(04-12-2018 12:05 PM)MUsince96 Wrote:  Agree to disagree. I'm an adult who goes to multiple football and basketball games a year. All because I discovered and could follow Marshall on TV as a child.

Out of sight, out of mind.

You are talking about a totally different time in history.....

most likely when you had 3 to 4 channels on your TV and very few games other than regional ABC/NBC sports.

espn babies and that is the fans you are talking about turning, grew up listening to talking heads telling them Marshall (any of us) is nothing compared to the BCS/P5 schools.

If playing on espn was the key the MAC would have large fanbases. Todays younger fans rather watch on a laptop or their phones. So if they wanted to view a Marshall game...they know how to view it. Then the late 30s up are in that group where watching on tv, on line or streaming out to a TV....

is better anywhere than paying the $24 dollars for a ticket, $10 for parking and another $15 to get a beer and hotdog. Not many in that age group is turning into that hardcore fan. Marshall is most likely their 2nd team behind the state P5 school. Goes for all of us.

I'm 32. I'm talking late 90's early 00's. Like I said most every game that wasn't on a national or regional channel was on ESPN Plus through local syndication.

The free advertising a school gets by playing a game on ESPN, 2, U, FS1, CBSSN even local TV does not compare to the eyes watching on Facebook or CUSATV. FB/CUSATV isn't better for fans, the school, recruiting, the players. Not anyone. To try and compare or mitigate the difference in the two is intellectually dishonest.

(04-12-2018 12:44 PM)MUsince96 Wrote:  I'm 32. I'm talking late 90's early 00's. Like I said most every game that wasn't on a national or regional channel was on ESPN Plus through local syndication.

The free advertising a school gets by playing a game on ESPN, 2, U, FS1, CBSSN even local TV does not compare to the eyes watching on Facebook or CUSATV. It's not better for fans, the school, recruiting, the players. Not anyone. To try and compare or mitigate the difference in the two is intellectually dishonest.

You are foolish if you think the 10 games (if that) CUSA would have got on espn (most likely 7 on the U) is worth 5.6 million a year. Honestly it shows your lack of critical thinking on finance.

You know how I know I'm correct? If not the 14 presidents of CUSA schools would have gave everything to espn. They didn't so they value the 5.6 million a year over 10 (if that) on one of the espn channels and probably 6 of those on a mid week game.

If a fan wanted to watch a Marshall game they can and that is what its about. Facebook is just part of the package. Along with Stadium which has a streaming TV channel and local channels. Then we have CBSSN and Bein that are TV channels.

Stop whining just because espn is better for you....the Presidents of this conference though different and did not want to give away 5.6 million dollars a year along with mid week games and espn controlling CUSA for the next 10 years.

There's no correlation between playing games on espn and growing a fanbase. Marshall is just like the rest of us. Your fans are limited to close to what you get today. Other than when you play a P5 school and I guess those fans show up to watch the P5 school because Marshall is back down to normal in the other 5 home games. Repeat for most other schools in CUSA

As far as recruiting the top of CUSA is usually ahead of the MAC and SBC and both of those play on espn. The same for the middle and bottom. The same holds true for ticket sales and RIGHTS / LICENSING. That's while never playing a game on espn other than OOC. I'm not going to say you are intellectually dishonest but will say you are foolish because nothing you said holds true. Not one point you made.

(04-12-2018 02:17 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 12:44 PM)MUsince96 Wrote:  I'm 32. I'm talking late 90's early 00's. Like I said most every game that wasn't on a national or regional channel was on ESPN Plus through local syndication.

The free advertising a school gets by playing a game on ESPN, 2, U, FS1, CBSSN even local TV does not compare to the eyes watching on Facebook or CUSATV. It's not better for fans, the school, recruiting, the players. Not anyone. To try and compare or mitigate the difference in the two is intellectually dishonest.

You are foolish if you think the 10 games (if that) CUSA would have got on espn (most likely 7 on the U) is worth 5.6 million a year. Honestly it shows your lack of critical thinking on finance.

You know how I know I'm correct? If not the 14 presidents of CUSA schools would have gave everything to espn. They didn't so they value the 5.6 million a year over 10 (if that) on one of the espn channels and probably 6 of those on a mid week game.

If a fan wanted to watch a Marshall game they can and that is what its about. Facebook is just part of the package. Along with Stadium which has a streaming TV channel and local channels. Then we have CBSSN and Bein that are TV channels.

