(03-03-2018 11:54 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 11:26 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 11:15 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:05 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 12:57 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Regardless of how much our TV contract increases, this should be the final nail in the coffin of the notions that:

1. Shrinking TV revenue is a G5 problem and not a CUSA problem.

2. Schools in large cities make media rights valuable rather than schools with large fan bases (Duh!)

If we were to bring on (say) any two of ODU, MTSU, WKU, Marshall, La Tech, Southern Miss, the amount of boost we would get from TV money and CFP by solidifying ourselves as better football conference than the MAC or CUSA in football would be more than the pocket change we get in travel costs that probably wouldn't do anything to help attendance.

We now have no TV. What our conference has now done is decrease our free TV exposure to zero, while making our fans pay to watch games. Anyone who thinks this is a good deal is smoking something illegal in most states.

I'm kind of worried about this TV 'deal' too.

They actually increased our free tv exposure. We have more games on ESPN channels and ESPN3 is turning into ESPN+ with or without us. It’s either put our games on ESPN+ or try to used Facebook live like CUSA. Honestly the only thing that’s changing is ESPN is going to start charging a subscription for ESPN3.

Yes. That is how I understand it.

The Sun Belt could have done a much better job clarifying what ESPN+ is and how to access it, etc., because there is definitely some confusion about this deal and how it works.

ESPN hasn't really been clear about it either, and only just released pricing at the beginning of Feb.

We'll know more in the next month or so when it launches.

The increase was only 3 games... while basically agreeing to put all of the others outside of those 10 games on a ppv only network. In no way is that a win.

(03-03-2018 10:10 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  The increase was only 3 games... while basically agreeing to put all of the others outside of those 10 games on a ppv only network. In no way is that a win.

But if all the games that previously aired for "free" are moving to ESPN Plus anyway, then did we lose anything?

People will want to watch their teams on ESPN Plus. This means they'll have access to it already.

(03-02-2018 09:41 PM)panama Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 03:46 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  Difference is, you're going to get a few more dollars and a HELL of a lot less viewers that won't want to pay for a solely subscription service to watch the games they used to be able to watch free on ESPN3. This all but exterminates casual viewers.

I pay for sling to watch WatchESPN. So ooooooo...now I pay someone else

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

The difference between sat/cable and services like Sling is who pays for the delivery infrastructure.
With satellite and cable your bill includes the cost of getting the signal to your house and the equipment to to make that signal usable.
With Sling and its peers the price omits the cost of the delivery infrastructure and equipment to convert it into a usable signal.

The thing is most people who have cable and satellite are also paying for the delivery infrastructure Sling needs because they are paying for internet access. More people are buying the Apple TV, Roku or Fire they need to make signal useful.

It’s all the same business. The delivery infrastructure is the only difference


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03-03-2018 10:10 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  The increase was only 3 games... while basically agreeing to put all of the others outside of those 10 games on a ppv only network. In no way is that a win.

Now 25% of all regular season conference games will be on national TV. I don’t think we could go higher without hurting the gate receipts too much.

I used to pay $75 a year to get MLS Live. Now for $60 a year I will get all of that plus an increased inventory of Sun Belt basketball (football inventory falls by 3 games because of the national package).

You may be worse off and in your situation it is in no way a win but that’s not true for me because it is a big win.

Now there are no details yet but there are indications that MLB.tv and NHL Game Center will either be included in ESPN+ or available as lower cost add-ons. I spend $115 for MLB and used to buy NHL for $140.

This is a win by any measure to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03-03-2018 11:54 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 11:26 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 11:15 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:05 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 12:57 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Regardless of how much our TV contract increases, this should be the final nail in the coffin of the notions that:

1. Shrinking TV revenue is a G5 problem and not a CUSA problem.

2. Schools in large cities make media rights valuable rather than schools with large fan bases (Duh!)

If we were to bring on (say) any two of ODU, MTSU, WKU, Marshall, La Tech, Southern Miss, the amount of boost we would get from TV money and CFP by solidifying ourselves as better football conference than the MAC or CUSA in football would be more than the pocket change we get in travel costs that probably wouldn't do anything to help attendance.

We now have no TV. What our conference has now done is decrease our free TV exposure to zero, while making our fans pay to watch games. Anyone who thinks this is a good deal is smoking something illegal in most states.

I'm kind of worried about this TV 'deal' too.

