(01-12-2016 01:55 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:53 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Remember this thread where some people were trying to say CUSA TV deal may not drop in value?

Oh yeah,

Umm...this isnt good for us either...

Yes it is, it brings them closer and the draw to jump ship less likely. Our deal is already low and is not likely to go down further and if it does it will far less of an impact. As long as the bottom of the conference can not lose to FCS teams and win at least one FBS OOC game a year our value will rise.

(01-12-2016 04:19 PM)panama Wrote:  I pay $40. Unless the taxes and fees are $140 I am good. And if it goes that high people will cut even more.

Just curious... You pay $40 for what? What level of internet? Do you do Netflix/ amazon video/ hulu/ sling TV?

(01-12-2016 03:28 PM)StanMolsonMan Wrote:  I believe that this might be the next step in the college football bubble bursting(say that 3x fast). Attendance is down for the 5th year in a row.
Georgia Southern -2%
Louisiana -16%
App State -7%
stAte -7%
Troy +16%
Texas State -12%
NMSU +43%
South Alabama -8%
ULM -35%
Idaho -10%
GSU -31%
When it comes to TV money... we are where we are, and I think the rest of the G5s are going to come back to Earth as well when their contracts are up.

Anything less than 5% is statistically insignificant. Honestly a losing opponent weekday game and a Thanksgiving weekend game and only a 2% drop is a win for us. We were just lucky not to have two weekday home games.

(01-12-2016 03:48 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  The MAC gave up all of their rights this time and it looks like its an extension so some of the added revenue is backloaded. They also locked into those numbers for a long time. So the MAC deal, while good, isn't really just an increase.

Plus, everyone gets so caught up in tv money.

Yes, $500,000 less per school hurts...but in comparison to the yearly athletic budgets of those schools, its not gonna kill them.

If your budget is $30 million its like 1.5%

On the other side...is an additional $400,000 of tv money worth the exit/entrance fees and rebranding costs to join FIU, ODU, and Charlotte in CUSA? Plus not being on ESPN?

We're not talking SEC Network type money here.

Im probably in the minority but Id rather see State play cusaw teams compared to what the belt offers. But hey, state fans are happy being in a turnstile conference. Here's to hoping for more realignment with a more regional footprint.

Told Ya!!
There are none so blind as those who will not see, or in this case listen.

(01-12-2016 04:16 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:04 PM)RedandBlackAttack Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:57 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:06 PM)RedandBlackAttack Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 02:03 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Huh?

I think every single one of us would sign up for 600K per team right now. We get peanuts until the contract gets redone in a couple years.

If we're wanting a comparison, ESPN just gave the MAC 750K per team.

Each MAC school will be paid approximately $833k per team.

Yes but they sold their soul with all of those week night games to get that payout! ESPN is taking good care of it's little weeknight football whore.

Better than not being on tv at all. The MAC has created its own niche for college football and CUSA and the Sun Belt will fall behind because of that.

Its a give and take. The MAC generally has very poor attendance and the Tuesday games don't help. So a school/conference has to way the exposure/TV money vs attendance/booster money. The SBC deal hurts GS (I don't know about the other schools) because it discourages season ticket sales if you only have 3 or 4 Saturday games a season. Which also translates into less booster donations. The "chewed gum" doesn't cover it. Now it is hard to put a number on being on ESPNU on a Thursday, but I don't think the 200k -300k watching reallying spreads our brand all that much (most watching probably already know us anyway). Now if we were payed 750k-1M/school then it may actually help.

just my .02
Also, don't worry about cutting the cord. I'll bet that in the near future there will be some new regulations, taxes, fees that make you pay just as much as you would if you stuck with cable/satellite. It also depends on what you watch and how much.
my bill is ~150/month for phone, 32Mbbs internet, and TV (all basic cable, no pay channels, with whole home DVR). I'm fine with that. I also have netflix and I'm thinking about getting ChromeCast (unless you cable cutters have any advice).

