(03-15-2018 12:49 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 12:21 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 10:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 10:06 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 09:57 AM)mj4life Wrote:  Nothing prevents CUSA.tv from being folded into ESPN plus similar to the way MLS folded their out of market package & that would make these deals close to even IMO

From what I can gather, the issue is production costs. Sunbelt is willing to incur the production costs ESPN is requiring while CUSA does not and made a point to note how both Stadium and CBS SN games will have $0 production costs for CUSA and their schools. I doubt ESPN is making the Sunbelt and its schools pay production costs for the ESPN/2/U games but I would suspect most if not all ESPN 3/Plus content will be required to be paid by the schools.

CUSA schools are already paying those costs for CUSA.TV games, but they apparently do it on a "shoestring budget" compared to what ESPN will require for ESPN +. If CUSA and its schools were willing to front the costs to meet ESPN standards for ESPN Plus, I'm sure they would be welcome on the platform.

The deals sound about the same to me. The important thing to me is being able to watch the games. I give the SB a slight edge because ESPN-3/+ is a better more reliable platform for streaming than CUSA-Tv. Other than that—not much difference in the deals.

They are more or less the same. Exposure is the key. ASU has a $40 million budget with all the facility upgrades, stipends, salaries, etc. so $500K is not a huge impact but the number of eyeballs (especially new ones) that you can reach is a very big deal.

I do like the exposure the SBC gets on the espn platforms but how many games are scheduled during the week rather than on Saturday? I think that 1 weeknight game every 2 years would not be bad but building the fan base is difficult if too many have to be scheduled to accommodate tv.

It has actually been kind of awesome having weeknight games.

1. It is spread among the teams (ASU has been on more weeknights since we are winning) so it is not that frequent.

2. You get a LOT more exposure when you are the only or one of a few games on TV on a Thursday compared to playing on Saturday when everyone is on TV.

3. You still get Saturday non-conference games on TV.

4. The bye weeks created to accommodate weeknights are great if you have a family you want to spend time with doing things other than watching football.

5. Weeknight games on the road are great for the fans of the road team. Most cannot travel anyhow and, again, it frees a weekend.

6. Recruits are likely to be home watching football on a weeknight other than Friday. Not so much on Saturday.

There is a bit of a trade off losing one Saturday game but overall it is a great deal for the schools and the league. I get tons of people stopping by my office the night after we play (and beat) someone the night before. Those folks are less likely to watch us on a Saturday.

Production cost is a red herring.
Neither league pays production for linear TV and CUSA doesn’t pay for the production of mixed distribution Stadium.

Bottom line.
Sun Belt pays to produce roughly 51 games football games for ESPN+ and CUSA pays to produce roughly 60 games for CUSA TV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ll be a referee between CUSA and SB tv deals:

1. From what I know right now, i would give the slight edge to SB for all sports.

2. I want to see WHEN exactly the non-espn plus Belch FB games will be played and I want to see when the CUSA CBS-SN games are played. If the CUSA games are all on Saturdays and The Belch games are on weekdays, I may switch to CUSA getting the better deal as they already make a little more tv $.
Regular Non-Saturday college football games are death to a program. See Maction.

Will the Sun Belt still be forced to have the same number of revenue-sucking week night games?

(03-15-2018 01:23 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Will the Sun Belt still be forced to have the same number of revenue-sucking week night games?

No official word, I would expect that 9 of those games are Tue-Thu unless someone has a P5 coming in.

(03-15-2018 12:18 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 11:52 PM)johndwilliams1962 Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 06:14 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 05:55 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-14-2018 05:19 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  No we actually have a TV deal

Hate to tell ya brother but your deal is just as crappy. The only difference is we're not excited about it.

Nah, our tv deal isn’t great, but it’s better than what we used to get and it’s better than what y’all are getting even if just slightly.

You get a hell of a lot less money (about half per school) and your school pays for production. Meanwhile an unspecified number of games (think a lot or they'd have specified) will be behind the ESPN + paywall. Saying it's better may help you sleep at night, but it isn't better. The only thing you have better is ESPN + has your inventory that we currently have on the CUSAtv network which is a way better platform. But your actual TV deal is not good.

Nope. Money is essentially equal. The finny thing is that anyone who has any perspective should not be surprised about that. A lot of us saw this coming years ago. There is not a significant difference between the SBC, MAC and CUSA. Some schools in each conference are really investing in infrastructure and sources of revenue and those are the ones that will flourish if there is ever another big shuffle.

Nobody watches CBSSN unless they are specifically looking for their team. ESPN draws a lot more casual eyes. ESPN streaming is also a better streaming service because people actually install ESPN apps on their phones.