Stop whining just because espn is better for you....the Presidents of this conference though different and did not want to give away 5.6 million dollars a year along with mid week games and espn controlling CUSA for the next 10 years.

There's no correlation between playing games on espn and growing a fanbase. Marshall is just like the rest of us. Your fans are limited to close to what you get today. Other than when you play a P5 school and I guess those fans show up to watch the P5 school because Marshall is back down to normal in the other 5 home games. Repeat for most other schools in CUSA

As far as recruiting the top of CUSA is usually ahead of the MAC and SBC and both of those play on espn. The same for the middle and bottom. The same holds true for ticket sales and RIGHTS / LICENSING. That's while never playing a game on espn other than OOC. I'm not going to say you are intellectually dishonest but will say you are foolish because nothing you said holds true. Not one point you made.

The same Presidents who hired Judy? The same ones who signed off our AAU conference title venue? The same presidents who gave us the last two years of TV awesomeness? I could go on. Yeah, the collective brilliance of this conference's leadership is tough to deny.

It's not a real good look for you that is what you based your whole premise on - particularly when chastising someone over your perceived view of their intelligence.

(04-12-2018 02:17 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  There's no correlation between playing games on espn and growing a fanbase.

I will give you one. And it is in your own damn state.

Louisville. They never get to where they are without ESPN and playing dozens of those Thursday night games.

(04-12-2018 02:30 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 02:17 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  There's no correlation between playing games on espn and growing a fanbase.

I will give you one. And it is in your own damn state.

Louisville. They never get to where they are without ESPN and playing dozens of those Thursday night games.

You are crazy if you think espn had anything to do with their basketball attendance or football. Basketball always had great attendance and winning along with moving to a BCS conference grew their football base. Not Thursday night games....

just another thing you think you know but really dont

(04-12-2018 02:17 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 12:44 PM)MUsince96 Wrote:  I'm 32. I'm talking late 90's early 00's. Like I said most every game that wasn't on a national or regional channel was on ESPN Plus through local syndication.

The free advertising a school gets by playing a game on ESPN, 2, U, FS1, CBSSN even local TV does not compare to the eyes watching on Facebook or CUSATV. It's not better for fans, the school, recruiting, the players. Not anyone. To try and compare or mitigate the difference in the two is intellectually dishonest.

You are foolish if you think the 10 games (if that) CUSA would have got on espn (most likely 7 on the U) is worth 5.6 million a year. Honestly it shows your lack of critical thinking on finance.

You know how I know I'm correct? If not the 14 presidents of CUSA schools would have gave everything to espn. They didn't so they value the 5.6 million a year over 10 (if that) on one of the espn channels and probably 6 of those on a mid week game.

If a fan wanted to watch a Marshall game they can and that is what its about. Facebook is just part of the package. Along with Stadium which has a streaming TV channel and local channels. Then we have CBSSN and Bein that are TV channels.

Stop whining just because espn is better for you....the Presidents of this conference though different and did not want to give away 5.6 million dollars a year along with mid week games and espn controlling CUSA for the next 10 years.

There's no correlation between playing games on espn and growing a fanbase. Marshall is just like the rest of us. Your fans are limited to close to what you get today. Other than when you play a P5 school and I guess those fans show up to watch the P5 school because Marshall is back down to normal in the other 5 home games. Repeat for most other schools in CUSA

As far as recruiting the top of CUSA is usually ahead of the MAC and SBC and both of those play on espn. The same for the middle and bottom. The same holds true for ticket sales and RIGHTS / LICENSING. That's while never playing a game on espn other than OOC. I'm not going to say you are intellectually dishonest but will say you are foolish because nothing you said holds true. Not one point you made.

What's foolish is thinking that playing on a website for 2,000 people is in any way better than or equal to playing on TV for tens to hundreds of thousands.

What are you even arguing anyway? My original post was about eyes on the product saying "We know a few hundred thousand will watch our games if they're on a convenient channel like ESPN2. If they have to seek it out on Stadium, Facebook, or BeIn only the hardcore few will be watching."

That statement is in no way debatable.


If you're changing the argument to "TV exposure hurts attendance". That's fine. We can have that different conversation. It may have hurt WKU, I'm not pretending to know more about WKU than you. But it helped schools like Marshall, Boise State, Louisville etc.

But please continue with the insult laced tirade. I'll try and keep it cordial and on topic. Which is how I imagine you might behave if this conversation were in person.

