(06-10-2016 08:42 AM)stanman505 Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 08:36 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Nothing is going to happen in two years unless Big 12 expands.

We could benefit financially by loosing two teams, but then two we lose would probably hurt our competitive strength.

We'll see what the next round of TV holds, but IMO I believe the C-USA leadership is dreaming if they expect anything different in two years.

We are at the beginning - like the top of the first inning - in terms of the changes that are coming in terms of how people consume video (i.e. "TV"). There are powerful internet brands that have yet to even enter the landscape of live sports and it's coming. The same problems we faced this time are still going to exist in two years. They are still going to exist 10 years from now. This is likely - IMO - the greatest multi-media change that will have been experienced since the TV was created.

The best thing we can do in the next two years is:
1. Solidify a strong relationship with ESPN (so that whatever market they retain we are a part of).
2. Strengthen and deliver a first class conference digital network.
3. Plan to be a two tiered system whereby the conference delivers its own content and gets as many nationally televised games as we can get through ESPN. Whatever isn't on ESPN is owned and operated by the conference.
4. Develop relationships with broadband, satellite, etc providers to get the "C-USA Digital Network" broadcast through the providers for late adapters of the streaming revolution.

I really think UTEP will be one of the two. The second team will also be a Texas school, preferable Rice from what I am hearing. It has been a fun ride in CUSA.

I really hope Rice goes along with UTEP to MWC, CUSA will lose additional teams to AAC after the Big12 expands.

(06-10-2016 10:17 AM)WIowl Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 08:42 AM)stanman505 Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 08:36 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Nothing is going to happen in two years unless Big 12 expands.

We could benefit financially by loosing two teams, but then two we lose would probably hurt our competitive strength.

We'll see what the next round of TV holds, but IMO I believe the C-USA leadership is dreaming if they expect anything different in two years.

We are at the beginning - like the top of the first inning - in terms of the changes that are coming in terms of how people consume video (i.e. "TV"). There are powerful internet brands that have yet to even enter the landscape of live sports and it's coming. The same problems we faced this time are still going to exist in two years. They are still going to exist 10 years from now. This is likely - IMO - the greatest multi-media change that will have been experienced since the TV was created.

The best thing we can do in the next two years is:
1. Solidify a strong relationship with ESPN (so that whatever market they retain we are a part of).
2. Strengthen and deliver a first class conference digital network.
3. Plan to be a two tiered system whereby the conference delivers its own content and gets as many nationally televised games as we can get through ESPN. Whatever isn't on ESPN is owned and operated by the conference.
4. Develop relationships with broadband, satellite, etc providers to get the "C-USA Digital Network" broadcast through the providers for late adapters of the streaming revolution.

I really think UTEP will be one of the two. The second team will also be a Texas school, preferable Rice from what I am hearing. It has been a fun ride in CUSA.

I really hope Rice goes along with UTEP to MWC, CUSA will lose additional teams to AAC after the Big12 expands.

I would hate to lose Rice and UTEP (two of the better programs in CUSA), although I think 12 is a better number than 14 for CUSA (10 might be optimal with the championship game deregulation) . That being said - I don't see an incentive for the MWC to go beyond 12 by adding UTEP and Rice. Maybe if they lose two teams to the BIG 12 they add.

(06-10-2016 08:28 AM)BlueRaiderBoy Wrote:  After CUSA's bruising announcement regarding future TV Money, MT AD Chris Massaro said there will be cuts in the Athletic Budget at Middle Tennessee this fall. Can't help but wonder how this will impact all of us in CUSA over the next Three to Five years even thought the new TV Contract is for only two years. So, realistically, how do you guys think this impacts conference members and our collective future in the Grand Scheme of Intercollegiate Athletics?

When does the new deal start? 16-17? 17-18?

I really think we should have reconsidered mid-week games. I don't think 1 mid-week home game per team would be too bad. If it would have gotten Fox to the table, it may have been worth it. Would like to know the $$$ difference it would have made.

(06-10-2016 08:36 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Nothing is going to happen in two years unless Big 12 expands.

We could benefit financially by loosing two teams, but then two we lose would probably hurt our competitive strength.

We'll see what the next round of TV holds, but IMO I believe the C-USA leadership is dreaming if they expect anything different in two years.

We are at the beginning - like the top of the first inning - in terms of the changes that are coming in terms of how people consume video (i.e. "TV"). There are powerful internet brands that have yet to even enter the landscape of live sports and it's coming. The same problems we faced this time are still going to exist in two years. They are still going to exist 10 years from now. This is likely - IMO - the greatest multi-media change that will have been experienced since the TV was created.

