Al Jazeera Sports (beIN) has good production on the soccer games I watch but it can be a hard channel to find.

(05-18-2016 02:09 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  I didn't mean to imply the was personal feelings that ESPN held during negotiations. But I wonder if the conference bolting in the past lessens their value. Seems like a liability in negotiations that CUSA broke a contract last time.

No - I couldn't see it. The majority of those teams are part of another deal in the AAC and they have a different PIC @ CUSA-INO ("in name only"). They're professionals and all parties involved will play "kissy-kissy" if there's a buck to be made. The reduction in CSUA-INO's overall deal is due to the departures of the biggest brands - should - have zero to do with an old deal made between two totally different parties years ago.

(05-18-2016 02:09 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  I didn't mean to imply the was personal feelings that ESPN held during negotiations. But I wonder if the conference bolting in the past lessens their value. Seems like a liability in negotiations that CUSA broke a contract last time.

FWIW, the rumor long circled that CUSA would NEVER get a deal with ESPN as long as Bankowsky was there.

Interesting that after he left ESPN entered the picture. Might be coincidence of timing (having to get past Fox and CBS exclusive windows) but still interesting.

(05-18-2016 03:55 PM)airtroop Wrote:  Another option, one I've used on more than one occasion, is to simply deem them contractors and 1099 them for their services with non-compete and non-disclosure agreements. Point is, the smart institutions and "bidnessmen" will find a way to survive and believe me when I say brains gears are churning right now in every sector impacted with this update...there will always be options to keep labor costs down in addition to the obvious: pink slips.

I think you want the other thread. Again though you can call em what you want and if no one catches you, then you can get away with it but there are already regulations regarding who's an employee.

(05-18-2016 04:02 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 03:55 PM)airtroop Wrote:  Another option, one I've used on more than one occasion, is to simply deem them contractors and 1099 them for their services with non-compete and non-disclosure agreements. Point is, the smart institutions and "bidnessmen" will find a way to survive and believe me when I say brains gears are churning right now in every sector impacted with this update...there will always be options to keep labor costs down in addition to the obvious: pink slips.

I think you want the other thread. Again though you can call em what you want and if no one catches you, then you can get away with it but there are already regulations regarding who's an employee.

oops!!!! Deleted and properly placed. Thank you very much.

(05-18-2016 02:33 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 09:12 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  We'll honestly, if ESPN gives you as much as anybody else, why would you want to be anywhere else. They have the best exposure.

I'm not saying there aren't reasons, just wondering what yours would be.

To get away from playing mid week? That's understandable

To be on actual tv channels more than just streaming?
But on that point, an obscure network that few have isn't appealing to me. As for both having streaming, At least with ESPN3, lots of people are browsing available games anyway... more than just all 100 soccer fans in the country.

I can see that it's hard to get a "raise" from ESPN unless the competition is making offers. As a conference, I'd act interested in the competition, but I'd rather stay ESPN if the end game money is the same.

I agree that using ESPN as your national sponsor is a good idea, but i really hope that the SBC expands broadcast channels. Back when CSS was on air, that acted as the secondary tier, but since that's going, we either have games broadcast on TV nationally or not at all. There is no reason we can't have the games broadcast either locally or on a channel like this and still have the game simulcast on ESPN3. That would be the best scenario. But i do think we need to be on more than just ESPN for TV.

Yea, I had forgotten about the CSS deal.

Good point that we need more tv channel coverage between the nationally carried ESPN TV channel games.

Question to the long time Belt fans: Those games that were on CSS, were they also available via ESPN3? Or was ESPN3 not doing Belt games at the time?

I'm wondering how that would work. Does ESPN still get to show them on "the 3" if another non ESPN channel picks it up? Say if FSS decided to take a game, but since that channel may not be carried in a lot of areas of the nation, itd be good for people to be able to stream it on ESPN3. OR does having it on the 3, prevent us from selling that game else where? And aren't ALL non tv channel carried Belt football games available on ESPN3?

