http://www.sunbeltsports.org//ViewArticl...=205267021

(09-06-2011 10:53 AM)MG61 Wrote:  http://www.sunbeltsports.org//ViewArticl...=205267021

Is this better, worse, or about the same as we've had in the past/currently ?

(09-06-2011 11:00 AM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  

(09-06-2011 10:53 AM)MG61 Wrote:  http://www.sunbeltsports.org//ViewArticl...=205267021

Is this better, worse, or about the same as we've had in the past/currently ?

we need an analysis from asf'. This report says little other than increased and guaranteed games on ESPN networks, which in and of itself is a good thing.

For me, being on national television, is priceless.

I saw the words "Exclusive" on there as well. Does this mean that CSS will no longer be doing any Sun Belt games?

(09-06-2011 11:26 AM)OwlFamily Wrote:  I saw the words "Exclusive" on there as well. Does this mean that CSS will no longer be doing any Sun Belt games?

Hope so. That means I can get rid of Suckcast, I mean Comcast Cable.

(09-06-2011 11:29 AM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  

(09-06-2011 11:26 AM)OwlFamily Wrote:  I saw the words "Exclusive" on there as well. Does this mean that CSS will no longer be doing any Sun Belt games?

Hope so. That means I can get rid of Suckcast, I mean Comcast Cable.

As long as those games are "picked up" by ESPN then I agree with you. I dont want to lose any more then we already have televised.

I hope someone with a better understanding of the differences between now and going forward next year will be able to say if this is better or not.

I see two things: exclusivity and that this deal expires in 2020 (a good ways away).

With that being the case, this deal better be worth some money. Especially since ESPN is hurting for broadcasting.

(09-06-2011 11:38 AM)OwlFamily Wrote:  

(09-06-2011 11:29 AM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  

(09-06-2011 11:26 AM)OwlFamily Wrote:  I saw the words "Exclusive" on there as well. Does this mean that CSS will no longer be doing any Sun Belt games?

Hope so. That means I can get rid of Suckcast, I mean Comcast Cable.

As long as those games are "picked up" by ESPN then I agree with you. I dont want to lose any more then we already have televised.

I hope someone with a better understanding of the differences between now and going forward next year will be able to say if this is better or not.

Yes, that makes me very leery. CSS does televise a bunch of SBC stuff, not just football. CSS is the only reason I've kept Comcast. I could get out a lot cheaper, with a better product, changing to another provider.

From the Sun Belt facebook: "Both CSS and CST remain the regional sports network partners for the Sun Belt Conference. ESPN is the exclusive national partner."

More money, more games.

Rumor is some Thursday ESPNU.

CSS/CST still around hopefully Cox is going to go into many cable and satellite packages soon.

(09-06-2011 01:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  More money, more games.

Rumor is some Thursday ESPNU.

CSS/CST still around hopefully Cox is going to go into many cable and satellite packages soon.

Mark, How much is this contract, money wise worth?

I had heard just over a million a year but I know last contract they gave up some money to get some extra games.

So CUSA signs a contract for five years netting them $14 million per year and practically every game on TV. Sun Belt signs a pity contract for $1 million a year with hardly anything televised and locks itself in for 8 years. Unreal.

(09-06-2011 03:18 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  So CUSA signs a contract for five years netting them $14 million per year and practically every game on TV. Sun Belt signs a pity contract for $1 million a year with hardly anything televised and locks itself in for 8 years. Unreal.

I am with you...if that is truely how the money shakes out, then at a possible $1.2m per year that would mean every Belt team would get $120k off of the contract. Of course that's if the conference office does not take a cut, and if the contract value is that high. My question with that is, if the WAC was getting $440k per team on their deal and their contract is reduced to half of its value ($220k) what makes staying in the SBC more attractive than jumping over to the WAC? Realistically, if the WAC added three to four Belt teams then it will be in a position to take one more Bowl from the Belt...

CUSA is getting what MWC got in 2005 in per team dollars. The bulk of the games will only be shown on Fox Regionals rather than cleared nationwide. Even if cleared nationwide on all Fox Regionals they reach roughly the number of homes that have ESPNU.

