(03-04-2018 02:24 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Looks to me like the SBC fans are the ones paying all the expense and any money espn is paying to the conference ...

if each school has 6 thousand paying fans for the year.....$60*60,000 = $3,600,000

You would think 6,000 fans for each school would be low and most likely way more than 60,000 total. Now as a fan I would look at the cost as a good deal. But....

why wouldn't the conference give away the tier 1 (TV) and set up their own streaming app. They get the same amount of games on TV and pocket way more money. Right now all of that money goes to espn. Plus you are tied up at the mercy of espn for 8 years.

Stream has come a long long long ways in the last 8 years. Who knows what it will be like in the next 8.

CUSA TV is awful but if the OVC can put their content on a streaming APP and really good quality. Other conference should be able to do so.

So basically espn told the SBC we will give you a few games on TV and you give us all other content and let us charge your fans for it. Like I said as a fan I'm willing to pay $60 a year to see my team. I just think the SBC is short changing future income....

for those few espn games

For all I know CUSA might do the same but I hope they look at how far and how easy streaming content is today and most likely better in the coming years

WKUYG - I agree with your thinking here as long as CUSA would make it affordable, dependable, and provide a quality product for all schools and all sports (like the Sun Belt is getting). It should also be easy to log into for viewing. All that said, I am just not optimistic that they would adequately pull all of that together and we would end up with CUSA-TV2. I haven't had an problems or issues getting ESPN3.

(03-04-2018 02:24 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Looks to me like the SBC fans are the ones paying all the expense and any money espn is paying to the conference ...

if each school has 6 thousand paying fans for the year.....$60*60,000 = $3,600,000

You would think 6,000 fans for each school would be low and most likely way more than 60,000 total. Now as a fan I would look at the cost as a good deal. But....

why wouldn't the conference give away the tier 1 (TV) and set up their own streaming app. They get the same amount of games on TV and pocket way more money. Right now all of that money goes to espn. Plus you are tied up at the mercy of espn for 8 years.

Stream has come a long long long ways in the last 8 years. Who knows what it will be like in the next 8.

CUSA TV is awful but if the OVC can put their content on a streaming APP and really good quality. Other conference should be able to do so.

So basically espn told the SBC we will give you a few games on TV and you give us all other content and let us charge your fans for it. Like I said as a fan I'm willing to pay $60 a year to see my team. I just think the SBC is short changing future income....

for those few espn games

For all I know CUSA might do the same but I hope they look at how far and how easy streaming content is today and most likely better in the coming years

Well stated. I'm disturbed our two views are increasingly aligning.

(03-04-2018 02:34 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Well stated. I'm disturbed our two views are increasingly aligning.

Lmfao.

(03-04-2018 02:32 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:24 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Looks to me like the SBC fans are the ones paying all the expense and any money espn is paying to the conference ...

if each school has 6 thousand paying fans for the year.....$60*60,000 = $3,600,000

You would think 6,000 fans for each school would be low and most likely way more than 60,000 total. Now as a fan I would look at the cost as a good deal. But....

why wouldn't the conference give away the tier 1 (TV) and set up their own streaming app. They get the same amount of games on TV and pocket way more money. Right now all of that money goes to espn. Plus you are tied up at the mercy of espn for 8 years.

Stream has come a long long long ways in the last 8 years. Who knows what it will be like in the next 8.

CUSA TV is awful but if the OVC can put their content on a streaming APP and really good quality. Other conference should be able to do so.

So basically espn told the SBC we will give you a few games on TV and you give us all other content and let us charge your fans for it. Like I said as a fan I'm willing to pay $60 a year to see my team. I just think the SBC is short changing future income....

for those few espn games

For all I know CUSA might do the same but I hope they look at how far and how easy streaming content is today and most likely better in the coming years

WKUYG - I agree with your thinking here as long as CUSA would make it affordable, dependable, and provide a quality product for all schools and all sports (like the Sun Belt is getting). It should also be easy to log into for viewing. All that said, I am just not optimistic that they would adequately pull all of that together and we would end up with CUSA-TV2. I haven't had an problems or issues getting ESPN3.

Well, there is that. The current leadership of this league has done little to give us confidence that they know WTF they are doing.

