(03-04-2018 12:19 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  This season we have two Thursday night games a Friday night game to be in national tv. In fact we've only ever had games on Thursdays and Fridays because of national TV. But also yes, one Tuesday or Wednesday night game a season is worth having every game broadcast on an accessible format that costs no more than $5 a month.

That Friday night game @ Memphis is an AAC deal; it has nothing to do with your deal. And the Sun Belt has had multiple Tuesday/Wednesday games since 2013. It doesn't matter if it's Georgia State or Georgia Southern.

(03-04-2018 11:33 AM)itsmeagain Wrote:  The reason I would hate CUSAs deal isn't whether they're on regular TV or not, but that some of the games are carried on CUSAtv, which costs $6 for one viewing (or $10 for a month), a couple were carried on FloSports ($30 a month), some were carried on BeIN (which, if you don't have access to it already costs $15 a month to steam), and some of them weren't carried at all. As it is now in the SBC, it doesn't matter whether it's over the air or streamed, I'm still watching via WatchESPN app that's built into my tv, I know every single conference and home game will be carried on it, and it costs me nothing extra to what I'm already paying. If we end up paying $5 a month extra for ESPN+, I'm getting access to all my schools basketball, baseball, and football games, all the conferences games, and whatever other conferences end up having contracts on there (plus any other sports are carried on there). That, plus we know we're going to have more game broadcast nationality on TV with this new contract. A lot better than having to pay for a hodgepodge of different providers to watch a single game, or having to plug a laptop into the TV (or use a phone) for social media apps.

The reason I would hate Sun Belt's deal is you're not on linear television (a few games during the week) and you're stuck behind a paywall until 2028. This severely hurts any exposure as a conference. How many subscribers who get ESPN+ for MLB, NHL, or MLS content do you actually think will tune into any Sun Belt content? My guess is that it'd be a low number. The casual viewers most likely won't subscribe to ESPN+. And how many people will subscribe to ESPN+ at all? If you look at other OTT platforms, it takes years before you build any sort of audience. In the meantime, C-USA has many games on ESPN/2/U and CBS Sports on Fridays and Saturdays. Also, my parents who have one of the most basic cable packages gets both Stadium & beIN SPORTS, which are in the same range of sports channels as ESPN, CBS Sports Network, etc. If you're flipping through to see what games are on, you'll come across a C-USA game. As for myself, I have Sling that carries all the channels and a smart TV so I can watch every game on my television. And I only pay $20 for Sling, by the way. Facebook has the potential to pick up the casual viewer that ESPN+ does not. There's a reason the Mountain West is also in talks with Stadium and not ESPN+. And you seem to forget that we're still negotiating a TV deal. No one is advocating for CUSA.tv; we would be the first to say it's ****. But we'd much rather put our content on Stadium/Facebook that can be watched on linear television and streamed online for free, which is more likely to be watched by the casual viewer and gives us more exposure, than to put everything behind an ESPN+ paywall.

(03-04-2018 12:28 PM)thefaU Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 12:19 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  This season we have two Thursday night games a Friday night game to be in national tv. In fact we've only ever had games on Thursdays and Fridays because of national TV. But also yes, one Tuesday or Wednesday night game a season is worth having every game broadcast on an accessible format that costs no more than $5 a month.

That Friday night game @ Memphis is an AAC deal; it has nothing to do with your deal. And the Sun Belt has had multiple Tuesday/Wednesday games since 2013. It doesn't matter if it's Georgia State or Georgia Southern.

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.

(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.

(03-04-2018 01:00 PM)thefaU Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 11:33 AM)itsmeagain Wrote:  The reason I would hate CUSAs deal isn't whether they're on regular TV or not, but that some of the games are carried on CUSAtv, which costs $6 for one viewing (or $10 for a month), a couple were carried on FloSports ($30 a month), some were carried on BeIN (which, if you don't have access to it already costs $15 a month to steam), and some of them weren't carried at all. As it is now in the SBC, it doesn't matter whether it's over the air or streamed, I'm still watching via WatchESPN app that's built into my tv, I know every single conference and home game will be carried on it, and it costs me nothing extra to what I'm already paying. If we end up paying $5 a month extra for ESPN+, I'm getting access to all my schools basketball, baseball, and football games, all the conferences games, and whatever other conferences end up having contracts on there (plus any other sports are carried on there). That, plus we know we're going to have more game broadcast nationality on TV with this new contract. A lot better than having to pay for a hodgepodge of different providers to watch a single game, or having to plug a laptop into the TV (or use a phone) for social media apps.

