http://csnbbs.com/thread-781573.html

Fans reaction to the news that the new CUSA TV deal being around 200k per team.

http://pilotonline.com/sports/college/ol...957e7.html

I bring up a really great question though for SBC & CUSA fans not to rub salt in the wound. At what point is it really worth it to even get paid in these contracts?

And let me explain what I mean by that and let's use App State. Let's say they can bring 21,000 people to an in conference game against say ULL when both teams are winning. They charge $12 per person for ticket, have beer & food sales, and sale things such as T shirts. Additionally at the game they also have sponsors that pay for advertisement. And this game being on a time they can choose themselves like at 3:00pm on a Saturday means all the students can come out to have a good time and then go party after the game which is also good for the local economy.

Ticket sales alone would be $252,000 not including other sales. Then for away games they can get paid to go play teams like Michigan and make even more money than that. Additionally, if they own their own rights it's flipping 2016 the conference can just have a downloadable live-stream APP where every school is responsible for their own broadcast. Not to mention, this still gives them the option to have someone like ESPN pick up a game if they want to and let the school negotiate that.

Why is this not more appealing than being told when you can play your games for less money than what many educated families make working a year...

I'm sure if some school signs a home and home with someone like Mississippi State then ESPN would be happy to come pick up that game and televise it. But let's put ego aside, do people really care about WKU vs La Tech being a national broadcast?

I think you HAVE to play non-Saturday games on TV even if they pay you $0.

If you want to crack the polls, your best shot at a USA Today voting coach seeing you play is a day other than Saturday. If you want an AP voter to see you, again some day other than Saturday. If you want the CFP selection committee other than the member(s) delegated to watch your games and report to see you, you need to play other than Saturday.

I think it absolutely helped NIU because they were generally handling opponents without a lot of trouble and looked good in most of those weeknight games.

I may have not conveyed my point properly but where I was going is that why not let the school have more freedom in what fits them? If they want to play a Thursday game and ESPN needs some team to play on Thursday go for it. It's not uncommon for ESPN to pick up games when teams perform well is it?

Ark State fan let's be honest, those voters you are referring to more than not have to intentionally go out and watch clips from the game because it's not feasible for a human to really watch more than 6 games in a day. And we live in a technology driven country.

When that voter is ready to vote did he really watch La Tech vs WKU unless it was on Thursday when nothing else is on? All he will do is check some site like ESPN and see who beat who, look at the player stats, and look at how strong the schedule is, and just review highlights.

It's no tall task for a University media department to stream something. And make a highlight reel. ESPN get's high school highlights this same way and they make it to national television.

(06-09-2016 03:33 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I may have not conveyed my point properly but where I was going is that why not let the school have more freedom in what fits them? If they want to play a Thursday game and ESPN needs some team to play on Thursday go for it. It's not uncommon for ESPN to pick up games when teams perform well is it?

Ark State fan let's be honest, those voters you are referring to more than not have to intentionally go out and watch clips from the game because it's not feasible for a human to really watch more than 6 games in a day. And we live in a technology driven country.

When that voter is ready to vote did he really watch La Tech vs WKU unless it was on Thursday when nothing else is on? All he will do is check some site like ESPN and see who beat who, look at the player stats, and look at how strong the schedule is, and just review highlights.

It's no tall task for a University media department to stream something. And make a highlight reel. ESPN get's high school highlights this same way and they make it to national television.

I have a tendency to put games on as background noise or if my wife wants to watch something, I'll put a game on my iPad and just glance at it without really getting into it, but I'll end up watching all the key plays because of replays.

I've watched more MACtion than I care to admit doing that. But even not paying full attention I get a pretty decent feel for the teams and that beats having to actively seek out highlights.

The money for the G5 is generally going to come from Tuesday-Friday games because ESPN needs filler.

(06-09-2016 03:44 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 03:33 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I may have not conveyed my point properly but where I was going is that why not let the school have more freedom in what fits them? If they want to play a Thursday game and ESPN needs some team to play on Thursday go for it. It's not uncommon for ESPN to pick up games when teams perform well is it?

Ark State fan let's be honest, those voters you are referring to more than not have to intentionally go out and watch clips from the game because it's not feasible for a human to really watch more than 6 games in a day. And we live in a technology driven country.

When that voter is ready to vote did he really watch La Tech vs WKU unless it was on Thursday when nothing else is on? All he will do is check some site like ESPN and see who beat who, look at the player stats, and look at how strong the schedule is, and just review highlights.