They actually increased our free tv exposure. We have more games on ESPN channels and ESPN3 is turning into ESPN+ with or without us. It’s either put our games on ESPN+ or try to used Facebook live like CUSA. Honestly the only thing that’s changing is ESPN is going to start charging a subscription for ESPN3.

Yes. That is how I understand it.

The Sun Belt could have done a much better job clarifying what ESPN+ is and how to access it, etc., because there is definitely some confusion about this deal and how it works.

I think the clarification is evolving from the ESPN side. Reportedly this could go live as soon as this or next month.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(03-03-2018 10:10 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  The increase was only 3 games... while basically agreeing to put all of the others outside of those 10 games on a ppv only network. In no way is that a win.

Why are people acting like the SBC has SEC clout?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Please stop quoting alwayssunny, it is obvious his life is so terrible he must come over and piss on a deal with a 40% increase in national TV games and 300% increase in internet games.

Sorry bud, hope something goes you way today.

What I'm concerned about this contract

1) Does anyone know how much money were supposed to be getting in this deal?
2) Unless the additional money is much better, I see no need to lock up content for 10 years. Seriously if we're still getting crap money, why lock up the content for a long term period.
3) Does this deal involve more Tuesday games, or does it involve more TV on non-paywall ESPN of some Saturday games.

----

I'd hope that the contract would establish the following parameters

1) More non-contingent money than CUSA
2) A limit on the number of midweek games by team by year
3) A rotating schedule of the midweek game, so that USA/Troy and App/Ga Southern aren't midweek all the time

Honestly I think most of the people complaining about the deal either dont understand the internet or work for the cable cpmpany which ironically the second part is silly to say since the cable company actually has a higher profit margin from internet providing then cable, basically if you only watch sun belt sports you can cut your cable subscription buy espn+ for 5 a month and illegally stream or go to a bar for the 10 games on the cable channels

Sent from my LGLS992 using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-04-2018 12:55 PM)Check Yosef Wrote:  Honestly I think most of the people complaining about the deal either dont understand the internet or work for the cable cpmpany which ironically the second part is silly to say since the cable company actually has a higher profit margin from internet providing then cable, basically if you only watch sun belt sports you can cut your cable subscription buy espn+ for 5 a month and illegally stream or go to a bar for the 10 games on the cable channels

Sent from my LGLS992 using CSNbbs mobile app

What prevents ESPN+ from also streaming programming from ESPN/2/U on the ESPN+ app. There are a lot of games now streaming on both even if it is from some wierd different angle.

(03-04-2018 01:51 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 12:55 PM)Check Yosef Wrote:  Honestly I think most of the people complaining about the deal either dont understand the internet or work for the cable cpmpany which ironically the second part is silly to say since the cable company actually has a higher profit margin from internet providing then cable, basically if you only watch sun belt sports you can cut your cable subscription buy espn+ for 5 a month and illegally stream or go to a bar for the 10 games on the cable channels

Sent from my LGLS992 using CSNbbs mobile app

What prevents ESPN+ from also streaming programming from ESPN/2/U on the ESPN+ app. There are a lot of games now streaming on both even if it is from some wierd different angle.

ESPN+ will be part of the WatchESPN app.

WatchESPN currently let's you stream live tv from any of the ESPN channels with a cable log in. Then WatchESPN also has ESPN3 which has content they don't put on their channels. ESPN3 is now becoming ESPN+ and will cost $5 a month.

(03-02-2018 03:23 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:39 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:34 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:54 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Actually, this may push more momentum to reorganizing. We'll see if the details get published, but if the SB deal moves from the 100K annual to $1 - 2 million annual, the CUSA/SB are the same. What better way to improve the 200k each school gets by reducing travel expenses.

I brought this up on another thread, but it's worth repeating.

Back when we were in the SoCon, some of our best attended games were against Furman University and Wofford College (two private schools with small enrollment, the latter being the smallest enrollment of any DI school).

Our attendance was better against those small private schools than a few of the larger public schools because more of our fans wanted to watch us play those small schools because the small schools were relevant in FCS.

Likewise, I can be pretty sure more of our fans would rather see Ark State or ULL than UNCC or FAU and attendance overall would also be better with the former two.

The travel costs savings are just not going to justify what we could get by bolstering the value of the TV contract and improving the CFP payouts each year.

Sure, if those are the comparisons, then I agree.

But, and I mean this as no disrespect, I would rather App share a league with UNCC than ULM because UNCC at least generates local, regional interest. I'd rather App share with the Florida schools than the Texas schools because both are far but at least App recruits Florida. I would hope for a long term non conference series with Arkansas State, but it makes more sense to be in a league with Marshall. Both have comparable pedigrees this decade. And so on.

