(05-27-2014 09:21 AM)AstroCajun Wrote:  I'm not reading all this.

I just want to question whether it's possible for the S-BC conference TV contract to be even less than it is now.

Yes.

(05-27-2014 06:11 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:42 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:02 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:40 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:25 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  A geographic realignment is a different beast than one to try musical chairs again to get a few more tv bucks.

But even a geographic realignment has to have a whole lot of agreement from a whole lot of schools and is itself problematic.

No doubt a lot of ego's would have to be set aside. LaTech and Marshall being the primary ones.

It isn't personal, it's business. You want CUSA members to see things from an SBC prospective, which just won't happen. You want a geographic realignment because you live with the fear that UL-L,TX St, GA St, or AState will be invited to join CUSA and you're smart enough to know that that would be disastrous for the SBC. I don't blame an App St fan for feeling this way. I would too. Right now, CUSA has no presence in Arkansas or Georgia, so AState and GA St have that going for them, but any of the four mentioned SBC members would fit nicely into CUSA's footprint.

After following this stuff for 30+ years I completely understand no decision in collegiate athletics is personal. It's always completely selfish.

To be clear, I have no fear of any of the schools you mentioned leaving for CUSA. The only way they expand is if an outside influence, say the Big XII, makes a move on a AAC school and the resulting domino effect makes it way down to CUSA. Anyone in their right mind understands the SunBelt will be, probably already is (the exception of Idaho), a superior football conference to the new CUSA. Basketball is another issue, but this discussion is about realignment and we all know football drives that bus at the G5 level.

The P5 playoff payout to G5 schools is modeled around a 12 member conference. Additional members only decrease the individual school payouts and no CUSA president is going to vote themselves a reduction in revenue. Especially after their new conference TV deal is announced. CUSA was poised to raid the SunBelt of two more schools, but that was stopped dead in its tracks when the playoff revenue plan was announced.

I think you better resign yourself to the idea that regional schools are the future for the SunBelt and CUSA. My contacts in the broadcast media hierarchy say it is only a matter of time until the dollars dry up. Aligning regionally will be the only way our schools survive in their present form. Unless you think going back to FCS is a better option.

I agree that regional GO5 conferences make sense, but I also understand that there will be overlap amongst those regions. Many people (like me), think it makes more sense for Rice and Houston to play in different conferences than it does for them to share the same conference. The same thing can be said about UTSA and TX St., UTEP and NMSU, or La Tech and ULM. We can play each other if we want to, but we can all still retain a degree of separation that helps to define our differences. The point I was making is that La Tech does not want to be in the same conference as ULM. That is in no way a knock against ULM or the SBC. It is a simple business decision. You're reference to La Tech's ego being a problem was not correct. That's all I was saying.

If you are trying to exploit regional TV it makes zero sense for Rice, Houston, TXST, and UTSA to be in three different conferences.

(05-27-2014 09:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 06:11 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:42 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:02 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:40 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  No doubt a lot of ego's would have to be set aside. LaTech and Marshall being the primary ones.

It isn't personal, it's business. You want CUSA members to see things from an SBC prospective, which just won't happen. You want a geographic realignment because you live with the fear that UL-L,TX St, GA St, or AState will be invited to join CUSA and you're smart enough to know that that would be disastrous for the SBC. I don't blame an App St fan for feeling this way. I would too. Right now, CUSA has no presence in Arkansas or Georgia, so AState and GA St have that going for them, but any of the four mentioned SBC members would fit nicely into CUSA's footprint.

After following this stuff for 30+ years I completely understand no decision in collegiate athletics is personal. It's always completely selfish.

To be clear, I have no fear of any of the schools you mentioned leaving for CUSA. The only way they expand is if an outside influence, say the Big XII, makes a move on a AAC school and the resulting domino effect makes it way down to CUSA. Anyone in their right mind understands the SunBelt will be, probably already is (the exception of Idaho), a superior football conference to the new CUSA. Basketball is another issue, but this discussion is about realignment and we all know football drives that bus at the G5 level.

The P5 playoff payout to G5 schools is modeled around a 12 member conference. Additional members only decrease the individual school payouts and no CUSA president is going to vote themselves a reduction in revenue. Especially after their new conference TV deal is announced. CUSA was poised to raid the SunBelt of two more schools, but that was stopped dead in its tracks when the playoff revenue plan was announced.

I think you better resign yourself to the idea that regional schools are the future for the SunBelt and CUSA. My contacts in the broadcast media hierarchy say it is only a matter of time until the dollars dry up. Aligning regionally will be the only way our schools survive in their present form. Unless you think going back to FCS is a better option.