It's no tall task for a University media department to stream something. And make a highlight reel. ESPN get's high school highlights this same way and they make it to national television.

I have a tendency to put games on as background noise or if my wife wants to watch something, I'll put a game on my iPad and just glance at it without really getting into it, but I'll end up watching all the key plays because of replays.

I've watched more MACtion than I care to admit doing that. But even not paying full attention I get a pretty decent feel for the teams and that beats having to actively seek out highlights.

The money for the G5 is generally going to come from Tuesday-Friday games because ESPN needs filler.

Nothing wrong with that lol, a little MACtion is better than HGTV..but the MAC is not what I'm questioning. It's if the SBC and CUSA contracts are even worth it.

It sounds nice to have but I'm starting to wonder what the realistic benefits are.

The lack of a decent TV contract might give them an opportunity to experiment with different video options that they otherwise might not have.

For instance, maybe they could experiment with a Comercial free broadcast or stream. That way the game does not drag, the fans at the stadium enjoy and anybody trying to watch remotely won'the get bored.

Or maybe they could show Comercials while live action is going on and then just catch up when the broadcast comes back. Welcome back, we are going to show replays of the 2 plays you missed and then return to live action. The game is over in 2.5 hours or less. Everybody is happy.

(06-09-2016 04:11 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Nothing wrong with that lol, a little MACtion is better than HGTV..but the MAC is not what I'm questioning. It's if the SBC and CUSA contracts are even worth it.

It sounds nice to have but I'm starting to wonder what the realistic benefits are.

I think it is an issue we should always be looking at.
Right now, AState plays a Friday and a Wednesday at home under the Sun Belt deal and two Thursdays on the road under the Sun Belt deal (and another Friday under the MWC contract).

$118,000 for playing two non-standard home game dates in exchange for a quarter to half a million viewers per ain't bad. Games drawing down closer to 100,000 viewers you start wondering what you are doing, especially if it drives away ticket buyers.

(06-09-2016 04:44 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 04:11 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Nothing wrong with that lol, a little MACtion is better than HGTV..but the MAC is not what I'm questioning. It's if the SBC and CUSA contracts are even worth it.

It sounds nice to have but I'm starting to wonder what the realistic benefits are.

I think it is an issue we should always be looking at.
Right now, AState plays a Friday and a Wednesday at home under the Sun Belt deal and two Thursdays on the road under the Sun Belt deal (and another Friday under the MWC contract).

$118,000 for playing two non-standard home game dates in exchange for a quarter to half a million viewers per ain't bad. Games drawing down closer to 100,000 viewers you start wondering what you are doing, especially if it drives away ticket buyers.

The CUSA commissioner was asked why Fox wasn't part of the new CUSA TV deal and said that Fox wanted Tuesday/Wednesday games.

Maybe the right decision - makes sense that if you're going to shaft your ticket buying supporters by playing home football games on Tuesday/Wednesday night, you ought to be doing it to get your games on ESPN (the real ESPN, not just ESPN3) and not FS1.

Oh, was this your idea? So it's you I've got to thank for all the dribble I've been reading on countless threads over multiple boards for the past few years. Good to know.

(06-09-2016 05:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 04:44 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 04:11 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Nothing wrong with that lol, a little MACtion is better than HGTV..but the MAC is not what I'm questioning. It's if the SBC and CUSA contracts are even worth it.

It sounds nice to have but I'm starting to wonder what the realistic benefits are.

I think it is an issue we should always be looking at.
Right now, AState plays a Friday and a Wednesday at home under the Sun Belt deal and two Thursdays on the road under the Sun Belt deal (and another Friday under the MWC contract).

$118,000 for playing two non-standard home game dates in exchange for a quarter to half a million viewers per ain't bad. Games drawing down closer to 100,000 viewers you start wondering what you are doing, especially if it drives away ticket buyers.

The CUSA commissioner was asked why Fox wasn't part of the new CUSA TV deal and said that Fox wanted Tuesday/Wednesday games.

Maybe the right decision - makes sense that if you're going to shaft your ticket buying supporters by playing home football games on Tuesday/Wednesday night, you ought to be doing it to get your games on ESPN (the real ESPN, not just ESPN3) and not FS1.

