(08-12-2014 02:18 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  The entire point of ESPN3 is to keep sports content out of competitors hands and off of OTA TV where it threatens ESPN and cable while also pacifying conference partners and analyzing viewing habits.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I'd much rather have CUSA's ASN deal than Sun Belt's "expanded" ESPN3 coverage. BTW, did it even "expand" coverage? Wasn't every game already on ESPN3? I don't get it.


.

Essentially, ESPN just picked up the coverage that CSS lost. Which was 6 football games a year, and a decent amount of basketball and baseball programming, along with exclusive rights to those tourney's/

It was a net gain in Olympic Sports, where there will be more expanded coverage, but you are right, every football game was already guaranteed to be on ESPN3.

As for CUSA's deal. I don't get a CW Network at home, so obviously I'm biased to ours.

(08-12-2014 04:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 04:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 03:18 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 02:28 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 02:23 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Only hard core fans watch ESPN3. The same number that would watch a non-ESPN3 produced game streamed from a conference website. It just slaps an illusional "ESPN" logo on it and the quality is a bit better. ESPN is closing down ESPN Classic, at the very least they could convert ESPN Classic into a program guide of whats on ESPN3 so it diverts some casual cable viewers there.

No argument.

This is why G5 needs to cooperate and create a shared G5 network. Make it cheap enough to get plenty of market penetration.

Needs to be somebody like NBCSN who has no content right now. Each G5 conference gives them 5 games and they have weekly highlight shows and discuss the Access Bowl race but they still include P5 schools. ESPN can be the "MSNBC" and NBCSN can be the "Fox News" both can pretend to not be biased but both are anyway.

From the 1960's until around 1991 we had a TV structure model that would fit the G5 like a glove.

Under that model the network (later networks) wishing to telecast games paid a base fee to be the exclusive national and regional telecast partner(s).

Then there was a fee structure for games. I'm going to use utterly false numbers to illustrate.

National OTA, each team received $100.
Regional OTA, each team received $50
National cable $30
Regional cable $10.

Under that system, the biggest portion of money went out to the schools appearing on TV the most in the best slots. Back then if Texas played Notre Dame, Texas would have to sign over all or part of the tv appearance money to the SWC while Notre Dame kept all of its check.

That's why the independents were so strong until the end of the 80's. If you had a product worth telecasting it was on TV and you kept the money while in stronger conferences like the Big 10, they shared most of the revenue on the belief it encouraged competitive balance.

The same can be done now but you have to have a network that really buys in and has room for the content. Today nobody much fits the bill except CBS and NBC though Fox has a lot of open windows with FS2 and the regional sports nets.

NBC would be the ideal partner because they rival Fox in RSN's, they have NBCSN, they have on satellite and many cable systems overflow channels dedicated to Barclay's Premier League, they have Universal Sports, they have generally lagging weekend viewership on CNBC and MSNBC and for top games NBC itself.

NBC obviously has some degree of interest since they were the final bidder for AAC before ESPN matched.

With the exception of Notre Dame they have no ties to any of the P5 players nor the NCAA.

The simplest course of action would be the G5 leagues forming an LLC to hold their TV rights and negotiate a deal that includes a minimum number of appearances and has a rate card for the various channels and broadcast windows. In the process you bundle up the basketball rights and other sports as well. With the G5 taking greater involvement in the management and operation of post-season, it would be easy to put many of the bowls into the package as well.

The other element of the rate card system would be this.

First top viewership G5's would have added incentive to schedule top games among themselves. If Houston and Boise think they can get the top NBCSN slot by playing each other, they are more likely to schedule each other. If USF believes playing Northern Illinois gives them a greater chance of being in the most valuable window they will want to play NIU.

Second if you use a rate card system where the home team and visitor are both being paid then the G5 get an added carrot to help schedule home/home with P5 if you are AState negotiating with Ole Miss the prospect that Ole Miss might pick up a few more dollars than promised because the game will be on Universal Sports is a positive.

Because of the distribution of Comcast/NBC's RSN's the MWC and AAC are all but completely assured greater revenue than the other three. (I don't forsee a lot of interest in TXST vs. USM on Comcast Bay Area or Comcast Philadelphia).

The leagues producing the games with the most national relevance make the most money. If NBCSN wants Tuesday night football and MWC and AAC say no thanks, they call CUSA, Sun Belt, MAC to fill the niche.

Overall it should produce greater revenue for all but more importantly by working with a partner that has already slotted most of the preferred windows, it provides a chance for putting out quality games on standard playing dates at reasonably normal kickoff times.

This is viable. The issue I can see is that there are no guaranteed exposure, so leagues with a great deal of exposure would not be as keen to do this as leagues that currently have minimal exposure.

It would probably mean leagues like the MAC would have to give up their weekday ESPN games, which I don't think they'll want to do.

One thing I do like about NBC though is that they have a strong online service as well through their Live Extra Service. In between the 9 plus networks of NBC Universal, they also have a large web streaming platform that actually works better for Mobile App's than ESPN3/Watch ESPN does. Most cable and internet companies already subscribe to the service because of the Premier League Coverage.

It wont happen, but the BPL would be a great league for the G5 to piggy back of because of the number of younger viewers who watch that programming.