(03-01-2018 06:10 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  On value---Benson says in the below interview---

"You know we are always comparing ourselves to our peer conferences whether its competitively or whether in this case its kinda the market value--We think that puts us right up there with our peers...We think this ESPN extension.....is a signal that ESPN values the Sunbelt"

Benson also said that ESPN the deal would require the schools to gear up in order to provide upgraded production facilities. He said ESPN is helping to fund the production facility build out on each SB campus and by 2020 these facilities will be fully operational. The facilities will not only allow the production of live events, but will allow students at these schools to get hands on experience in producing live events.

http://sunbelt.me/2FHVkcE


To me, it sounds very similar to the MAC deal. Makes me wonder if it might actually approach that pay level. They top out at about 800K a school.

The MAC plays a lot of Mid Week games which accounts for a lot of their compensation I would think.

True, but Sunbelt viewers will actually be paying an extra $5 per month each to watch. Thats a direct ESPN revenue stream the MAC contract contract doesnt provide. That said, the MAC contract details leaked ut pretty quickly....the CUSA details took a bit longer--but we will eventually have a good idea what the financial compensation is for the Sunbelt extension.

(03-01-2018 04:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Sun Belt is getting 10 home games on ESPN networks. Old deal guaranteed 6 I believe, there were 8 last season.

The big thing you are doing is further boxing out CUSA from a linear TV deal with this extension.

If the deal is for more money, I wouldn't be surprised if it exceeded CUSA's cut. Its going to bring the conference stability after losing so many programs to CUSA because of their vaunted 1 mill per school TV deal

(03-01-2018 06:19 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:37 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:23 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'm not so sure after playing with the numbers.

In the spring of 2015 Forbes said MLB.tv had around 3.5 million. People leaking that stuff tend to round up.

Let's assume NHL had a million subscribers.

Let's assume since then MLB.tv is at four million subscribers, add the NHL subscribers that's five million subscribers who say please take my $60 but I would wager that at roughly half the cost of MLB.tv and less than half the cost of NHL Game Center that they could very easily generate volume to more than make that up.

Hulu has 17 million subscribers (real Hulu not the cable replacement) if they could hit the Hulu number they are way ahead. If they can hit the 104 million of Netflix they are printing their own money.

I would expect something closer to Hulu because Hulu's numbers are US only while Netflix is worldwide.

If ESPN can reach the Hulu product competing with Netflix level, ESPN could easily gross $85 million a month on ESPN+ and even more if they are inserting ads.

Assuming all of our estimated 4 million MLB.tv subscribers are buying the full package and not a team package that's $460 million a year add in the NHL subscribers and assuming none are buying the single team package that's $140 million a year to generate $600 million between the two.

If ESPN+ can hit the Hulu level, thats 1 billion a year.

They'll take that trade. Remember BAM Tech owned the out-of-market distribution rights for MLB and NHL and Disney bought BAM Tech.

If they leave those as they are ESPN is generating $600 million a year with MLB.tv and NHL Game Center.

If they can get to 17 million subscribers at $60 a year that just north of $1 billion.

Hitting 17 million subscribers at $5 isn't crazy.

Nice analysis. Here is mine.

Lets go w/ 4 million MLB.TV subscribers. I believe the price for that is $130/year but some pay monthly and therefore don't pay all 12 months and some get a student/military discount. So lets go w/ the average of $100/year for the 4,000,000 MLB.TV Subscribers. That means MLB grosses around $400 Million dollars from MLB.TV

That is going to be a hard number to replace. If they can get it up to the Hulu number, which ironically ESPN parent company Disney will own soon, they could make it work. I just don't see them taking that chance at launch, maybe in the future, but not initially as it is too risky.

One thing Disney could do once they get control of Hulu is raise the base price of $7.99 to $12.99 and integrate ESPN Plus into that.
Getting non sports fans to pay for sports is how ESPN got where it is today, so why not continue that tradition.

