We’re arguing who has the best online tv service and pretending like casual fans are going to seek out G5 football on either platform. Parity.

Exposure. Three more games per year.(national)

Term.Married to them--ALL rights--next ten years.TEN YEARS.

Flexibility.None.

Money. Unknown. It better be pretty good to go thru 2028.

Accessibility.Much,much better--but you have to pay.


Now maybe our deal will stink--but the SBC deal is not that great(unless the money is).

Speaking of TV. I did something I rarely do tonight. Tuned into Sportscenter. Just to see. Not a single mention of the No 24 team in the country clinching a regular season title.

Every other single team in the top 25 got a highlight. This is why I hate ESPN.

(03-01-2018 09:56 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I have no interest in ever signing another deal with ESPN. I have no interest is seeing C-USA sell their soul like the MAC and now Sun Belt have. If we are going to be streaming games anyway, I'd much rather watch them on Stadium, Facebook, or build our own network on Pluto. We need to retain our rights. If we keep control of C-USA, we can grow C-USA. I can't see that happening if C-USA end up stuck on ESPN's new pay-per-view streaming service, that also requires you to have a regular ESPN service.

It's stand alone. Unlike ESPN 3 you do not have to subscribe to any espn service except ESPN+. Cable not needed.

(03-02-2018 12:02 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Speaking of TV. I did something I rarely do tonight. Tuned into Sportscenter. Just to see. Not a single mention of the No 24 team in the country clinching a regular season title.

Every other single team in the top 25 got a highlight. This is why I hate ESPN.

+1. Very frustrating

clt says we should not overlook MySpace as an option.

(03-02-2018 02:44 AM)OsageJ Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 09:56 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I have no interest in ever signing another deal with ESPN. I have no interest is seeing C-USA sell their soul like the MAC and now Sun Belt have. If we are going to be streaming games anyway, I'd much rather watch them on Stadium, Facebook, or build our own network on Pluto. We need to retain our rights. If we keep control of C-USA, we can grow C-USA. I can't see that happening if C-USA end up stuck on ESPN's new pay-per-view streaming service, that also requires you to have a regular ESPN service.

It's stand alone. Unlike ESPN 3 you do not have to subscribe to any espn service except ESPN+. Cable not needed.

That is certainly better, but I still wouldn't want to be tied into a streaming heavy contract for 8 season. If streaming is going to be our future, I'd rather develop and own a network that will feature our content. As options are increasing, I can't imagine why any G5 conference would choose to hand over all their inventory to ESPN, where they will always be viewed as a lesser property.

Just saw where CUSA.TV will be free with Hughes Net subscription. You'll have to watch 48 hours later after it fully downloads.

(03-01-2018 10:21 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 07:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 07:31 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 04:50 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 02:48 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I would agree with that but it also voids the Sun Belt's ability to grow the brand as well. Of course, all of us are already getting pushed aside anyway by the powers, and this is the acceptance of that by the league.

The reason why C-USA 1.0 was able to emerge and be a player leading some teams to be able to join power leagues or be on the cusp or at least have privileged 5 TV deal is because they fought back against that. The Fox and CBS deals of over a decade ago weren't perfect, but it was better than being relegated to third class citizen by ESPN. If there is anything that we have left in current C-USA it's at least that hope to continue to carry on the fight. The Sun Belt clearly just gave up today and acquiesced to the powers that be.

If you want to grow your brand, I'd argue it's better to have more games on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU and not places like ESPN3, beIN, Facebook Live, and stations that most cable packages don't have like CBS Sports.

The main downside I see to this TV deal is having to pay for the content you used to be able to get on ESPN3 for free, but it's not like ESPN3 is only dumping Sun Belt content, and it's only $20 to get every football game for a season and all of the other content ESPN will put on Plus.

