The Indy idea might be a no-go but the MWC could probably do a better media deal if it were smaller. 8 is all that is needed for an FBS conference so Hawaii, SDSU, Fresno St, Boise St, UNLV, CSU, UNM and AFA (or WYO if AFA wanted to do Indy) would be a more concentrated, higher level conference that might demand a decent media deal.

This is intriguing. All of G5 is feeling this. Travel expense is going to force the hand.

David's idea of YSU on the ACC network......cant see that but I like the idea of G5 pooling recources on a conference network though or as part of the P5s.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

(07-08-2017 09:00 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  David's idea of YSU on the ACC network......cant see that but I like the idea of G5 pooling recources on a conference network though or as part of the P5s.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

I believe a G5 network makes a tremendous amout of sense---for multiple reasons.

1) Its tremendous expsosure and will offer national broadcast time slots not typcially available to G5's.

2) It offers a national statge from which to launch talking head shows and a "Game Day" clone that focuses on the G5. A network treating the G5 seriously could draw a very sizable loyal audience.

3) It would create a alternative to any ESPN take it or leave it offer. Essentially, it creates another bidder in the marketplace.

4) If you keep the price very low, the network would be on the basic tier of most cable systems and would likely have almost as many subscribers as ESPN. 80 million subscribers at 13 cents a month is over 10,4 million a month. Split evenly, thats about 125 million a year---or 25 million per G5 conference (roughly 2 million per school). Better yet, that mostly 2nd and 3rd tier inventory. It still leaves each conference with plenty of inventory to sell to traditional outlets. Add in 5 regional nets (like the Pac12 Network does) and a robust streaming option---and the G5 has all the quality exposure they need.

As the network gains traction and viewership, you can slowly bump up the rate to increase revenue while maintaining subscriber levels. At a still very reasonable 50 cents per subscriber the network would bring home 480 million a year---almost 100 million per G5. A G5 network could feasibly do that because the 65 G5 fanbases basicly have a nationwide footprint and (as a group) have as a fanbase thats as large or larger than most any P5 confernece. If you had each confernece sending 20 games to the network---its 100 game inventory is going to be hard for cable systems to ignore. Its low price means it probably gets added without facing much resistance.

Under the current rules, no G5 (other than Army), WANTS to be an independent. You receive less from the CFP and you aren't represented on the NCAA Board of Directors.

(07-08-2017 01:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-08-2017 09:00 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  David's idea of YSU on the ACC network......cant see that but I like the idea of G5 pooling recources on a conference network though or as part of the P5s.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

I believe a G5 network makes a tremendous amout of sense---for multiple reasons.

1) Its tremendous expsosure and will offer national broadcast time slots not typcially available to G5's.

2) It offers a national statge from which to launch talking head shows and a "Game Day" clone that focuses on the G5. A network treating the G5 seriously could draw a very sizable loyal audience.

3) It would create a alternative to any ESPN take it or leave it offer. Essentially, it creates another bidder in the marketplace.

4) If you keep the price very low, the network would be on the basic tier of most cable systems and would likely have almost as many subscribers as ESPN. 80 million subscribers at 13 cents a month is over 10,4 million a month. Split evenly, thats about 125 million a year---or 25 million per G5 conference (roughly 2 million per school). Better yet, that mostly 2nd and 3rd tier inventory. It still leaves each conference with plenty of inventory to sell to traditional outlets. Add in 5 regional nets (like the Pac12 Network does) and a robust streaming option---and the G5 has all the quality exposure they need.

As the network gains traction and viewership, you can slowly bump up the rate to increase revenue while maintaining subscriber levels. At a still very reasonable 50 cents per subscriber the network would bring home 480 million a year---almost 100 million per G5. A G5 network could feasibly do that because the 65 G5 fanbases basicly have a nationwide footprint and (as a group) have as a fanbase thats as large or larger than most any P5 confernece. If you had each confernece sending 20 games to the network---its 100 game inventory is going to be hard for cable systems to ignore. Its low price means it probably gets added without facing much resistance.

So would this be in addition to another contract for the top tier games? For example, ECU home games vs ACC teams could still be on ESPN/ABC correct?

(07-08-2017 03:31 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-08-2017 01:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-08-2017 09:00 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  David's idea of YSU on the ACC network......cant see that but I like the idea of G5 pooling recources on a conference network though or as part of the P5s.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

I believe a G5 network makes a tremendous amout of sense---for multiple reasons.

