC because our biggest issue is that most of our schools are located in markets without an ASN affiliate, making it very difficult for the local bars and what not to pick up the game.

Lets say App State played Georgia Southern on ASN. While that game might be available widely in Birmingham, AL and Charlotte...the actual fans of the two schools who lived in Statesboro and Boone would be SOL.

We'd be biting off one hand to feed the other.

Boone is technically in Charlotte's tv market, so they get Charlotte OTA stations.

ASN also has stations in Greensboro and Raleigh, so App would actually get great coverage across the state. Their game against ODU was available in all three major metro areas in NC and maybe even more (I don't remember the full list of networks picking that game up). It was great exposure for them. I'd love to see the ratings for that game, but I imagine they were pretty good. They definitely got considerably more viewers than an ESPN3 stream ever would.

In our first two seasons, Charlotte was getting 20,000-30,000 viewers per game that was carried OTA in Charlotte. ESPN3 streams average, what, a few thousand? There is clear value for branding in having your games available over the air.

I fully expect to see ESPN reach a deal with the SBC like they have for the MAC and AAC. They have nothing to lose. ASN picks up the production costs and ESPN3 gets to carry it for digital viewers.

ASN gets more quality content to put on their network. Viewers get more options. Everybody wins.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

You sound satisfied with being relegated to obscurity.

Fcs is obscure and cable tv is headed that way too

Thats my point even fcs gets espn3 coverage that no one new watches.
with asn coverage there is potential to grow your fanbase espn3 only satisfies the needs of the current fanbase.

(10-08-2015 06:29 AM)cleburneslim Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 08:52 PM)runninjoe Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 08:38 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:13 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 10:15 AM)Niner National Wrote:  Boone is technically in Charlotte's tv market, so they get Charlotte OTA stations.

ASN also has stations in Greensboro and Raleigh, so App would actually get great coverage across the state. Their game against ODU was available in all three major metro areas in NC and maybe even more (I don't remember the full list of networks picking that game up). It was great exposure for them. I'd love to see the ratings for that game, but I imagine they were pretty good. They definitely got considerably more viewers than an ESPN3 stream ever would.

In our first two seasons, Charlotte was getting 20,000-30,000 viewers per game that was carried OTA in Charlotte. ESPN3 streams average, what, a few thousand? There is clear value for branding in having your games available over the air.

I fully expect to see ESPN reach a deal with the SBC like they have for the MAC and AAC. They have nothing to lose. ASN picks up the production costs and ESPN3 gets to carry it for digital viewers.

ASN gets more quality content to put on their network. Viewers get more options. Everybody wins.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

You sound satisfied with being relegated to obscurity.

Fcs is obscure and cable tv is headed that way too

Thats my point even fcs gets espn3 coverage that no one new watches.
with asn coverage there is potential to grow your fanbase espn3 only satisfies the needs of the current fanbase.

I will have no problem with ASN broadcasting SBC games so long as they are still available on ESPN3 because ASN stations do not even show all of the ASN games available to them.

(10-07-2015 09:05 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 08:38 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:13 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 10:15 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 10:46 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  The casual viewer is moving away from television. What this offers is for the avid College Football fan who's dream of a Saturday is to sit in front of the television with a remote for the entire day. Provided ASN has an affiliate in that market that actually picks up the games...that person is likely to flip by and watch for a couple minutes.

That being said, that doesn't help the SBC because our biggest issue is that most of our schools are located in markets without an ASN affiliate, making it very difficult for the local bars and what not to pick up the game.

Lets say App State played Georgia Southern on ASN. While that game might be available widely in Birmingham, AL and Charlotte...the actual fans of the two schools who lived in Statesboro and Boone would be SOL.

We'd be biting off one hand to feed the other.

Boone is technically in Charlotte's tv market, so they get Charlotte OTA stations.

ASN also has stations in Greensboro and Raleigh, so App would actually get great coverage across the state. Their game against ODU was available in all three major metro areas in NC and maybe even more (I don't remember the full list of networks picking that game up). It was great exposure for them. I'd love to see the ratings for that game, but I imagine they were pretty good. They definitely got considerably more viewers than an ESPN3 stream ever would.

