It's all about the markets.
http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=594677

Quoting the first post in the thread with the Houston market TV ratings for football. Becomes apparent that the channel you are on matters a lot as does whether people care. Of note Houston vs. SMU on Thursday barely beat a high school game on a channel in fewer homes and games on ESPN and ESPN2 pretty easily outdrew Fox Sports, CBS Sports, and NBCSports telecasts. While games on the broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) did very well.

(10-22-2012 05:20 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  http://blog.chron.com/sportsmedia/2012/1...s-of-note/

Quote:2012 A&M-LSU ESPN 6.7
2012 Bay-UT ABC 5.6
2012 Tech-TCU ABC 3.6
2012 USC-Flor CBS 1.9
2012 BYU-ND NBC 1.9
2012 Pur-OSU ABC 1.7
2012 K-State-WVU FOX 1.6
2012 Ala-Tenn ESPN 0.9
2012 MT-Miss St ESPN 2 0.9
2012 Oreg-ASU ESPN 0.8
2012 Uconn-Syr ESPN 0.4
2012 Utah-Or St ESPN 0.4
2012 Stan-Cal FOX 0.3
2012 KU-Okla Fox SW 0.3
2012 Neb-NW ESPN2 0.2
2012 UH-SMU Fox SW 0.13
2012 McN-Sam CSNH 0.1
2012 Bell-Trin HS CSNH 0.1 Ft. Worth High School football teams
2012 Rice-Tulsa Fox SW 0.1
2012 Nich St-SFA Hou TV 0.03

A side note on the Thursday comparisons: Even though CSN Houston is not yet fully distributed in the Houston area, it nearly beat the UH-SMU game in households and actually led in several 25-54 and 18-49 demos. Impressive if you’re CSNH, less so if you’re UH.

Year to date for college football in Houston according to the Houston Chronicle. Fox Houston has apparently become Comcast Houston which I don't get in the DFW area on DirecTV. Sucks, I won't be able to watch the Astros anymore unless they are playing the Rangers.

Quote:2012 Flo-A&M ESPN 7.1
2012 A&M-LSU ESPN 6.7
2012 Tex-Okla St Fox 6.2
2012 Tex-Okla ABC 6.2
2012 WVU-Texas FOX 5.7
2012 Bay-UT ABC 5.6
2012 LSU-Flor CBS 4.9
2012 WVU-Tech ABC 4
2012 UT-Ole Miss ESPN 3.8
2012 Sou Car-LSU CBS 3.6
2012 Tech-TCU ABC 3.6
2012 Wash-LSU ESPN 3.2
2012 Clem-FSU ABC 2.8
2012 Flo-Tenn ESPN 2.8
2012 Stan-ND NBC 2.8
2012 Miz-S.Caro CBS 2.5
2012 Neb-UCLA FOX 2.4
2012 OSU-MSU ABC 2.4
2012 Okla-Tech ABC 2.4
2012 LSU-Aub ESPN 2.3
2012 Tenn/Ga CBS 2.2
2012 Penn St-Vir ABC 2.1
2012 OSU-UCLA ABC 2.05
2012 Ala-Ark CBS 2
2012 Cal-Ohio St ABC 2
2012 A&M-SMU FS Hou 1.9
2012 USC-Flor CBS 1.9
2012 BYU-ND NBC 1.9
2012 MSU-ND NBC 1.8
2012 K-State-OU FOX 1.8
2012 Ala-Mizzou CBS 1.8
2012 USC-Syra ABC 1.7
2012 Aub-Miss St ESPN 1.7
2012 Wis/Neb ABC 1.7
2012 Neb-Ohio St ABC 1.7
2012 Pur-OSU ABC 1.7
2012 SCST-A&M FS Hou 1.6
2012 USC-Wash FOX 1.6
2012 K-State-WVU FOX 1.6
2012 AZ-Oreg ESPN 1.4
2012 TCU-Virg ESPN 1.4
2012 USC-Stan FOX 1.3
2012 Ill- Az St ESPN 1.3
2012 Miss-Ala ESPN 1.3
2012 Mia-ND NBC 1.3
2012 UNC-Lville ABC 1.2
2012 Navy-AF CBS 1.2
2012 Nwest-PSU ESPN 1.1
2012 Ga-Sou Car ESPN 1
2012 Pur-ND NBC 0.9
2012 Ala-Tenn ESPN 0.9
2012 MT-Miss St ESPN 2 0.9
2012 Utah-UCLA FOX 0.8
2012 Iowa-MSU ESPN 0.8
2012 Oreg-ASU ESPN 0.8
2012 FSU-USF ESPN 0.6
2012 UNT-K-State FS Hou 0.5
2012 WF-FSU ESPN 0.5
2012 Mia-GT FS Hou 0.4
2012 AZ-Stan FOX 0.4
2012 Wash-Oreg ESPN 0.4
2012 Ill-Mich ESPN 0.4
2012 Uconn-Syr ESPN 0.4
2012 Utah-Or St ESPN 0.4
2012 Stan-Cal FOX 0.3
2012 KU-Okla Fox SW 0.3
2012 ULL-Okla St FS Hou 0.2
2012 Miz-UCF FS Hou 0.2
2012 UH-Rice FS Hou 0.2
2012 TCU-SMU FS Hou 0.2
2012 GT-Clem ESPN 0.2
2012 Neb-NW ESPN2 0.2
2012 UH-SMU Fox SW 0.13
2012 Ole Miss-Tul FS Hou 0.1
2012 Tul-Tulsa FS Hou 0.1
2012 Rice-Kan FS Hou 0.1
2012 Gram-TCU FS Hou 0.1
2012 McN-Sam CSNH 0.1
2012 Bell-Trin HS CSNH 0.1
2012 Rice-Tulsa Fox SW 0.1
2012 Nich St-SFA Hou TV 0.03