(04-12-2018 02:29 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 02:17 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 12:44 PM)MUsince96 Wrote:  I'm 32. I'm talking late 90's early 00's. Like I said most every game that wasn't on a national or regional channel was on ESPN Plus through local syndication.

The free advertising a school gets by playing a game on ESPN, 2, U, FS1, CBSSN even local TV does not compare to the eyes watching on Facebook or CUSATV. It's not better for fans, the school, recruiting, the players. Not anyone. To try and compare or mitigate the difference in the two is intellectually dishonest.

You are foolish if you think the 10 games (if that) CUSA would have got on espn (most likely 7 on the U) is worth 5.6 million a year. Honestly it shows your lack of critical thinking on finance.

You know how I know I'm correct? If not the 14 presidents of CUSA schools would have gave everything to espn. They didn't so they value the 5.6 million a year over 10 (if that) on one of the espn channels and probably 6 of those on a mid week game.

If a fan wanted to watch a Marshall game they can and that is what its about. Facebook is just part of the package. Along with Stadium which has a streaming TV channel and local channels. Then we have CBSSN and Bein that are TV channels.

Stop whining just because espn is better for you....the Presidents of this conference though different and did not want to give away 5.6 million dollars a year along with mid week games and espn controlling CUSA for the next 10 years.

There's no correlation between playing games on espn and growing a fanbase. Marshall is just like the rest of us. Your fans are limited to close to what you get today. Other than when you play a P5 school and I guess those fans show up to watch the P5 school because Marshall is back down to normal in the other 5 home games. Repeat for most other schools in CUSA

As far as recruiting the top of CUSA is usually ahead of the MAC and SBC and both of those play on espn. The same for the middle and bottom. The same holds true for ticket sales and RIGHTS / LICENSING. That's while never playing a game on espn other than OOC. I'm not going to say you are intellectually dishonest but will say you are foolish because nothing you said holds true. Not one point you made.

The same Presidents who hired Judy? The same ones who signed off our AAU conference title venue? The same presidents who gave us the last two years of TV awesomeness? I could go on. Yeah, the collective brilliance of this conference's leadership is tough to deny.

It's not a real good look for you that is what you based your whole premise on - particularly when chastising someone over your perceived view of their intelligence.

Why does it matter where the conference tourney is played? You're not showing up just like the 98% of the others on this board that complains. If fans would stop complaining and actually support their school it wouldn't matter where it was played...

but do you really think it looked any worse than last year

(04-12-2018 02:37 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 02:30 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 02:17 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  There's no correlation between playing games on espn and growing a fanbase.

I will give you one. And it is in your own damn state.

Louisville. They never get to where they are without ESPN and playing dozens of those Thursday night games.

You are crazy if you think espn had anything to do with their basketball attendance or football. Basketball always had great attendance and winning along with moving to a BCS conference grew their football base. Not Thursday night games....

just another thing you think you know but really dont

Oh really. Then call me crazy then. Actually, this is something I know about, because I have close contacts who are Execs and NBC and ESPN, and I talked to them quite a bit back during the realignment years when I was writing on the topic for a few outlets. So really I will leave this here and you can STFU or GTFO. I don't care which, but this is one you are dead wrong on. But of course you never admit when you're wrong so perhaps just STFU would be a good start on this one...

“If it wasn’t for ESPN, we would be a fraction of what we are today,” Tom Jurich, Louisville’s longtime athletic director, said in an interview in his office...We owe them so, so much,” Mr. Jurich said of ESPN. “They were willing to take a chance on us.”"

Louisville’s ascent is a case study of how an institution of higher learning can become all but inextricably conjoined with ESPN, an institution of higher profits. It illustrates not only ESPN’s power to make kings among athletic programs, but how profoundly its presence can affect an entire university and its institutional priorities.

What ESPN offered Louisville, beyond millions of dollars in fees for television rights, was prime-time exposure on the leading sports network, putting Cardinals football in front of national audiences of fans, donors, recruits and prospective students.





The cost to Louisville? It had to be ready to play whenever ESPN could fit the Cardinals into its schedule.

“Louisville came to us and said, ‘We’ll play anyone, anywhere, anytime,’ ” said Mark Shapiro, a former head of programming and production at ESPN. Indeed, “anytime, anywhere” became Mr. Jurich’s motto in his early years as athletic director.