FS1 hasn't developed much in the way of viewer habit. That makes it tough.
Looking at FS1 CUSA games on Friday last year
113k viewers CUSA v CUSA (head-to-head vs. ACC/ACC on ESPN2 AAC/AAC ESPNU)
666k viewers CUSA v ACC
168k viewers CUSA v CUSA (day game after Thanksgiving)
FS1 CUSA Thursday
232k CUSA vs. CUSA no other college games

That might not inspire much confidence about drawing an audience.
ESPNU is in fewer homes and delivered similiar number. Can see being leery moving to Tuesday/Wednesday if you are concerned about how many will watch. The worst Tuesday night on ESPN2 was Sun Belt / Sun Belt287k going head-to-head with a Dodgers-Mets playoff game.

(06-09-2016 08:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 05:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 04:44 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 04:11 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Nothing wrong with that lol, a little MACtion is better than HGTV..but the MAC is not what I'm questioning. It's if the SBC and CUSA contracts are even worth it.

It sounds nice to have but I'm starting to wonder what the realistic benefits are.

I think it is an issue we should always be looking at.
Right now, AState plays a Friday and a Wednesday at home under the Sun Belt deal and two Thursdays on the road under the Sun Belt deal (and another Friday under the MWC contract).

$118,000 for playing two non-standard home game dates in exchange for a quarter to half a million viewers per ain't bad. Games drawing down closer to 100,000 viewers you start wondering what you are doing, especially if it drives away ticket buyers.

The CUSA commissioner was asked why Fox wasn't part of the new CUSA TV deal and said that Fox wanted Tuesday/Wednesday games.

Maybe the right decision - makes sense that if you're going to shaft your ticket buying supporters by playing home football games on Tuesday/Wednesday night, you ought to be doing it to get your games on ESPN (the real ESPN, not just ESPN3) and not FS1.

FS1 hasn't developed much in the way of viewer habit. That makes it tough.
Looking at FS1 CUSA games on Friday last year
113k viewers CUSA v CUSA (head-to-head vs. ACC/ACC on ESPN2 AAC/AAC ESPNU)
666k viewers CUSA v ACC
168k viewers CUSA v CUSA (day game after Thanksgiving)
FS1 CUSA Thursday
232k CUSA vs. CUSA no other college games

That might not inspire much confidence about drawing an audience.
ESPNU is in fewer homes and delivered similiar number. Can see being leery moving to Tuesday/Wednesday if you are concerned about how many will watch. The worst Tuesday night on ESPN2 was Sun Belt / Sun Belt287k going head-to-head with a Dodgers-Mets playoff game.

And any November CUSA game on FS1 on Tuesday or Wednesday would have been head to head with MAC games on ESPN or ESPN2. The MAC at least signed up to put their November schedule on Tuesday/Wednesday on the presumption that there are no head to head telecasts from other conferences.

(06-09-2016 10:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 08:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 05:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 04:44 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 04:11 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Nothing wrong with that lol, a little MACtion is better than HGTV..but the MAC is not what I'm questioning. It's if the SBC and CUSA contracts are even worth it.

It sounds nice to have but I'm starting to wonder what the realistic benefits are.

I think it is an issue we should always be looking at.
Right now, AState plays a Friday and a Wednesday at home under the Sun Belt deal and two Thursdays on the road under the Sun Belt deal (and another Friday under the MWC contract).

$118,000 for playing two non-standard home game dates in exchange for a quarter to half a million viewers per ain't bad. Games drawing down closer to 100,000 viewers you start wondering what you are doing, especially if it drives away ticket buyers.

The CUSA commissioner was asked why Fox wasn't part of the new CUSA TV deal and said that Fox wanted Tuesday/Wednesday games.

Maybe the right decision - makes sense that if you're going to shaft your ticket buying supporters by playing home football games on Tuesday/Wednesday night, you ought to be doing it to get your games on ESPN (the real ESPN, not just ESPN3) and not FS1.

FS1 hasn't developed much in the way of viewer habit. That makes it tough.
Looking at FS1 CUSA games on Friday last year
113k viewers CUSA v CUSA (head-to-head vs. ACC/ACC on ESPN2 AAC/AAC ESPNU)
666k viewers CUSA v ACC
168k viewers CUSA v CUSA (day game after Thanksgiving)
FS1 CUSA Thursday
232k CUSA vs. CUSA no other college games

That might not inspire much confidence about drawing an audience.
ESPNU is in fewer homes and delivered similiar number. Can see being leery moving to Tuesday/Wednesday if you are concerned about how many will watch. The worst Tuesday night on ESPN2 was Sun Belt / Sun Belt287k going head-to-head with a Dodgers-Mets playoff game.