The money is the same but I am happy to be on the ESPN/ABS networks instead of CBSSN/FB.

Nope. Money isn't the same. The gross revenue is the same but you aren't including the 3rd tier package revenue (currently BeIn) which CUSA goes back to market with in the coming year nor the revenue each school gets from CUSA.tv (rumored to be $100k each). CUSA schools "net" between $400k-$500k per school for their various TV packages with that expected increase a marginal amount when BeIn package gets negotiated. ESPN offered to acquire all CUSA's packages. I've been told they offered over $500k per school but expected schools to cover production costs which CUSA estimated would take half the revenue.

No one is arguing ESPN is a bigger family of networks with a better overall penetration. But anyone arguing the deal is financially equal is being silly. The CUSA net per school is probably 75-100% greater. Bad news for CUSA schools is that only equates to $150-$200k each.

Isn't the CUSA deal is for a much smaller duration, which can be a good or a bad thing.

Honestly, I am glad we aren't on ESPN's networks. Their streaming services (ESPN3/WatchESPN) are garbage now. Constant stuttering and quality issues (I have well over 100mbit down internet connection and am hardwired, still sucks). If they could get that mess figured out, I would be more intrigued.

I am almost equally against CBSSN though. They aren't offered locally where I live, so I would have to get SAT or potentially YouTube TV.

I wish we had given the rights to YouTube, Twitch, or Netflix for just the cost of production alone.

(03-15-2018 04:16 PM)freshtop Wrote:  Honestly, I am glad we aren't on ESPN's networks. Their streaming services (ESPN3/WatchESPN) are garbage now. Constant stuttering and quality issues (I have well over 100mbit down internet connection and am hardwired, still sucks). If they could get that mess figured out, I would be more intrigued.

I am almost equally against CBSSN though. They aren't offered locally where I live, so I would have to get SAT or potentially YouTube TV.

I wish we had given the rights to YouTube, Twitch, or Netflix for just the cost of production alone.

Seriously? I have ATTs mid-tier internet and only time I’ve had any stutter on ESPN3, MLBtv or NHL Gamecenter (all same platform) was on an old laptop I put Linux on just to keep it running.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03-15-2018 04:44 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 04:16 PM)freshtop Wrote:  Honestly, I am glad we aren't on ESPN's networks. Their streaming services (ESPN3/WatchESPN) are garbage now. Constant stuttering and quality issues (I have well over 100mbit down internet connection and am hardwired, still sucks). If they could get that mess figured out, I would be more intrigued.

I am almost equally against CBSSN though. They aren't offered locally where I live, so I would have to get SAT or potentially YouTube TV.

I wish we had given the rights to YouTube, Twitch, or Netflix for just the cost of production alone.

Seriously? I have ATTs mid-tier internet and only time I’ve had any stutter on ESPN3, MLBtv or NHL Gamecenter (all same platform) was on an old laptop I put Linux on just to keep it running.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It isn't my connection or my device(s), it is ESPN not having enough bandwidth to handle the load. It is way worse during major prime-time events (like the CFB Playoff). A few years back it wasn't bad, but as the number of people streaming has increased they haven't built up their infrastructure to match. Just type #WatchESPN into twitter's search and see all the negative comments.

EDIT: Based on your location and ISP, maybe you are being routed to more competent data-centers. I just know that it is a problem for me, and that I am not alone.

(03-15-2018 04:55 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 04:44 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 04:16 PM)freshtop Wrote:  Honestly, I am glad we aren't on ESPN's networks. Their streaming services (ESPN3/WatchESPN) are garbage now. Constant stuttering and quality issues (I have well over 100mbit down internet connection and am hardwired, still sucks). If they could get that mess figured out, I would be more intrigued.

I am almost equally against CBSSN though. They aren't offered locally where I live, so I would have to get SAT or potentially YouTube TV.

I wish we had given the rights to YouTube, Twitch, or Netflix for just the cost of production alone.

Seriously? I have ATTs mid-tier internet and only time I’ve had any stutter on ESPN3, MLBtv or NHL Gamecenter (all same platform) was on an old laptop I put Linux on just to keep it running.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It isn't my connection or my device(s), it is ESPN not having enough bandwidth to handle the load. It is way worse during major prime-time events (like the CFB Playoff). A few years back it wasn't bad, but as the number of people streaming has increased they haven't built up their infrastructure to match. Just type #WatchESPN into twitter's search and see all the negative comments.