The reason I would hate Sun Belt's deal is you're not on linear television (a few games during the week) and you're stuck behind a paywall until 2028. This severely hurts any exposure as a conference. How many subscribers who get ESPN+ for MLB, NHL, or MLS content do you actually think will tune into any Sun Belt content? My guess is that it'd be a low number. The casual viewers most likely won't subscribe to ESPN+. And how many people will subscribe to ESPN+ at all? If you look at other OTT platforms, it takes years before you build any sort of audience. In the meantime, C-USA has many games on ESPN/2/U and CBS Sports on Fridays and Saturdays. Also, my parents who have one of the most basic cable packages gets both Stadium & beIN SPORTS, which are in the same range of sports channels as ESPN, CBS Sports Network, etc. If you're flipping through to see what games are on, you'll come across a C-USA game. As for myself, I have Sling that carries all the channels and a smart TV so I can watch every game on my television. And I only pay $20 for Sling, by the way. Facebook has the potential to pick up the casual viewer that ESPN+ does not. There's a reason the Mountain West is also in talks with Stadium and not ESPN+. And you seem to forget that we're still negotiating a TV deal. No one is advocating for CUSA.tv; we would be the first to say it's ****. But we'd much rather put our content on Stadium/Facebook that can be watched on linear television and streamed online for free, which is more likely to be watched by the casual viewer and gives us more exposure, than to put everything behind an ESPN+ paywall.

Yeah... With the trade off of having CUSA games stuck behind multiple, more expensive paywalls, or having to steam through a laptop like an FCS team, or just not being broadcast at all. Which if you're cool with, cool, but I would want the commissioner kicked out for having a deal like that. Can't get worse exposure than a game with zero broadcasting.

(03-04-2018 01:21 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  Yeah... With the trade off of having CUSA games stuck behind multiple, more expensive paywalls, or having to steam through a laptop like an FCS team, or just not being broadcast at all. Which if you're cool with, cool, but I would want the commissioner kicked out for having a deal like that. Can't get worse exposure than a game with zero broadcasting.

You clearly keep ignoring the fact that we're still negotiating a TV deal and we're arguing what we'd rather have than your ESPN+ deal. But that doesn't fit your narrative.

(03-04-2018 01:16 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 12:28 PM)thefaU Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 12:19 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  This season we have two Thursday night games a Friday night game to be in national tv. In fact we've only ever had games on Thursdays and Fridays because of national TV. But also yes, one Tuesday or Wednesday night game a season is worth having every game broadcast on an accessible format that costs no more than $5 a month.

That Friday night game @ Memphis is an AAC deal; it has nothing to do with your deal. And the Sun Belt has had multiple Tuesday/Wednesday games since 2013. It doesn't matter if it's Georgia State or Georgia Southern.

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.

But as of right now you guys don't have a single Saturday game that will be shown on the ESPN's. I'm still not convinced you get any. Maybe one? And then there is still the chance that ESPN is going to move more games to the midweek.

(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.

Lol. So... There was a Saturday game... The point was that we rarely have weeknight games outside of the even-common-for-P5 Thursday night games, which you confirmed, out of approximately 130 games, only two of them were on Wednesdays (1.5%). So yeah, I stand by my opinion of saying I'd prefer have a deal where every game is broadcast on a nationally recognized carrier where a monthly payment doesn't exceed $5 and if you have a game nationally televised its most likely not on a weekday. But if you like your deal, that's awesome, congrats man. You can't ask for more than to be happy.

