(07-30-2018 06:13 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 05:18 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(07-29-2018 10:22 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(07-28-2018 09:37 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  I look for tv contracts all over P5 and G5 to be down. ESPN is losing money overall and they will be offering all less , the rest will follow. One thing could prove me wrong, streaming services like Amazon, Hulu and Netflix could disrupt everything. It will be very interesting.

Schools currently in debt could potentially have trouble.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It was only a bit over a year ago that ESPN spend a record amount of money no their portion of the new B10 contract. Eventually the growth will slow down or even stop. But I don't see anyone getting LESS in the next 6 - 8 years.

Ask the on air people who got laid off what they think about being expendable when ESPN has continued to INCREASE payments for all kinds of live sports content - P6, G4, UFC...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

FIFY

Yeah really. Organizations will do what they need to do to streamline and maximize profits. The on-air people who got laid off were not generating revenue. I'd be willing to bet that the business development folks over there are doing just fine.

(07-30-2018 05:18 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(07-29-2018 10:22 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(07-28-2018 09:37 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  I look for tv contracts all over P5 and G5 to be down. ESPN is losing money overall and they will be offering all less , the rest will follow. One thing could prove me wrong, streaming services like Amazon, Hulu and Netflix could disrupt everything. It will be very interesting.

Schools currently in debt could potentially have trouble.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It was only a bit over a year ago that ESPN spend a record amount of money no their portion of the new B10 contract. Eventually the growth will slow down or even stop. But I don't see anyone getting LESS in the next 6 - 8 years.

Ask the on air people who got laid off what they think.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

they got laid off cuz they weren't producing (in espn's eyes). Right after the layoffs they went out and poached a bunch of high caliber on air talent including woj-bomb who is the premier nba insider. Lots of companies hire and fire people all the time but the fact remains espn is doling out money left and right for tv contracts and theres no reason to think that is going to stop anytime soon. Disney just paid a record number for Fox.

(07-30-2018 05:18 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(07-29-2018 10:22 PM)Square Knight Wrote:  

(07-28-2018 09:37 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  I look for tv contracts all over P5 and G5 to be down. ESPN is losing money overall and they will be offering all less , the rest will follow. One thing could prove me wrong, streaming services like Amazon, Hulu and Netflix could disrupt everything. It will be very interesting.

Schools currently in debt could potentially have trouble.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It was only a bit over a year ago that ESPN spend a record amount of money no their portion of the new B10 contract. Eventually the growth will slow down or even stop. But I don't see anyone getting LESS in the next 6 - 8 years.

Ask the on air people who got laid off what they think.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If you are saying that ESPiN is laying off these people to show less football games, I will accept your argument. That does not seem to be what is happening when the network is attracting inventory with adding ESPiN+. Getting cheaper salaries seem more in line with the layoffs. 2 for the price of 1.

(07-30-2018 03:06 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  MOUNTAIN time zone... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the least populated time zone?

Alaska Tine Zone and Hawaii-Aleutian Time Zone both have fewer people than Mountain Time Zone.

(07-31-2018 07:20 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 03:06 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  MOUNTAIN time zone... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the least populated time zone?

Alaska Tine Zone and Hawaii-Aleutian Time Zone both have fewer people than Mountain Time Zone.

I was implying contiguous but still..

(07-31-2018 07:59 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 07:20 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 03:06 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  MOUNTAIN time zone... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the least populated time zone?

Alaska Tine Zone and Hawaii-Aleutian Time Zone both have fewer people than Mountain Time Zone.

I was implying contiguous but still..

Lulz... I knew you meant that -- I was really trying to point out how irrelevant MTZ is from a media-standpoint.

What, you can only watch a game from your time zone? The Pac Coast is hardly irrelevant and if the MTZ put on a compelling game, all time zones will tune in. I meant contiguous US time zones.

(07-30-2018 03:06 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  To those falling over themselves saying we should add Boise...
A university that has...

-A long flight that's difficult to get to
-Exists in an area devoid of recruiting talent
-Has no natural rivalries with current members
-No academic clout to speak of
-Not contiguous with current members
-MOUNTAIN time zone... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the least populated time zone?

We have nothing to gain from adding Boise in the long run. It's Boise that needs us.

Anyone who pretends Boise State football hasn't been successful and built a brand in the last 15 years is either jealous or delusions. 11 top 25 finishes. 4 top 10 finishes.

One could argue that they play a soft schedule and pad the wins, but they seem to try to schedule as P5 teams, not avoid them. Since 2002 a quick tally has them as 16 - 13 against P5 teams (add 9 - 4 to the tally if you count TCU and Utah as P5 before they officially joined, and count BYU as P5). So, one could further argue that against P5 competition they are mediocre. But I'd argue their P5 slate is harder than many P5 teams in-conference slate (low tier P5s want no part of an away game at Boise).

Against the American they are 10-1 in the same period (okay, they did schedule Tulsa, SMU, UCONN, and ECU. But that's the sample we have to work with).

You've got to respect what Boise has done. If I were a fan, I'd be very happy with the results.

That said... the above poster has great points.

Too far away. Market too small (media market rank #106, Tulsa [not a large market] ranks 56). Recruiting territory non existent (~3 Idaho FBS recruits per year, Oklahoma [again, not a powerhouse] produces in the mid 30s). Wrong time zone. One sport wonder. And, as far as I can tell, doesn't bring anything else to the table (not a tourist destination, not a rival, not an academic super star).

This is, by no means, tooting Tulsa recently very quiet horn. If Boise was in the same vicinity as Tulsa or Tulane or... I'm guessing we could easily have been passed over. Location, location, location. But it seems unlikely that the numbers would work given the above.

I don't know why we argue about whether to include Boise (travel, small market, etc.) when the only reason to add them would be the buyer willing to pay up. If adding two football teams bring our price/team up across the board sufficiently and not adding them doesn't, then we will add, period, or else we're self destructive. IMO adding BYU and Boise gets the AAC much more money and prestige.

If adding BYU and Boise gets us to the $56 million per team, per year required to keep ECU from moving their football team to the NFC East, then I say do it.