I stopped watching the NFL around 1997....boring. I couldn't name five NFL players right now other than the ones you see in the news or doing commercials.

Time for some other sport to emerge, like soccer. Soccer's issue is it's too low scoring.

(12-11-2016 08:34 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Time for some other sport to emerge, like soccer. Soccer's issue is it's too low scoring.

Soccers issue is, they don't have TV timeouts. This means they don't get the revenue from advertising in the US the way we do it with the other big sports. This also means the publicity/TV part of of just isnt there

If they could figure this out, they would get the advertising dollars which gets the league HUGE money which gives them the ability to lure a Ronaldo, Messe, etc. which drives popularity, which drives advertising and the wheel starts to turn.

(12-10-2016 06:43 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Article says ESPN is losing subscribers so fast Disney analysts are saying they need to spin it off or sell it.

Article goes on to say they have lost 9million subcribers in the last three years.

I'm glad...EPSN ruined college football. I know they orchestrated the Big East demise and they have destroyed rivalries for the sake of $$$.

Suck it ESPN....I hope you go under you losers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...5a35e9d311

Totally agree with you. ESPN destroyed the Big East 2.0 when Cincinnati, USF, UCONN, Louisville etc.. joined. I hope the wheels at ESPN come completely off. That will be a great day. Screw ESPN!

(12-10-2016 02:58 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 02:05 PM)Bear Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 12:38 PM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  I have a better idea all tv revenue goes into a pool and gets split evenly. So if the SEC gets a bump, everyone does.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Bingo! That would take major anti-trust lawsuits - that may end NCAA current structure though. The P5 won't just agree.

Sent from my SM-N910V using CSNbbs mobile app

you are not even intelligent enough to know what anti-trust means nor are you even aware enough to know that lawsuit has already taken place and "your side" lost dramatically

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_v._Bo...f_Oklahoma

get a clue

That case is what started it all. Each school owned its own rights unless the specifically granted them to someone else. They then granted them to the Conferences and the conferences negotiated with the media. CBS came to the SEC first. Offered a whole lot of money (for the time), NBC went after ND, and then everyone else went into a panic. SEC started a CG, so everyone else decided it needed to in order to get the dollars. Since they needed 12 teams, Big 8 raided the SWC and the realignment race was on. That case, more than anything else, influenced the way CFB has been run for the past 25 years.

(12-12-2016 06:10 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 02:58 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 02:05 PM)Bear Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 12:38 PM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  I have a better idea all tv revenue goes into a pool and gets split evenly. So if the SEC gets a bump, everyone does.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Bingo! That would take major anti-trust lawsuits - that may end NCAA current structure though. The P5 won't just agree.

Sent from my SM-N910V using CSNbbs mobile app

you are not even intelligent enough to know what anti-trust means nor are you even aware enough to know that lawsuit has already taken place and "your side" lost dramatically

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_v._Bo...f_Oklahoma

get a clue

That case is what started it all. Each school owned its own rights unless the specifically granted them to someone else. They then granted them to the Conferences and the conferences negotiated with the media. CBS came to the SEC first. Offered a whole lot of money (for the time), NBC went after ND, and then everyone else went into a panic. SEC started a CG, so everyone else decided it needed to in order to get the dollars. Since they needed 12 teams, Big 8 raided the SWC and the realignment race was on. That case, more than anything else, influenced the way CFB has been run for the past 25 years.

it was really many years later that most looked to start a CCG the CCG was not remotely a factor in it

the reason the Big 8 and SWC broke up and merged some teams was because the SWC had no market outside of Texas and the 4 private schools in the SWC had let their programs drop off dramatically (or were wrongly killed SMU) and were showing no signs they were going to invest in their programs

and dem coogs doh had also just let their programs rot as well

so the Big 8 with small markets, but top national teams needed to get a couple of more teams and a much bigger market while the SWC teams needed a bigger overall national presence

and really the Big 12 would have been the "something else" if only UT and A&M had joined like there was some plans for and they would not have had a CCG either

it was not until a few years ago that the Big 10 and PAC 12 did anything concerning a CCG nor did the Big East and the ACC not until 2005 which was 10 years after the Big 12 started up and that was as much or more because they could after making moves for other reasons

and really the SWC/Big 8 deal did not even set off much realignment the SEC SEC SEC did little to move and the Big 10 added one team and the ACC made a few moves here and there, but it was not a mad dash with multiple teams in play again until a few years ago

I think AAC presents national TV watching value if they could just get their marquee games on un-opposed to big name football events. The nation will watch a game with teams they don't care about so long as one of the teams is ranked in order to root against them.