1) Its tremendous expsosure and will offer national broadcast time slots not typcially available to G5's.

2) It offers a national statge from which to launch talking head shows and a "Game Day" clone that focuses on the G5. A network treating the G5 seriously could draw a very sizable loyal audience.

3) It would create a alternative to any ESPN take it or leave it offer. Essentially, it creates another bidder in the marketplace.

4) If you keep the price very low, the network would be on the basic tier of most cable systems and would likely have almost as many subscribers as ESPN. 80 million subscribers at 13 cents a month is over 10,4 million a month. Split evenly, thats about 125 million a year---or 25 million per G5 conference (roughly 2 million per school). Better yet, that mostly 2nd and 3rd tier inventory. It still leaves each conference with plenty of inventory to sell to traditional outlets. Add in 5 regional nets (like the Pac12 Network does) and a robust streaming option---and the G5 has all the quality exposure they need.

As the network gains traction and viewership, you can slowly bump up the rate to increase revenue while maintaining subscriber levels. At a still very reasonable 50 cents per subscriber the network would bring home 480 million a year---almost 100 million per G5. A G5 network could feasibly do that because the 65 G5 fanbases basicly have a nationwide footprint and (as a group) have as a fanbase thats as large or larger than most any P5 confernece. If you had each confernece sending 20 games to the network---its 100 game inventory is going to be hard for cable systems to ignore. Its low price means it probably gets added without facing much resistance.

So would this be in addition to another contract for the top tier games? For example, ECU home games vs ACC teams could still be on ESPN/ABC correct?

Yup. Each conference would have to spin off "X" number of games to G5 Network (mostly 3rd tier content). But I'd also make it where the network gets 7 weeks with first picks and 7 weeks with second picks (one for each week of the season) equally distributed over the 5 non-power conferences. That way, the network gets at least one decent game every week of the football season and not just all crap games. That would have little affect on the ability of each conference to sell off their normal first and second tier inventory packages. I'd also give the network 10 million to spend on better games. So, the G5 network would have 10 million dollars to bid on 1rst and 2nd tier rights packages offered by the G5 conferences. That 10 million would force low ballers and free rider networks to at least make a a reasonable bid for G5 content. That a secondary way of increasing the value of G5 content. The hope would be that advirtising revenue would largely cover production/operating costs and most of the subscriber fees would flow directly to the conferences as revenue.

I don't why MWC let thier network die, or no other conf bought it, like B-E

(07-08-2017 09:00 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  David's idea of YSU on the ACC network......cant see that but I like the idea of G5 pooling recources on a conference network though or as part of the P5s.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

Just like all those buggy and horse-drawn wagon makers after the introduction of the automobile.

Seriously here... Put all the "g" conferences into a network that nobody wants or would watch. Brilliant!

And in other news, 5x0 still equals 0.

There is no way to jerry rig the basic principle of interest in your product.

Internet streaming isn't some magical vehicle to make millions of people care about MWC football teams, who didn't before.

The G5 conferences could still expand without losing much. You do have some good schools at the FCS level that can keep more inventory. Eastern Washington, North Dakota State, South Dakota State, Jacksonville State and James Madison could bring something to the G5 network because they are strong football brands in the FCS right now.

(07-08-2017 04:15 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The G5 conferences could still expand without losing much. You do have some good schools at the FCS level that can keep more inventory. Eastern Washington, North Dakota State, South Dakota State, Jacksonville State and James Madison could bring something to the G5 network because they are strong football brands in the FCS right now.

Stop talking.

(07-08-2017 04:14 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  There is no way to jerry rig the basic principle of interest in your product.

Internet streaming isn't some magical vehicle to make millions of people care about MWC football teams, who didn't before.

This. Not sure how not having a TV deal and moving everything to streaming is a positive at the G5 level...in fact that is what FCS conferences like the BSC already have...so I guess this idea has that going for it.

If you can get a waiver from the NCAA, for a semifinal round of playoff games (2), for conferences bigger than @14 members, you merge the MWC schools with the AAC for football-only, and have a REALLY strong conference champion. I think the TV $ pie gets adjusted significantly.