(03-04-2018 02:28 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 01:42 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  As far as casual viewers, I don't know who lied to you or if you're really sold on having games on facebook, but no one is going to facebook to casually watch CUSA games. There will be more subscribers to ESPN+ who get SBC sports as part of their subscription than people who tune into Stadium via Facebook Live.

This is where you are wrong and where you're falling for Benson's garbage.

First, Stadium is already on the TV. So, even if you take away the streaming option (which is already better quality than ESPNs) the only advantage ESPN has is a better brand awareness.

Second, they are building for the future through streaming. As Stadium continues to grow more people will like their page. As people scroll through their feed they are going to come across live content. A hell of a lot more people scroll through through their facebook feed then are going to go online and flip through ESPN+ content. Stadium can vastly expand their marketing reach over ESPN (within its own platform).

Again, the only question is how long does it take for it to get there where the Facebook option surpasses what ESPN can do? It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of when. ESPN has a finite reach. I laugh when people say Facebook is only for old people. They have a billion daily users. Facebook isn't going away.

That said, it's not there yet and I don't think anyone would be dumb enough to say that it is. That's why I hope we continue to have some ESPN/ESPN 2 content with everything else not there going to Stadium. Gives us an opportunity to do both while building for the future.

Last thing I will say on this is ESPN + is probably a good option for the Belt. But it is not a good option for C-USA, because I believe most of us don't want to have our schedules dictated by ESPN knowing what they are going to do it if we allowed carte blanche like they have with the SBC. Now, if we end up with the crap we've had for the last two years then my opinion would probably change, but our contract was at the worst possible time two years ago. Today we have a better sense of where things are headed. We just have to hope the current leadership doesn't F it up - which is certainly plausible.

^and that’s where you’re falling for Stadium’s garbage

(03-04-2018 02:37 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  ^and that’s where you’re falling for Stadium’s garbage

Mountain West must be falling for it as well.

Both beIN and Stadium have better streaming quality than ESPN.

I don't want to be on both though. They need to pick one. IMO, Stadium has the clear advantage, because they are the first that figured out how to tap Facebook. Being first with Facebook is not a bad thing.

(03-03-2018 10:50 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 09:15 AM)goherd24herdfans Wrote:  After searching for our games on twitter, facebook, random terrible streaming sights online, cusatv, etc, how anyone would ever care that we would play a tuesday night game anymore is beyond me. It is pretty embarrassing to have friends ask you what your doing when you start wiring your laptop to the TV, and have to answer "oh getting ready to watch the marshall game".

I am envious of the sunbelt. We are officially the worst conference in the country in terms of exposure. No question.

You are really like the jealous ex boyfriend, trying to spin how you are better off, alone, when your ex just hooked up with a multi millionaire good looking business owner. "Yeah, but have fun paying those taxes!!!!........."

The problem with your point of view is you just compared - in this analogy - what the Sun Belt got to someone with a lot of net worth. That's laughable and a really bad analogy.

There is no doubt our current TV situation blows ass. But I have been impressed with Stadium and people with lack of vision probably don't appreciate that situation and what's happening with Facebook. Would I be correct in assuming you aren't much of a visionary? I'd bet a cold beer you spend your days focused on one thing and that is "Right now".

So, while I agree with you to an extent, I don't agree fully because there is a bigger picture here. My problem is I don't have any confidence in the current leadership to do this right, and I actually do believe this could be done right. Here's my view of what getting it right means...

1. No more than two tiers. No more of this 9 different places who might choose to show something and you need to be Sherlock to figure out where it is.

2. At least one game per week on ESPN (channels not +) on a Thursday, Friday or Saturday. That would give us about 15 or 16 games there. Same for basketball. That would give us about 17 games on the network.

3. Everything else goes to Stadium. A majority of which actually goes to the TV channel (to include OTA and where they broadcast on cable and satellite channels as well). For everything else that doesn't go to the OTA and cable/satellite channel it is made available online via Facebook as well as Stadium's app across all platforms. I would actually like to see Stadium content be available on both Facebook and its other online platforms at the same time. There is no reason for these Facebook exclusive games.

This is easily achievable and while not a homerun would be immensely better than what we have now and -IMO - gives us a chance to be the first in sports to solely take advantage of both the future of how programming is going to be consumed in the future and aligned doing so with one of the largest subscriber bases in the world. That potential is worth pursuing.

If you are a self proclaimed "visionary" that thinks facebook or twitter are ever going to broadcast anything but teams ESPN and company, don't want, you see about as well as Stevie Wonder.