At its height ESPN subscriber base was just over 100 million. Obviously only a fraction of those truly had their cable subscriptions because of sports but the fact remains. Since hitting their peak a few years ago ESPN has been hemorrhaging subscribers. Will they all return to streaming? We don't know. Sports fandom isn't what it used to be.

Facebook, on the other hand, has over a billion daily users. So, by every measurement Facebook could put ESPN out of business if they really wanted to. The point is the potential to grow is higher with Facebook than it is ESPN long term. The problem is all this stuff is in its infancy. There's a long way to go before we know if this is viable or not but I like the potential. And I like not being beholden to have pay ESPN twice for content I want to see.

100% of those ESPN subscribers were paying a cable or satellite bill of which about $7 each month was going to ESPN.
The billion Facebook users pay nothing except giving up personal data.

Facebook makes less than 20 cents per user per month and about 50 cents per user per month in the US.

Facebook just to match ESPN would have to give up about 2/3rds of its profits to acquire content.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And Facebook is going to become the social media platform of old and uncool people sooner rather than later.

lol...its already there. My sons say its for old people.

(03-02-2018 06:16 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 02:44 AM)OsageJ Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 09:56 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I have no interest in ever signing another deal with ESPN. I have no interest is seeing C-USA sell their soul like the MAC and now Sun Belt have. If we are going to be streaming games anyway, I'd much rather watch them on Stadium, Facebook, or build our own network on Pluto. We need to retain our rights. If we keep control of C-USA, we can grow C-USA. I can't see that happening if C-USA end up stuck on ESPN's new pay-per-view streaming service, that also requires you to have a regular ESPN service.

It's stand alone. Unlike ESPN 3 you do not have to subscribe to any espn service except ESPN+. Cable not needed.

That is certainly better, but I still wouldn't want to be tied into a streaming heavy contract for 8 season. If streaming is going to be our future, I'd rather develop and own a network that will feature our content. As options are increasing, I can't imagine why any G5 conference would choose to hand over all their inventory to ESPN, where they will always be viewed as a lesser property.

The MW has a done the best job of this within the G5.

(03-02-2018 07:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 10:21 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 07:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 07:31 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 04:50 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  If you want to grow your brand, I'd argue it's better to have more games on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU and not places like ESPN3, beIN, Facebook Live, and stations that most cable packages don't have like CBS Sports.

The main downside I see to this TV deal is having to pay for the content you used to be able to get on ESPN3 for free, but it's not like ESPN3 is only dumping Sun Belt content, and it's only $20 to get every football game for a season and all of the other content ESPN will put on Plus.

At its height ESPN subscriber base was just over 100 million. Obviously only a fraction of those truly had their cable subscriptions because of sports but the fact remains. Since hitting their peak a few years ago ESPN has been hemorrhaging subscribers. Will they all return to streaming? We don't know. Sports fandom isn't what it used to be.

Facebook, on the other hand, has over a billion daily users. So, by every measurement Facebook could put ESPN out of business if they really wanted to. The point is the potential to grow is higher with Facebook than it is ESPN long term. The problem is all this stuff is in its infancy. There's a long way to go before we know if this is viable or not but I like the potential. And I like not being beholden to have pay ESPN twice for content I want to see.

100% of those ESPN subscribers were paying a cable or satellite bill of which about $7 each month was going to ESPN.
The billion Facebook users pay nothing except giving up personal data.

Facebook makes less than 20 cents per user per month and about 50 cents per user per month in the US.

Facebook just to match ESPN would have to give up about 2/3rds of its profits to acquire content.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And Facebook is going to become the social media platform of old and uncool people sooner rather than later.

lol...its already there. My sons say its for old people.

FB owns Instagram though

(03-02-2018 07:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 06:16 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 02:44 AM)OsageJ Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 09:56 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I have no interest in ever signing another deal with ESPN. I have no interest is seeing C-USA sell their soul like the MAC and now Sun Belt have. If we are going to be streaming games anyway, I'd much rather watch them on Stadium, Facebook, or build our own network on Pluto. We need to retain our rights. If we keep control of C-USA, we can grow C-USA. I can't see that happening if C-USA end up stuck on ESPN's new pay-per-view streaming service, that also requires you to have a regular ESPN service.