Yep, those MAC schools get more $$ and that probably offsets the fact their operating costs for a Wed. night game when 5k show up. SBC needs to do a good job of spreading out the games so that no one team takes too big of a hit.

USA teams get 400k more for their TV contract then SBC teams? Big freaking deal! USA and SBC need to focus on divisions with regional rivals and a couple of crossovers. Cut travel cost. A guy on the ODU board was griping about sending teams to play in El Paso and San Antonio. Not a big deal for a basketball game / football game but think about the travel for all the non-revenue producing sports. That is where the cost start adding up.

To clarify re: the MAC deal-

The MAC had a deal with ESPN for $11M/8yr from '10-'17. That broke down to about $1.4M/yr or $115K/yr per school. ESPN re-opened this deal in 2014 and changed the payout for the last 3 years ('15-'17) to $8M/yr or about $670K/yr per school. That's the number quoted in the CUSA article.

In addition, a new 10yr agreement starts in 2018 when the old agreement is complete and it pays $10M/yr or around $833K/yr per school.

The new MAC/ESPN deal is worth $124M/13yrs through 2027. Will be interesting to see how CUSA's new deal compares once finalized.

(01-12-2016 04:29 PM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:55 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:53 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Remember this thread where some people were trying to say CUSA TV deal may not drop in value?

Oh yeah,

Umm...this isnt good for us either...

Yes it is, it brings them closer and the draw to jump ship less likely. Our deal is already low and is not likely to go down further.

Perhaps it brings them a bit more back down to earth.

(01-12-2016 04:36 PM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:28 PM)StanMolsonMan Wrote:  I believe that this might be the next step in the college football bubble bursting(say that 3x fast). Attendance is down for the 5th year in a row.
Georgia Southern -2%
Louisiana -16%
App State -7%
stAte -7%
Troy +16%
Texas State -12%
NMSU +43%
South Alabama -8%
ULM -35%
Idaho -10%
GSU -31%
When it comes to TV money... we are where we are, and I think the rest of the G5s are going to come back to Earth as well when their contracts are up.

Anything less than 5% is statistically insignificant. Honestly a losing opponent weekday game and a Thanksgiving weekend game and only a 2% drop is a win for us. We were just lucky not to have two weekday home games.

As far as App is concerned I don;t think it is a trend as much as it is circumstances. Previous years of all Saturday games with the regular season ending before Thanksgiving vs two Thursday night games and a Thanksgiving weekend game. Although we drew 26K for GASo on a Thursday night that crowd would have been 30+ if it were on a Saturday. I realize Mother Nature listens to nobody, but it is also worth noting the Howard (24,300) and Wyoming (19350) games were played in heavy rains.

Is there really anyone who didn't think their deal would go down? Even those of us who don't jump at the chance to scoff at "marketz!" at every opportunity can acknowledge that Houston means more money than UTSA, that SMU means more money than UNT, that UCF means more money than FIU, etc. etc.

The question is really whether a different expansion strategy would have yielded a better TV deal. I do think they may have been better off keeping their membership lower, but as far as alternative schools go, who would have really added to the deal? The best argument I could see might be App over Charlotte, but I honestly don't know if that would make a bit of difference to TV execs.

(01-12-2016 05:17 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  Is there really anyone who didn't think their deal would go down? Even those of us who don't jump at the chance to scoff at "marketz!" at every opportunity can acknowledge that Houston means more money than UTSA, that SMU means more money than UNT, that UCF means more money than FIU, etc. etc.

The question is really whether a different expansion strategy would have yielded a better TV deal. I do think they may have been better off keeping their membership lower, but as far as alternative schools go, who would have really added to the deal? The best argument I could see might be App over Charlotte, but I honestly don't know if that would make a bit of difference to TV execs.