When he took over in 1997, the athletic department struggled on an annual budget of about $14 million and attracted little outside attention for sports other than men’s basketball. Today, the budget has swollen to about $77 million, and it will increase significantly with the move to the A.C.C. in 2014.


https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/26/sport...by-tv.html

(04-12-2018 02:37 PM)MUsince96 Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 02:17 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 12:44 PM)MUsince96 Wrote:  I'm 32. I'm talking late 90's early 00's. Like I said most every game that wasn't on a national or regional channel was on ESPN Plus through local syndication.

The free advertising a school gets by playing a game on ESPN, 2, U, FS1, CBSSN even local TV does not compare to the eyes watching on Facebook or CUSATV. It's not better for fans, the school, recruiting, the players. Not anyone. To try and compare or mitigate the difference in the two is intellectually dishonest.

You are foolish if you think the 10 games (if that) CUSA would have got on espn (most likely 7 on the U) is worth 5.6 million a year. Honestly it shows your lack of critical thinking on finance.

You know how I know I'm correct? If not the 14 presidents of CUSA schools would have gave everything to espn. They didn't so they value the 5.6 million a year over 10 (if that) on one of the espn channels and probably 6 of those on a mid week game.

If a fan wanted to watch a Marshall game they can and that is what its about. Facebook is just part of the package. Along with Stadium which has a streaming TV channel and local channels. Then we have CBSSN and Bein that are TV channels.

Stop whining just because espn is better for you....the Presidents of this conference though different and did not want to give away 5.6 million dollars a year along with mid week games and espn controlling CUSA for the next 10 years.

There's no correlation between playing games on espn and growing a fanbase. Marshall is just like the rest of us. Your fans are limited to close to what you get today. Other than when you play a P5 school and I guess those fans show up to watch the P5 school because Marshall is back down to normal in the other 5 home games. Repeat for most other schools in CUSA

As far as recruiting the top of CUSA is usually ahead of the MAC and SBC and both of those play on espn. The same for the middle and bottom. The same holds true for ticket sales and RIGHTS / LICENSING. That's while never playing a game on espn other than OOC. I'm not going to say you are intellectually dishonest but will say you are foolish because nothing you said holds true. Not one point you made.

What's foolish is thinking that playing on a website for 2,000 people is in any way better than or equal to playing on TV for tens to hundreds of thousands.

What are you even arguing anyway? My original post was about eyes on the product saying "We know a few hundred thousand will watch our games if they're on a convenient channel like ESPN2. If they have to seek it out on Stadium, Facebook, or BeIn only the hardcore few will be watching."

That statement is in no way debatable.


If you're changing the argument to "TV exposure hurts attendance". That's fine. We can have that different conversation. It may have hurt WKU, I'm not pretending to know more about WKU than you. But it helped schools like Marshall, Boise State, Louisville etc.

But please continue with the insult laced tirade. I'll try and keep it cordial and on topic. Which is how I imagine you might behave if this conversation were in person.

I believe it was you not me that started with the insults "intellectually dishonest". So now you are whining again, just like you have in a number of post but this time about someone calling you foolish If you made the same arguments in person I wouldn't have any problem saying they were foolish....

All of your arguments other than more people would watch on TV than facebook (which I never disagreed with) was based on your emotions and not one fact. You moved your argument 3 to 5 different ways and every time I used facts with my reply.

So yeah, its very foolish to think just playing on espn means more of anything...other than maybe a few more eyes. Which means nothing in the over all argument ypu tried to make....

in growing your fanbase

Sigh. But it did grow our fanbase. And allowed us to send 2 players to NYC as Heisman finalists. Exposure affected us differently than it did WKU. We are not the same. Your football attendance during great years is what ours looks like when the fanbase has completely given up and coaches are replaced.

And look at your first reply to my first post. I simply followed the convo where you took it.

Also I didn't mean intellectually dishonest as a personal insult. I'm sorry if it was perceived that way.

(04-12-2018 02:47 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 02:37 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 02:30 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 02:17 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  There's no correlation between playing games on espn and growing a fanbase.

I will give you one. And it is in your own damn state.

Louisville. They never get to where they are without ESPN and playing dozens of those Thursday night games.

You are crazy if you think espn had anything to do with their basketball attendance or football. Basketball always had great attendance and winning along with moving to a BCS conference grew their football base. Not Thursday night games....

just another thing you think you know but really dont

Oh really. Then call me crazy then. Actually, this is something I know about, because I have close contacts who are Execs and NBC and ESPN, so really I will leave this here and you can STFU or GTFO. I don't care which, but this is one you are dead wrong on. But of course you never admit when you're wrong so perhaps just STFU would be a good start on this one...