It is clear that ESPN gets the eyeballs, but CBS and NBC are paying the money so as to compete against ESPN for the eyeballs.

Just because NBC and CBS are paying the money, it doesn't mean they are getting the eyeballs. And by CBS and NBC, I don't mean the flag stations, I'm talking the NBCsports and CBSports stations.

I think it really shows that if you are going for the dollars on CBS Sports, NBC Sports, Fox Sports, that you do so at the cost of reaching potential recruits and potential new fans.

(10-23-2012 09:45 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think it really shows that if you are going for the dollars on CBS Sports, NBC Sports, Fox Sports, that you do so at the cost of reaching potential recruits and potential new fans.

This is really difficult to analyze, because while viewership is higher on the national ESPN's how does it compare with the regionals? I doubt a lot of high school kids are checking out ESPN 3 to see any of us. Another issue is that we only get one or two Sun Belt games a year on the nationals so how does that compare to C-USA getting many more national broadcasts (even if they are viewed by less people)? The sum total may be much higher. It would take me a few hours to go figure all this out, which I'm not all that compelled to do since Benson is trying to renegotiate the deal.

Right now without the benefit of that research my best guess is this is a zero sum game. It all boils down to do you want more exposure or do you want more cash? There are ways to monitize that exposure, but our TV visibility even though it is with ESPN is both weak and unproductive financially, so I don't feel overly confident in criticizing C-USA's deal. If nothing else it is producing a million dollars per school and there are more opportunities to see your alma mater on TV instead of the internet regardless of the marketing value. Waters put us in a pretty big hole by not being able to improve the TV package very much over the years.

In Waters defense, he did not have a product to sell in the early years. We had some flashes in the pan but the Sun Belt football was pretty ugly in the early years. I am very happy that we are demanding more based on our performance and *hopefully* markets.

How long will it take to know what renegotiation deals Benson's spinning? Anyone know?

After this year, I would prefer to stay in the Belt if the course is set as is. IMO, if other conferences get better TV monies then it is still a no brainier for current Belt schools to look at other options.

(10-23-2012 10:04 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(10-23-2012 09:45 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think it really shows that if you are going for the dollars on CBS Sports, NBC Sports, Fox Sports, that you do so at the cost of reaching potential recruits and potential new fans.

This is really difficult to analyze, because while viewership is higher on the national ESPN's how does it compare with the regionals? I doubt a lot of high school kids are checking out ESPN 3 to see any of us. Another issue is that we only get one or two Sun Belt games a year on the nationals so how does that compare to C-USA getting many more national broadcasts (even if they are viewed by less people)? The sum total may be much higher. It would take me a few hours to go figure all this out, which I'm not all that compelled to do since Benson is trying to renegotiate the deal.