And any November CUSA game on FS1 on Tuesday or Wednesday would have been head to head with MAC games on ESPN or ESPN2. The MAC at least signed up to put their November schedule on Tuesday/Wednesday on the presumption that there are no head to head telecasts from other conferences.

When NIU was in the national ranking/buster conversation they were pulling audiences of a million viewers, G5 can't ask for anything more than that. I'm skeptical FS1 could deliver that under the same circumstances.

(06-09-2016 11:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 10:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 08:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 05:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 04:44 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think it is an issue we should always be looking at.
Right now, AState plays a Friday and a Wednesday at home under the Sun Belt deal and two Thursdays on the road under the Sun Belt deal (and another Friday under the MWC contract).

$118,000 for playing two non-standard home game dates in exchange for a quarter to half a million viewers per ain't bad. Games drawing down closer to 100,000 viewers you start wondering what you are doing, especially if it drives away ticket buyers.

The CUSA commissioner was asked why Fox wasn't part of the new CUSA TV deal and said that Fox wanted Tuesday/Wednesday games.

Maybe the right decision - makes sense that if you're going to shaft your ticket buying supporters by playing home football games on Tuesday/Wednesday night, you ought to be doing it to get your games on ESPN (the real ESPN, not just ESPN3) and not FS1.

FS1 hasn't developed much in the way of viewer habit. That makes it tough.
Looking at FS1 CUSA games on Friday last year
113k viewers CUSA v CUSA (head-to-head vs. ACC/ACC on ESPN2 AAC/AAC ESPNU)
666k viewers CUSA v ACC
168k viewers CUSA v CUSA (day game after Thanksgiving)
FS1 CUSA Thursday
232k CUSA vs. CUSA no other college games

That might not inspire much confidence about drawing an audience.
ESPNU is in fewer homes and delivered similiar number. Can see being leery moving to Tuesday/Wednesday if you are concerned about how many will watch. The worst Tuesday night on ESPN2 was Sun Belt / Sun Belt287k going head-to-head with a Dodgers-Mets playoff game.

And any November CUSA game on FS1 on Tuesday or Wednesday would have been head to head with MAC games on ESPN or ESPN2. The MAC at least signed up to put their November schedule on Tuesday/Wednesday on the presumption that there are no head to head telecasts from other conferences.

When NIU was in the national ranking/buster conversation they were pulling audiences of a million viewers, G5 can't ask for anything more than that. I'm skeptical FS1 could deliver that under the same circumstances.

Agreed, and it wouldn't be the same circumstances, it would be worse circumstances -- NIU's games in those years were not facing head to head competition from other televised games, whereas if CUSA had agreed to what Fox wanted, they'd be playing Tuesday/Wednesday on FS1 head to head with ESPN/ESPN2 MAC telecasts.

Any school, like Old Dominion, who can attract fans to a game does not wish to host a mid week game. In fact, mid week games will kill your fan support.

C-USA may be better off taking their production in-house and distributing their games over an app. Surely, they can get more than $200,000 advertising per school by selling their own ads.

(06-10-2016 12:29 AM)chess Wrote:  Any school, like Old Dominion, who can attract fans to a game does not wish to host a mid week game. In fact, mid week games will kill your fan support.

C-USA may be better off taking their production in-house and distributing their games over an app. Surely, they can get more than $200,000 advertising per school by selling their own ads.

Video ad rates online run around $15 per thousand.
Based on the numbers I've been able to get my hands on. Games that are on "real" TV tend to produce better streaming numbers.

Reported numbers tend to come with a caveat, they rarely tell you how many watched the whole thing. Instead you will get how many connected at some point or they will tell you how many hours or minutes were watched. If a three hour game had 15,000 hours of viewership you have the equivalent of 5,000 people watching the entire game and more likely something like 20,000 people saw some part of it.

I'm going to throw out some wildly optimistic numbers for CUSA. Let's say they would probably do something around 120,000 hours for most games (and I'm being very generous considering how online trails conventional TV). Roughly averaging 40,000 viewers.

I believe it was the site Hustle Belt that based on their extrapolation of MAC numbers came up with an average of 3500 viewers for an entire game for exclusively streamed MAC games. Data I have on AState suggests online only averaged the equivalent of 7500 viewers for the entire game +/- 1000 or so because of the way things are reported and that was for a school that outdrew 8 CUSA schools, 9 counting Charlotte. So I'm being super generous.