CSU
AFA
UNM
Wyoming
Utah State
BSU

Hawaii
UNLV
Nevada
SJSU
Fresno State
SDSU

Cincy
Navy
UConn
ECU
Temple
USF

UCF
Memphis
Tulane
Houston
SMU
Tulsa

Can this be done? Can a conference de-sponsor a sport, in order to be absorbed by another conference? You wouldn't be slicing the existing-pie thinner. You wouldn't be just combining 2 already-small pies. TV market access would be impressive. You wouldn't stop at 24. You would tweak competitively and geographically.

That wasn't too creative. 3 divisions of 8 would be fun too.
Utah State
BSU
Hawaii
UNLV
Nevada
SJSU
Fresno State
SDSU

Cincy
Navy
UConn
ECU
Temple
USF
UCF
Memphis

Tulane
Houston
SMU
Tulsa
CSU
AFA
UNM
Wyoming

(07-08-2017 04:15 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The G5 conferences could still expand without losing much. You do have some good schools at the FCS level that can keep more inventory. Eastern Washington, North Dakota State, South Dakota State, Jacksonville State and James Madison could bring something to the G5 network because they are strong football brands in the FCS right now.

You are making an assumption there is some sort of need for additional G5 inventory. There is absolutely no logical reason I can think of to support that view. Over the last decade, the ONLY reason an expansion of G5 inventory has occurred was to save G5 conference's threatened with collapse. Unless a conference is threatened with collapse, I dont think you'll see any expansion by the G5 conferences.

(07-09-2017 01:28 PM)USM@FTL Wrote:  That wasn't too creative. 3 divisions of 8 would be fun too.
Utah State
BSU
Hawaii
UNLV
Nevada
SJSU
Fresno State
SDSU

Cincy
Navy
UConn
ECU
Temple
USF
UCF
Memphis

Tulane
Houston
SMU
Tulsa
CSU
AFA
UNM
Wyoming

A large nationwide "best of the rest" conference of 18-24 is the only model that hasnt been tried. Personally, I think such a conference might be able to eventually garner a solid media deal that allows a select group of G5 schools to survive and stay with the rest of the power schools.

That said, such a conference is not really possible without the complete deregulation of the rules governing divisions and conference championship football games. For a conference that large to work, the use of more than 2 divisions or a pod system would have to be legal. Using 3 or 4 divisions would allow a large nationwide conference to play in regional divisions while maintaining an 8 game schedule and a CCG. Such a conference would remain realtively affordable for G5 schools because the multiple regional divisions (or pods) would also provide for regional play (and reasonable travel costs) for most non-revenue sports. In other words, non-revenue sports would play all (or virtually all) of thier games within the division---thus costs for schools in the AAC, Sunbelt, or CUSA would probably see little if any increase in travel costs. Heck, they might even see reduced travel costs in some cases.

(07-09-2017 01:28 PM)USM@FTL Wrote:  That wasn't too creative. 3 divisions of 8 would be fun too.
Utah State
BSU
Hawaii
UNLV
Nevada
SJSU
Fresno State
SDSU

Cincy
Navy
UConn
ECU
Temple
USF
UCF
Memphis

Tulane
Houston
SMU
Tulsa
CSU
AFA
UNM
Wyoming

It sounds fun in theory! But a nationwide conferenxe with the "Best of the Rest" would likely be closer to 18-20 with BYU, maybe Army, and excluding several.

Nothing would prevent such a conference structure, or even a conference 4-team playoff from that structure, now.

The only special thing that there is now is for a CCG to be exempt from the rule for maximum games in a regular season. IE, the CCG can be played as the 13th game for teams who have already played 12 games in the season.

The 3/4 division conference wouldn't qualify for that exemption .... but say you did 10 conf games during weeks 1-10 ... well, you could then have flexible scheduling so that the top four teams played in a bracket during weeks 11 and 12, with the rest of the schools playing two more conference games to round out their schedules.

(07-09-2017 02:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-08-2017 04:15 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The G5 conferences could still expand without losing much. You do have some good schools at the FCS level that can keep more inventory. Eastern Washington, North Dakota State, South Dakota State, Jacksonville State and James Madison could bring something to the G5 network because they are strong football brands in the FCS right now.

You are making an assumption there is some sort of need for additional G5 inventory. There is absolutely no logical reason I can think of to support that view. Over the last decade, the ONLY reason an expansion of G5 inventory has occurred was to save G5 conference's threatened with collapse. Unless a conference is threatened with collapse, I dont think you'll see any expansion by the G5 conferences.

North Dakota State have been getting a following thanks to ESPN. They are becoming the next Boise State and could be the next Cinderella team to bust the dance in football.