(03-04-2018 01:00 PM)thefaU Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 11:33 AM)itsmeagain Wrote:  The reason I would hate CUSAs deal isn't whether they're on regular TV or not, but that some of the games are carried on CUSAtv, which costs $6 for one viewing (or $10 for a month), a couple were carried on FloSports ($30 a month), some were carried on BeIN (which, if you don't have access to it already costs $15 a month to steam), and some of them weren't carried at all. As it is now in the SBC, it doesn't matter whether it's over the air or streamed, I'm still watching via WatchESPN app that's built into my tv, I know every single conference and home game will be carried on it, and it costs me nothing extra to what I'm already paying. If we end up paying $5 a month extra for ESPN+, I'm getting access to all my schools basketball, baseball, and football games, all the conferences games, and whatever other conferences end up having contracts on there (plus any other sports are carried on there). That, plus we know we're going to have more game broadcast nationality on TV with this new contract. A lot better than having to pay for a hodgepodge of different providers to watch a single game, or having to plug a laptop into the TV (or use a phone) for social media apps.

The reason I would hate Sun Belt's deal is you're not on linear television (a few games during the week) and you're stuck behind a paywall until 2028. This severely hurts any exposure as a conference. How many subscribers who get ESPN+ for MLB, NHL, or MLS content do you actually think will tune into any Sun Belt content? My guess is that it'd be a low number. The casual viewers most likely won't subscribe to ESPN+. And how many people will subscribe to ESPN+ at all? If you look at other OTT platforms, it takes years before you build any sort of audience. In the meantime, C-USA has many games on ESPN/2/U and CBS Sports on Fridays and Saturdays. Also, my parents who have one of the most basic cable packages gets both Stadium & beIN SPORTS, which are in the same range of sports channels as ESPN, CBS Sports Network, etc. If you're flipping through to see what games are on, you'll come across a C-USA game. As for myself, I have Sling that carries all the channels and a smart TV so I can watch every game on my television. And I only pay $20 for Sling, by the way. Facebook has the potential to pick up the casual viewer that ESPN+ does not. There's a reason the Mountain West is also in talks with Stadium and not ESPN+. And you seem to forget that we're still negotiating a TV deal. No one is advocating for CUSA.tv; we would be the first to say it's ****. But we'd much rather put our content on Stadium/Facebook that can be watched on linear television and streamed online for free, which is more likely to be watched by the casual viewer and gives us more exposure, than to put everything behind an ESPN+ paywall.

The only things that are changing about the Sun Belt's tv deal is this:

1. More games on cable per school, mostly still on weeknights which isn't actually a big deal. Our Thursday night games with App will still outsell most of our later-season Saturday games and probably a lot of Saturday games in CUSA.

2. 300% more games on an ESPN platform for all sports meaning either TV or ESPN+

3. ESPN+. ESPN is taking everything that was on ESPN3 along with other content that it acquired from FOX and putting it on ESPN+ and charging a subscription for it. It's $5. Some people might not want to pay for it and that's fine, but for those that are fans of the the Sun Belt,(or MLB or MLS or NHL, etc) will pay to watch their team and get a bunch of other content they aren't necessarily interested in for $5 measly dollars. If you can't forego a McDonold's meal once per month to afford ESPN+ then you have way bigger problems than ESPN monetizing its online platform.

4. ESPN is upgrading every Sun Belt school's broadcasting capabilities in order to do in-house ESPN quality broadcasts. For those of us that have already been investing in high quality broadcasts like GAST and GS, we get to just pocket that money.

5. A bigger payout. Right now Sun Belt schools make pocket change on the old tv deal. As such, we never planned our budgets around huge payouts so any extra money is welcomed but not something we've been relying on. No word yet on how much more we are making, but the only thing we know so far is that it puts us on the same level as the other G5 schools. Whatever that means.


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. Also, who even gives a rats ass about casual viewers on the internet? We weren't getting casual viewers on ESPN3 and y'all don't get casual viewers on Facebook. If either of us do, it's once in a blue moon. Casual viewers tune into cable tv where they scroll through channels and happen to see a game on. If you have to go into an app or search for a game on the internet, you're not a casual viewer. It's super nice that your parents get Bein-whatever-the-f on their cable, but for the rest of America they go to ESPN to find something to watch.

For Sun Belt fans, we know all our content for any sport will be watchable and replayable on the WatchESPN app. For CUSA fans, there are 5 different places one of your games could be. Let's pretend that CUSA did get more casual viewers, how will y'all keep those viewers coming back and becoming fans if they can't find your next game?