(05-19-2016 08:02 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 02:33 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 09:12 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  We'll honestly, if ESPN gives you as much as anybody else, why would you want to be anywhere else. They have the best exposure.

I'm not saying there aren't reasons, just wondering what yours would be.

To get away from playing mid week? That's understandable

To be on actual tv channels more than just streaming?
But on that point, an obscure network that few have isn't appealing to me. As for both having streaming, At least with ESPN3, lots of people are browsing available games anyway... more than just all 100 soccer fans in the country.

I can see that it's hard to get a "raise" from ESPN unless the competition is making offers. As a conference, I'd act interested in the competition, but I'd rather stay ESPN if the end game money is the same.

I agree that using ESPN as your national sponsor is a good idea, but i really hope that the SBC expands broadcast channels. Back when CSS was on air, that acted as the secondary tier, but since that's going, we either have games broadcast on TV nationally or not at all. There is no reason we can't have the games broadcast either locally or on a channel like this and still have the game simulcast on ESPN3. That would be the best scenario. But i do think we need to be on more than just ESPN for TV.

Yea, I had forgotten about the CSS deal.

Good point that we need more tv channel coverage between the nationally carried ESPN TV channel games.

Question to the long time Belt fans: Those games that were on CSS, were they also available via ESPN3? Or was ESPN3 not doing Belt games at the time?

I'm wondering how that would work. Does ESPN still get to show them on "the 3" if another non ESPN channel picks it up? Say if FSS decided to take a game, but since that channel may not be carried in a lot of areas of the nation, itd be good for people to be able to stream it on ESPN3. OR does having it on the 3, prevent us from selling that game else where? And aren't ALL non tv channel carried Belt football games available on ESPN3?

CSS games were simulcast on ESPN3. I can't remember if they were region blocked or not though.

(05-19-2016 08:57 AM)itsmeagain Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 08:02 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 02:33 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 09:12 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  We'll honestly, if ESPN gives you as much as anybody else, why would you want to be anywhere else. They have the best exposure.

I'm not saying there aren't reasons, just wondering what yours would be.

To get away from playing mid week? That's understandable

To be on actual tv channels more than just streaming?
But on that point, an obscure network that few have isn't appealing to me. As for both having streaming, At least with ESPN3, lots of people are browsing available games anyway... more than just all 100 soccer fans in the country.

I can see that it's hard to get a "raise" from ESPN unless the competition is making offers. As a conference, I'd act interested in the competition, but I'd rather stay ESPN if the end game money is the same.

I agree that using ESPN as your national sponsor is a good idea, but i really hope that the SBC expands broadcast channels. Back when CSS was on air, that acted as the secondary tier, but since that's going, we either have games broadcast on TV nationally or not at all. There is no reason we can't have the games broadcast either locally or on a channel like this and still have the game simulcast on ESPN3. That would be the best scenario. But i do think we need to be on more than just ESPN for TV.

Yea, I had forgotten about the CSS deal.

Good point that we need more tv channel coverage between the nationally carried ESPN TV channel games.

Question to the long time Belt fans: Those games that were on CSS, were they also available via ESPN3? Or was ESPN3 not doing Belt games at the time?

I'm wondering how that would work. Does ESPN still get to show them on "the 3" if another non ESPN channel picks it up? Say if FSS decided to take a game, but since that channel may not be carried in a lot of areas of the nation, itd be good for people to be able to stream it on ESPN3. OR does having it on the 3, prevent us from selling that game else where? And aren't ALL non tv channel carried Belt football games available on ESPN3?

CSS games were simulcast on ESPN3. I can't remember if they were region blocked or not though.

They were I remember trying to watch one and it was blacked out in my area.

In 2016 it's much easier to go buy a streaming box and turn on ESPN3 than it is to figure out if your Fox Sports regional channel will switch over and show the game or if they'll forget.