Right now without the benefit of that research my best guess is this is a zero sum game. It all boils down to do you want more exposure or do you want more cash? There are ways to monitize that exposure, but our TV visibility even though it is with ESPN is both weak and unproductive financially, so I don't feel overly confident in criticizing C-USA's deal. If nothing else it is producing a million dollars per school and there are more opportunities to see your alma mater on TV instead of the internet regardless of the marketing value. Waters put us in a pretty big hole by not being able to improve the TV package very much over the years.

I don't disagree about the value of the product particularly in the early years but as the Belt improve the TV package didn't really improve that much. There are I-AA leagues that still have as good of a deal as we do.

(10-23-2012 10:28 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I don't disagree about the value of the product particularly in the early years but as the Belt improve the TV package didn't really improve that much. There are I-AA leagues that still have as good of a deal as we do.

That's because long term deals were signed. The current deal between the SBC and ESPN doesn't expire until 2020.

Now, the contract allows the SBC to re-negotiate with ESPN when membership changes, but it does not allow them to try to get a better deal from anyone else.

Why exactly would ESPN pay significantly more for what it already has locked up for years? They are the 800# Gorilla and they know it.

(10-23-2012 10:32 AM)MeanGreenEngineer Wrote:  

(10-23-2012 10:28 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I don't disagree about the value of the product particularly in the early years but as the Belt improve the TV package didn't really improve that much. There are I-AA leagues that still have as good of a deal as we do.

That's because long term deals were signed. The current deal between the SBC and ESPN doesn't expire until 2020.

Now, the contract allows the SBC to re-negotiate with ESPN when membership changes, but it does not allow them to try to get a better deal from anyone else.

Why exactly would ESPN pay significantly more for what it already has locked up for years? They are the 800# Gorilla and they know it.

Dude, the most recent deal was just signed last year and negotiated by Waters.

(10-23-2012 10:04 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(10-23-2012 09:45 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think it really shows that if you are going for the dollars on CBS Sports, NBC Sports, Fox Sports, that you do so at the cost of reaching potential recruits and potential new fans.

This is really difficult to analyze, because while viewership is higher on the national ESPN's how does it compare with the regionals? I doubt a lot of high school kids are checking out ESPN 3 to see any of us. Another issue is that we only get one or two Sun Belt games a year on the nationals so how does that compare to C-USA getting many more national broadcasts (even if they are viewed by less people)? The sum total may be much higher. It would take me a few hours to go figure all this out, which I'm not all that compelled to do since Benson is trying to renegotiate the deal.

Right now without the benefit of that research my best guess is this is a zero sum game. It all boils down to do you want more exposure or do you want more cash? There are ways to monitize that exposure, but our TV visibility even though it is with ESPN is both weak and unproductive financially, so I don't feel overly confident in criticizing C-USA's deal. If nothing else it is producing a million dollars per school and there are more opportunities to see your alma mater on TV instead of the internet regardless of the marketing value. Waters put us in a pretty big hole by not being able to improve the TV package very much over the years.

I'm not being critical of the CUSA or MWC deal.

But you have to pick your poison. If you go with Fox Sports, NBCS, CBSS, you are in general going to reach a fourth or fewer viewers compared to that same game on an ESPN/ESPN2/ABC/CBS/NBC game

Nearly as many people in Houston watched two Fort Worth area high school teams play on Thursday night as watched SMU and Houston play on a channel with much greater reach.

If ASU does make it to a bowl this year, then nearly 1/4th of our games in 2011 and 2012 will have been on ESPN or ESPN. If we don't make a bowl then it is 20%.

In comparison Arkansas will have had roughly half of their games on ESPN/ESPN2/traditional broadcast network in that span

Just as a comparison. We've probably had about as many nationally televised as anyone. Troy probably has a few more, but we have been on national TV 19 or 20 times since 2006. During that same time Houston's national telecasts are more than twice that many. Again, just on a guess but I'm going to guess their exposure and penetration is much, much higher than ours.

(10-23-2012 10:37 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Dude, the most recent deal was just signed last year and negotiated by Waters.

I know that. And the profile of the conference exploded THIS year.


I have to admit the payout was two to three times lower than I expected it to be. But it IS on ESPN and as Arkstfan pointed out, that is where you want to be.

(10-23-2012 10:28 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I don't disagree about the value of the product particularly in the early years but as the Belt improve the TV package didn't really improve that much. There are I-AA leagues that still have as good of a deal as we do.