The best thing we can do in the next two years is:
1. Solidify a strong relationship with ESPN (so that whatever market they retain we are a part of).
2. Strengthen and deliver a first class conference digital network.
3. Plan to be a two tiered system whereby the conference delivers its own content and gets as many nationally televised games as we can get through ESPN. Whatever isn't on ESPN is owned and operated by the conference.
4. Develop relationships with broadband, satellite, etc providers to get the "C-USA Digital Network" broadcast through the providers for late adopters of the streaming revolution.

What we really need from a financial and perception standpoint is to get the G5 access bowl spot in one of the next two years.

(06-10-2016 10:53 AM)blazer-J Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 08:36 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Nothing is going to happen in two years unless Big 12 expands.

We could benefit financially by loosing two teams, but then two we lose would probably hurt our competitive strength.

We'll see what the next round of TV holds, but IMO I believe the C-USA leadership is dreaming if they expect anything different in two years.

We are at the beginning - like the top of the first inning - in terms of the changes that are coming in terms of how people consume video (i.e. "TV"). There are powerful internet brands that have yet to even enter the landscape of live sports and it's coming. The same problems we faced this time are still going to exist in two years. They are still going to exist 10 years from now. This is likely - IMO - the greatest multi-media change that will have been experienced since the TV was created.

The best thing we can do in the next two years is:
1. Solidify a strong relationship with ESPN (so that whatever market they retain we are a part of).
2. Strengthen and deliver a first class conference digital network.
3. Plan to be a two tiered system whereby the conference delivers its own content and gets as many nationally televised games as we can get through ESPN. Whatever isn't on ESPN is owned and operated by the conference.
4. Develop relationships with broadband, satellite, etc providers to get the "C-USA Digital Network" broadcast through the providers for late adopters of the streaming revolution.

What we really need from a financial and perception standpoint is to get the G5 access bowl spot in one of the next two years.

And I need Jessica Biel to marry me. Neither is happening.

Why is it not happening? I thought Marsha was playing a real schedule these days.
USM is not planning to lay down for anybody. WKU is still playing football.

(06-10-2016 09:30 AM)Migser31 Wrote:  The cord cutting is only going to increase and if you think the other G5 conferences are going to get any benefit at all you're a fool. The P5 is going to monopolize the money because they have the marketing power the big cable companies want, regardless of on field performance. I'm of the mindset of a few others I've seen on the board, WE SHOULD GO FULL STEAM AHEAD IN THE STREAMING DIRECTION. We should be working very hard on building a relationship with; NetFlix, Hulu, Google (YouTube) and Amazon. Hell, even the large cable content providers (HBO, Showtime, etc.) see the writing on the wall and offer their services through content streaming providers. We'd be the trailblazers but it and EASY way to put up a CUSA Network Sport without the need of cable negotiations and agreements.

Good post. The TV side will not be any better in 2 years. The writing is on the wall, all the G5 will suffer and we are the first.

Regarding the commissioner, she has a monotone voice. Big deal, I rather someone be real than act like a car salesman. But her actual words are concerning. Be up front about the deal and talk about the future/vision for the conference.

See where the conf has picked up a new digital media outlet called silver chalice. They handle MWC, ACC digital programming. They also handle advertising and additional promo to put some extra coin in conf bottom line. They do impressive production.

I don't see all G5 conferences taking a hit like C-USA just did. The SBC is willing to play some Tuesday/Wednesday games and we are not. They will likely get a boost next time just for that reason. I'm fine with not playing those nights but the truth is the MAC is set and the SBC will do ok in their next negotiations. Look at the time slots available on Saturday when C-USA want to play. Nothing except ASN and BeIn and they are not paying much. The AAC and MWC have some brand name programs and draw good ratings. C-USA has to start winning important OOC games before any media folks are going to take notice.

(06-10-2016 09:10 AM)tennischamp Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 08:46 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  Would the top brands in CUSA now have the necessary motivation to try something new? Institutions are risk averse until a crisis. I think the tv contract constitutes a crisis. At some point boosters are going to want a better return on their money. IMO then, its the money people within the fan bases , the super boosters, that will have a say in shaping the conference for the next few years.

Money talks and college football is about money and tv coverage. If your a Marshall booster, or a Southern Miss booster and have seen better financial times, what is to stop you from demanding their respective administration's do whatever is necessary to make sure the sports programs survive.