In our first two seasons, Charlotte was getting 20,000-30,000 viewers per game that was carried OTA in Charlotte. ESPN3 streams average, what, a few thousand? There is clear value for branding in having your games available over the air.

I fully expect to see ESPN reach a deal with the SBC like they have for the MAC and AAC. They have nothing to lose. ASN picks up the production costs and ESPN3 gets to carry it for digital viewers.

ASN gets more quality content to put on their network. Viewers get more options. Everybody wins.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

You sound satisfied with being relegated to obscurity.

What on earth are you talking about? Far be it for me to be skeptical that the Charlotte metro area somehow gives App State great television ratings. 20K Nationally is terrible numbers.

I have no idea what the numbers are on ESPN3 for the SBC, but acting like getting 20K viewers is something amazing is pretty insane. Far be it for me to think that the SBC can do better, and reach far more people in the process.

Nobody is acting like 20k nationally is a good thing...besides, I never said nationally, I said that was in one market.

We owned our own TV rights the first year and we made more money from being on one channel locally than SBC schools get from ESPN. We kept 70% of the advertising dollars spent while our games were on television and the station got the other 30%.

An ESPN3 / ASN combo is really a pretty nice situation because it allows for the die hard fans to catch the game regardless of where they live and it opens you up to casual viewers that would never casually watch a game. If I'm flipping through channels and I see a close game, I'll stop and watch. If I'm browsing ESPN3, I'm not choosing 2 teams I know nothing about.

There has been some speculation on the CUSA board that ESPN may be taking that approach with CUSA for our new TV contract. Fox will get Tier 1 rights, ESPN/ASN gets tier 2, with those presumably mostly being ESPN3 / ASN partnership broadcasts. I would be happy with that.

This wouldn't appease the TV only crowd but Amazon is rumored to be looking into a streaming live TV service.

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2015/10/a...rvice.html

I have no idea if they are interested in sports but if they are I could see them signing up a few DI conferences neglected by the mouse house and giving them their own virtual channels for a reasonable amount of money. Most DI schools already stream the majority of their events so this should make it a bit easier.

If they could work out a deal with some of the broadcasters like NBC, CBS, and Fox then they could broadcast some of the games on traditional TV stations and treat as advertising for their services.

(10-06-2015 09:33 AM)eaglewraith Wrote:  ESPN3 is pretty much available everywhere.

ASN isn't available for the majority of the country.

I'd rather be on ESPN3.

Same here. I haven't heard of ASN until 2 weeks ago. I don't even pick it up and have no way to stream it, and I have the full cable package.

I'll take ESPN3 all day long.

(10-08-2015 10:53 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  This wouldn't appease the TV only crowd but Amazon is rumored to be looking into a streaming live TV service.

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2015/10/a...rvice.html

I have no idea if they are interested in sports but if they are I could see them signing up a few DI conferences neglected by the mouse house and giving them their own virtual channels for a reasonable amount of money. Most DI schools already stream the majority of their events so this should make it a bit easier.

If they could work out a deal with some of the broadcasters like NBC, CBS, and Fox then they could broadcast some of the games on traditional TV stations and treat as advertising for their services.

Sony, Sling and others are already doing the a la carte live TV streaming. The thing with a la carte channels is they must pay for themselves. Each subscriber will directly share the cost associated with the streaming platform, production cost, TV revenue for each school in the conference and the conference office's cut. If each subscriber pays 10 bucks a month, how many subscribers would it take to support that channel?

The big question for us G5ers is how to get to that critical mass to support such a venture.

(10-08-2015 02:53 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 09:33 AM)eaglewraith Wrote:  ESPN3 is pretty much available everywhere.

ASN isn't available for the majority of the country.

I'd rather be on ESPN3.

Same here. I haven't heard of ASN until 2 weeks ago. I don't even pick it up and have no way to stream it, and I have the full cable package.

I'll take ESPN3 all day long.

They have a lot of affiliates across the country. It isn't an actual channel--although they are exploring buying the Tennis Channel.

Charlotte has no Sinclair Broadcasting Group stations (they are the company that produces ASN games), yet we get all Charlotte games a lot of other CUSA games because our local CW affiliate picks up the games. TV stations in any market can do the same if they think there is enough interest in the games. WCCB in Charlotte will carry most of the Marshall ASN games because Marshall has a good presence here. They picked up the App game because App has a good presence here. It's not perfect, but it's the same concept as Raycom Sports that produces ACC football games shown on a network of local OTA stations.