You are going to have roughly 100 commercials at probably $15 per thousand viewers. So at 40,000 viewers each commercial will produce $600 multiply by 100 commercials and you are pulling in $60,000 for the telecast. Depending on your broadcast standards it will cost you about $50,000 to telecast a game that will be acceptable to most audiences before any costs for app development, servers and encoding and that also assumes no one closes the app at halftime and all the halftime ads are viewed.

You need 20 home games per school to produce $200,000 in revenue.

Now you can go a bit more bare bones and probably pull your broadcast standards down and get by on $35,000 in production costs. Then you only need 8 home games each to produce that sort of money. Except my hypothetical overstates viewership probably 200% to 300% which means it becomes a money losing venture.

(06-10-2016 08:56 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 12:29 AM)chess Wrote:  Any school, like Old Dominion, who can attract fans to a game does not wish to host a mid week game. In fact, mid week games will kill your fan support.

C-USA may be better off taking their production in-house and distributing their games over an app. Surely, they can get more than $200,000 advertising per school by selling their own ads.

Video ad rates online run around $15 per thousand.
Based on the numbers I've been able to get my hands on. Games that are on "real" TV tend to produce better streaming numbers.

Reported numbers tend to come with a caveat, they rarely tell you how many watched the whole thing. Instead you will get how many connected at some point or they will tell you how many hours or minutes were watched. If a three hour game had 15,000 hours of viewership you have the equivalent of 5,000 people watching the entire game and more likely something like 20,000 people saw some part of it.

I'm going to throw out some wildly optimistic numbers for CUSA. Let's say they would probably do something around 120,000 hours for most games (and I'm being very generous considering how online trails conventional TV). Roughly averaging 40,000 viewers.

I believe it was the site Hustle Belt that based on their extrapolation of MAC numbers came up with an average of 3500 viewers for an entire game for exclusively streamed MAC games. Data I have on AState suggests online only averaged the equivalent of 7500 viewers for the entire game +/- 1000 or so because of the way things are reported and that was for a school that outdrew 8 CUSA schools, 9 counting Charlotte. So I'm being super generous.

You are going to have roughly 100 commercials at probably $15 per thousand viewers. So at 40,000 viewers each commercial will produce $600 multiply by 100 commercials and you are pulling in $60,000 for the telecast. Depending on your broadcast standards it will cost you about $50,000 to telecast a game that will be acceptable to most audiences before any costs for app development, servers and encoding and that also assumes no one closes the app at halftime and all the halftime ads are viewed.

You need 20 home games per school to produce $200,000 in revenue.

Now you can go a bit more bare bones and probably pull your broadcast standards down and get by on $35,000 in production costs. Then you only need 8 home games each to produce that sort of money. Except my hypothetical overstates viewership probably 200% to 300% which means it becomes a money losing venture.

The object of streaming is not meant to be a source of revenue. It's meant to be an added source of access that's optional if the school desires it.

And you can set up a live stream for much less money than those numbers....I have seen churches with less than 200 members do it, and do it will with extremely limited funds and people who are not professionals.

I don't think anyone would be expecting a 2160p 3D capable live stream from an app or a website. Just being able to watch the game on their phone, tablet, laptop, or PC if they can't make it or if someone needs to review it.

The potential money comes from being able to set your games when you want to set them thus increase the number of people who come.

Again, let's look at App State and let's say they can draw a 20k crowd at a Saturday evening game for this example. Right now they get like 100k from TV money and ticket sales for a Saturday game can potentially be 240k for a 20k sell out.

On their 2016 schedule some media company would have picked up the Miami game whether they had a contract with them or not. And I don't see any other home games scheduled to be televised. And the away games that are televised are weeknight away games.

Now, imagine if they had no TV contract. ESPN can come pick up the Miami game and APP state has the option to stream all of their other home games. ESPN also decides to pick up the game against GSU if they are both good.

Without the TV contract they would get the same exposure and get to set their own kick off times for all but one home game.

(06-10-2016 03:10 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 08:56 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 12:29 AM)chess Wrote:  Any school, like Old Dominion, who can attract fans to a game does not wish to host a mid week game. In fact, mid week games will kill your fan support.

C-USA may be better off taking their production in-house and distributing their games over an app. Surely, they can get more than $200,000 advertising per school by selling their own ads.

Video ad rates online run around $15 per thousand.
Based on the numbers I've been able to get my hands on. Games that are on "real" TV tend to produce better streaming numbers.

Reported numbers tend to come with a caveat, they rarely tell you how many watched the whole thing. Instead you will get how many connected at some point or they will tell you how many hours or minutes were watched. If a three hour game had 15,000 hours of viewership you have the equivalent of 5,000 people watching the entire game and more likely something like 20,000 people saw some part of it.

