(02-12-2014 10:00 AM)txstatebobcat Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 08:07 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 05:21 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Unless something changes and the Sun Belt is offered a decent contract would think
that the SBC would want to do something drastic.

It is a simple concept. the media value of a game between say lsu and alabama is greater than a game between ulm and south alabama..not much we can do about that. occasionally a win over a "name" team will put a sbc team in the spotlight for the next cpl. weeks but that is not the norm.

I don't disagree with that at all. LSU vs Alabama is a far more valuable commodity than stAte vs Louisiana which is probably our "marquee" game in 2031. However is it 99 times more valuable? I would say no. stAte vs Louisiana got 767,000 viewers on a Tuesday night on ESPN2 while LSU vs Alabama got 11.9 million viewers on prime time on CBS. So LSU vs Alabama got 16 times (rounded up) as many viewers as stAte vs Louisiana.

I am guessing, but I would say yes that much more. I would venture to say there was more than a 99-1 ratio of TV sets in an LSU/Bama game than stAte/Louisiana game.

I've always wondered if stAte and other SBC schools could make as much money or even extra TV revenue if they produced and sold their games to local advertisers. A few years back stAte marketed the first game against UCA and aired it on the local Jonesboro station and a statewide ABC affiliate. Since it was an in-state match up and opened the season, we still had 30k attendance. I don't know how much $$ they made but I guarantee they had more in state viewers who cared about the game and it was more widely seen in the state than a game on ESPNU

Sometimes I wonder if this is a chicken/egg argument.

I didn't even know Georgia Southern had a football team until I started college there in 2004, but I could name every SEC team at the time. Heck the only current Sun Belt team that I knew existed was Troy and I think it had something to do with them playing an SEC close on TV once when I was younger.

Now, would I have watched more G5 teams on TV (especially SBC) if they were televised more? I don't really know to be honest. I would at least have known they existed though.

I do think more TV time would get us better ratings overall because of familiarity, but I also think improved football quality will get us better ratings because people will want to watch us. My problem is... consistent improvement requires money to throw at higher caliber athletes, money that wont come in until we get better TV contracts, that wont come until we win more games, that wont happen until we get better, that wont happen until we get more $. doh

(02-17-2014 08:37 AM)Rik Flair Wrote:  I've always wondered if stAte and other SBC schools could make as much money or even extra TV revenue if they produced and sold their games to local advertisers. A few years back stAte marketed the first game against UCA and aired it on the local Jonesboro station and a statewide ABC affiliate. Since it was an in-state match up and opened the season, we still had 30k attendance. I don't know how much $$ they made but I guarantee they had more in state viewers who cared about the game and it was more widely seen in the state than a game on ESPNU

I think it has more to do with playing nice with the major networks to keep a shot at bowl affiliations (could be wrong though, obviously).

Since the bowls are pretty much at the mercy of the networks, the conferences are as well (the exception being the P5, but even they "listen" to the networks quite a bit).

The Sun Belt has an awful TV arrangement with ESPN. ESPN holds all of the leverage in the contract. Sun Belt can always try to renegotiate. Unfortunately the way the contract is set up. ESPN can renew the current deal for additional years without having to increase the revenue paid to the conference. Wright Waters and Benson sold the Sun Belt collective souls just to get games on ESPN3 and occasionally on ESPNU or ESPN2. Publicity is a good thing yes. But don't expect the Sun Belt to get a better TV deal anytime soon since ESPN has no incentive to change the deal that is already in place until 2020. ESPN3 will also maintain the right to exclusively produce and distribute games of their choosing. In addition any games that are produced locally (i.e. regional network or local station) may be aired on ESPN3 and ESPN Full Court or ESPN GamePlan.

(02-17-2014 10:49 AM)Rojogrande Wrote:  The Sun Belt has an awful TV arrangement with ESPN. ESPN holds all of the leverage in the contract. Sun Belt can always try to renegotiate. Unfortunately the way the contract is set up. ESPN can renew the current deal for additional years without having to increase the revenue paid to the conference. Wright Waters and Benson sold the Sun Belt collective souls just to get games on ESPN3 and occasionally on ESPNU or ESPN2. Publicity is a good thing yes. But don't expect the Sun Belt to get a better TV deal anytime soon since ESPN has no incentive to change the deal that is already in place until 2020. ESPN3 will also maintain the right to exclusively produce and distribute games of their choosing. In addition any games that are produced locally (i.e. regional network or local station) may be aired on ESPN3 and ESPN Full Court or ESPN GamePlan.