EDIT: Based on your location and ISP, maybe you are being routed to more competent data-centers. I just know that it is a problem for me, and that I am not alone.

Interesting. Like I said all three services are usually rock solid.

It appears to be a pretty decent deal.

(03-15-2018 01:13 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 12:49 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 12:21 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 10:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 10:06 AM)solohawks Wrote:  From what I can gather, the issue is production costs. Sunbelt is willing to incur the production costs ESPN is requiring while CUSA does not and made a point to note how both Stadium and CBS SN games will have $0 production costs for CUSA and their schools. I doubt ESPN is making the Sunbelt and its schools pay production costs for the ESPN/2/U games but I would suspect most if not all ESPN 3/Plus content will be required to be paid by the schools.

CUSA schools are already paying those costs for CUSA.TV games, but they apparently do it on a "shoestring budget" compared to what ESPN will require for ESPN +. If CUSA and its schools were willing to front the costs to meet ESPN standards for ESPN Plus, I'm sure they would be welcome on the platform.

The deals sound about the same to me. The important thing to me is being able to watch the games. I give the SB a slight edge because ESPN-3/+ is a better more reliable platform for streaming than CUSA-Tv. Other than that—not much difference in the deals.

They are more or less the same. Exposure is the key. ASU has a $40 million budget with all the facility upgrades, stipends, salaries, etc. so $500K is not a huge impact but the number of eyeballs (especially new ones) that you can reach is a very big deal.

I do like the exposure the SBC gets on the espn platforms but how many games are scheduled during the week rather than on Saturday? I think that 1 weeknight game every 2 years would not be bad but building the fan base is difficult if too many have to be scheduled to accommodate tv.

It has actually been kind of awesome having weeknight games.

1. It is spread among the teams (ASU has been on more weeknights since we are winning) so it is not that frequent.

2. You get a LOT more exposure when you are the only or one of a few games on TV on a Thursday compared to playing on Saturday when everyone is on TV.

3. You still get Saturday non-conference games on TV.

4. The bye weeks created to accommodate weeknights are great if you have a family you want to spend time with doing things other than watching football.

5. Weeknight games on the road are great for the fans of the road team. Most cannot travel anyhow and, again, it frees a weekend.

6. Recruits are likely to be home watching football on a weeknight other than Friday. Not so much on Saturday.

There is a bit of a trade off losing one Saturday game but overall it is a great deal for the schools and the league. I get tons of people stopping by my office the night after we play (and beat) someone the night before. Those folks are less likely to watch us on a Saturday.

I’m glad you see a value to weekday games. I see none.
In fact, I see them as something that will destroy a program. It’s like having the NFL in your city. Bad.

(03-15-2018 06:55 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 01:13 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 12:49 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 12:21 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 10:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The deals sound about the same to me. The important thing to me is being able to watch the games. I give the SB a slight edge because ESPN-3/+ is a better more reliable platform for streaming than CUSA-Tv. Other than that—not much difference in the deals.

They are more or less the same. Exposure is the key. ASU has a $40 million budget with all the facility upgrades, stipends, salaries, etc. so $500K is not a huge impact but the number of eyeballs (especially new ones) that you can reach is a very big deal.

I do like the exposure the SBC gets on the espn platforms but how many games are scheduled during the week rather than on Saturday? I think that 1 weeknight game every 2 years would not be bad but building the fan base is difficult if too many have to be scheduled to accommodate tv.

It has actually been kind of awesome having weeknight games.

1. It is spread among the teams (ASU has been on more weeknights since we are winning) so it is not that frequent.

2. You get a LOT more exposure when you are the only or one of a few games on TV on a Thursday compared to playing on Saturday when everyone is on TV.

3. You still get Saturday non-conference games on TV.

4. The bye weeks created to accommodate weeknights are great if you have a family you want to spend time with doing things other than watching football.

5. Weeknight games on the road are great for the fans of the road team. Most cannot travel anyhow and, again, it frees a weekend.

6. Recruits are likely to be home watching football on a weeknight other than Friday. Not so much on Saturday.

There is a bit of a trade off losing one Saturday game but overall it is a great deal for the schools and the league. I get tons of people stopping by my office the night after we play (and beat) someone the night before. Those folks are less likely to watch us on a Saturday.

I’m glad you see a value to weekday games. I see none.
In fact, I see them as something that will destroy a program. It’s like having the NFL in your city. Bad.

You can have them watched on the weekdays or left off the air because bigger games are going on.

I would rather have them watched during the week.