“If it wasn’t for ESPN, we would be a fraction of what we are today,” Tom Jurich, Louisville’s longtime athletic director, said in an interview in his office...We owe them so, so much,” Mr. Jurich said of ESPN. “They were willing to take a chance on us.”"

Louisville’s ascent is a case study of how an institution of higher learning can become all but inextricably conjoined with ESPN, an institution of higher profits. It illustrates not only ESPN’s power to make kings among athletic programs, but how profoundly its presence can affect an entire university and its institutional priorities.

What ESPN offered Louisville, beyond millions of dollars in fees for television rights, was prime-time exposure on the leading sports network, putting Cardinals football in front of national audiences of fans, donors, recruits and prospective students.





The cost to Louisville? It had to be ready to play whenever ESPN could fit the Cardinals into its schedule.

“Louisville came to us and said, ‘We’ll play anyone, anywhere, anytime,’ ” said Mark Shapiro, a former head of programming and production at ESPN. Indeed, “anytime, anywhere” became Mr. Jurich’s motto in his early years as athletic director.

When he took over in 1997, the athletic department struggled on an annual budget of about $14 million and attracted little outside attention for sports other than men’s basketball. Today, the budget has swollen to about $77 million, and it will increase significantly with the move to the A.C.C. in 2014.


https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/26/sport...by-tv.html

What in the hell does that have to do with your argument of growing their fanbase?

Louisville has been in the top 5 in basketball attendance since the 80s. Louisville winning and then moving to the Big East a BCS conference grew their football fanbase. UofL was usually in the 35k range while playing in CUSA and jumped up to the 42k range once they moved to the Big East and 50k in 2010 and jumped to 55k their first year in the ACC

Winning and moving had more to do with UofL's fan growth in football because once thery moved to the Big East they went through 3 years of losing

espn might have hilp get their overall sports programs to where they are today as the article states but their fanbase grew with winning a move to a BCS conference the a P5 conference. espn had zero to do with UofL moving to the Big East and then to the ACC.....

WINNING got them to a BCS then being the best of the rest got them to the ACC

(04-12-2018 03:10 PM)MUsince96 Wrote:  Sigh. But it did grow our fanbase. And allowed us to send 2 players to NYC as Heisman finalists. Exposure affected us differently than it did WKU. We are not the same. Your football attendance during great years is what ours looks like when the fanbase has completely given up and coaches are replaced.

And look at your first reply to my first post. I simply followed the convo where you took it.

Also I didn't mean intellectually dishonest as a personal insult. I'm sorry if it was perceived that way.

Playing a few games on TV wasn't the reason Marshall sent " 2 players to NYC as Heisman finalists" and no where did I say Marshall and Western had the same fanbase.

What I actually said (still stand by) we all are limited to how far we grow our fanbase and constant winning will improve it more than anything.

But since you think different list Marshall's attendance numbers and the number of times Marshall played on TV. Since you are making the argument it shouldn't be hard for you to back it up with numbers? Again Marshall is no different than Western you have a very limited hardcore base to draw from. Game in game out I say Marshall is pushing that limit unless Marshall starts winning and winning and winning...along with ranking that move up the charts. One game against a P5 school in a season does not mean that is Marshall's potential base.

Hell if that's the case Western drew 48k (somewhere close) when we played UK in our home game in Nashville. But then again I know that's not a true base number.

Moving from a 16,500 seat stadium that didn't sell out to an originally 28,000 seat now 38k+ seat stadium should tell you all you need to know about the fanbase growing.

Winning + exposure (nationally, regionally, and locally) grew us.

You think Boise State becomes a national brand on winning alone? No, exposure got them there.

Also Moss and Pennington don't get there on talent alone playing at a school like Marshall. We both know you need the machine in Bristol behind you to get that far.

(04-12-2018 03:31 PM)MUsince96 Wrote:  Moving from a 16,500 seat stadium that didn't sell out to an originally 28,000 seat now 38k+ seat stadium should tell you all you need to know about the fanbase growing.

Winning + exposure (nationally, regionally, and locally) grew us.

You think Boise State becomes a national brand on winning alone? No, exposure got them there.

Also Moss and Pennington don't get there on talent alone playing at a school like Marshall. We both know you need the machine in Bristol behind you to get that far.