So, what you're saying is, we're screwed until '20?

(02-17-2014 11:51 AM)Ole Sleepy Wrote:  So, what you're saying is, we're screwed until '20?

Yeah, pretty much.

Pretty unusual for media contracts to stay in force with a lot of team changes.
Was also stated months ago that contract would expire next year I thought.

(02-17-2014 09:09 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Pretty unusual for media contracts to stay in force with a lot of team changes.
Was also stated months ago that contract would expire next year I thought.

We can get a look in, but I think the point is that there is little chance we get a bump because we didn't really do anything from an audience perspective.

(02-17-2014 08:37 AM)Rik Flair Wrote:  I've always wondered if stAte and other SBC schools could make as much money or even extra TV revenue if they produced and sold their games to local advertisers. A few years back stAte marketed the first game against UCA and aired it on the local Jonesboro station and a statewide ABC affiliate. Since it was an in-state match up and opened the season, we still had 30k attendance. I don't know how much $$ they made but I guarantee they had more in state viewers who cared about the game and it was more widely seen in the state than a game on ESPNU

Truthfully, local in-state fans are the only people who would ever watch an AState vs Central Ark game. The same would be true for a LA Tech vs McNeese game. Very rarely does a G-5 conference game have any national relevance and nobody cares about a game unless it does. The only exception would be a game in which the outcome could directly affect our own team. That's just the way things are.

(02-17-2014 09:09 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Pretty unusual for media contracts to stay in force with a lot of team changes.
Was also stated months ago that contract would expire next year I thought.

I think the contract comes open for renegotiation next year, but don't quote me on that. But the way the contract was set up, ESPN can refuse to renegotiate and can keep the same deal in place until 2020. They hold all the leverage on this. There is no reason for them to give the Sun Belt more money if technically they don't have to worry about that until 2020. That is why it was such a bad deal for the Sun Belt. Waters essentially gave ESPN all broadcasting rights to Sun Belt games to them at little to no cost to the network. All the while allowing the network the option to renegotiate or they can keep the same contract in place until 2020 with no monetary increase to the Sun Belt or its member institutions. That said...I believe the contract was made so that ESPN could not decrease the dollar amount either. So the Sun Belt shouldn't have to worry about making any less.

Any less and it would be free. I think TV money is the main reason is pushing for a 12th team. Hopefully we get a capable team in a decent market but there isn't much choice. Get that added champ game and show how well the ratings are for SBC games. This is all wishful thinking.

Hope Benson can get something. I just don't see how the SBC gets only 50k per team and cusa gets that much more. I know these contract are based on old members but things have changed a lot.

Really need to negotiate with CBS NBC and fox.

None of us can ever live on TV money and honestly it should be the least of our concerns. The money we get or don't get will not make or break our programs...


The way you grow your program is on the back of SEASON TICKETS SOLD and the donation that comes with it. The number one thing each of us can do to support our programs is to buy season tickets and no not the cheapest ones..but that's a starting point. If you show up at the games that looks good on espn3 or the 5 to 10 seconds espn gives each of us if a great play happens and they show it on sports center.

But as far as the health of the program the person who buys a season ticket and never shows up is doing more than the fan that goes to 3 or 4 home games and gets that GA ticket at the window. That's how you separate yourself from other schools in the same boat as all of us are in.

$750,000 to a $1,000,000 on a tv deal helps but get your season ticket sells up to around 50% helps just as much, probably even more. Like I said starting with the cheapest helps but at some point we all need to do away with the promotional tickets...


when you get to that point the TV money wont matter as much and that's something every school can do without anyone else having control over. We all just need to get there.

TV contracts will increase in value when the demand for Sun Belt sports increases. How does that happen? Get students involved with the university. Make them feel committed to their own school, for example, Georgia Southern instead of Georgia. Obviously, each of our schools have the perception problems where students wear the hats and t-shirts for the local P5 schools. The G5s need to start small with students, have their passion expand to their families and friends, then to the community, then to the region, and slowly chip away at the P5 fan base. Make sure you get eyeballs watching the games when they are on TV or online so that networks can see the demand. Along the way hope for wins against the bigger fish but I don't think that is necessary in order to be paid more. It certainly would help by creating demand to see more of the underdog play to see how legit they are but I don't think it helps with TV contract value.