(03-15-2018 06:55 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 01:13 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 12:49 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 12:21 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 10:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The deals sound about the same to me. The important thing to me is being able to watch the games. I give the SB a slight edge because ESPN-3/+ is a better more reliable platform for streaming than CUSA-Tv. Other than that—not much difference in the deals.

They are more or less the same. Exposure is the key. ASU has a $40 million budget with all the facility upgrades, stipends, salaries, etc. so $500K is not a huge impact but the number of eyeballs (especially new ones) that you can reach is a very big deal.

I do like the exposure the SBC gets on the espn platforms but how many games are scheduled during the week rather than on Saturday? I think that 1 weeknight game every 2 years would not be bad but building the fan base is difficult if too many have to be scheduled to accommodate tv.

It has actually been kind of awesome having weeknight games.

1. It is spread among the teams (ASU has been on more weeknights since we are winning) so it is not that frequent.

2. You get a LOT more exposure when you are the only or one of a few games on TV on a Thursday compared to playing on Saturday when everyone is on TV.

3. You still get Saturday non-conference games on TV.

4. The bye weeks created to accommodate weeknights are great if you have a family you want to spend time with doing things other than watching football.

5. Weeknight games on the road are great for the fans of the road team. Most cannot travel anyhow and, again, it frees a weekend.

6. Recruits are likely to be home watching football on a weeknight other than Friday. Not so much on Saturday.

There is a bit of a trade off losing one Saturday game but overall it is a great deal for the schools and the league. I get tons of people stopping by my office the night after we play (and beat) someone the night before. Those folks are less likely to watch us on a Saturday.

I’m glad you see a value to weekday games. I see none.
In fact, I see them as something that will destroy a program. It’s like having the NFL in your city. Bad.

When we are playing well, we've had some nice weeknight crowds. One per season at home is ideal but AState gets two this year because the only road game we play against a team that was over .500 in 2017 is at Bama.

(03-15-2018 07:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 06:55 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 01:13 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 12:49 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 12:21 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  They are more or less the same. Exposure is the key. ASU has a $40 million budget with all the facility upgrades, stipends, salaries, etc. so $500K is not a huge impact but the number of eyeballs (especially new ones) that you can reach is a very big deal.

I do like the exposure the SBC gets on the espn platforms but how many games are scheduled during the week rather than on Saturday? I think that 1 weeknight game every 2 years would not be bad but building the fan base is difficult if too many have to be scheduled to accommodate tv.

It has actually been kind of awesome having weeknight games.

1. It is spread among the teams (ASU has been on more weeknights since we are winning) so it is not that frequent.

2. You get a LOT more exposure when you are the only or one of a few games on TV on a Thursday compared to playing on Saturday when everyone is on TV.

3. You still get Saturday non-conference games on TV.

4. The bye weeks created to accommodate weeknights are great if you have a family you want to spend time with doing things other than watching football.

5. Weeknight games on the road are great for the fans of the road team. Most cannot travel anyhow and, again, it frees a weekend.

6. Recruits are likely to be home watching football on a weeknight other than Friday. Not so much on Saturday.

There is a bit of a trade off losing one Saturday game but overall it is a great deal for the schools and the league. I get tons of people stopping by my office the night after we play (and beat) someone the night before. Those folks are less likely to watch us on a Saturday.

I’m glad you see a value to weekday games. I see none.
In fact, I see them as something that will destroy a program. It’s like having the NFL in your city. Bad.

When we are playing well, we've had some nice weeknight crowds. One per season at home is ideal but AState gets two this year because the only road game we play against a team that was over .500 in 2017 is at Bama.

I thinks it’s a little easier for a city school. We’ve Had some great crowds for weekday games. The Louisville game in 2016 was excellent. Cinci has had some good weeknight crowds. With all the CUSA city schools, I bet the weeknight games wouldn’t have that much affect on attendance if it was limited to one a year.

(03-15-2018 09:21 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Comparing Sun Belt and CUSA based on what is known so far.
https://247sports.com/college/arkansas-s...-116260412

SBC is on the hook to produce 500 events yearly I thought once the contract is up to full speed.

(03-15-2018 09:46 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 09:21 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Comparing Sun Belt and CUSA based on what is known so far.
https://247sports.com/college/arkansas-s...-116260412

SBC is on the hook to produce 500 events yearly I thought once the contract is up to full speed.

Virtually all are already produced just not at ESPN production values. Current price at AState is $8.95 per month with most of that going to NeuLion.
Schools or the conference will be able to sell and insert commercials so there is added revenue potential.