It's so much easier now than it was 5 years ago even to see a Sun Belt game on my TV in my living room. Let's not go screwing this up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(05-18-2016 08:47 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-17-2016 12:15 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  beIN Sports. press release.

http://www.medialifemagazine.com/upfront...-football/

Quote:The network no doubt hopes to boost its viewership with its addition of new sports. During the first quarter beIN Sports averaged just 15,000 total-day viewers, according to Nielsen, down 21 percent from 19,000 in first quarter 2015.

No wonder no one has heard of them.

It sounds like they are trying to push more domestic programming and adds another player to the TV broadcast realm for conferences. At first, I thought it could be good for the Sun Belt to have another TV option but then it seems that you are all wrapped up with ESPN (just like the MAC) and may not be able choose another provider even in the next round. By that I mean that ESPN tends to have their contracts so that if they match any competitors offer, ESPN wins. It was what the Big East/American conference found out. It is hard to get out from ESPN unless there is a bigger offer ESPN isn't willing match.

We can change providers without penalty if we want too in 2020, but honestly I'm not sure the league wants to change providers. Most everyone seems comfortable with ESPN, and outside of midweek games, you don't see a lot of fan complaints.

(05-19-2016 08:57 AM)itsmeagain Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 08:02 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 02:33 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 09:12 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  We'll honestly, if ESPN gives you as much as anybody else, why would you want to be anywhere else. They have the best exposure.

I'm not saying there aren't reasons, just wondering what yours would be.

To get away from playing mid week? That's understandable

To be on actual tv channels more than just streaming?
But on that point, an obscure network that few have isn't appealing to me. As for both having streaming, At least with ESPN3, lots of people are browsing available games anyway... more than just all 100 soccer fans in the country.

I can see that it's hard to get a "raise" from ESPN unless the competition is making offers. As a conference, I'd act interested in the competition, but I'd rather stay ESPN if the end game money is the same.

I agree that using ESPN as your national sponsor is a good idea, but i really hope that the SBC expands broadcast channels. Back when CSS was on air, that acted as the secondary tier, but since that's going, we either have games broadcast on TV nationally or not at all. There is no reason we can't have the games broadcast either locally or on a channel like this and still have the game simulcast on ESPN3. That would be the best scenario. But i do think we need to be on more than just ESPN for TV.

Yea, I had forgotten about the CSS deal.

Good point that we need more tv channel coverage between the nationally carried ESPN TV channel games.

Question to the long time Belt fans: Those games that were on CSS, were they also available via ESPN3? Or was ESPN3 not doing Belt games at the time?

I'm wondering how that would work. Does ESPN still get to show them on "the 3" if another non ESPN channel picks it up? Say if FSS decided to take a game, but since that channel may not be carried in a lot of areas of the nation, itd be good for people to be able to stream it on ESPN3. OR does having it on the 3, prevent us from selling that game else where? And aren't ALL non tv channel carried Belt football games available on ESPN3?

CSS games were simulcast on ESPN3. I can't remember if they were region blocked or not though.

They were blacked out, but this has sort of become a catch-22. Regional television contracts are benefits for larger market schools like a Georgia State. Out of all the TV stations in Atlanta, you guys are likely to find one willing to pick up a game broadcast. At the same time, places like Jonesboro and Monroe with only one Major TV station in town are stuck dealing with cable providers and home offices to see if a game will get carried

Many times, the original CSS deal forced AState fans to drive around Jonesboro searching for a restaurant that would have the game, and there were many times that the game was entirely unavailable because what was broadcast here was regulated by an out of state network home office.

It was a huge deal here when ESPN3 picked up all the old CSS games because it meant for the first time that we were guaranteed to be able to watch every game on TV. All our restaurants and bars had ESPN3, but none of them had CSS.

(05-19-2016 08:59 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 08:57 AM)itsmeagain Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 08:02 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 02:33 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 09:12 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  We'll honestly, if ESPN gives you as much as anybody else, why would you want to be anywhere else. They have the best exposure.