(10-08-2015 03:34 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 10:53 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  This wouldn't appease the TV only crowd but Amazon is rumored to be looking into a streaming live TV service.

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2015/10/a...rvice.html

I have no idea if they are interested in sports but if they are I could see them signing up a few DI conferences neglected by the mouse house and giving them their own virtual channels for a reasonable amount of money. Most DI schools already stream the majority of their events so this should make it a bit easier.

If they could work out a deal with some of the broadcasters like NBC, CBS, and Fox then they could broadcast some of the games on traditional TV stations and treat as advertising for their services.

Sony, Sling and others are already doing the a la carte live TV streaming. The thing with a la carte channels is they must pay for themselves. Each subscriber will directly share the cost associated with the streaming platform, production cost, TV revenue for each school in the conference and the conference office's cut. If each subscriber pays 10 bucks a month, how many subscribers would it take to support that channel?

The big question for us G5ers is how to get to that critical mass to support such a venture.

I assume Amazon isn't looking to offer a la carte streaming - but provide value by having lost of options.

But if there was a dedicated channel that is a la carte - it gets down to production quality. I know ESPN3 is basically passing the production costs to the schools for most sports. The Big South is essentially providing a streaming channel for all members and sports to viewers for free. I figure at $5 a month 250K annual subscribers would generate $15 million. There are expenses of course, but I could see that being the floor with the school providing the production for most of the sports / games with the occasional professional production. On top of the subscription fees the conference could sell sponsorships.

Is 250,000 annual subscribers willing to pay $5 a month a reasonable estimate for a conference like the Sun Belt? I don't know.

(10-08-2015 04:28 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 03:34 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 10:53 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  This wouldn't appease the TV only crowd but Amazon is rumored to be looking into a streaming live TV service.

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2015/10/a...rvice.html

I have no idea if they are interested in sports but if they are I could see them signing up a few DI conferences neglected by the mouse house and giving them their own virtual channels for a reasonable amount of money. Most DI schools already stream the majority of their events so this should make it a bit easier.

If they could work out a deal with some of the broadcasters like NBC, CBS, and Fox then they could broadcast some of the games on traditional TV stations and treat as advertising for their services.

Sony, Sling and others are already doing the a la carte live TV streaming. The thing with a la carte channels is they must pay for themselves. Each subscriber will directly share the cost associated with the streaming platform, production cost, TV revenue for each school in the conference and the conference office's cut. If each subscriber pays 10 bucks a month, how many subscribers would it take to support that channel?

The big question for us G5ers is how to get to that critical mass to support such a venture.

I assume Amazon isn't looking to offer a la carte streaming - but provide value by having lost of options.

But if there was a dedicated channel that is a la carte - it gets down to production quality. I know ESPN3 is basically passing the production costs to the schools for most sports. The Big South is essentially providing a streaming channel for all members and sports to viewers for free. I figure at $5 a month 250K annual subscribers would generate $15 million. There are expenses of course, but I could see that being the floor with the school providing the production for most of the sports / games with the occasional professional production. On top of the subscription fees the conference could sell sponsorships.

Is 250,000 annual subscribers willing to pay $5 a month a reasonable estimate for a conference like the Sun Belt? I don't know.

I would think your subscriber goal is off by an order of magnitude. I think 25,000 would be possible at best. A bit over 2,000 per school.

I have no idea how many subscribe to individual schools internet offerings. I have been with the AppState streaming service for 7-8 years I guess. My gut tells me we have fewer than that 2,000 for internet streaming subscriptions. I could be way off and underestimating but I guarantee it is not 20,000 which is what each school would need to average to hit your goal.

I am paying 5 bucks a month for it, but I may drop it. Unless baseball and softball are filling up the time there is not much value in it with MSOC, WSOC, Field Hockey in stadiums without any camera support. App Volleyball is ESPN3 now. I'll give it a year of winter and spring sports. Maybe basketball will make my App State internet streaming subscription worthwhile.

(10-08-2015 04:28 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 03:34 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 10:53 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  This wouldn't appease the TV only crowd but Amazon is rumored to be looking into a streaming live TV service.