I wouldn't be surprised when SBC goes to renegotiate they end up with the same TV deal and $$$ CUSA is making per school or very close to it. They might be off ESPN too since their isn't a perceived benefit for staying.

(01-12-2016 05:17 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  Is there really anyone who didn't think their deal would go down? Even those of us who don't jump at the chance to scoff at "marketz!" at every opportunity can acknowledge that Houston means more money than UTSA, that SMU means more money than UNT, that UCF means more money than FIU, etc. etc.

The question is really whether a different expansion strategy would have yielded a better TV deal. I do think they may have been better off keeping their membership lower, but as far as alternative schools go, who would have really added to the deal? The best argument I could see might be App over Charlotte, but I honestly don't know if that would make a bit of difference to TV execs.

I thought that maybe, just maybe, the tv people were lazy and incompetent enough to keep their deal about the same. But it went down after all which is no real surprise.

And as far as a different expansion strategy to get a better tv deal....no. There was no strategy that would have accomplished that.

The truth is that the amount of a tv deal isn't that important in our circumstances. The only thing a tv deal does is let you puff up and proclaim that your conference is worth slightly more than their conference. The actual monetary value differences are pretty meaningless. This ain't SEC Network type money.

So now that tv money is now recognized as not that much of a factor. The real questions about who we all have associated ourselves with can perhaps start to emerge.

Or not.

(01-12-2016 07:55 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 05:17 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  Is there really anyone who didn't think their deal would go down? Even those of us who don't jump at the chance to scoff at "marketz!" at every opportunity can acknowledge that Houston means more money than UTSA, that SMU means more money than UNT, that UCF means more money than FIU, etc. etc.

The question is really whether a different expansion strategy would have yielded a better TV deal. I do think they may have been better off keeping their membership lower, but as far as alternative schools go, who would have really added to the deal? The best argument I could see might be App over Charlotte, but I honestly don't know if that would make a bit of difference to TV execs.

I wouldn't be surprised when SBC goes to renegotiate they end up with the same TV deal and $$$ CUSA is making per school or very close to it. They might be off ESPN too since their isn't a perceived benefit for staying.

I'd rather stay on ESPN and get nothing before going for CUSA's setup.

Is the amount of extra money per school REALLY worth not being seen? I can at least see my team on ESPN3.

(01-12-2016 04:33 PM)southern edumacation Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:19 PM)panama Wrote:  I pay $40. Unless the taxes and fees are $140 I am good. And if it goes that high people will cut even more.

Just curious... You pay $40 for what? What level of internet? Do you do Netflix/ amazon video/ hulu/ sling TV?

Can't speak for him, but I made it through the off season with $21 sling TV and $74 Internet(went from 54 to 74 because of data limits/mlbtv streaming). Also invested in an antenna to watch over the air TV.

I shut cable off before the Super Bowl, which was free over the air, and turned cable back on in August and internet back down from 74 to 54. About to shut cable off again. Not sure if I'll even pick up Sling TV this off season. But might be able to use it next fall instead of cable

And it was liberating not to be the cable company's $225/month ***** any longer . . .

(01-12-2016 03:45 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 02:58 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 02:46 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I threatened to cut cable the other day, and the rep basically laughed at me.

Who is your cable company? Because most times if you threaten to leave they send you hookers and cocaine in the mail.

Suddenlink. I made the mistake 7 years ago of signing on internet with them as well. The way they phrased it, if I cut cable, then I lose all access to most of the streaming sites I use because Suddenlink requires for you to have a cable subscription to get those services.

In order to move, I'd have to move my internet service as well, which is far more complicated.

Move to Directv and use me as a referral. You're welcome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-12-2016 08:07 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 07:55 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 05:17 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  Is there really anyone who didn't think their deal would go down? Even those of us who don't jump at the chance to scoff at "marketz!" at every opportunity can acknowledge that Houston means more money than UTSA, that SMU means more money than UNT, that UCF means more money than FIU, etc. etc.