I'm not saying there aren't reasons, just wondering what yours would be.

To get away from playing mid week? That's understandable

To be on actual tv channels more than just streaming?
But on that point, an obscure network that few have isn't appealing to me. As for both having streaming, At least with ESPN3, lots of people are browsing available games anyway... more than just all 100 soccer fans in the country.

I can see that it's hard to get a "raise" from ESPN unless the competition is making offers. As a conference, I'd act interested in the competition, but I'd rather stay ESPN if the end game money is the same.

I agree that using ESPN as your national sponsor is a good idea, but i really hope that the SBC expands broadcast channels. Back when CSS was on air, that acted as the secondary tier, but since that's going, we either have games broadcast on TV nationally or not at all. There is no reason we can't have the games broadcast either locally or on a channel like this and still have the game simulcast on ESPN3. That would be the best scenario. But i do think we need to be on more than just ESPN for TV.

Yea, I had forgotten about the CSS deal.

Good point that we need more tv channel coverage between the nationally carried ESPN TV channel games.

Question to the long time Belt fans: Those games that were on CSS, were they also available via ESPN3? Or was ESPN3 not doing Belt games at the time?

I'm wondering how that would work. Does ESPN still get to show them on "the 3" if another non ESPN channel picks it up? Say if FSS decided to take a game, but since that channel may not be carried in a lot of areas of the nation, itd be good for people to be able to stream it on ESPN3. OR does having it on the 3, prevent us from selling that game else where? And aren't ALL non tv channel carried Belt football games available on ESPN3?

CSS games were simulcast on ESPN3. I can't remember if they were region blocked or not though.

They were I remember trying to watch one and it was blacked out in my area.

Are we sure that the blackout for ESPN3 was regional?

For instance, Cox is a National company with their own IPs. So theyed have to block access to IPs issued in just certain areas to just certain games. I suppose it wouldn't be that hard, but to only block certain games from certain IPs would seem like a big pain just for the occasional game being televised elsewhere. Regular TV channel blackouts are easy now since most receivers have multiple feed inputs and the channels themselves can remotely swith receivers in cable head ends to a different game (this why you almost never see a "black" screen in a "black out" game today).

Our system launched CSS because they carried Southern Conference games (and SEC) - but mostly was pushed due to the SoCon games.

I don't think we were ever available on ESPN3 then.
The streaming services we had to go through were rough a lot of the times.

(05-19-2016 10:42 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 08:57 AM)itsmeagain Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 08:02 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 02:33 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 09:12 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  We'll honestly, if ESPN gives you as much as anybody else, why would you want to be anywhere else. They have the best exposure.

I'm not saying there aren't reasons, just wondering what yours would be.

To get away from playing mid week? That's understandable

To be on actual tv channels more than just streaming?
But on that point, an obscure network that few have isn't appealing to me. As for both having streaming, At least with ESPN3, lots of people are browsing available games anyway... more than just all 100 soccer fans in the country.

I can see that it's hard to get a "raise" from ESPN unless the competition is making offers. As a conference, I'd act interested in the competition, but I'd rather stay ESPN if the end game money is the same.

I agree that using ESPN as your national sponsor is a good idea, but i really hope that the SBC expands broadcast channels. Back when CSS was on air, that acted as the secondary tier, but since that's going, we either have games broadcast on TV nationally or not at all. There is no reason we can't have the games broadcast either locally or on a channel like this and still have the game simulcast on ESPN3. That would be the best scenario. But i do think we need to be on more than just ESPN for TV.

Yea, I had forgotten about the CSS deal.

Good point that we need more tv channel coverage between the nationally carried ESPN TV channel games.

Question to the long time Belt fans: Those games that were on CSS, were they also available via ESPN3? Or was ESPN3 not doing Belt games at the time?

I'm wondering how that would work. Does ESPN still get to show them on "the 3" if another non ESPN channel picks it up? Say if FSS decided to take a game, but since that channel may not be carried in a lot of areas of the nation, itd be good for people to be able to stream it on ESPN3. OR does having it on the 3, prevent us from selling that game else where? And aren't ALL non tv channel carried Belt football games available on ESPN3?