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2015/10/a...rvice.html

I have no idea if they are interested in sports but if they are I could see them signing up a few DI conferences neglected by the mouse house and giving them their own virtual channels for a reasonable amount of money. Most DI schools already stream the majority of their events so this should make it a bit easier.

If they could work out a deal with some of the broadcasters like NBC, CBS, and Fox then they could broadcast some of the games on traditional TV stations and treat as advertising for their services.

Sony, Sling and others are already doing the a la carte live TV streaming. The thing with a la carte channels is they must pay for themselves. Each subscriber will directly share the cost associated with the streaming platform, production cost, TV revenue for each school in the conference and the conference office's cut. If each subscriber pays 10 bucks a month, how many subscribers would it take to support that channel?

The big question for us G5ers is how to get to that critical mass to support such a venture.

I assume Amazon isn't looking to offer a la carte streaming - but provide value by having lost of options.

But if there was a dedicated channel that is a la carte - it gets down to production quality. I know ESPN3 is basically passing the production costs to the schools for most sports. The Big South is essentially providing a streaming channel for all members and sports to viewers for free. I figure at $5 a month 250K annual subscribers would generate $15 million. There are expenses of course, but I could see that being the floor with the school providing the production for most of the sports / games with the occasional professional production. On top of the subscription fees the conference could sell sponsorships.

Is 250,000 annual subscribers willing to pay $5 a month a reasonable estimate for a conference like the Sun Belt? I don't know.

The OVC has the OVC digital network that provides all conference sport for online streaming. Honestly if the big south and ovc provide online streaming it must not be very difficult. This is another reason asn is a better deal simply because any conference could provide their own online streaming.

(10-08-2015 04:51 PM)McLeansvilleAppFan Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 04:28 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 03:34 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 10:53 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  This wouldn't appease the TV only crowd but Amazon is rumored to be looking into a streaming live TV service.

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2015/10/a...rvice.html

I have no idea if they are interested in sports but if they are I could see them signing up a few DI conferences neglected by the mouse house and giving them their own virtual channels for a reasonable amount of money. Most DI schools already stream the majority of their events so this should make it a bit easier.

If they could work out a deal with some of the broadcasters like NBC, CBS, and Fox then they could broadcast some of the games on traditional TV stations and treat as advertising for their services.

Sony, Sling and others are already doing the a la carte live TV streaming. The thing with a la carte channels is they must pay for themselves. Each subscriber will directly share the cost associated with the streaming platform, production cost, TV revenue for each school in the conference and the conference office's cut. If each subscriber pays 10 bucks a month, how many subscribers would it take to support that channel?

The big question for us G5ers is how to get to that critical mass to support such a venture.

I assume Amazon isn't looking to offer a la carte streaming - but provide value by having lost of options.

But if there was a dedicated channel that is a la carte - it gets down to production quality. I know ESPN3 is basically passing the production costs to the schools for most sports. The Big South is essentially providing a streaming channel for all members and sports to viewers for free. I figure at $5 a month 250K annual subscribers would generate $15 million. There are expenses of course, but I could see that being the floor with the school providing the production for most of the sports / games with the occasional professional production. On top of the subscription fees the conference could sell sponsorships.

Is 250,000 annual subscribers willing to pay $5 a month a reasonable estimate for a conference like the Sun Belt? I don't know.

I would think your subscriber goal is off by an order of magnitude. I think 25,000 would be possible at best. A bit over 2,000 per school.

I have no idea how many subscribe to individual schools internet offerings. I have been with the AppState streaming service for 7-8 years I guess. My gut tells me we have fewer than that 2,000 for internet streaming subscriptions. I could be way off and underestimating but I guarantee it is not 20,000 which is what each school would need to average to hit your goal.

I am paying 5 bucks a month for it, but I may drop it. Unless baseball and softball are filling up the time there is not much value in it with MSOC, WSOC, Field Hockey in stadiums without any camera support. App Volleyball is ESPN3 now. I'll give it a year of winter and spring sports. Maybe basketball will make my App State internet streaming subscription worthwhile.

250k may be completely unrealistic - I have no idea. I do think an entire conference would be much more attractive than a single school. I also believe there would also be some economies of scale that would make it more affordable per school if the conference offered it as a whole. But again, not sure if it is feasible or not.