It seems to me that the top brands in CUSA now have nothing to lose and might want to start reaching out to the Sun Belt teams and create a best of the Belt and Conf USA. A best of would imo, make for a very good conference and one that would have a better chance of proving its value to the tv partners.

I concur. A realignment of the top half of CUSA and the top half of the Sun Belt would make for a conference that would be tough from top to bottom in football, basketball, and baseball. Even the attendance would be impressive looking.

Go concur on the AAC board

(06-10-2016 10:17 AM)WIowl Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 08:42 AM)stanman505 Wrote:  I really think UTEP will be one of the two. The second team will also be a Texas school, preferable Rice from what I am hearing. It has been a fun ride in CUSA.

I really hope Rice goes along with UTEP to MWC, CUSA will lose additional teams to AAC after the Big12 expands.

I think the more interesting question is what happens if the XII implodes rather than expands. Where do Tech, Baylor, etc., go if UT, OU, OSU and ?? (or however it would happen) go to the Pac-16?

(06-10-2016 10:51 AM)blazer-J Wrote:  When does the new deal start? 16-17? 17-18?

I really think we should have reconsidered mid-week games. I don't think 1 mid-week home game per team would be too bad. If it would have gotten Fox to the table, it may have been worth it. Would like to know the $$$ difference it would have made.

This year. 16-17

There is a strong counterargument to mid-week games.

So, sacrifice a good portion of already smaller fan bases ability to attend the game for what exactly? To play midweek on a network that no one is watching? So, not only do you play midweek, screwing up your schedule, screwing your fans, disrupting academics, but you also play second fiddle to a MAC game, because every bar in America has it tuned into ESPN and the default channel for most sports watchers at home is likewise on ESPN. If you've never looked at weeknight ratings for MAC games vs whatever the other networks are showing it would be clear. They aren't good but a hell of a lot better than anything else not on a broadcast network.

Not agreeing to be on Fox mid week is the only good thing so far to come out of this TV deal.

(06-10-2016 11:36 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  I don't see all G5 conferences taking a hit like C-USA just did. The SBC is willing to play some Tuesday/Wednesday games and we are not. They will likely get a boost next time just for that reason. I'm fine with not playing those nights but the truth is the MAC is set and the SBC will do ok in their next negotiations. Look at the time slots available on Saturday when C-USA want to play. Nothing except ASN and BeIn and they are not paying much. The AAC and MWC have some brand name programs and draw good ratings. C-USA has to start winning important OOC games before any media folks are going to take notice.

You dont think fox sports losing 200 million and ESPN losing 10,000 subscribers a day has anything to do the contract

(06-10-2016 11:38 AM)STexMiner Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 10:17 AM)WIowl Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 08:42 AM)stanman505 Wrote:  I really think UTEP will be one of the two. The second team will also be a Texas school, preferable Rice from what I am hearing. It has been a fun ride in CUSA.

I really hope Rice goes along with UTEP to MWC, CUSA will lose additional teams to AAC after the Big12 expands.

I think the more interesting question is what happens if the XII implodes rather than expands. Where do Tech, Baylor, etc., do if UT, OU, OSU and ?? (or however it would happen) go to the Pac-16?

Texas Tech

(06-10-2016 10:12 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Values for G5 aren't a constant rising nor falling. The situation of each negotiation depends on the market needs of the day.

The old CUSA deal.
Fox did not have any CFB content they could distribute nationally. CUSA 2.x got a premium for being their first national content.
CBSSN had basically nothing except MWC. CUSA 2.x got a premium for being their first Eastern/Central timezone content.

Fox has elected to not take on ESPN with a large inventory online package like ESPN has done with ESPN3

Fox can now distribute Big XII and Pac-12 nationally and apparently is getting part of the Big 10 package. Fox's needs are different than when the old deal was done.

ESPN ended up with a lot of excess AAC and MAC content and is selling it to CBSSN for less than CBSSN paid per game to CUSA. That's going to create deflation.

The AAC wanted to walk from ESPN and NBC was willing to show them love making them a big part NBCSN and the various Comcast RSNs. ESPN had right of first refusal and elected to match the NBC offer. Did they pay that price because that was what AAC was worth to them or because that was a fair price for them to pay to keep NBC limited to Notre Dame in owning FBS content?