(03-15-2018 07:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 07:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 06:55 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 01:13 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 12:49 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  I do like the exposure the SBC gets on the espn platforms but how many games are scheduled during the week rather than on Saturday? I think that 1 weeknight game every 2 years would not be bad but building the fan base is difficult if too many have to be scheduled to accommodate tv.

It has actually been kind of awesome having weeknight games.

1. It is spread among the teams (ASU has been on more weeknights since we are winning) so it is not that frequent.

2. You get a LOT more exposure when you are the only or one of a few games on TV on a Thursday compared to playing on Saturday when everyone is on TV.

3. You still get Saturday non-conference games on TV.

4. The bye weeks created to accommodate weeknights are great if you have a family you want to spend time with doing things other than watching football.

5. Weeknight games on the road are great for the fans of the road team. Most cannot travel anyhow and, again, it frees a weekend.

6. Recruits are likely to be home watching football on a weeknight other than Friday. Not so much on Saturday.

There is a bit of a trade off losing one Saturday game but overall it is a great deal for the schools and the league. I get tons of people stopping by my office the night after we play (and beat) someone the night before. Those folks are less likely to watch us on a Saturday.

I’m glad you see a value to weekday games. I see none.
In fact, I see them as something that will destroy a program. It’s like having the NFL in your city. Bad.

When we are playing well, we've had some nice weeknight crowds. One per season at home is ideal but AState gets two this year because the only road game we play against a team that was over .500 in 2017 is at Bama.

I thinks it’s a little easier for a city school. We’ve Had some great crowds for weekday games. The Louisville game in 2016 was excellent. Cinci has had some good weeknight crowds. With all the CUSA city schools, I bet the weeknight games wouldn’t have that much affect on attendance if it was limited to one a year.

I think you're correct about city schools. Weather has a bigger impact on Memphis attendance than does when it's played. Though, for max attendance, the best scenario would probably be to play one weekday, preferably Black Friday.

Memphis weekday attendance since joining the AAC:

2014
F Tulsa 26,846
2015
T Cincinnati 45,172
2016
T Temple 34,743
F Houston 36,527
2017
T ULM 10,263
F Tulane 17,989
2018
T GSU
F Houston

Last year both weekday games had horrible weather and for some reason the school switched to announcing turnstile attendance vs. tickets sold. I'm assuming they'll do the same for this year. IIRC, they did it for a while with basketball too some years back. They need to make up their mind and stick to it. Last year a record 22,000 season tickets were sold. It'll be interesting to see the numbers for this year as prices have been increasing as the program improves.

(03-16-2018 06:36 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 07:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 07:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-15-2018 06:55 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  [quote='Crump1' pid='15176235' dateline='1521137624']
It has actually been kind of awesome having weeknight games.

1. It is spread among the teams (ASU has been on more weeknights since we are winning) so it is not that frequent.

2. You get a LOT more exposure when you are the only or one of a few games on TV on a Thursday compared to playing on Saturday when everyone is on TV.

3. You still get Saturday non-conference games on TV.

4. The bye weeks created to accommodate weeknights are great if you have a family you want to spend time with doing things other than watching football.

5. Weeknight games on the road are great for the fans of the road team. Most cannot travel anyhow and, again, it frees a weekend.

6. Recruits are likely to be home watching football on a weeknight other than Friday. Not so much on Saturday.

There is a bit of a trade off losing one Saturday game but overall it is a great deal for the schools and the league. I get tons of people stopping by my office the night after we play (and beat) someone the night before. Those folks are less likely to watch us on a Saturday.

I’m glad you see a value to weekday games. I see none.
In fact, I see them as something that will destroy a program. It’s like having the NFL in your city. Bad.

When we are playing well, we've had some nice weeknight crowds. One per season at home is ideal but AState gets two this year because the only road game we play against a team that was over .500 in 2017 is at Bama.

I thinks it’s a little easier for a city school. We’ve Had some great crowds for weekday games. The Louisville game in 2016 was excellent. Cinci has had some good weeknight crowds.

Interesting idea, but IMO you have to define 'city' schools. E.g., many SEC schools are in 'cities' that are relatively small (Gainesville, Tuscaloosa, etc.), but the entire town basically consists of supporters of the school, so it really is a 'city' in that sense, tens of thousands always are very close to the stadium.

Also, even big cities differ in important ways. E.g., Tampa isn't the same kind of "big city" as is Cincinnati. Cincy is "compact", has a much denser profile, while "Tampa" sprawls across an immense area about 30 miles long and wide, it is much more an "area" than a city in the older, northern sense. It is much looser in terms of residential configuration, and even many USF fans who are technically within the city limits have a long/pain in arse commute to the stadium, which bad weather can impact.