And you are going to play Arkansas State on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday in league play so we end up being bad for your out-of-town attendance. You will sell more tickets for UNCC on Saturday but you will lose Marshall to mid-week.

Just wanted to clarify something, but CUSA schools do NOT make $1-2M annually from their TV deal. The current deal is horrible and they only get about 250k.
When Benson says we will be on par with other G5 schools I think he is speaking of CUSA. Either way we match their tv money, get better coverage, and split it with fewer schools. There is almost no reason for an SBC school to move to CUSA. If you are struggling so much in travel you have bigger issues. Only TxSt has a case being so far west and would love to play more Tx schools. What I would like to see is SBC poach 2 schools from CUSA (WKU, MTSU, USM, or Marshall). have 2 12 team conference and the SBC the clear leader in the pecking order only behind the AAC in the G5.

Does the MWC just vanish in this scenario?

I would be very disappointed if the per school, per year TV value is not substantially more than C-USA's current contract. I doubt it will be more than the MAC's since that league has so many games on TV, though making less in order to be able to sell tickets on far more Saturdays is worth it. I think the MAC has all but sacrificed it's supporters with it's glut of weekday games and ultimately makes less than if it had weekday games in moderation like most other leagues. I don't know how the SBC's contract will compare with the MW, which looks like it might go exclusively digital and on Saturdays.

(03-04-2018 03:25 PM)ECBrad Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 03:23 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:39 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:34 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:54 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I brought this up on another thread, but it's worth repeating.

Back when we were in the SoCon, some of our best attended games were against Furman University and Wofford College (two private schools with small enrollment, the latter being the smallest enrollment of any DI school).

Our attendance was better against those small private schools than a few of the larger public schools because more of our fans wanted to watch us play those small schools because the small schools were relevant in FCS.

Likewise, I can be pretty sure more of our fans would rather see Ark State or ULL than UNCC or FAU and attendance overall would also be better with the former two.

The travel costs savings are just not going to justify what we could get by bolstering the value of the TV contract and improving the CFP payouts each year.

Sure, if those are the comparisons, then I agree.

But, and I mean this as no disrespect, I would rather App share a league with UNCC than ULM because UNCC at least generates local, regional interest. I'd rather App share with the Florida schools than the Texas schools because both are far but at least App recruits Florida. I would hope for a long term non conference series with Arkansas State, but it makes more sense to be in a league with Marshall. Both have comparable pedigrees this decade. And so on.

And you are going to play Arkansas State on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday in league play so we end up being bad for your out-of-town attendance. You will sell more tickets for UNCC on Saturday but you will lose Marshall to mid-week.

Just wanted to clarify something, but CUSA schools do NOT make $1-2M annually from their TV deal. The current deal is horrible and they only get about 250k.
When Benson says we will be on par with other G5 schools I think he is speaking of CUSA. Either way we match their tv money, get better coverage, and split it with fewer schools. There is almost no reason for an SBC school to move to CUSA. If you are struggling so much in travel you have bigger issues. Only TxSt has a case being so far west and would love to play more Tx schools. What I would like to see is SBC poach 2 schools from CUSA (WKU, MTSU, USM, or Marshall). have 2 12 team conference and the SBC the clear leader in the pecking order only behind the AAC in the G5.

Does the MWC just vanish in this scenario?

North Korea blew them up.

(03-03-2018 10:10 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  The increase was only 3 games... while basically agreeing to put all of the others outside of those 10 games on a ppv only network. In no way is that a win.

Wow, it's "Always WRONG" again. Hey buddy...

ESPN *always* adds more games each year as games that were not previously scheduled to air on its channels. Games are selected to be aired with little notice, and days/kickoff times are changed, so no, not "all of the others outside of those 10" will be behind a paywall. Only a loser would see more national exposure and enhancement of the conference's and its member schools' brands as a "loss". That is all.

I get outside this forum and the CUSA forums to see what others are saying. Most reviews are wait and see what the bottom line is but agree that it has probably positioned the Sunbelt about as well at they could hope for in this market. The only ones taking a negative view (and not all of them) have been CUSA posters here and in their forum. That speaks volumes to me.

And it pains me to say that considering how much I don't like KB. I think I might have to say good job when this is all said and done.