It's stand alone. Unlike ESPN 3 you do not have to subscribe to any espn service except ESPN+. Cable not needed.

That is certainly better, but I still wouldn't want to be tied into a streaming heavy contract for 8 season. If streaming is going to be our future, I'd rather develop and own a network that will feature our content. As options are increasing, I can't imagine why any G5 conference would choose to hand over all their inventory to ESPN, where they will always be viewed as a lesser property.

The MW has a done the best job of this within the G5.

That does not surprise me. The MWC has better leadership.

Could you fill me in on the structure of their current situation, and what they are planning moving forward?

(03-02-2018 08:14 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 07:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 06:16 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 02:44 AM)OsageJ Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 09:56 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I have no interest in ever signing another deal with ESPN. I have no interest is seeing C-USA sell their soul like the MAC and now Sun Belt have. If we are going to be streaming games anyway, I'd much rather watch them on Stadium, Facebook, or build our own network on Pluto. We need to retain our rights. If we keep control of C-USA, we can grow C-USA. I can't see that happening if C-USA end up stuck on ESPN's new pay-per-view streaming service, that also requires you to have a regular ESPN service.

It's stand alone. Unlike ESPN 3 you do not have to subscribe to any espn service except ESPN+. Cable not needed.

That is certainly better, but I still wouldn't want to be tied into a streaming heavy contract for 8 season. If streaming is going to be our future, I'd rather develop and own a network that will feature our content. As options are increasing, I can't imagine why any G5 conference would choose to hand over all their inventory to ESPN, where they will always be viewed as a lesser property.

The MW has a done the best job of this within the G5.

That does not surprise me. The MWC has better leadership.

Could you fill me in on the structure of their current situation, and what they are planning moving forward?

The MW is in a waiting period to see who is interested and how game times will be worked out in the next contract. It was stated we may look into going all digital if we can't get what we are looking for.
One thing I know is the Stadium is really interested in us and our commissioner has been in touch and made visits to Stadium's new headquarters in Chicago. Our MW Digital Network now uses their platform. Although I like the Livestream platform from before, I have to admit now that Stadium has been really great and now having a Roku Channel it makes it pretty easy to watch on TV.
We have had volleyball games on the OTA network. As Stadium is adding more stations across country (now up to 66 station and counting), they are probably going to make a play for our 2nd tier games.
It seems the MW Admin are seeing how the trend to digital is gaining momentum as we keep seeing a net loss of household that have cut cable completely and moved to OTA and Netflix, et al. (By the way their are now 500k less households that have cable). We have not shyed away from trying new things and I think depending on the MW AD's feel regarding getting more people in the stands, we'll have a combo of a Major Network deal for some games, Stadium, Facebook and MW Network for the rest.

(03-01-2018 07:37 PM)T2003 Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 04:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Now I'm still waiting for a real announcement on the NHL and MLB but this is a freaking game changing package if Forbes is right.

I agree, if this is true, and the Disney-Fox merger goes through... then it's time to buy some Disney stocks...

Agreed. I bout a chunk 2 years ago when I found out they fully funded the 2nd to last star wars with profit from the previous and anything they made was pure profit going forward on it.

Posted from mobile device. Hopefully it's coherent.

(03-02-2018 07:48 AM)ghostofclt Wrote:  clt says we should not overlook MySpace as an option.

You've had some strong posts in this thread. High5

Posted from mobile device. Hopefully it's coherent.

(03-03-2018 06:50 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 08:14 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 07:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 06:16 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 02:44 AM)OsageJ Wrote:  It's stand alone. Unlike ESPN 3 you do not have to subscribe to any espn service except ESPN+. Cable not needed.