To break even on $400 million you need 6.7 million subscribers. Call it 7 million to cover the higher streaming and administrative costs.

7 million is a steep hill to climb. Assuming all 4 million MLB.TV subscribers signed up, could you get an extra 3 million with a lower price point, MLS out of market games, and other non premium NCAA content just to break even. To us probably need 8.million total at least to make it worthwhile. WWE network can't break the 2 million mark and they have their premium content on their service. I just see it a tough hill to climb to throw profitable MLB.TV in there on day1

If all you are doing is moving ESPN3 content over to the new product and adding more of it, $60 a year is a hard sell if you are hoping to retain those subscribers in April, May, June, July, and August with just MLS content.

ESPN is seeing an erosion of carriage fee dollars that they would like to replace somehow. MLS and Sun Belt won't make that up.

If you are going to get all the non-duplicated MLS, NHL, and MLB subscribers you are going to have 4 million subscribers and generate $240 million so the risk is here is you pick up no new subscribers on products generating probably $500million very very optimistically generating $600 million.

It's a $260 million risk. Turner and CBS are putting $700 million a year into a the proven NCAA Tournament.

There is the ultra safe approach which is everything is status quo except moving some ESPN3 content to ESPN+ for $4.99 a month.

Then there is we want to be the Netflix of sports approach.

Netflix is shelling out $8 billion for original content in 2018.

If you want to be the Netflix of sports, $260 million looks damn cheap.

I think ultimately Netflix of sports is the long term goal

Netflix has just under 55 million subscribers in the US. I think this will be lucky to get the close to 2 million the WWE Network has worldwide until they put more premium content on it

A lot of you assume their subscription base will only be Sun Belt, soccer, amd baseball fans. Im sure they will move a lot of content from other sport/conferences over to ESPN+ as soon as possible. It wont be long untill all of their streaming moves to +.

(03-01-2018 08:14 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  A lot of you assume their subscription base will only be Sun Belt, soccer, amd baseball fans. Im sure they will move a lot of content from other sport/conferences over to ESPN+ as soon as possible. It wont be long untill all of their streaming moves to +.

Right.

The SBC's new title game just happened to begin the same year as the roll-out with ESPN+. That is the difference.

(03-01-2018 08:19 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 08:14 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  A lot of you assume their subscription base will only be Sun Belt, soccer, amd baseball fans. Im sure they will move a lot of content from other sport/conferences over to ESPN+ as soon as possible. It wont be long untill all of their streaming moves to +.

Right.

The SBC's new title game just happened to begin the same year as the roll-out with ESPN+. That is the difference.

SBC Title game is to be on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 per the agreement.

(03-01-2018 08:38 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 08:19 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 08:14 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  A lot of you assume their subscription base will only be Sun Belt, soccer, amd baseball fans. Im sure they will move a lot of content from other sport/conferences over to ESPN+ as soon as possible. It wont be long untill all of their streaming moves to +.

Right.

The SBC's new title game just happened to begin the same year as the roll-out with ESPN+. That is the difference.

SBC Title game is to be on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 per the agreement.

But it was the new SBC title game which prompted the SBC to enter into renegotiations with ESPN. The same year ESPN rolls out plus.

MAC regnegotiated before plus.

(03-01-2018 08:59 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 08:38 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 08:19 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 08:14 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  A lot of you assume their subscription base will only be Sun Belt, soccer, amd baseball fans. Im sure they will move a lot of content from other sport/conferences over to ESPN+ as soon as possible. It wont be long untill all of their streaming moves to +.

Right.

The SBC's new title game just happened to begin the same year as the roll-out with ESPN+. That is the difference.

SBC Title game is to be on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 per the agreement.

But it was the new SBC title game which prompted the SBC to enter into renegotiations with ESPN. The same year ESPN rolls out plus.

MAC regnegotiated before plus.