The question is really whether a different expansion strategy would have yielded a better TV deal. I do think they may have been better off keeping their membership lower, but as far as alternative schools go, who would have really added to the deal? The best argument I could see might be App over Charlotte, but I honestly don't know if that would make a bit of difference to TV execs.

I wouldn't be surprised when SBC goes to renegotiate they end up with the same TV deal and $$$ CUSA is making per school or very close to it. They might be off ESPN too since their isn't a perceived benefit for staying.

I'd rather stay on ESPN and get nothing before going for CUSA's setup.

Is the amount of extra money per school REALLY worth not being seen? I can at least see my team on ESPN3.

ESPN I'd absolutely the way to go. Thankfully they'll probably stick with us since CUSA pissed them off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For the record, here is Arkstfan's take on what this means, or doesn't mean for the SBC when its our turn.

http://www.scout.com/college/arkansas-st...deal-means

I would rather stay on ESPN. That way I can watch the away games I can't attend. South's attendance is down because we had a Tuesday and Thursday night game on ESPN. Having a late game vs App State after the SEC Championship game did hurt too, We have a number of Alabama and Auburn fans in our fanbase, so avoiding conflicts with those schools is very difficult especially when they in the running for National Championship Next season, having San Diego State instead of UAB could hurt attendance. I'm assuming a good number of UAB fans would have drove down and would have local interest up.

(01-12-2016 10:29 PM)kevinwmsn Wrote:  I would rather stay on ESPN. That way I can watch the away games I can't attend. South's attendance is down because we had a Tuesday and Thursday night game on ESPN. Having a late game vs App State after the SEC Championship game did hurt too, We have a number of Alabama and Auburn fans in our fanbase, so avoiding conflicts with those schools is very difficult especially when they in the running for National Championship Next season, having San Diego State instead of UAB could hurt attendance. I'm assuming a good number of UAB fans would have drove down and would have local interest up.

The ULL/USA game on ESPNU, a game between two mediocre SBC teams this past year put up basically similar ratings numbers to the Marshall/WKU CUSA game that was on FS1. And FS1 is in more homes than ESPNU.

There is just more value in ESPN right now.

(01-12-2016 08:07 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 07:55 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 05:17 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  Is there really anyone who didn't think their deal would go down? Even those of us who don't jump at the chance to scoff at "marketz!" at every opportunity can acknowledge that Houston means more money than UTSA, that SMU means more money than UNT, that UCF means more money than FIU, etc. etc.

The question is really whether a different expansion strategy would have yielded a better TV deal. I do think they may have been better off keeping their membership lower, but as far as alternative schools go, who would have really added to the deal? The best argument I could see might be App over Charlotte, but I honestly don't know if that would make a bit of difference to TV execs.

I wouldn't be surprised when SBC goes to renegotiate they end up with the same TV deal and $$$ CUSA is making per school or very close to it. They might be off ESPN too since their isn't a perceived benefit for staying.

I'd rather stay on ESPN and get nothing before going for CUSA's setup.

Is the amount of extra money per school REALLY worth not being seen? I can at least see my team on ESPN3.

Its conclusive that ESPN in the current January 2016 negotiating climate didn't have time for CUSA.

My question then would be what other conferences or entities would it not have time to negotiate with? If they don't want to bother with CUSA then maybe they don't want to bother with the SBC either.

Benson might see a chance when the rights are up to push the per school payout up to a parity point with CUSA to prevent further defections. Also some schools are complaining about the attendance impact of midweek games in the SBC. In the MAC where November attendance is a struggle either way midweek works but not so much for CUSA or SBC programs.

ESPN may just want to tighten up its AAC, MWC and MAC deals where they have a stronger existing presence. The MAC deal also includes a 300,000 stipend to upgrade camera equipment with the plan of also televising Olympic Sports. I don't know if ESPN will make a $125 million commitment to the SBC like it has for the MWC, MAC and AAC.