(10-23-2012 11:00 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-23-2012 10:04 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(10-23-2012 09:45 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think it really shows that if you are going for the dollars on CBS Sports, NBC Sports, Fox Sports, that you do so at the cost of reaching potential recruits and potential new fans.

This is really difficult to analyze, because while viewership is higher on the national ESPN's how does it compare with the regionals? I doubt a lot of high school kids are checking out ESPN 3 to see any of us. Another issue is that we only get one or two Sun Belt games a year on the nationals so how does that compare to C-USA getting many more national broadcasts (even if they are viewed by less people)? The sum total may be much higher. It would take me a few hours to go figure all this out, which I'm not all that compelled to do since Benson is trying to renegotiate the deal.

Right now without the benefit of that research my best guess is this is a zero sum game. It all boils down to do you want more exposure or do you want more cash? There are ways to monitize that exposure, but our TV visibility even though it is with ESPN is both weak and unproductive financially, so I don't feel overly confident in criticizing C-USA's deal. If nothing else it is producing a million dollars per school and there are more opportunities to see your alma mater on TV instead of the internet regardless of the marketing value. Waters put us in a pretty big hole by not being able to improve the TV package very much over the years.

I'm not being critical of the CUSA or MWC deal.

But you have to pick your poison. If you go with Fox Sports, NBCS, CBSS, you are in general going to reach a fourth or fewer viewers compared to that same game on an ESPN/ESPN2/ABC/CBS/NBC game

Nearly as many people in Houston watched two Fort Worth area high school teams play on Thursday night as watched SMU and Houston play on a channel with much greater reach.

If ASU does make it to a bowl this year, then nearly 1/4th of our games in 2011 and 2012 will have been on ESPN or ESPN. If we don't make a bowl then it is 20%.

In comparison Arkansas will have had roughly half of their games on ESPN/ESPN2/traditional broadcast network in that span

I am not surprised at a Thursday Nigh High School game outdrawing a game between between two schools having abysmal years. Those Thursday night games generally feature the best schools in the state. Now, what were the rating for the C-USA championship game on ABC? That is the potential that advertisers are chasing.

(10-23-2012 11:53 AM)panama Wrote:  I am not surprised at a Thursday Nigh High School game outdrawing a game between between two schools having abysmal years. Those Thursday night games generally feature the best schools in the state. Now, what were the rating for the C-USA championship game on ABC? That is the potential that advertisers are chasing.

2011 drew a 3.1 on ABC (By comparison Texas-Baylor regular season drew 2.6 and OU-OkSt drew 3.7 compared to a 5.3 for the Big XII title game the year before). But remember championship weekend there are very few games to draw viewers.

However I don't know that is the potential anyone is chasing considering that ESPN's offer was so low that C-USA left ESPN.

(10-23-2012 01:23 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-23-2012 11:53 AM)panama Wrote:  I am not surprised at a Thursday Nigh High School game outdrawing a game between between two schools having abysmal years. Those Thursday night games generally feature the best schools in the state. Now, what were the rating for the C-USA championship game on ABC? That is the potential that advertisers are chasing.

2011 drew a 3.1 on ABC (By comparison Texas-Baylor regular season drew 2.6 and OU-OkSt drew 3.7 compared to a 5.3 for the Big XII title game the year before). But remember championship weekend there are very few games to draw viewers.

However I don't know that is the potential anyone is chasing considering that ESPN's offer was so low that C-USA left ESPN.

What I mean is that they are not after the worst case scenario asmuch as they after the potential "happy path". You hope to have two 7-1 teams on Thursday night next week. Not 2-6 vs.4-4.

(10-23-2012 09:45 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think it really shows that if you are going for the dollars on CBS Sports, NBC Sports, Fox Sports, that you do so at the cost of reaching potential recruits and potential new fans.

As a fan, I definitely prefer being on ESPN family of networks. I could care less if CUSA gets more per team that goes towards a budget the fans don't see. IMO exposure on ESPN is worth the $$ difference over CBS College Sports. I think ESPN3 is very good as well.

The MAC and SBC get more meaningful exposure than CUSA. Even though Waters takes crap for the deal, I think he made the wise decision to go with exposure. It is starting to show up in recruiting. The $$ difference will get even smaller when CUSA loses its large markets and deal ends. I think the SBC will get a bigger take in the next few years to close the gap even further.