My bad, I thought you were saying the SBC CG would be on the +

(03-01-2018 09:40 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 08:59 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 08:38 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 08:19 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 08:14 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  A lot of you assume their subscription base will only be Sun Belt, soccer, amd baseball fans. Im sure they will move a lot of content from other sport/conferences over to ESPN+ as soon as possible. It wont be long untill all of their streaming moves to +.

Right.

The SBC's new title game just happened to begin the same year as the roll-out with ESPN+. That is the difference.

SBC Title game is to be on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 per the agreement.

But it was the new SBC title game which prompted the SBC to enter into renegotiations with ESPN. The same year ESPN rolls out plus.

MAC regnegotiated before plus.

My bad, I thought you were saying the SBC CG would be on the +

I hope not that would be pretty sad, lol.

(03-01-2018 08:13 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 06:19 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:37 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:23 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Nice analysis. Here is mine.

Lets go w/ 4 million MLB.TV subscribers. I believe the price for that is $130/year but some pay monthly and therefore don't pay all 12 months and some get a student/military discount. So lets go w/ the average of $100/year for the 4,000,000 MLB.TV Subscribers. That means MLB grosses around $400 Million dollars from MLB.TV

That is going to be a hard number to replace. If they can get it up to the Hulu number, which ironically ESPN parent company Disney will own soon, they could make it work. I just don't see them taking that chance at launch, maybe in the future, but not initially as it is too risky.

One thing Disney could do once they get control of Hulu is raise the base price of $7.99 to $12.99 and integrate ESPN Plus into that.
Getting non sports fans to pay for sports is how ESPN got where it is today, so why not continue that tradition.

To break even on $400 million you need 6.7 million subscribers. Call it 7 million to cover the higher streaming and administrative costs.

7 million is a steep hill to climb. Assuming all 4 million MLB.TV subscribers signed up, could you get an extra 3 million with a lower price point, MLS out of market games, and other non premium NCAA content just to break even. To us probably need 8.million total at least to make it worthwhile. WWE network can't break the 2 million mark and they have their premium content on their service. I just see it a tough hill to climb to throw profitable MLB.TV in there on day1

If all you are doing is moving ESPN3 content over to the new product and adding more of it, $60 a year is a hard sell if you are hoping to retain those subscribers in April, May, June, July, and August with just MLS content.

ESPN is seeing an erosion of carriage fee dollars that they would like to replace somehow. MLS and Sun Belt won't make that up.

If you are going to get all the non-duplicated MLS, NHL, and MLB subscribers you are going to have 4 million subscribers and generate $240 million so the risk is here is you pick up no new subscribers on products generating probably $500million very very optimistically generating $600 million.

It's a $260 million risk. Turner and CBS are putting $700 million a year into a the proven NCAA Tournament.

There is the ultra safe approach which is everything is status quo except moving some ESPN3 content to ESPN+ for $4.99 a month.

Then there is we want to be the Netflix of sports approach.

Netflix is shelling out $8 billion for original content in 2018.

If you want to be the Netflix of sports, $260 million looks damn cheap.

I think ultimately Netflix of sports is the long term goal

Netflix has just under 55 million subscribers in the US. I think this will be lucky to get the close to 2 million the WWE Network has worldwide until they put more premium content on it

Viewership for WWE Raw this year on USA.
1/1/18: 2,865,000

1/8/18: 2,759,000

1/15/18: 3,250,000

1/22/18: 4,530,000

1/29/18: 3,394,000

2/5/18: 3,055,000

I’d say pushing 2 million subscribers is a phenomenal feat.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03-01-2018 10:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 08:13 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 06:19 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:37 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  To break even on $400 million you need 6.7 million subscribers. Call it 7 million to cover the higher streaming and administrative costs.