That is certainly better, but I still wouldn't want to be tied into a streaming heavy contract for 8 season. If streaming is going to be our future, I'd rather develop and own a network that will feature our content. As options are increasing, I can't imagine why any G5 conference would choose to hand over all their inventory to ESPN, where they will always be viewed as a lesser property.

The MW has a done the best job of this within the G5.

That does not surprise me. The MWC has better leadership.

Could you fill me in on the structure of their current situation, and what they are planning moving forward?

The MW is in a waiting period to see who is interested and how game times will be worked out in the next contract. It was stated we may look into going all digital if we can't get what we are looking for.
One thing I know is the Stadium is really interested in us and our commissioner has been in touch and made visits to Stadium's new headquarters in Chicago. Our MW Digital Network now uses their platform. Although I like the Livestream platform from before, I have to admit now that Stadium has been really great and now having a Roku Channel it makes it pretty easy to watch on TV.
We have had volleyball games on the OTA network. As Stadium is adding more stations across country (now up to 66 station and counting), they are probably going to make a play for our 2nd tier games.
It seems the MW Admin are seeing how the trend to digital is gaining momentum as we keep seeing a net loss of household that have cut cable completely and moved to OTA and Netflix, et al. (By the way their are now 500k less households that have cable). We have not shyed away from trying new things and I think depending on the MW AD's feel regarding getting more people in the stands, we'll have a combo of a Major Network deal for some games, Stadium, Facebook and MW Network for the rest.

Thanks for the update. Any chance the Mountain returns to Directv with a streaming options through Stadium or Facebook?

(03-03-2018 06:50 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 08:14 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 07:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 06:16 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 02:44 AM)OsageJ Wrote:  It's stand alone. Unlike ESPN 3 you do not have to subscribe to any espn service except ESPN+. Cable not needed.

That is certainly better, but I still wouldn't want to be tied into a streaming heavy contract for 8 season. If streaming is going to be our future, I'd rather develop and own a network that will feature our content. As options are increasing, I can't imagine why any G5 conference would choose to hand over all their inventory to ESPN, where they will always be viewed as a lesser property.

The MW has a done the best job of this within the G5.

That does not surprise me. The MWC has better leadership.

Could you fill me in on the structure of their current situation, and what they are planning moving forward?

The MW is in a waiting period to see who is interested and how game times will be worked out in the next contract. It was stated we may look into going all digital if we can't get what we are looking for.
One thing I know is the Stadium is really interested in us and our commissioner has been in touch and made visits to Stadium's new headquarters in Chicago. Our MW Digital Network now uses their platform. Although I like the Livestream platform from before, I have to admit now that Stadium has been really great and now having a Roku Channel it makes it pretty easy to watch on TV.
We have had volleyball games on the OTA network. As Stadium is adding more stations across country (now up to 66 station and counting), they are probably going to make a play for our 2nd tier games.
It seems the MW Admin are seeing how the trend to digital is gaining momentum as we keep seeing a net loss of household that have cut cable completely and moved to OTA and Netflix, et al. (By the way their are now 500k less households that have cable). We have not shyed away from trying new things and I think depending on the MW AD's feel regarding getting more people in the stands, we'll have a combo of a Major Network deal for some games, Stadium, Facebook and MW Network for the rest.

Agree with most of this. No sure what you are trying to say with that stat in the bold. There are about 55 million US Neflix subscribers (many more world wide, but they arent going to be a factor for US college football). Overall, only about 25% of US households have no cable---which means 75% of Americans are still on cable systems. Frankly, I think cable will remain dominate for at least another decade and both will likely still be major media players for decades to come. What IS likely to end fairly soon is the cable bundle. That model cant effectively compete against free standing over the top streaming alternatives.

(03-03-2018 08:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 06:50 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 08:14 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 07:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 06:16 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  That is certainly better, but I still wouldn't want to be tied into a streaming heavy contract for 8 season. If streaming is going to be our future, I'd rather develop and own a network that will feature our content. As options are increasing, I can't imagine why any G5 conference would choose to hand over all their inventory to ESPN, where they will always be viewed as a lesser property.