(03-03-2018 10:15 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 09:18 AM)goherd24herdfans Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 06:32 PM)MUther Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 04:56 PM)ODUBB35 Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 04:26 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  The correct question is would you give up Saturday games to play on Tuesday or Wednesday, which is primarily where ESPN parks the SB games.

That would depend on the payout. A few of those may well be worth it for some decent TV Revenue.

Not compared to 20k+ paying $35 dollars a ticket on Saturdays, plus some cheaper endzone and family packs added on and $100 chairbacks that aren't season tickets. Also add in a TV payout whether we're on or not and we're always on something.

I don't mind our TV once they get consistent apps for each device. Nobody's watching your games other than the fans involved with the playing teams no matter what channel you're playing on. You think I'm tuning in to ESPN 3 to watch USA and Appy play? No. Neither are you finding Stadium or Facebook to watch Marshall play MTSU. So the network isn't important. The market isn't important. The day is important. The bottom line is important. The bottom line is we make a hell of a lot more money playing on Saturday.

We always had good crowds on mid week espn games, always more than 25,000, certainly not a 20,000 difference. Maybe a couple thousand, MAYBE. And don't forget when we play on Saturdays, it clashes with youth sports constantly and we usually lose those couple thousand anyway if its an early game.

And heck, Doc being on the side lines is costing us at least 8,000 a game in reported attendance and 13000 in real.

Thursdays were not midweek games. And we did not compete against the NFL when we played them. Thursdays allowed fans to take Friday off and make it a long weekend. Tuesdays and Wednesdays do not. It is not apples to apples. And we play later now on Saturdays where it does not clash with youth sports. And we were winning games by the dozens in many of those years. You put us on a Tuesday night, now, and actual butts in seats will be under 10k.

I didn't say we'd be down 20k, I said what we make on Saturdays. You also have to consider that we weren't charging $35 a seat back then either. Lot more to lose now for every single person that doesn't attend a game. We make 30% more for each person that attends on average. There will be more attendance with changes for at least the coming year. Tuesday/Wednesday nights will kill that revenue over the season. At best it's a wash so 5k people can watch it on ESPN 3 and 10k less can see it in person. This is part of the reason we left the MAC. We knew this was coming down the pipe.

And with what we know now, leaving the MAC was a mistake, in terms of level of competition, respect, and now, even tv revenue AND exposure.

(03-04-2018 02:38 PM)thefaU Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:37 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  ^and that’s where you’re falling for Stadium’s garbage

Mountain West must be falling for it as well.

I dont know that there is much to the Stadium and MW theory other than they have spoken.

From what I understand, the MW plans to go digital are largely wrapped up in thier own MW Digital Network. Stadium would have to pay for MW content or there really wouldn't be much point in placing MW content on Stadium to compete against their own MW Digital Network. If Stadium is wiling to pay for the content--that would be a different deal entirely---but I dont think Stadium has actually paid anyone for content up to now.

(03-04-2018 02:52 PM)goherd24herdfans Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 10:50 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 09:15 AM)goherd24herdfans Wrote:  After searching for our games on twitter, facebook, random terrible streaming sights online, cusatv, etc, how anyone would ever care that we would play a tuesday night game anymore is beyond me. It is pretty embarrassing to have friends ask you what your doing when you start wiring your laptop to the TV, and have to answer "oh getting ready to watch the marshall game".

I am envious of the sunbelt. We are officially the worst conference in the country in terms of exposure. No question.

You are really like the jealous ex boyfriend, trying to spin how you are better off, alone, when your ex just hooked up with a multi millionaire good looking business owner. "Yeah, but have fun paying those taxes!!!!........."

The problem with your point of view is you just compared - in this analogy - what the Sun Belt got to someone with a lot of net worth. That's laughable and a really bad analogy.

There is no doubt our current TV situation blows ass. But I have been impressed with Stadium and people with lack of vision probably don't appreciate that situation and what's happening with Facebook. Would I be correct in assuming you aren't much of a visionary? I'd bet a cold beer you spend your days focused on one thing and that is "Right now".

So, while I agree with you to an extent, I don't agree fully because there is a bigger picture here. My problem is I don't have any confidence in the current leadership to do this right, and I actually do believe this could be done right. Here's my view of what getting it right means...