7 million is a steep hill to climb. Assuming all 4 million MLB.TV subscribers signed up, could you get an extra 3 million with a lower price point, MLS out of market games, and other non premium NCAA content just to break even. To us probably need 8.million total at least to make it worthwhile. WWE network can't break the 2 million mark and they have their premium content on their service. I just see it a tough hill to climb to throw profitable MLB.TV in there on day1

If all you are doing is moving ESPN3 content over to the new product and adding more of it, $60 a year is a hard sell if you are hoping to retain those subscribers in April, May, June, July, and August with just MLS content.

ESPN is seeing an erosion of carriage fee dollars that they would like to replace somehow. MLS and Sun Belt won't make that up.

If you are going to get all the non-duplicated MLS, NHL, and MLB subscribers you are going to have 4 million subscribers and generate $240 million so the risk is here is you pick up no new subscribers on products generating probably $500million very very optimistically generating $600 million.

It's a $260 million risk. Turner and CBS are putting $700 million a year into a the proven NCAA Tournament.

There is the ultra safe approach which is everything is status quo except moving some ESPN3 content to ESPN+ for $4.99 a month.

Then there is we want to be the Netflix of sports approach.

Netflix is shelling out $8 billion for original content in 2018.

If you want to be the Netflix of sports, $260 million looks damn cheap.

I think ultimately Netflix of sports is the long term goal

Netflix has just under 55 million subscribers in the US. I think this will be lucky to get the close to 2 million the WWE Network has worldwide until they put more premium content on it

Viewership for WWE Raw this year on USA.
1/1/18: 2,865,000

1/8/18: 2,759,000

1/15/18: 3,250,000

1/22/18: 4,530,000

1/29/18: 3,394,000

2/5/18: 3,055,000

I’d say pushing 2 million subscribers is a phenomenal feat.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's more viewers than most, if not all, of the ESPN Plus content though.

If a program with average viewership of 3.2 million is only getting slightly over 1 million US subscribers for their OTT offering with massive amounts of premium content, how will ESPN Plus beat that?

I think a good comparison to ESPN Plus will be UFC.TV. No premium content on that either, strictly for the diehards

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolschram...g-of-2018/

I think this is the Forbes article you were talking about. Lot of speculation in there. Some of it already wrong like MLS Live being available for purchase for those that didnt want ESPN Plus

If MLB.TV or NHL Game center were being rolled into ESPN Plus I think you would have heard something by now. I suspect these products will be available in the ESPN Plus app for additional purchase.

(03-02-2018 02:01 AM)solohawks Wrote:  https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolschram...g-of-2018/

I think this is the Forbes article you were talking about. Lot of speculation in there. Some of it already wrong like MLS Live being available for purchase for those that didnt want ESPN Plus

If MLB.TV or NHL Game center were being rolled into ESPN Plus I think you would have heard something by now. I suspect these products will be available in the ESPN Plus app for additional purchase.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywoo...story.html

The new ESPN over-the-top offering meant to appeal to streaming video users will not be the same channel that cable subscribers currently receive. It will be a separate service available through the ESPN app and offer access to thousands of live events from Major League Baseball, the National Hockey League, Major League Soccer, Grand Slam Tennis, and various college sports organizations.

If ESPN+ is offering NHL and MLB where are those game rights coming from?

(03-02-2018 01:49 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 10:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 08:13 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 06:19 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  7 million is a steep hill to climb. Assuming all 4 million MLB.TV subscribers signed up, could you get an extra 3 million with a lower price point, MLS out of market games, and other non premium NCAA content just to break even. To us probably need 8.million total at least to make it worthwhile. WWE network can't break the 2 million mark and they have their premium content on their service. I just see it a tough hill to climb to throw profitable MLB.TV in there on day1

If all you are doing is moving ESPN3 content over to the new product and adding more of it, $60 a year is a hard sell if you are hoping to retain those subscribers in April, May, June, July, and August with just MLS content.

ESPN is seeing an erosion of carriage fee dollars that they would like to replace somehow. MLS and Sun Belt won't make that up.