MAC nailed their negotiation. They reopened at a point when NIU had pulled some audiences in excess of a million viewers (not something that happens often with the G5) and while ESPN was looking to expand its ESPN3 portfolio and wanted to expand its weeknight portfolio so that they now double book MAC games late in the season with the most attractive game going to ESPN2 or ESPN and the lesser game getting selected for ESPNU but they pay a premium to get two games moved to the weeknight so they can flex.

I would bet a quality hamburger (not fast food cardboard) that when Fox and CBSSN cut the fee to CUSA that CUSA could have gone forward and done a full blown renegotiation for more years at a price higher than what this deal produced (being a two year deal is almost certainly lowered in value just on that point alone) but the commissioner and key presidents refused to accept that the total value should drop in a long-term deal even though there had been significant membership changes as well as the premium generating conditions no longer being in place. I'm pretty confident a better deal could have struck at that point instead of doing a deal with the conclusion of the existing deal rapidly approaching.

The marketplace is changing (again) and a good G5 deal isn't an impossibility but it will happen when there is malalignment between how TV makes money and what they have available to exploit making money, that fueled the AAC deal it fueled the CUSA 2.x deal.

That's a really good post, looking at it without emotion and based on the business of TV and content.

What most people miss it that, outside of 15-20 teams, who's actually playing is not that important. Casual fans only watch their team and the really big match-ups, the next step up will watch some games involving teams their team plays (conference viewers), hard core folks watch any game on TV, picking the one that interest them most if there are multiple options.

For networks, they have to fill "x" number of hours per week with content. Sure, they want the best ratings they can get, but the ratings between mediocre P5 match-ups and decent G5 match-ups aren't that great, not enough to make much of a variation in ad rates. The big money to the P5 conferences is really attributable to the top 3-4 teams in each of those conferences, all other teams are just filler.

So, when the amount of product exceeds the amount of content needed, the value drops. These networks have started sharing the cream of those top 15-20 teams by having multiple players with each conference. So now they can fill a lot of their content requirements with games that involve those top teams. No longer does ESPN have to decide to show Ohio State-Indiana or Michigan-Purdue. They pick one and Fox shows the other. Now Fox doesn't need to pay up to get USM-La Tech because they are going to have the Michigan game.

I think they finally figured out that they were paying for 12-14 Saturday conference games, but could only show 2 of them. Paying for content they couldn't use, and then spending money to acquire additional content to fill other slots from the G5. So they got away from exclusive conference contracts.

(06-10-2016 10:12 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Values for G5 aren't a constant rising nor falling. The situation of each negotiation depends on the market needs of the day.

The old CUSA deal.
Fox did not have any CFB content they could distribute nationally. CUSA 2.x got a premium for being their first national content.
CBSSN had basically nothing except MWC. CUSA 2.x got a premium for being their first Eastern/Central timezone content.

Fox has elected to not take on ESPN with a large inventory online package like ESPN has done with ESPN3

Fox can now distribute Big XII and Pac-12 nationally and apparently is getting part of the Big 10 package. Fox's needs are different than when the old deal was done.

ESPN ended up with a lot of excess AAC and MAC content and is selling it to CBSSN for less than CBSSN paid per game to CUSA. That's going to create deflation.

The AAC wanted to walk from ESPN and NBC was willing to show them love making them a big part NBCSN and the various Comcast RSNs. ESPN had right of first refusal and elected to match the NBC offer. Did they pay that price because that was what AAC was worth to them or because that was a fair price for them to pay to keep NBC limited to Notre Dame in owning FBS content?

MAC nailed their negotiation. They reopened at a point when NIU had pulled some audiences in excess of a million viewers (not something that happens often with the G5) and while ESPN was looking to expand its ESPN3 portfolio and wanted to expand its weeknight portfolio so that they now double book MAC games late in the season with the most attractive game going to ESPN2 or ESPN and the lesser game getting selected for ESPNU but they pay a premium to get two games moved to the weeknight so they can flex.

I would bet a quality hamburger (not fast food cardboard) that when Fox and CBSSN cut the fee to CUSA that CUSA could have gone forward and done a full blown renegotiation for more years at a price higher than what this deal produced (being a two year deal is almost certainly lowered in value just on that point alone) but the commissioner and key presidents refused to accept that the total value should drop in a long-term deal even though there had been significant membership changes as well as the premium generating conditions no longer being in place. I'm pretty confident a better deal could have struck at that point instead of doing a deal with the conclusion of the existing deal rapidly approaching.