CSS games were simulcast on ESPN3. I can't remember if they were region blocked or not though.

They were blacked out, but this has sort of become a catch-22. Regional television contracts are benefits for larger market schools like a Georgia State. Out of all the TV stations in Atlanta, you guys are likely to find one willing to pick up a game broadcast. At the same time, places like Jonesboro and Monroe with only one Major TV station in town are stuck dealing with cable providers and home offices to see if a game will get carried

Many times, the original CSS deal forced AState fans to drive around Jonesboro searching for a restaurant that would have the game, and there were many times that the game was entirely unavailable because what was broadcast here was regulated by an out of state network home office.

It was a huge deal here when ESPN3 picked up all the old CSS games because it meant for the first time that we were guaranteed to be able to watch every game on TV. All our restaurants and bars had ESPN3, but none of them had CSS.

So being on ESPN3 is better than having a side contract with smaller regional sports networks you think?

I wonder if we might have it in a new contract that ESPN3 still carries the feed with no blackout - but we are still allowed to sell that game to any TV we can. It could lower the price of those channels payout - but considering the low % users of ESPN3 - I don't think it would hurt us too much. Heck I remember us having to pay Sport South to even be on. We did it for exposure. So, anything might be better than nothing when we are talking about EXTRA gravey money and more exposure.

(05-19-2016 11:11 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 10:42 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 08:57 AM)itsmeagain Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 08:02 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 02:33 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  I agree that using ESPN as your national sponsor is a good idea, but i really hope that the SBC expands broadcast channels. Back when CSS was on air, that acted as the secondary tier, but since that's going, we either have games broadcast on TV nationally or not at all. There is no reason we can't have the games broadcast either locally or on a channel like this and still have the game simulcast on ESPN3. That would be the best scenario. But i do think we need to be on more than just ESPN for TV.

Yea, I had forgotten about the CSS deal.

Good point that we need more tv channel coverage between the nationally carried ESPN TV channel games.

Question to the long time Belt fans: Those games that were on CSS, were they also available via ESPN3? Or was ESPN3 not doing Belt games at the time?

I'm wondering how that would work. Does ESPN still get to show them on "the 3" if another non ESPN channel picks it up? Say if FSS decided to take a game, but since that channel may not be carried in a lot of areas of the nation, itd be good for people to be able to stream it on ESPN3. OR does having it on the 3, prevent us from selling that game else where? And aren't ALL non tv channel carried Belt football games available on ESPN3?

CSS games were simulcast on ESPN3. I can't remember if they were region blocked or not though.

They were blacked out, but this has sort of become a catch-22. Regional television contracts are benefits for larger market schools like a Georgia State. Out of all the TV stations in Atlanta, you guys are likely to find one willing to pick up a game broadcast. At the same time, places like Jonesboro and Monroe with only one Major TV station in town are stuck dealing with cable providers and home offices to see if a game will get carried

Many times, the original CSS deal forced AState fans to drive around Jonesboro searching for a restaurant that would have the game, and there were many times that the game was entirely unavailable because what was broadcast here was regulated by an out of state network home office.

It was a huge deal here when ESPN3 picked up all the old CSS games because it meant for the first time that we were guaranteed to be able to watch every game on TV. All our restaurants and bars had ESPN3, but none of them had CSS.

So being on ESPN3 is better than having a side contract with smaller regional sports networks you think?

I wonder if we might have it in a new contract that ESPN3 still carries the feed with no blackout - but we are still allowed to sell that game to any TV we can. It could lower the price of those channels payout - but considering the low % users of ESPN3 - I don't think it would hurt us too much. Heck I remember us having to pay Sport South to even be on. We did it for exposure. So, anything might be better than nothing when we are talking about EXTRA gravey money and more exposure.