(03-04-2018 01:32 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  Lol. So... There was a Saturday game... The point was that we rarely have weeknight games outside of the even-common-for-P5 Thursday night games, which you confirmed, out of approximately 130 games, only two of them were on Wednesdays (1.5%). So yeah, I stand by my opinion of saying I'd prefer have a deal where every game is broadcast on a nationally recognized carrier where a monthly payment doesn't exceed $5 and if you have a game nationally televised its most likely not on a weekday. But if you like your deal, that's awesome, congrats man. You can't ask for more than to be happy.

It's actually out of 40 conference games - which is 5%. For midweek games (Tuesday-Thursday), it's 17.5%. That's almost 1 out of every 5 conference game during the week. But, as you stated, you can't ask for more than to be happy. Congrats.

If y'all were truly happy with your deal, you shouldn't give a rat's ass what we think of it. Yet, you're still over on the C-USA board.

I mean... Its a discussion about the Sun Belt. Feel like it's appropriate to respond.

(03-04-2018 01:48 PM)thefaU Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 01:32 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  Lol. So... There was a Saturday game... The point was that we rarely have weeknight games outside of the even-common-for-P5 Thursday night games, which you confirmed, out of approximately 130 games, only two of them were on Wednesdays (1.5%). So yeah, I stand by my opinion of saying I'd prefer have a deal where every game is broadcast on a nationally recognized carrier where a monthly payment doesn't exceed $5 and if you have a game nationally televised its most likely not on a weekday. But if you like your deal, that's awesome, congrats man. You can't ask for more than to be happy.

It's actually out of 40 conference games - which is 5%. For midweek games (Tuesday-Thursday), it's 17.5%. That's almost 1 out of every 5 conference game during the week. But, as you stated, you can't ask for more than to be happy. Congrats.

Indeed, and I'm quite pleased!

(03-04-2018 02:12 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  I mean... Its a discussion about the Sun Belt. Feel like it's appropriate to respond.

But, there's a difference between discussing the deal and it's details and trying to convince us of why we should be envious of it when we're clearly not.

(03-04-2018 01:42 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 01:00 PM)thefaU Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 11:33 AM)itsmeagain Wrote:  The reason I would hate CUSAs deal isn't whether they're on regular TV or not, but that some of the games are carried on CUSAtv, which costs $6 for one viewing (or $10 for a month), a couple were carried on FloSports ($30 a month), some were carried on BeIN (which, if you don't have access to it already costs $15 a month to steam), and some of them weren't carried at all. As it is now in the SBC, it doesn't matter whether it's over the air or streamed, I'm still watching via WatchESPN app that's built into my tv, I know every single conference and home game will be carried on it, and it costs me nothing extra to what I'm already paying. If we end up paying $5 a month extra for ESPN+, I'm getting access to all my schools basketball, baseball, and football games, all the conferences games, and whatever other conferences end up having contracts on there (plus any other sports are carried on there). That, plus we know we're going to have more game broadcast nationality on TV with this new contract. A lot better than having to pay for a hodgepodge of different providers to watch a single game, or having to plug a laptop into the TV (or use a phone) for social media apps.

The reason I would hate Sun Belt's deal is you're not on linear television (a few games during the week) and you're stuck behind a paywall until 2028. This severely hurts any exposure as a conference. How many subscribers who get ESPN+ for MLB, NHL, or MLS content do you actually think will tune into any Sun Belt content? My guess is that it'd be a low number. The casual viewers most likely won't subscribe to ESPN+. And how many people will subscribe to ESPN+ at all? If you look at other OTT platforms, it takes years before you build any sort of audience. In the meantime, C-USA has many games on ESPN/2/U and CBS Sports on Fridays and Saturdays. Also, my parents who have one of the most basic cable packages gets both Stadium & beIN SPORTS, which are in the same range of sports channels as ESPN, CBS Sports Network, etc. If you're flipping through to see what games are on, you'll come across a C-USA game. As for myself, I have Sling that carries all the channels and a smart TV so I can watch every game on my television. And I only pay $20 for Sling, by the way. Facebook has the potential to pick up the casual viewer that ESPN+ does not. There's a reason the Mountain West is also in talks with Stadium and not ESPN+. And you seem to forget that we're still negotiating a TV deal. No one is advocating for CUSA.tv; we would be the first to say it's ****. But we'd much rather put our content on Stadium/Facebook that can be watched on linear television and streamed online for free, which is more likely to be watched by the casual viewer and gives us more exposure, than to put everything behind an ESPN+ paywall.