The marketplace is changing (again) and a good G5 deal isn't an impossibility but it will happen when there is malalignment between how TV makes money and what they have available to exploit making money, that fueled the AAC deal it fueled the CUSA 2.x deal.

Good post. Agree with everything except the part bolded above. I would have been willing to take you on the burger bet. As you know I used to believe what you said here, but that's before the market environment changed. The biggest elephant in the room no one really understands or isn't willing to understand is that it's not just the cord cutters. It's the over valuation of deals ESPN and Fox signed in recent years combined with the loss in subscribers. I don't think there was much we could have done to salvage this deal. It just simply came due at the worst possible time imaginable. And for this uncertainty in the TV market to work itself out is going to take longer than a few years.

(06-10-2016 11:40 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 10:51 AM)blazer-J Wrote:  When does the new deal start? 16-17? 17-18?

I really think we should have reconsidered mid-week games. I don't think 1 mid-week home game per team would be too bad. If it would have gotten Fox to the table, it may have been worth it. Would like to know the $$$ difference it would have made.

This year. 16-17

There is a strong counterargument to mid-week games.

So, sacrifice a good portion of already smaller fan bases ability to attend the game for what exactly? To play midweek on a network that no one is watching? So, not only do you play midweek, screwing up your schedule, screwing your fans, disrupting academics, but you also play second fiddle to a MAC game, because every bar in America has it tuned into ESPN and the default channel for most sports watchers at home is likewise on ESPN. If you've never looked at weeknight ratings for MAC games vs whatever the other networks are showing it would be clear. They aren't good but a hell of a lot better than anything else not on a broadcast network.

Not agreeing to be on Fox mid week is the only good thing so far to come out of this TV deal.

Definitely, Fox sports on a weeknight is no bueno. Now if they were willing to pay top dollar but that wasnt the case I bet

(06-10-2016 11:37 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 09:10 AM)tennischamp Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 08:46 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  Would the top brands in CUSA now have the necessary motivation to try something new? Institutions are risk averse until a crisis. I think the tv contract constitutes a crisis. At some point boosters are going to want a better return on their money. IMO then, its the money people within the fan bases , the super boosters, that will have a say in shaping the conference for the next few years.

Money talks and college football is about money and tv coverage. If your a Marshall booster, or a Southern Miss booster and have seen better financial times, what is to stop you from demanding their respective administration's do whatever is necessary to make sure the sports programs survive.

It seems to me that the top brands in CUSA now have nothing to lose and might want to start reaching out to the Sun Belt teams and create a best of the Belt and Conf USA. A best of would imo, make for a very good conference and one that would have a better chance of proving its value to the tv partners.

I concur. A realignment of the top half of CUSA and the top half of the Sun Belt would make for a conference that would be tough from top to bottom in football, basketball, and baseball. Even the attendance would be impressive looking.

Go concur on the AAC board

Most all this reorganization talk comes from outside CUSA, much of it from the sunbelt. Its not going to happen.

(06-10-2016 09:02 AM)HogDawg Wrote:  CUSA needs new and bold leadership. Today, we just don't have it with Judy MacLeod. She's a terrible leader. As long as Judy Mac is commissioner, we're simply postponing the inevitable. If we don't make a change in the commissioner role soon, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves. There's too much at stake to continue having a "PC appointee" in that position.

the problem is not MacLeod

(06-10-2016 11:37 AM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 09:10 AM)tennischamp Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 08:46 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  Would the top brands in CUSA now have the necessary motivation to try something new? Institutions are risk averse until a crisis. I think the tv contract constitutes a crisis. At some point boosters are going to want a better return on their money. IMO then, its the money people within the fan bases , the super boosters, that will have a say in shaping the conference for the next few years.

Money talks and college football is about money and tv coverage. If your a Marshall booster, or a Southern Miss booster and have seen better financial times, what is to stop you from demanding their respective administration's do whatever is necessary to make sure the sports programs survive.

It seems to me that the top brands in CUSA now have nothing to lose and might want to start reaching out to the Sun Belt teams and create a best of the Belt and Conf USA. A best of would imo, make for a very good conference and one that would have a better chance of proving its value to the tv partners.

I concur. A realignment of the top half of CUSA and the top half of the Sun Belt would make for a conference that would be tough from top to bottom in football, basketball, and baseball. Even the attendance would be impressive looking.

Go concur on the AAC board

And exactly WHO would decide who the "top half" schools are? And how would that be determined? Football only, all sports? markets?