Even without ESPN, if you get a Tuesday/Wednesday night game on something like FS1 or TBS with a ranked team, that would get decent ratings. Especially compared to some Sun Belt or MAC teams. SEC and Big Ten schools would never agree to it.

The AAC could give the anticipated "good" teams like UH or Navy this season more prime time.

With that kind of setup, it may even be worth going after Western teams like SDSU, Boise State, CSU and have a 7pm Eastern game and then a 10pm western game. Just a thought. AAC football is fun to watch but when buried on CBSsports, against 50 other Saturday games, no one sees the product.

(12-11-2016 08:34 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Soccer's issue is it's too low scoring.

Is it really?

The difference is that American football gets 7 points per score while soccer only gets one point.
Your average soccer match is 3-2 that would equate to a 21-14 game in football, which is not your typical SEC/B1G game.

(12-11-2016 08:34 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Time for some other sport to emerge, like soccer. Soccer's issue is it's too low scoring.

Oddly enough cricket would be a better draw for advertisers. It's got 40 commercial breaks and the t20 format is done in 4 hours. The problem is that the United States is completely irrelevant in world cricket, the game is dominated by 12 or so teams, and we already have a bat and ball game.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

The US isn't India and we already have a variation of cricket that's been entrenched in the culture for decades. The typical American watching a game of cricket would not be much different than Phillip J. Fry watching a game of Blernsball on Futurama. We'd be trying to figure out what the bleep is going on.

(12-12-2016 10:32 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 08:34 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Soccer's issue is it's too low scoring.

Is it really?

The difference is that American football gets 7 points per score while soccer only gets one point.
Your average soccer match is 3-2 that would equate to a 21-14 game in football, which is not your typical SEC/B1G game.

"Your average soccer match" my behind. The best leagues tend to have a high surplus of 1-0, 1-1 and 2-1 games. I think I read the most common soccer result is 2-1.

And even if you can expect a game to end 3-2, I guarantee you that less than 10% of all games over the last 15 years, college and pro, have ended with fewer than 35 points scored let alone 5 scores overall.

Soccer is stuck with archaic rules that limit the amount of scoring that can realistically happen. Offsides hinders the chance for the soccer equivalent of a fast break to be minimal. And scoring would skyrocket if there were fewer players on the field but it's just always been that way, so no one thought to change it.

(12-13-2016 03:06 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  The US isn't India and we already have a variation of cricket that's been entrenched in the culture for decades. The typical American watching a game of cricket would not be much different than Phillip J. Fry watching a game of Blernsball on Futurama. We'd be trying to figure out what the bleep is going on.

I stated as much in my post, I don't disagree with you. I just think it would be a better fit with the better scoring rates and constant action than soccer.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

I don't like a lot of scoring in baseball....

I'd much rather watch a 1-0 or 2-1 pitching duel in baseball than a 10-9 slugfest.


In football i would rather win 17-14 than 48-45. Actually I'd rather win 48-14 lol.

(12-13-2016 03:24 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 10:32 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 08:34 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Soccer's issue is it's too low scoring.

Is it really?

The difference is that American football gets 7 points per score while soccer only gets one point.
Your average soccer match is 3-2 that would equate to a 21-14 game in football, which is not your typical SEC/B1G game.

"Your average soccer match" my behind. The best leagues tend to have a high surplus of 1-0, 1-1 and 2-1 games. I think I read the most common soccer result is 2-1.

And even if you can expect a game to end 3-2, I guarantee you that less than 10% of all games over the last 15 years, college and pro, have ended with fewer than 35 points scored let alone 5 scores overall.

Soccer is stuck with archaic rules that limit the amount of scoring that can realistically happen. Offsides hinders the chance for the soccer equivalent of a fast break to be minimal. And scoring would skyrocket if there were fewer players on the field but it's just always been that way, so no one thought to change it.