The only things that are changing about the Sun Belt's tv deal is this:

1. More games on cable per school, mostly still on weeknights which isn't actually a big deal. Our Thursday night games with App will still outsell most of our later-season Saturday games and probably a lot of Saturday games in CUSA.

2. 300% more games on an ESPN platform for all sports meaning either TV or ESPN+

3. ESPN+. ESPN is taking everything that was on ESPN3 along with other content that it acquired from FOX and putting it on ESPN+ and charging a subscription for it. It's $5. Some people might not want to pay for it and that's fine, but for those that are fans of the the Sun Belt,(or MLB or MLS or NHL, etc) will pay to watch their team and get a bunch of other content they aren't necessarily interested in for $5 measly dollars. If you can't forego a McDonold's meal once per month to afford ESPN+ then you have way bigger problems than ESPN monetizing its online platform.

4. ESPN is upgrading every Sun Belt school's broadcasting capabilities in order to do in-house ESPN quality broadcasts. For those of us that have already been investing in high quality broadcasts like GAST and GS, we get to just pocket that money.

5. A bigger payout. Right now Sun Belt schools make pocket change on the old tv deal. As such, we never planned our budgets around huge payouts so any extra money is welcomed but not something we've been relying on. No word yet on how much more we are making, but the only thing we know so far is that it puts us on the same level as the other G5 schools. Whatever that means.


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. Also, who even gives a rats ass about casual viewers on the internet? We weren't getting casual viewers on ESPN3 and y'all don't get casual viewers on Facebook. If either of us do, it's once in a blue moon. Casual viewers tune into cable tv where they scroll through channels and happen to see a game on. If you have to go into an app or search for a game on the internet, you're not a casual viewer. It's super nice that your parents get Bein-whatever-the-f on their cable, but for the rest of America they go to ESPN to find something to watch.

For Sun Belt fans, we know all our content for any sport will be watchable and replayable on the WatchESPN app. For CUSA fans, there are 5 different places one of your games could be. Let's pretend that CUSA did get more casual viewers, how will y'all keep those viewers coming back and becoming fans if they can't find your next game?

This is the biggest thing to me and why I am in agreement with the dealt that the Sun Belt made. No more having to research where the C-USA game MIGHT be made available for viewing. No more checking to see if you have the means of getting that option so you can view it. No more having to purchase something like AppleTV, ROKU, Sling, etc. to get some game because it is playing on that unique stream tonight. Just get what you need one time and you are set for the rest of the year. Getting full access to all of your team's games, as well as those of your conference mates. It is an easy choice to me for a mere $5 or $6 per month. I would have to pay more than that per month just to see not more than 3 or 4 ODU games on Bein Sports.

Bein Sports - I have DirecTV and unless you purchase a separate package you don't get Bein Sports.

Stadium/Facebook - Have to jump through hoops to get the viewing from the IPAD onto the big screen. Even at that I can't seem to get it showing on more than the top 1/2 of the big screen after transferring the video.

(03-04-2018 02:02 PM)thefaU Wrote:  If y'all were truly happy with your deal, you shouldn't give a rat's ass what we think of it. Yet, you're still over on the C-USA board.

Because it’s fun to read all the posts trying to poke holes in our tv deal in order to convince yourselves that your school isn’t wasting its time. It’s also fun reading about Facebook live’s great “potential” when just a year or more ago y’all were saying the same thing about “CUSA.tv” and a few years earlier y’all were saying the same thing about your “media marketz.”

It’s just entertaining. It’s like watching a dog chase its tail.

I’m happy with what we’re getting from ESPN. I was going to get ESPN+ anyways and definitely now that all SBC sports will be on it. We were getting bare bones before and now ESPN is throwing some meat our way. At the end of the day, this deal is better than what we were getting and that’s all that matters.

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

(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.

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

Well said, tibl.

(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

I agree, YG.