(02-18-2014 06:48 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 08:37 AM)Rik Flair Wrote:  I've always wondered if stAte and other SBC schools could make as much money or even extra TV revenue if they produced and sold their games to local advertisers. A few years back stAte marketed the first game against UCA and aired it on the local Jonesboro station and a statewide ABC affiliate. Since it was an in-state match up and opened the season, we still had 30k attendance. I don't know how much $$ they made but I guarantee they had more in state viewers who cared about the game and it was more widely seen in the state than a game on ESPNU

Truthfully, local in-state fans are the only people who would ever watch an AState vs Central Ark game. The same would be true for a LA Tech vs McNeese game. Very rarely does a G-5 conference game have any national relevance and nobody cares about a game unless it does. The only exception would be a game in which the outcome could directly affect our own team. That's just the way things are.

All the more reason for the networks getting behind pushing for an expanded playoff. We get the playoff expanded to 8 or I'm really hoping ultimately for 16.. then a lot of these games gain "national relevance". Especially the deeper you are into a season. The more people who care, the more eyes on the game = more revenue from advertisers... it is the networks best interest.

(02-12-2014 04:55 PM)Florida Red Wolf Wrote:  Tell me, just why do we need a championship game? Forget about any others and then tell me why we "need' one.

I know you didn't ask me, but I'd like to address this question.

Seems to me from the way you asked the question, that you are against a championship game. I'd ask you: Why?
There are only 2 answers I could think of for that side of the argument:
1: That would mean dividing the 12Million by one more member = smaller slice for current members.
2: A High ranked SBC program could get knocked off in a Conference Champ Game and miss a better bowl.

On the First point: Yea - smaller slice I get it. I'd just say that $90,909.10 isn't going to be worth giving up a championship game to me or our program. Plus, 12 members might mean more stability for the conference anyway. And if that 12 team brought a new market, could help with future TV Contracts.

On the 2nd point: I'd say that if you can't win the Conference Championship game, you probably shouldn't go to that higher bowl. I think this concern comes out of fear, which always weakens its victim. Then there is the other side of the coin: On that first side was fear, on the other is empowerment! IF - the higher ranked team actually wins the Conf. Champ. Game over a member from the other side who has earned a decent ranking themselves, THEN - You are looking at a boost in ranking for our Conference Champion. An improved SOS, another good win and ultimately - Might be the edge needed to get over another G5 Conference champion into a better bowl or maybe an expanded playoff. Any other G5 Champion would certainly have an advantage over ours in any such discussions for all the same reasons. I think not having such a title game puts us at a disadvantage.


Next, the exposure for the conference. When most other conferences are playing a Champ. Game and we are playing a regular league game - they certainly have the edge for excitement and viewers.
How about a big exciting weekend for the two programs/(fans of) involved? Real college football implications with a certain finite crown to be given at the end of the game. Also, What is this kind of game worth to a TV contract? I don't know- but it'd have to have some value.

Limited TV time available and a flooded market of teams is a problem in securing a better TV contract.

But just to add something to the thought process: There are more networks than being discussed here. Sure you have the Major NBC,ABC,CBS and FOX regular networks and the ESPN(2,New,U,3) Now given that only about 12 hours on a Saturday are going to be used for football on each of these channels, Live Saturday games are hard to get on. But some channels show replays of games, that they did not carry live, throughout the week to fill air time Like CSS and ESPNU etc.


Fox has MANY stations. Including Fox College Sports Central, Fox College Sports Atlantic, Fox College Sports Pacific... Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2. Here is map of some of the U.S. Fox Sports channels:



Comcast sports network also has many regional sports channels: Like CSS, etc. I know of at least 11 of those.
NBC Sports, CBS Sports and others.
Add that to the BIG10Network, the coming SEC Network for the 2014 season.

There is still a major surplus of games each week, but the situation is getting better as more networks pop up and need programing. I'm just saying it might not be as bad as it seems - though the point is a good one.

I'd also like to say that yes, by simple Math - more FBS teams dilutes the supply of games by producing more games. But IF one or two of those 1-AA move ups become more valuable than others - it might be worse for other G5 conferences - but could add to the game value of their own conference. IF the waters get stirred in Boise State Fashion - by Georgia Southern and or App State - Then the Belt TV contract might benefit while networks pick up Belt games over other conference games. Winning changes everything - the entire conference winning.... We are not in this for the greater good of the FBS - but for the advancement of the Sunbelt.. "Together WE RISE!"