The same can be said for baseball. Scoring and players on base would skyrocket if there were fewer players on the field and the pace of the game would be faster with different pitching rules. But it's just always been that way, so no one thought to change it.

At least Soccer is wall to wall action for the most part. Baseball could see an entire game with no one getting on base until the end and everyone just standing still.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The difference being that baseball ranges from scores of 1-0 to 16-15 (or even more quite frankly) as it stands now whereas you will never see a 16-15 game in a high level soccer game, not as currently constituted. You'll be lucky to see a 5-4 game.

Soccer fans are firmly behind their traditions too, loving nothing more than a 1-1 draw. Soccer is wall-to-wall action if you love watching a sport where there's rarely a shot-on-goal.

(12-13-2016 12:10 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  The difference being that baseball ranges from scores of 1-0 to 16-15 (or even more quite frankly) as it stands now whereas you will never see a 16-15 game in a high level soccer game, not as currently constituted. You'll be lucky to see a 5-4 game.

Soccer fans are firmly behind their traditions too, loving nothing more than a 1-1 draw. Soccer is wall-to-wall action if you love watching a sport where there's rarely a shot-on-goal.

You're obviously watching the wrong leagues. Bundesliga is one of the most offensive based leagues around.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(12-13-2016 11:32 AM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  

(12-13-2016 03:24 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 10:32 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 08:34 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Soccer's issue is it's too low scoring.

Is it really?

The difference is that American football gets 7 points per score while soccer only gets one point.
Your average soccer match is 3-2 that would equate to a 21-14 game in football, which is not your typical SEC/B1G game.

"Your average soccer match" my behind. The best leagues tend to have a high surplus of 1-0, 1-1 and 2-1 games. I think I read the most common soccer result is 2-1.

And even if you can expect a game to end 3-2, I guarantee you that less than 10% of all games over the last 15 years, college and pro, have ended with fewer than 35 points scored let alone 5 scores overall.

Soccer is stuck with archaic rules that limit the amount of scoring that can realistically happen. Offsides hinders the chance for the soccer equivalent of a fast break to be minimal. And scoring would skyrocket if there were fewer players on the field but it's just always been that way, so no one thought to change it.

The same can be said for baseball. Scoring and players on base would skyrocket if there were fewer players on the field and the pace of the game would be faster with different pitching rules. But it's just always been that way, so no one thought to change it.

At least Soccer is wall to wall action for the most part. Baseball could see an entire game with no one getting on base until the end and everyone just standing still.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Actually, by that definition, baseball is wall to wall action as well. Play is always live. Just because your between pitches doesn't preclude a runner from advancing. Hey, Im a baseball fan and can freely admit its a slow moving game. But there are generally more scores in any baseball game than there is in your typical professional soccer game. Its all personal preference, but to me, soccer is literally the most mind numbingly boring game in existence.

As mentioned here and somewhat lost on some, the issue with ESPN is that its decreasing viewership is dragging the stock valuation of Disney down. Yes ESPN still makes a lot of money, but the salad days are over. They've been pulling incredible fees from every single cable subscriber who watched them or not and built their empire on that model. There were stats prior to the onset of streaming that estimated roughly 1/3 of the population watches sports regularly. So as the population gradually move to streaming or a la carte cable, is ESPN going to charge their followers 3x as much to retain that revenue stream? In 2014 ESPN and ESPN2 cost cable companies about 7 bucks a subscriber that is forecast to be nearly 8.50 by 2018. Are you going to pay 25 dollars for those two channels? Nope.
Sure they'll stop some of the bleeding, but will it be in time or enough to maintain their insane contracts that they have to pay these leagues/schools/conferences? As those subscriber numbers fall, how much are those advertisers going to be willing to pay?

Its a precarious time for the Evil Empire and I hope they crash and burn.

(12-13-2016 01:18 PM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  You're obviously watching the wrong leagues. Bundesliga is one of the most offensive based leagues around.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And I'm still 100% sure without any research that a 9-7 game is as rare as a comet sighting. A game with 16 runs happens every week in baseball if not closer to everyday.

The soccer purists would have a hissy fit if scoring ever got too high.