Depends on the secondary Network

If it's CBS Or NBCSN, It's good for everybody because everybody has access to those games.

If it comes down to a choice of the American Sports Network or BeinSports, ESPN3 is better because those two networks are not distributed well in SBC Markets.

It's worth noting that with our current contract, Individual schools retain their 3rd tier rights, and can sell games off to local networks for broadcast, provided ESPN3 is offered a blacked out version of the feed.

So far, only AState has actually used those rights.

(05-19-2016 11:17 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  It's worth noting that with our current contract, Individual schools retain their 3rd tier rights, and can sell games off to local networks for broadcast, provided ESPN3 is offered a blacked out version of the feed.

So far, only AState has actually used those rights.

UCA game a few years ago?

(05-19-2016 11:22 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 11:17 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  It's worth noting that with our current contract, Individual schools retain their 3rd tier rights, and can sell games off to local networks for broadcast, provided ESPN3 is offered a blacked out version of the feed.

So far, only AState has actually used those rights.

UCA game a few years ago?

Correct. Though new Mexico State uses this as well with Aggie Vision now.

We're also the only school in the league to regularly use each schools option to have all their basketball and baseball games put on ESPN3. Georgia State and App State did ESPN3 as well for basketball, but we were the only one that did both.

Everyone complains about exposure, but the reality is we have a way to put our games on more often...we just have to actually take it.

(05-19-2016 11:28 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 11:22 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 11:17 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  It's worth noting that with our current contract, Individual schools retain their 3rd tier rights, and can sell games off to local networks for broadcast, provided ESPN3 is offered a blacked out version of the feed.

So far, only AState has actually used those rights.

UCA game a few years ago?

Correct.

We're also the only school in the league to regularly use each schools option to have all their basketball and baseball games put on ESPN3. Georgia State and App State did ESPN3 as well for basketball, but we were the only one that did both.

Everyone complains about exposure, but the reality is we have a way to put our games on more often...we just have to actually take it.

Correct. We just have to eat the cost which I guess some of our conference mates aren't doing.

(05-19-2016 11:29 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 11:28 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 11:22 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 11:17 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  It's worth noting that with our current contract, Individual schools retain their 3rd tier rights, and can sell games off to local networks for broadcast, provided ESPN3 is offered a blacked out version of the feed.

So far, only AState has actually used those rights.

UCA game a few years ago?

Correct.

We're also the only school in the league to regularly use each schools option to have all their basketball and baseball games put on ESPN3. Georgia State and App State did ESPN3 as well for basketball, but we were the only one that did both.

Everyone complains about exposure, but the reality is we have a way to put our games on more often...we just have to actually take it.

Correct. We just have to eat the cost which I guess some of our conference mates aren't doing.

We're not even eating the cost. There was a slight upgrade in fiberoptics needed, and a regular truck had to be purchased, but ESPN provided a lot for us. Since we use students for class credit to run the broadcast, the cost to the school was minimal.

(05-19-2016 11:31 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 11:29 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 11:28 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 11:22 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 11:17 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  It's worth noting that with our current contract, Individual schools retain their 3rd tier rights, and can sell games off to local networks for broadcast, provided ESPN3 is offered a blacked out version of the feed.

So far, only AState has actually used those rights.

UCA game a few years ago?

Correct.

We're also the only school in the league to regularly use each schools option to have all their basketball and baseball games put on ESPN3. Georgia State and App State did ESPN3 as well for basketball, but we were the only one that did both.

Everyone complains about exposure, but the reality is we have a way to put our games on more often...we just have to actually take it.

Correct. We just have to eat the cost which I guess some of our conference mates aren't doing.

We're not even eating the cost. There was a slight upgrade in fiberoptics needed, and a regular truck had to be purchased, but ESPN provided a lot for us. Since we use students for class credit to run the broadcast, the cost to the school was minimal.

Wow. So some of our pals are just lagging behind? What about UL-Lafayette? Do they broadcast their stuff?