(02-18-2014 11:17 AM)Rojogrande Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 09:09 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Pretty unusual for media contracts to stay in force with a lot of team changes.
Was also stated months ago that contract would expire next year I thought.

I think the contract comes open for renegotiation next year, but don't quote me on that. But the way the contract was set up, ESPN can refuse to renegotiate and can keep the same deal in place until 2020. They hold all the leverage on this. There is no reason for them to give the Sun Belt more money if technically they don't have to worry about that until 2020. That is why it was such a bad deal for the Sun Belt. Waters essentially gave ESPN all broadcasting rights to Sun Belt games to them at little to no cost to the network. All the while allowing the network the option to renegotiate or they can keep the same contract in place until 2020 with no monetary increase to the Sun Belt or its member institutions. That said...I believe the contract was made so that ESPN could not decrease the dollar amount either. So the Sun Belt shouldn't have to worry about making any less.

Sun Belt made any less we would be paying them.

(02-19-2014 11:13 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  Limited TV time available and a flooded market of teams is a problem in securing a better TV contract.

But just to add something to the thought process: There are more networks than being discussed here. Sure you have the Major NBC,ABC,CBS and FOX regular networks and the ESPN(2,New,U,3) Now given that only about 12 hours on a Saturday are going to be used for football on each of these channels, Live Saturday games are hard to get on. But some channels show replays of games, that they did not carry live, throughout the week to fill air time Like CSS and ESPNU etc.


Fox has MANY stations. Including Fox College Sports Central, Fox College Sports Atlantic, Fox College Sports Pacific... Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2. Here is map of some of the U.S. Fox Sports channels:



Comcast sports network also has many regional sports channels: Like CSS, etc. I know of at least 11 of those.
NBC Sports, CBS Sports and others.
Add that to the BIG10Network, the coming SEC Network for the 2014 season.

There is still a major surplus of games each week, but the situation is getting better as more networks pop up and need programing. I'm just saying it might not be as bad as it seems - though the point is a good one.

I'd also like to say that yes, by simple Math - more FBS teams dilutes the supply of games by producing more games. But IF one or two of those 1-AA move ups become more valuable than others - it might be worse for other G5 conferences - but could add to the game value of their own conference. IF the waters get stirred in Boise State Fashion - by Georgia Southern and or App State - Then the Belt TV contract might benefit while networks pick up Belt games over other conference games. Winning changes everything - the entire conference winning.... We are not in this for the greater good of the FBS - but for the advancement of the Sunbelt.. "Together WE RISE!"

Thats the problem though. ESPN owns the exclusive rights to Sun Belt games. They can put them on ESPN3 before letting another network broadcast them on actual television. ESPN has no reason at all to renegotiate the contract because they can continue to pay the Sun Belt a small amount for the game rights and don't have to have a new contract until 2020.

Example since you listed all of those Fox stations. Before this deal individual teams could sell rights to their own games if they produced the games themselves bc ESPN only owned the rights for X number of games each season. WKU had such an arrangement with Fox College Sports. Every WKU basketball game was broadcast nationally on FCS in approx 80 million homes in a multi-million dollar deal for WKU. When Wright Waters negotiated the new ESPN contract, it gave ESPN the exclusive rights to all Sun Belt games and forced WKU and Fox to have to part ways essentially costing WKU millions of dollars.

The only thing that I guess remains ok is that every WKU game is broadcast on some type of ESPN outlet whether that be ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN News, ESPN3, ESPN Full Court, or ESPN Gameplan. Really that has more to do with WKU relationship with ESPN then it does the Sun Belt. WKU has on of the top broadcasting schools in the country. And a HD satellite truck that ESPN frequently rents. WKU broadcast students and alums work a lot of monday night football games, as well as many other sporting events for ESPN. Still, even with those connections, the Sun Belt deal cost WKU millions of dollars in TV revenue through Fox.

Just like CUSA cant negotiate putting any of its games on ESPN, we cant negotiate to put any games on Fox, CBS, or NBC. Both of us gave exclusive rights to the respective holder of our contract.

Maybe in a few years when its time to re-negotiate, we can start pushing NBC and Fox...but there is a pretty good chance we wont find much money there either. Especially Fox. My guess is we might be able to convince NBC to get involved, but ESPN will simply top any number they come up with and that will be the end of that.