The biggest difference is that CUSA put two teams in the final top 25 last year, we have as yet to produce a ranked team. Their basketball is doing better as well.

While I'd like to get CUSA numbers, right now we are getting MAC numbers because we aren't producing ranked teams and they are putting 58% more people in the stands than we are.

(09-06-2011 03:30 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(09-06-2011 03:18 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  So CUSA signs a contract for five years netting them $14 million per year and practically every game on TV. Sun Belt signs a pity contract for $1 million a year with hardly anything televised and locks itself in for 8 years. Unreal.

I am with you...if that is truely how the money shakes out, then at a possible $1.2m per year that would mean every Belt team would get $120k off of the contract. Of course that's if the conference office does not take a cut, and if the contract value is that high. My question with that is, if the WAC was getting $440k per team on their deal and their contract is reduced to half of its value ($220k) what makes staying in the SBC more attractive than jumping over to the WAC? Realistically, if the WAC added three to four Belt teams then it will be in a position to take one more Bowl from the Belt...

Got'a walk before you can run.

(09-06-2011 03:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  CUSA is getting what MWC got in 2005 in per team dollars. The bulk of the games will only be shown on Fox Regionals rather than cleared nationwide. Even if cleared nationwide on all Fox Regionals they reach roughly the number of homes that have ESPNU.

The biggest difference is that CUSA put two teams in the final top 25 last year, we have as yet to produce a ranked team. Their basketball is doing better as well.

While I'd like to get CUSA numbers, right now we are getting MAC numbers because we aren't producing ranked teams and they are putting 58% more people in the stands than we are.

If your team is not putting butts in seats and is not winning OOC and beating some AQs, why should any network pay much for your product?

(09-06-2011 03:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  CUSA is getting what MWC got in 2005 in per team dollars. The bulk of the games will only be shown on Fox Regionals rather than cleared nationwide. Even if cleared nationwide on all Fox Regionals they reach roughly the number of homes that have ESPNU.

The biggest difference is that CUSA put two teams in the final top 25 last year, we have as yet to produce a ranked team. Their basketball is doing better as well.

While I'd like to get CUSA numbers, right now we are getting MAC numbers because we aren't producing ranked teams and they are putting 58% more people in the stands than we are.

I agree with this. I just wish it wasn't such a long contract. I know other conferences have longer contracts... but say we get a ranked team in the next few years and our basketball improves and the WAC gets worse. Then we are stuck behind the 8-ball and not paid what we are worth. Are we able to renegotiate this contract with out something as drastic as membership changes taking place?

(09-06-2011 03:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  While I'd like to get CUSA numbers, right now we are getting MAC numbers because we aren't producing ranked teams and they are putting 58% more people in the stands than we are.

I don't imagine anyone would expect the same amount of money as them at this point. What I have a hard time believing is that the contracts were negotiated competently as we're locked into an almost decade long deal at a value that's 1/14th what CUSA currently receives.

What happens if 3-4 years from now we start placing 2-3 teams in the top 25 yearly and get someone into a BCS bowl? Is it still, "Oh, that's nice. However, you'll only get $1 million for the remaining four years in your contract."?

Even if $1 million was the most we could possibly get at this time, why would WW lock us in for EIGHT YEARS?

(09-06-2011 04:05 PM)Gakusei Wrote:  

(09-06-2011 03:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  While I'd like to get CUSA numbers, right now we are getting MAC numbers because we aren't producing ranked teams and they are putting 58% more people in the stands than we are.

I don't imagine anyone would expect the same amount of money as them at this point. What I have a hard time believing is that the contracts were negotiated competently as we're locked into an almost decade long deal at a value that's 1/14th what CUSA currently receives.

What happens if 3-4 years from now we start placing 2-3 teams in the top 25 yearly and get someone into a BCS bowl? Is it still, "Oh, that's nice. However, you'll only get $1 million for the remaining four years in your contract."?

Even if $1 million was the most we could possibly get at this time, why would WW lock us in for EIGHT YEARS?

It is idiotic, but I wouldn't expect anything different with WW. However, you would hope if there are membership changes, there's an opportunity to renegotiate...