1. No more than two tiers. No more of this 9 different places who might choose to show something and you need to be Sherlock to figure out where it is.

2. At least one game per week on ESPN (channels not +) on a Thursday, Friday or Saturday. That would give us about 15 or 16 games there. Same for basketball. That would give us about 17 games on the network.

3. Everything else goes to Stadium. A majority of which actually goes to the TV channel (to include OTA and where they broadcast on cable and satellite channels as well). For everything else that doesn't go to the OTA and cable/satellite channel it is made available online via Facebook as well as Stadium's app across all platforms. I would actually like to see Stadium content be available on both Facebook and its other online platforms at the same time. There is no reason for these Facebook exclusive games.

This is easily achievable and while not a homerun would be immensely better than what we have now and -IMO - gives us a chance to be the first in sports to solely take advantage of both the future of how programming is going to be consumed in the future and aligned doing so with one of the largest subscriber bases in the world. That potential is worth pursuing.

If you are a self proclaimed "visionary" that thinks facebook or twitter are ever going to broadcast anything but teams ESPN and company, don't want, you see about as well as Stevie Wonder.

LMAO. Twitter and Facebook will be taking content from ESPN.

Twitter has already streamed live NFL and MLB games. Facebook has streamed live MLB games. Twitter, even as much as it has struggled has four times the number of daily active users than ESPN can claim as subscribers.

It's ok that you don't see it. Just sit back and watch. You'll figure it out soon enough.

(03-04-2018 02:41 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Both beIN and Stadium have better streaming quality than ESPN.

(03-04-2018 02:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont know that there is much to the Stadium and MW theory other than they have spoken.

From what I understand, the MW plans to go digital are largely wrapped up in thier own MW Digital Network. Stadium would have to pay for MW content or there really wouldn't be much point in placing MW content on Stadium to compete against their own MW Digital Network. If Stadium is wiling to pay for the content--that would be a different deal entirely---but I dont think Stadium has actually paid anyone for content up to now.

Mountain West stated their continued partnership with Stadium in their 2018 football schedule announcement last week. C-USA as well has a similar compensated TV contract with Stadium as we had with American Sports Network. Most of our football games on Stadium are broadcasted nationally, along with being available to stream online (for free), as well as a few games streamed exclusively on Facebook. But I'm sure MWC Tex knows more about it in regards to Mountain West and their digital network.

Bein and stadium do have better streaming than ESPN.

Still talking about Al Jazerra and something called Stadium and pissing on the SBC deal. Quite the weekend!

(03-04-2018 01:21 PM)thefaU Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 01:16 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  Sure. So we have two Thursday games on national TV. Even P5s end up with that. But a quick count of last season conference games, there was only one played on a Wednesday, but I'll offset that with a different game being broadcast nationally on a Saturday. That's a good tradeoff.

2017:
Wednesday, 10/4 -- Arkansas State @ Georgia Southern
Wednesday, 10/11 -- South Alabama @ Troy

And the only conference games you've had broadcasted nationally on a Saturday were during championship weekend; which will be replaced by your championship game.

Try again.

The bolded game drew well over 30k and it looked great on national TV. Not sure about the other game's attendance but I'm pretty sure it was close to a sellout. Unlike the MAC, we have real rivalries in the Belt and those games will draw well no matter which day ESPN picks to air them.

I'm glad we are in CUSA and not the Belt. There are some good programs in the Belt but with ULM on life support in FBS and only 30 miles down the road we really don't have any other choice. I, like most everyone else, agrees that our new TV deal is terrible. Anyone ever find out how much the Belt is getting paid for their new ESPN3 deal?

(03-04-2018 06:07 PM)airtroop Wrote:  The bolded game drew well over 30k and it looked great on national TV. Not sure about the other game's attendance but I'm pretty sure it was close to a sellout. Unlike the MAC, we have real rivalries in the Belt and those games will draw well no matter which day ESPN picks to air them.

It drew 25k. The other game drew 13k.

(03-04-2018 04:30 PM)thefaU Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont know that there is much to the Stadium and MW theory other than they have spoken.

From what I understand, the MW plans to go digital are largely wrapped up in thier own MW Digital Network. Stadium would have to pay for MW content or there really wouldn't be much point in placing MW content on Stadium to compete against their own MW Digital Network. If Stadium is wiling to pay for the content--that would be a different deal entirely---but I dont think Stadium has actually paid anyone for content up to now.