If you are going to get all the non-duplicated MLS, NHL, and MLB subscribers you are going to have 4 million subscribers and generate $240 million so the risk is here is you pick up no new subscribers on products generating probably $500million very very optimistically generating $600 million.

It's a $260 million risk. Turner and CBS are putting $700 million a year into a the proven NCAA Tournament.

There is the ultra safe approach which is everything is status quo except moving some ESPN3 content to ESPN+ for $4.99 a month.

Then there is we want to be the Netflix of sports approach.

Netflix is shelling out $8 billion for original content in 2018.

If you want to be the Netflix of sports, $260 million looks damn cheap.

I think ultimately Netflix of sports is the long term goal

Netflix has just under 55 million subscribers in the US. I think this will be lucky to get the close to 2 million the WWE Network has worldwide until they put more premium content on it

Viewership for WWE Raw this year on USA.
1/1/18: 2,865,000

1/8/18: 2,759,000

1/15/18: 3,250,000

1/22/18: 4,530,000

1/29/18: 3,394,000

2/5/18: 3,055,000

I’d say pushing 2 million subscribers is a phenomenal feat.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's more viewers than most, if not all, of the ESPN Plus content though.

If a program with average viewership of 3.2 million is only getting slightly over 1 million US subscribers for their OTT offering with massive amounts of premium content, how will ESPN Plus beat that?

I think a good comparison to ESPN Plus will be UFC.TV. No premium content on that either, strictly for the diehards

You are comparing niche (WWE) to several major sports and doubling down by comparing yet another niche (UFC). What the UFC or WWE fan in Seattle wants to see is the same stuff the UFC and WWE fan in Atlanta wants to see.
What the college football fan in New Orleans wants to see doesn't overlap a great deal with the fan in Chicago.

(03-02-2018 09:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  You are comparing niche (WWE) to several major sports and doubling down by comparing yet another niche (UFC).

WWE is a bad comparison because their marquee events (still called PPVs) are on the Network. ESPN+ would get a lot of subscribers if they had the College Football Playoff, NBA and MLB playoff games. But that's not a relevant comparison.

ESPN+ is going to have mostly content that doesn't justify a timeslot on ABC/ESPN/2/U.

Quote:What the UFC or WWE fan in Seattle wants to see is the same stuff the UFC and WWE fan in Atlanta wants to see.
What the college football fan in New Orleans wants to see doesn't overlap a great deal with the fan in Chicago.

In some ways, it does. Top 25 matchups are going to do great ratings in either city. Atlanta more than Chicago, but comparable. Big Ten and SEC bottom-feeder games will still do respectably in either market.

If there were this great big audience for NIU football in Chicagoland and for ULL football in Louisiana, then local syndication packages would be a big factor. They're not.

If ESPN+ is going to make any money, it's going to have to cannibalize the existing Sunday Ticket type packages from NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL, which are bought by super-die-hard fans with 2-4 TVs side by side to watch multiple games at once, or by transplants who want to watch their old home teams.

Consider it this way. There are three viewing patterns for sports TV.

1. Big Game Viewers. Tune in for event programming because it's an event.
2. Loyal Fans. They will watch their team because it's their team.
3. Passive viewers. End of a long day, want to relax, flip on ESPN or related channels and are willing to watch almost anything.

ESPN+ isn't getting much from categories 1 and 3. WWE Network gets CAtegory 1 viewers, because their Big Events are on the Network. Sports hasn't gone in that direction (except for boxing and UFC, where PPV is still king).

That leaves category 2. And given the amount of games that are on ESPN/2/U/FS1, or your local RSN for your hometown MLB/NBA/NHL team, there's not a ton of viewers there for ESPN+. Sunday Ticket and its MLB/NBA/NHL cousins have the transplanted-diehard-fan market pretty well tapped for pro sports.

So ESPN+ is going to rely on
1. the diehard general sports fan, who will pretty much pay extra for any available sports content
2. Diehard fans of teams that don't have big enough fanbases to justify regular cable TV spots.