So you dont have the number of TV game vs attendance to back it up on? I think what you are not adding into your post.....

a few 1AA championships and then a jump to FBS did more for the move and jump in attendance "16,500 seat stadium that didn't sell out to an originally 28,000 seat" That Marshall usually averages in the 20 to 24 range. Marshall was playing games on SSN & WSAZ way before the attendance jump...that happened with winning 1aa championships and the move to FBS

Somebody doesn't understand the premise of growing the brand while at the same time providing evidence of the brand growing. LMAO.

(04-12-2018 04:09 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Somebody doesn't understand the premise of growing the brand while at the same time providing evidence of the brand growing. LMAO.

It wasn't about growing the brand. I asked you to name a school that grow their fanbase on the back of espn.

From 1997 to 2003 UofL played 21 games on espn/2 a avg of 3 games a season and most of those were CUSA games

(04-12-2018 04:18 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 04:09 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Somebody doesn't understand the premise of growing the brand while at the same time providing evidence of the brand growing. LMAO.

It wasn't about growing the brand. I asked you to name a school that grow their fanbase on the back of espn.

From 1997 to 2003 UofL played 21 games on espn/2 a avg of 3 games a season and most of those were CUSA games

Virginia Tech would be an example. They had one good season in 1996, but then started playing big games on Thursdays and that exposure helped turn them into a brand.

I selfishly want something with ESPN because it should help UAB. Birmingham is the #1 market for college football. Not only that but I've been told Birmingham is the #1 market for most college sports, and ESPNU in particular. Casual bammers and barners in Birmingham start catching UAB on TV, doing well, and playing in their new stadium, it will absolutely start to drive more fans.

(04-12-2018 04:08 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 03:31 PM)MUsince96 Wrote:  Moving from a 16,500 seat stadium that didn't sell out to an originally 28,000 seat now 38k+ seat stadium should tell you all you need to know about the fanbase growing.

Winning + exposure (nationally, regionally, and locally) grew us.

You think Boise State becomes a national brand on winning alone? No, exposure got them there.

Also Moss and Pennington don't get there on talent alone playing at a school like Marshall. We both know you need the machine in Bristol behind you to get that far.

So you dont have the number of TV game vs attendance to back it up on? I think what you are not adding into your post.....

a few 1AA championships and then a jump to FBS did more for the move and jump in attendance "16,500 seat stadium that didn't sell out to an originally 28,000 seat" That Marshall usually averages in the 20 to 24 range. Marshall was playing games on SSN & WSAZ way before the attendance jump...that happened with winning 1aa championships and the move to FBS

No I don't keep track of TV to attendance ratio figures. You'll have to take the word of a guy who says He buys tickets now bc of watching them on TV then. Any AD in the country and common sense.

Those local and regional channels you named were channels the ESPN Plus syndicated network aired on. I clearly said local and regional helped too.

Any form of real channel exposure helps. Not just ESPN. I also clearly named other networks as examples as well.

(04-12-2018 04:32 PM)Auburn_Blazer Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 04:18 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 04:09 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Somebody doesn't understand the premise of growing the brand while at the same time providing evidence of the brand growing. LMAO.

It wasn't about growing the brand. I asked you to name a school that grow their fanbase on the back of espn.

From 1997 to 2003 UofL played 21 games on espn/2 a avg of 3 games a season and most of those were CUSA games

Virginia Tech would be an example. They had one good season in 1996, but then started playing big games on Thursdays and that exposure helped turn them into a brand.

I selfishly want something with ESPN because it should help UAB. Birmingham is the #1 market for college football. Not only that but I've been told Birmingham is the #1 market for most college sports, and ESPNU in particular. Casual bammers and barners in Birmingham start catching UAB on TV, doing well, and playing in their new stadium, it will absolutely start to drive more fans.

I think you are kind of understating Virginia Tech's history in making then sound like a sister of the poor before 1996....

93,94,95 they were ranked and in the top 10 in 1995 and they were ranked in '86

I don't see how it was just a boost from espn off the 1996 season since they were ranked 14 in '97, 14 in '98, 2 in '99, 2 in '00 and followed up that up with 5, 3, 3 rankings. Did playing on espn help...I'm sure it did.

But to be honest it's like the whole world has changed since the late 90s...

espn had more of a impact and today there's probably 20 to 1 more games shown and that waters down the importance of espn and TV. Still a impact but not as much today.

I'm sure there's probably a few others...BCS/P5 programs that espn helped but Not one of our schools are in that same boat....conference wise and that plays a larger role.

You can point to espn as the main beneficiary when it comes to a lot of the middle and lower P5 schools in basketball....before espn started pimping conference. A lot of the lower to middle schools in these conferences were awful in basketball and with very little history