(03-04-2018 01:54 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 01:51 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 12:55 PM)Check Yosef Wrote:  Honestly I think most of the people complaining about the deal either dont understand the internet or work for the cable cpmpany which ironically the second part is silly to say since the cable company actually has a higher profit margin from internet providing then cable, basically if you only watch sun belt sports you can cut your cable subscription buy espn+ for 5 a month and illegally stream or go to a bar for the 10 games on the cable channels

Sent from my LGLS992 using CSNbbs mobile app

What prevents ESPN+ from also streaming programming from ESPN/2/U on the ESPN+ app. There are a lot of games now streaming on both even if it is from some wierd different angle.

ESPN+ will be part of the WatchESPN app.

WatchESPN currently let's you stream live tv from any of the ESPN channels with a cable log in. Then WatchESPN also has ESPN3 which has content they don't put on their channels. ESPN3 is now becoming ESPN+ and will cost $5 a month.

He is correct, the one thing to note is the addition of out of market mlb mls and nhl as you can use it to excuse the 5 bucks, but as i have previously posted really this makes it so you no longer have to have cable to watch all the espn3, if you have cable for other things then its 5 bucks more a month for everything yoy had but you do get to add out of market major league sports kind of as a consolation.

Sent from my LGLS992 using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-04-2018 03:25 PM)ECBrad Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 03:23 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:39 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:34 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:54 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I brought this up on another thread, but it's worth repeating.

Back when we were in the SoCon, some of our best attended games were against Furman University and Wofford College (two private schools with small enrollment, the latter being the smallest enrollment of any DI school).

Our attendance was better against those small private schools than a few of the larger public schools because more of our fans wanted to watch us play those small schools because the small schools were relevant in FCS.

Likewise, I can be pretty sure more of our fans would rather see Ark State or ULL than UNCC or FAU and attendance overall would also be better with the former two.

The travel costs savings are just not going to justify what we could get by bolstering the value of the TV contract and improving the CFP payouts each year.

Sure, if those are the comparisons, then I agree.

But, and I mean this as no disrespect, I would rather App share a league with UNCC than ULM because UNCC at least generates local, regional interest. I'd rather App share with the Florida schools than the Texas schools because both are far but at least App recruits Florida. I would hope for a long term non conference series with Arkansas State, but it makes more sense to be in a league with Marshall. Both have comparable pedigrees this decade. And so on.

And you are going to play Arkansas State on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday in league play so we end up being bad for your out-of-town attendance. You will sell more tickets for UNCC on Saturday but you will lose Marshall to mid-week.

Just wanted to clarify something, but CUSA schools do NOT make $1-2M annually from their TV deal. The current deal is horrible and they only get about 250k.
When Benson says we will be on par with other G5 schools I think he is speaking of CUSA. Either way we match their tv money, get better coverage, and split it with fewer schools. There is almost no reason for an SBC school to move to CUSA. If you are struggling so much in travel you have bigger issues. Only TxSt has a case being so far west and would love to play more Tx schools. What I would like to see is SBC poach 2 schools from CUSA (WKU, MTSU, USM, or Marshall). have 2 12 team conference and the SBC the clear leader in the pecking order only behind the AAC in the G5.

Does the MWC just vanish in this scenario?

Basically, Yes. Honestly I was more thinking about the 3 G5 conferences that overlap (AAC, SBC, CUSA). Even still I think SBC with 2 or 3 of those schools could argue in good years that they are 2nd best G5. But if MWC adds BYU and Gonzaga it changes everything. But it would establish almost a new tier of conferences
1st AAC, MWC, and SBC (w/ additional teams)

2nd MAC, CUSA

I know the assumption is based on a mythical move by teams they may never want to be in the SBC. But if you look at who would be left in the CUSA they would be in serious trouble. I know the MAC has some history and puts out 1 good team a year in football, but overall I just don't think they are strong conference. I also don't see any of those teams growing significantly, so little potential.

JMO

(03-04-2018 01:51 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 12:55 PM)Check Yosef Wrote:  Honestly I think most of the people complaining about the deal either dont understand the internet or work for the cable cpmpany which ironically the second part is silly to say since the cable company actually has a higher profit margin from internet providing then cable, basically if you only watch sun belt sports you can cut your cable subscription buy espn+ for 5 a month and illegally stream or go to a bar for the 10 games on the cable channels

Sent from my LGLS992 using CSNbbs mobile app

What prevents ESPN+ from also streaming programming from ESPN/2/U on the ESPN+ app. There are a lot of games now streaming on both even if it is from some wierd different angle.

ESPN is what prevents that.