If ESPN is just moving some ESPN3 content and calling it a day, the service will be an epic bust.
They will get $20 to $25 from a college fan because won’t need it until some time in October when the road games aren’t against schools with better deals and will turn it off end of February.
I will buy simply for MLS but that’s a small market.

Maybe ESPN wants to play small. Seems unlikely but I’m not a Wharton Business School guy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(03-02-2018 09:31 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 09:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  You are comparing niche (WWE) to several major sports and doubling down by comparing yet another niche (UFC).

WWE is a bad comparison because their marquee events (still called PPVs) are on the Network. ESPN+ would get a lot of subscribers if they had the College Football Playoff, NBA and MLB playoff games. But that's not a relevant comparison.

ESPN+ is going to have mostly content that doesn't justify a timeslot on ABC/ESPN/2/U.

Quote:What the UFC or WWE fan in Seattle wants to see is the same stuff the UFC and WWE fan in Atlanta wants to see.
What the college football fan in New Orleans wants to see doesn't overlap a great deal with the fan in Chicago.

In some ways, it does. Top 25 matchups are going to do great ratings in either city. Atlanta more than Chicago, but comparable. Big Ten and SEC bottom-feeder games will still do respectably in either market.

If there were this great big audience for NIU football in Chicagoland and for ULL football in Louisiana, then local syndication packages would be a big factor. They're not.

If ESPN+ is going to make any money, it's going to have to cannibalize the existing Sunday Ticket type packages from NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL, which are bought by super-die-hard fans with 2-4 TVs side by side to watch multiple games at once, or by transplants who want to watch their old home teams.

But if Atlanta and Chicago have a head to head choice on Saturday night between ranked B1G on one channel and ranked SEC on another. The viewing profile looks much different in each city.
The Chicago person is much more likely to demand BTN than the Atlanta viewer.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(03-01-2018 01:04 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 12:56 PM)MAcFroggy Wrote:  On the money side this could be great news. However, this will be a substantial decrease in attention and marketing. TCU has always called sports "the front porch of the university". I think a lot of schools view them in a similar fashion. They are great way to increase name recognition and promote the school. Unless the money is a substantial increase, they will be losing out a ton on the marketing and publicity aspect of college sports.

G5 schools, particularly those on the lower end, don't have much of a choice. They need the money to keep the lights on.

I would add that they really aren't losing out all that much marketing on ESPN. SBC games are rarely on air and if they are the hosts are spending the whole time talking about upcoming P5 games.

Not all schools in the Sun Belt are "lower end". Some of us don't need the money to keep the lights on, we just want to maximize our revenue.

A lot of you guys are looking at ESPN+ though the lens of how we are consuming streaming services in 2018.

How these streaming products are add-ons that aren't fully integrated into viewing platforms and require multiple passwords.

Ten years from now you won't be able to distinguish between content over a DSL line or mobile broadband. All the major content will be in buckets like ESPN+ and as long as you own the app you'll be able to download it to every device.

ESPN+ is just another step in this eventual evolution. You could be subscribed to Charter and it will be no different than Roku going straight into apps. The question of ESPN+ being commercially viable isn't a question because its going to be the product.

Music for about 20 years had MTV as a showcase. If a band could get onto MTV they would sell a million albums. MTV invested in reality TV and moved away from the videos. Usually its only on the upper tier of the cable packages which a small percentage of consumers can afford or are interested in.

Thus MTV as an impact on music is dead. Its now all about being available on streaming services. Also niche product like Heavy Metal is thriving because very few bands can play it well. Bands are surviving on club tours and premium autograph signings. They can even have a Top 10 album first week of release. However that is only 45,000 in sales. There will never be another Metallica.

That is why the P5 has the most to lose in this transition because they rely on filling up a big stadium rather than a club. College town loyalty is like rock band loyalty. Those in the know will turn out.