The MW has a done the best job of this within the G5.

That does not surprise me. The MWC has better leadership.

Could you fill me in on the structure of their current situation, and what they are planning moving forward?

The MW is in a waiting period to see who is interested and how game times will be worked out in the next contract. It was stated we may look into going all digital if we can't get what we are looking for.
One thing I know is the Stadium is really interested in us and our commissioner has been in touch and made visits to Stadium's new headquarters in Chicago. Our MW Digital Network now uses their platform. Although I like the Livestream platform from before, I have to admit now that Stadium has been really great and now having a Roku Channel it makes it pretty easy to watch on TV.
We have had volleyball games on the OTA network. As Stadium is adding more stations across country (now up to 66 station and counting), they are probably going to make a play for our 2nd tier games.
It seems the MW Admin are seeing how the trend to digital is gaining momentum as we keep seeing a net loss of household that have cut cable completely and moved to OTA and Netflix, et al. (By the way their are now 500k less households that have cable). We have not shyed away from trying new things and I think depending on the MW AD's feel regarding getting more people in the stands, we'll have a combo of a Major Network deal for some games, Stadium, Facebook and MW Network for the rest.

Agree with most of this. No sure what you are trying to say with that stat in the bold. There are about 55 million US Neflix subscribers (many more world wide, but they arent going to be a factor for US college football). Overall, only about 25% of US households have no cable---which means 75% of Americans are still on cable systems. Frankly, I think cable will remain dominate for at least another decade and both will likely still be major media players for decades to come. What IS likely to end fairly soon is the cable bundle. That model cant effectively compete against free standing over the top streaming alternatives.

Yeah...that was an incomplete sentence. I meant that that in 2017 a net of 500k households move away from pay TV (internet TV included lke Sling...etc).

(03-03-2018 08:12 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 06:50 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 08:14 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 07:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 06:16 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  That is certainly better, but I still wouldn't want to be tied into a streaming heavy contract for 8 season. If streaming is going to be our future, I'd rather develop and own a network that will feature our content. As options are increasing, I can't imagine why any G5 conference would choose to hand over all their inventory to ESPN, where they will always be viewed as a lesser property.

The MW has a done the best job of this within the G5.

That does not surprise me. The MWC has better leadership.

Could you fill me in on the structure of their current situation, and what they are planning moving forward?

The MW is in a waiting period to see who is interested and how game times will be worked out in the next contract. It was stated we may look into going all digital if we can't get what we are looking for.
One thing I know is the Stadium is really interested in us and our commissioner has been in touch and made visits to Stadium's new headquarters in Chicago. Our MW Digital Network now uses their platform. Although I like the Livestream platform from before, I have to admit now that Stadium has been really great and now having a Roku Channel it makes it pretty easy to watch on TV.
We have had volleyball games on the OTA network. As Stadium is adding more stations across country (now up to 66 station and counting), they are probably going to make a play for our 2nd tier games.
It seems the MW Admin are seeing how the trend to digital is gaining momentum as we keep seeing a net loss of household that have cut cable completely and moved to OTA and Netflix, et al. (By the way their are now 500k less households that have cable). We have not shyed away from trying new things and I think depending on the MW AD's feel regarding getting more people in the stands, we'll have a combo of a Major Network deal for some games, Stadium, Facebook and MW Network for the rest.

Thanks for the update. Any chance the Mountain returns to Directv with a streaming options through Stadium or Facebook?

Nope. We are sticking to a non-linear lineup. The MWDN has replaced the Mtn. in essence. Which looking back, having the Mtn really help the digital network to get a big running start. We still do productions as a conference for some daily shows and with some interviews and such along with the games produced by the school or a local radio or TV station.

Wonder if MySpace would give us a good deal ?