I'm going to throw out some wildly optimistic numbers for CUSA. Let's say they would probably do something around 120,000 hours for most games (and I'm being very generous considering how online trails conventional TV). Roughly averaging 40,000 viewers.

I believe it was the site Hustle Belt that based on their extrapolation of MAC numbers came up with an average of 3500 viewers for an entire game for exclusively streamed MAC games. Data I have on AState suggests online only averaged the equivalent of 7500 viewers for the entire game +/- 1000 or so because of the way things are reported and that was for a school that outdrew 8 CUSA schools, 9 counting Charlotte. So I'm being super generous.

You are going to have roughly 100 commercials at probably $15 per thousand viewers. So at 40,000 viewers each commercial will produce $600 multiply by 100 commercials and you are pulling in $60,000 for the telecast. Depending on your broadcast standards it will cost you about $50,000 to telecast a game that will be acceptable to most audiences before any costs for app development, servers and encoding and that also assumes no one closes the app at halftime and all the halftime ads are viewed.

You need 20 home games per school to produce $200,000 in revenue.

Now you can go a bit more bare bones and probably pull your broadcast standards down and get by on $35,000 in production costs. Then you only need 8 home games each to produce that sort of money. Except my hypothetical overstates viewership probably 200% to 300% which means it becomes a money losing venture.

The object of streaming is not meant to be a source of revenue. It's meant to be an added source of access that's optional if the school desires it.

And you can set up a live stream for much less money than those numbers....I have seen churches with less than 200 members do it, and do it will with extremely limited funds and people who are not professionals.

I don't think anyone would be expecting a 2160p 3D capable live stream from an app or a website. Just being able to watch the game on their phone, tablet, laptop, or PC if they can't make it or if someone needs to review it.

The potential money comes from being able to set your games when you want to set them thus increase the number of people who come.

Again, let's look at App State and let's say they can draw a 20k crowd at a Saturday evening game for this example. Right now they get like 100k from TV money and ticket sales for a Saturday game can potentially be 240k for a 20k sell out.

On their 2016 schedule some media company would have picked up the Miami game whether they had a contract with them or not. And I don't see any other home games scheduled to be televised. And the away games that are televised are weeknight away games.

Now, imagine if they had no TV contract. ESPN can come pick up the Miami game and APP state has the option to stream all of their other home games. ESPN also decides to pick up the game against GSU if they are both good.

Without the TV contract they would get the same exposure and get to set their own kick off times for all but one home game.

Churches don't need to use a five camera set-up to keep viewers content, they need instant replay, and quality on-screen grapics, they don't need to run cables 1000 to 1500 feet to a production truck, they generally don't have to pay the people at each camera or in the production center, they don't pay two people to describe the action during the service, they don't need cameras with the capacity to deal with high speed motion, they don't need high ratio optical zoom, they don't need the caliber of equipment required to not electrocute operators in the rain or that won't become junkyard fodder in the rain.

Most NPSL teams offer YouTube streaming and you can watch the game, see a few replays and get some shoddy graphics but the quality also tells you something about the operation.

(06-09-2016 02:51 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  http://csnbbs.com/thread-781573.html

Fans reaction to the news that the new CUSA TV deal being around 200k per team.

http://pilotonline.com/sports/college/ol...957e7.html

Your idea? I posted this back on May 27th on page 2 of this thread...

http://csnbbs.com/thread-780842.html

Creating three regional conferences within the G5 makes a lot of sense if the TV dollars aren't there to support a larger conference.

For it to work C-USA also needs to be at 10. If the Big 12 took Cincinnati, Memphis, USF, and UCF then the AAC could take FAU, FIU, and 2 of the following: UAB, Marshall, WKU, Middle Tennessee.

This leaves C-USA with the following:

UTEP, UTSA, Rice, North Texas, Louisiana Tech, Southern Miss, UAB/MTSU, Marshall/WKU, Charlotte, Old Dominion

The three remaining easternmost members of C-USA head to the Sun Belt in exchange for Texas State, Arkansas State, and Louisiana:

West - UTEP, UTSA, Rice, North Texas, Texas State
East - Arkansas State, Louisiana, Louisiana Tech, Southern Miss, UAB/MTSU

North - Marshall/WKU, ODU, App State, Charlotte, Coastal Carolina
South - ULM, USA, Troy, Georgia Southern, Georgia State,



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk