(11-26-2015 11:23 PM)tigerjeb Wrote:  the problem with espn is half their programing isn't games any more - its just talking heads yammering away all dang day

This they have multiple shows dedicated to every facet of the NFL and what seems like a 20 man countdown crew half of which contribute nothing new. How much does that annoying *@#* Berman make? they need to roll is salary and screen time BACK! BACK! BACK! BACK!

Original programming is a fraction of their costs. I suspect the complaints have to do with people not liking the original programming and/or thinking it's politically slanted. The comments section of the FOX Sports reflects this (I didn't know that Stephen Smith was a Bolshevik).

League/conference rights are what eats up the money.

(11-26-2015 10:47 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 05:17 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 05:11 PM)Enriquillo Wrote:  If this happens, I don't think it will be bad, from a money perspective, for the AAC. But it will be bad for the AAC teams who think that P5 admission is just around the corner for them.

To be honest all of us are used to little tv revenue. I don't see them dropping our $2 million payout. C-Usa is about to get a shock. My guess is maybe $300k per team. Literally nobody wants their hoops and little interest in their football.

And you know this how? Fox has several regional sports networks which all need content. As for little interest in their football, tell me why CUSA received the bigger check from the CFP last year. CUSA had a good year last year. The AAC has done well this year. A couple of years ago it was the MWC (remember they had a good Fresno State in addition to Boise at one time) Before you start issuing proclamations you might want to wait and see if this year's success can be sustained for any period of time.

By the way, people that I have spoken with who are in the communications industry (station owners, production people who contract with ESPN and Fox for games etc. ) don't agree with you. While they don't expect any great increase, they don't expect any great loss either. And that goes for the entire G5. As to the P5 they don't expect any increases for them either. The entire television model is going to change over the next 10 years. The networks who are creative and work with conferences to meet the challenge, will be the ones that are successful.

The problem imo for CUSA lies in basketball and lack of compelling match ups in football. There are some good teams at the top of the football ladder. Not enough interest however ,in the rest of the league to support current financial numbers. It's value looks to be on Sun Belt level. Time will tell.

(11-26-2015 10:47 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 05:17 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 05:11 PM)Enriquillo Wrote:  If this happens, I don't think it will be bad, from a money perspective, for the AAC. But it will be bad for the AAC teams who think that P5 admission is just around the corner for them.

To be honest all of us are used to little tv revenue. I don't see them dropping our $2 million payout. C-Usa is about to get a shock. My guess is maybe $300k per team. Literally nobody wants their hoops and little interest in their football.

And you know this how? Fox has several regional sports networks which all need content. As for little interest in their football, tell me why CUSA received the bigger check from the CFP last year. CUSA had a good year last year. The AAC has done well this year. A couple of years ago it was the MWC (remember they had a good Fresno State in addition to Boise at one time) Before you start issuing proclamations you might want to wait and see if this year's success can be sustained for any period of time.

By the way, people that I have spoken with who are in the communications industry (station owners, production people who contract with ESPN and Fox for games etc. ) don't agree with you. While they don't expect any great increase, they don't expect any great loss either. And that goes for the entire G5. As to the P5 they don't expect any increases for them either. The entire television model is going to change over the next 10 years. The networks who are creative and work with conferences to meet the challenge, will be the ones that are successful.

Put it this way, cbs owns rights to c-usa basketball and decided to air very little content and buy AAC games from espn. So if the basketball side has near zero value, your asking a lot for the football side to get $1 million a piece. It will just take time to build it back up.

When people say that ESPN will have to cut back on inventory to cover the loss in revenue, I think they severly misunderstand business.

1. Go to a retail store that has gotten rid of 25% of their inventory and see what happens to their sales. You save money everywhere else. Yes, you may look to get inventory of decent value for cheap (AAC) but you dont get rid of the very thing that sells.

2. Live Sports are a unique asset. Its a limited inventory that can only be sold by one entity, therefore getting rid of inventory not only hurts your ability to sell it but allows your competition to purchase that inventory and use it. Double Whammy!

This is why for quite a while I have been saying that there will be more consolidation.

1. Texas, Oklahoma are worth B12 money and possibly more... moving them and OK state/ Texas Tech to the Pac12 doesnt cost ESPN a dime.... but converting the Longhorn Network into a regional network for the Pac12 SAVES ESPN money and long term will make it an income source. Its a Win/win/win scenario.

2. That leaves 6 teams... and my thoughts on things have shifted a bit. I can see the ACC doing something odd... I think they could pickup Baylor and TCU. They fit the academic profile and yes geographically it doesnt make sense, but the Big 12 pays roughly the same as the ACC. It makes the ACC brand even stronger, adds a recruiting grounds for the ACC that theyve never had.

3. The Big 12 rebuilds. Yes, they could keep the AAC for cheap and the MWC for rock bottom prices but the truth is that ESPN has more inventory than they can show and what they need is better quality. The Big 12 at this point isnt worth nearly as much and the leftover teams know it. There is 4 teams that are left so they can add 10-12 teams.

I am beginning to think that the AAC and MWC have been doing their applications for the final moves.

I would love it if ESPN totally trimmed the fat in terms of talk shows they have. Cut the salaries of older personalities that quite frankly don't do **** but stick to their shtick for years (Berman, Lee Corso, Lou Holtz, Bob Knight, Mel Kiper Jr., Chris Broussard, Stephen A. Smith, and Skip Bayless). Honestly who actually sits and watches ESPN while these hacks are droning away rehearsed and fake outrage/opinions?

Get rid of that fat, and go with young and hungry upstarts and a more focused journalistic take on sports. Focus on the 30 for 30, Outside the Lines type of programming. Supplement that with SportsCenter and actual live sports content and you have a pretty good channel.

(11-26-2015 09:28 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 09:26 PM)banker Wrote:  What about Southern Miss?

And in 2010 you were a Big East Co Champ. Oh, and you are averaging 28k this year.

We got the BCS bid, and Southern Miss is NOT a brand name.

According to ESPN themselves, as of 2013, 3 of the 6 highest rated ESPN games involving a G5 team involved Southern Miss. So yes, they are a national brand. But of course if you don't want to believe me, ask the P5 teams with losses to USM. Bama (5 losses and a tie including one opening game when Bama was the preseason No. 1) Auburn (4 losses) FSU (4 losses including one when FSU was No.4) Ole Miss (8 losses including one when OM was No. 3), NC State (2 losses) Va Tech (not sure the exact number but 2 or more losses) and LSU, UGA, Pitt, Nebraska, Illinois and Okie State. That doesn't count the fact that we lead the series with Louisville and TCU who are now P5. No one in the AAC not named Houston or Cinncinnatti has that many wins over teams of that quality. In fact, of the teams in the AAC who were also in CUSA, only Cinncinatti has a winning record against USM. Many of you drool over adding Colorado State, well we lead the series with the too.

Are all the teams in CUSA that good? Probably not, but when it comes to football, more people recognize USM as a quality program on the field than most any team in the AAC and as good as any.

(11-27-2015 07:30 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 10:47 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 05:17 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 05:11 PM)Enriquillo Wrote:  If this happens, I don't think it will be bad, from a money perspective, for the AAC. But it will be bad for the AAC teams who think that P5 admission is just around the corner for them.

To be honest all of us are used to little tv revenue. I don't see them dropping our $2 million payout. C-Usa is about to get a shock. My guess is maybe $300k per team. Literally nobody wants their hoops and little interest in their football.

And you know this how? Fox has several regional sports networks which all need content. As for little interest in their football, tell me why CUSA received the bigger check from the CFP last year. CUSA had a good year last year. The AAC has done well this year. A couple of years ago it was the MWC (remember they had a good Fresno State in addition to Boise at one time) Before you start issuing proclamations you might want to wait and see if this year's success can be sustained for any period of time.

By the way, people that I have spoken with who are in the communications industry (station owners, production people who contract with ESPN and Fox for games etc. ) don't agree with you. While they don't expect any great increase, they don't expect any great loss either. And that goes for the entire G5. As to the P5 they don't expect any increases for them either. The entire television model is going to change over the next 10 years. The networks who are creative and work with conferences to meet the challenge, will be the ones that are successful.

Put it this way, cbs owns rights to c-usa basketball and decided to air very little content and buy AAC games from espn. So if the basketball side has near zero value, your asking a lot for the football side to get $1 million a piece. It will just take time to build it back up.

I don't dispute that the AAC is a better basketball league overall. Although UAB, UTEP and Old Dominion have fared well. BUT, Football drives the bus, not basketball. Basketball makes up little of the contract.

(11-27-2015 08:54 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 09:28 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 09:26 PM)banker Wrote:  What about Southern Miss?

And in 2010 you were a Big East Co Champ. Oh, and you are averaging 28k this year.

We got the BCS bid, and Southern Miss is NOT a brand name.

According to ESPN themselves, as of 2013, 3 of the 6 highest rated ESPN games involving a G5 team involved Southern Miss. So yes, they are a national brand. But of course if you don't want to believe me, ask the P5 teams with losses to USM. Bama (5 losses and a tie including one opening game when Bama was the preseason No. 1) Auburn (4 losses) FSU (4 losses including one when FSU was No.4) Ole Miss (8 losses including one when OM was No. 3), NC State (2 losses) Va Tech (not sure the exact number but 2 or more losses) and LSU, UGA, Pitt, Nebraska, Illinois and Okie State. That doesn't count the fact that we lead the series with Louisville and TCU who are now P5. No one in the AAC not named Houston or Cinncinnatti has that many wins over teams of that quality. In fact, of the teams in the AAC who were also in CUSA, only Cinncinatti has a winning record against USM. Many of you drool over adding Colorado State, well we lead the series with the too.

Are all the teams in CUSA that good? Probably not, but when it comes to football, more people recognize USM as a quality program on the field than most any team in the AAC and as good as any.

So I did some research into Southern Miss's history (particularly since 2000), and I found an 8-win program with a decent schedule, but only 2 years that would put it on the map (2000 and 2011). Honestly, most of USM's history was in the 80s and 90s (most of the wins you mentioned), a time-frame when most of the people under 30 wouldn't even remember. AKA, they are a historic program like UNLV in basketball (not at the same level though) or Army (but not particularly relevant).

(11-27-2015 08:57 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(11-27-2015 07:30 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 10:47 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 05:17 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 05:11 PM)Enriquillo Wrote:  If this happens, I don't think it will be bad, from a money perspective, for the AAC. But it will be bad for the AAC teams who think that P5 admission is just around the corner for them.

To be honest all of us are used to little tv revenue. I don't see them dropping our $2 million payout. C-Usa is about to get a shock. My guess is maybe $300k per team. Literally nobody wants their hoops and little interest in their football.

And you know this how? Fox has several regional sports networks which all need content. As for little interest in their football, tell me why CUSA received the bigger check from the CFP last year. CUSA had a good year last year. The AAC has done well this year. A couple of years ago it was the MWC (remember they had a good Fresno State in addition to Boise at one time) Before you start issuing proclamations you might want to wait and see if this year's success can be sustained for any period of time.

By the way, people that I have spoken with who are in the communications industry (station owners, production people who contract with ESPN and Fox for games etc. ) don't agree with you. While they don't expect any great increase, they don't expect any great loss either. And that goes for the entire G5. As to the P5 they don't expect any increases for them either. The entire television model is going to change over the next 10 years. The networks who are creative and work with conferences to meet the challenge, will be the ones that are successful.

Put it this way, cbs owns rights to c-usa basketball and decided to air very little content and buy AAC games from espn. So if the basketball side has near zero value, your asking a lot for the football side to get $1 million a piece. It will just take time to build it back up.

I don't dispute that the AAC is a better basketball league overall. Although UAB, UTEP and Old Dominion have fared well. BUT, Football drives the bus, not basketball. Basketball makes up little of the contract.

Do you think CUSA football is as good as the AAC? I am sorry but USM is finished as a football school and if they had as much national value as you think,they would be in the AAC. USM has to much competition from other G5 schools to make noise. You guys have a winning record this year from playing some of the worst schools in college football. Also,where are you getting your ESPN stat from?

(11-26-2015 02:50 PM)Enriquillo Wrote:  ESPN is in a difficult position. Its revenues are actually dropping. This article explains why (and why revenues will likely continue to drop): ESPN Lost 7M Subscribers

ESPN would love to simply pay less to the P5 conferences at the next renewals. But ESPN is still in a competitive environment, and will desperately need to hold onto control of all of the major conferences, including the B1G - which has a renewal coming up. The B1G wants much more $$, and FOX and NBC are lurking.

The answer is consolidation. The only way that it can continue to pay the conferences at least the same money without losing margin will be to move the BIGXII's most valuable properties into other conferences. In that way, they can pay more to the 4 surviving conferences and, more importantly, pay at least as much or more on a per-team-basis.

I see ESPN trying to force Texas and Oklahoma into the PAC, SEC or B1G.

Importantly, this will not be part of some grand scheme to get to four 16-team super conferences. ESPN couldn't care less about that - and forcing what will be the P4 to take the remains of the BIGXII and AAC will be viewed by them as more mouths to feed.

The ACC could also be the victim of the same orchestration, but the BIGXII seems weaker.

They will let B1G go and Fox will have that whole pie in a sense. That saves up money and moves non money makers (ESPN3 games) to a place they can make money and not be dead weight. Outside of that they need to let some of these rights go to other channels (rather sub-license, selling, or not bidding on them).

MLB and NBA bottlenecked them because they were stubborn and wants to keep all rights.

(11-27-2015 09:15 PM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(11-27-2015 08:57 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(11-27-2015 07:30 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 10:47 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(11-26-2015 05:17 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  To be honest all of us are used to little tv revenue. I don't see them dropping our $2 million payout. C-Usa is about to get a shock. My guess is maybe $300k per team. Literally nobody wants their hoops and little interest in their football.

And you know this how? Fox has several regional sports networks which all need content. As for little interest in their football, tell me why CUSA received the bigger check from the CFP last year. CUSA had a good year last year. The AAC has done well this year. A couple of years ago it was the MWC (remember they had a good Fresno State in addition to Boise at one time) Before you start issuing proclamations you might want to wait and see if this year's success can be sustained for any period of time.

By the way, people that I have spoken with who are in the communications industry (station owners, production people who contract with ESPN and Fox for games etc. ) don't agree with you. While they don't expect any great increase, they don't expect any great loss either. And that goes for the entire G5. As to the P5 they don't expect any increases for them either. The entire television model is going to change over the next 10 years. The networks who are creative and work with conferences to meet the challenge, will be the ones that are successful.

Put it this way, cbs owns rights to c-usa basketball and decided to air very little content and buy AAC games from espn. So if the basketball side has near zero value, your asking a lot for the football side to get $1 million a piece. It will just take time to build it back up.

I don't dispute that the AAC is a better basketball league overall. Although UAB, UTEP and Old Dominion have fared well. BUT, Football drives the bus, not basketball. Basketball makes up little of the contract.

Do you think CUSA football is as good as the AAC? I am sorry but USM is finished as a football school and if they had as much national value as you think,they would be in the AAC. USM has to much competition from other G5 schools to make noise. You guys have a winning record this year from playing some of the worst schools in college football. Also,where are you getting your ESPN stat from?

The ESPN stat came from ESPN. As to finished as a football school, what? The reason that we are not in the AAC is the same as the reason that Tulane and Memphis are in despite having an overall losing percentage.....TV Market.

As to being as good as teams in the AAC. Well, we hold the series lead against all of the AAC teams that came over from CUSA except Cinncinnatti. So we have already proved that on the field.