Mountain West stated their continued partnership with Stadium in their 2018 football schedule announcement last week. C-USA as well has a similar compensated TV contract with Stadium as we had with American Sports Network. Most of our football games on Stadium are broadcasted nationally, along with being available to stream online (for free), as well as a few games streamed exclusively on Facebook. But I'm sure MWC Tex knows more about it in regards to Mountain West and their digital network.

To be fair, Im talking about their next TV deal which wouldnt start until after the 2019-2020 season. That said, it is a reasonable point to note that the MW currently is letting STADIUM broadcasts compete with their own digital network. So--perhaps they will go that route. Agree--MWTex is pretty up to date on the MW stuff. As for pay--my understanding is STADIUM pays nothing up front. I think there is supposedly some sort of revenue sharing on the back end once costs are covered.

(03-04-2018 03:34 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 02:52 PM)goherd24herdfans Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 10:50 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(03-03-2018 09:15 AM)goherd24herdfans Wrote:  After searching for our games on twitter, facebook, random terrible streaming sights online, cusatv, etc, how anyone would ever care that we would play a tuesday night game anymore is beyond me. It is pretty embarrassing to have friends ask you what your doing when you start wiring your laptop to the TV, and have to answer "oh getting ready to watch the marshall game".

I am envious of the sunbelt. We are officially the worst conference in the country in terms of exposure. No question.

You are really like the jealous ex boyfriend, trying to spin how you are better off, alone, when your ex just hooked up with a multi millionaire good looking business owner. "Yeah, but have fun paying those taxes!!!!........."

The problem with your point of view is you just compared - in this analogy - what the Sun Belt got to someone with a lot of net worth. That's laughable and a really bad analogy.

There is no doubt our current TV situation blows ass. But I have been impressed with Stadium and people with lack of vision probably don't appreciate that situation and what's happening with Facebook. Would I be correct in assuming you aren't much of a visionary? I'd bet a cold beer you spend your days focused on one thing and that is "Right now".

So, while I agree with you to an extent, I don't agree fully because there is a bigger picture here. My problem is I don't have any confidence in the current leadership to do this right, and I actually do believe this could be done right. Here's my view of what getting it right means...

1. No more than two tiers. No more of this 9 different places who might choose to show something and you need to be Sherlock to figure out where it is.

2. At least one game per week on ESPN (channels not +) on a Thursday, Friday or Saturday. That would give us about 15 or 16 games there. Same for basketball. That would give us about 17 games on the network.

3. Everything else goes to Stadium. A majority of which actually goes to the TV channel (to include OTA and where they broadcast on cable and satellite channels as well). For everything else that doesn't go to the OTA and cable/satellite channel it is made available online via Facebook as well as Stadium's app across all platforms. I would actually like to see Stadium content be available on both Facebook and its other online platforms at the same time. There is no reason for these Facebook exclusive games.

This is easily achievable and while not a homerun would be immensely better than what we have now and -IMO - gives us a chance to be the first in sports to solely take advantage of both the future of how programming is going to be consumed in the future and aligned doing so with one of the largest subscriber bases in the world. That potential is worth pursuing.

If you are a self proclaimed "visionary" that thinks facebook or twitter are ever going to broadcast anything but teams ESPN and company, don't want, you see about as well as Stevie Wonder.

LMAO. Twitter and Facebook will be taking content from ESPN.

Twitter has already streamed live NFL and MLB games. Facebook has streamed live MLB games. Twitter, even as much as it has struggled has four times the number of daily active users than ESPN can claim as subscribers.

It's ok that you don't see it. Just sit back and watch. You'll figure it out soon enough.

You missed the part about what ESPN, and big networks DON'T WANT. I'm sure their grand business minds idea was "let's break into the sports streaming game, really get some attention by grabbing some cusa action. People will definitely want to watch UTSA and Rice go at it all over the country! Lol let me know when you see Alabama and Ohio State on twitter. I watched radford today, because i tuned into ESPN. Also watched Wichita and Cincy because it was on. I sure as hell, am not streaming or digging on some app or twitter to watch someone othee than Marshall, nor will anyone else. 3,000 people watched the marshall, middle game. Let that sink in. Its pathetic.

Your blind loyalty to the **** hand we have been dealt is commendable. Sad, wrong, sure, but commendable.