I agree that regional GO5 conferences make sense, but I also understand that there will be overlap amongst those regions. Many people (like me), think it makes more sense for Rice and Houston to play in different conferences than it does for them to share the same conference. The same thing can be said about UTSA and TX St., UTEP and NMSU, or La Tech and ULM. We can play each other if we want to, but we can all still retain a degree of separation that helps to define our differences. The point I was making is that La Tech does not want to be in the same conference as ULM. That is in no way a knock against ULM or the SBC. It is a simple business decision. You're reference to La Tech's ego being a problem was not correct. That's all I was saying.

If you are trying to exploit regional TV it makes zero sense for Rice, Houston, TXST, and UTSA to be in three different conferences.

If the goal is to get a critical mass so you can get Fox Sports SW coverage or local OTA then yes it is better to consolidate.

However, at this time CUSA has better name recognition and western division has better regional appeal with Fox Sports SW viewers. LaTech, UTEP, and UTSA are taking advantage of this while they can so they can offer something that ULM, NMST, and TXST can't. Some media on their part and no media for the competition is a better deal for chest thumping and recruiting than leveling the fielding for more TV dollars

I think the lack of TV money in the next CUSA deal is more likely to stop realignment than cause it. If gathering big market programs with no consideration of other factors did not work then I don't see how rearranging the membership again is worth a shot given the decrease in playoff money that comes with adding beyond 12 teams.

The only way realignment happens any further is if there are more changes in the P5 that cause numbers to drop below 12 in the MAC, SBC or CUSA or there is a meeting of the minds that creates more compact conferences in light of the lack of extra TV money. Without a big fat TV deal, there isn't going to be any real reason for movement between the SBC and CUSA. Both were one bid basketball leagues and are getting very close to the same ratio of bowls to members. Access to the playoff spot will be an uphill battle in either conference and has more to do with non-conference scheduling than conference membership at this level.

(05-27-2014 10:25 AM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 09:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 06:11 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:42 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:02 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  It isn't personal, it's business. You want CUSA members to see things from an SBC prospective, which just won't happen. You want a geographic realignment because you live with the fear that UL-L,TX St, GA St, or AState will be invited to join CUSA and you're smart enough to know that that would be disastrous for the SBC. I don't blame an App St fan for feeling this way. I would too. Right now, CUSA has no presence in Arkansas or Georgia, so AState and GA St have that going for them, but any of the four mentioned SBC members would fit nicely into CUSA's footprint.

After following this stuff for 30+ years I completely understand no decision in collegiate athletics is personal. It's always completely selfish.

To be clear, I have no fear of any of the schools you mentioned leaving for CUSA. The only way they expand is if an outside influence, say the Big XII, makes a move on a AAC school and the resulting domino effect makes it way down to CUSA. Anyone in their right mind understands the SunBelt will be, probably already is (the exception of Idaho), a superior football conference to the new CUSA. Basketball is another issue, but this discussion is about realignment and we all know football drives that bus at the G5 level.

The P5 playoff payout to G5 schools is modeled around a 12 member conference. Additional members only decrease the individual school payouts and no CUSA president is going to vote themselves a reduction in revenue. Especially after their new conference TV deal is announced. CUSA was poised to raid the SunBelt of two more schools, but that was stopped dead in its tracks when the playoff revenue plan was announced.

I think you better resign yourself to the idea that regional schools are the future for the SunBelt and CUSA. My contacts in the broadcast media hierarchy say it is only a matter of time until the dollars dry up. Aligning regionally will be the only way our schools survive in their present form. Unless you think going back to FCS is a better option.

I agree that regional GO5 conferences make sense, but I also understand that there will be overlap amongst those regions. Many people (like me), think it makes more sense for Rice and Houston to play in different conferences than it does for them to share the same conference. The same thing can be said about UTSA and TX St., UTEP and NMSU, or La Tech and ULM. We can play each other if we want to, but we can all still retain a degree of separation that helps to define our differences. The point I was making is that La Tech does not want to be in the same conference as ULM. That is in no way a knock against ULM or the SBC. It is a simple business decision. You're reference to La Tech's ego being a problem was not correct. That's all I was saying.

If you are trying to exploit regional TV it makes zero sense for Rice, Houston, TXST, and UTSA to be in three different conferences.

If the goal is to get a critical mass so you can get Fox Sports SW coverage or local OTA then yes it is better to consolidate.

However, at this time CUSA has better name recognition and western division has better regional appeal with Fox Sports SW viewers. LaTech, UTEP, and UTSA are taking advantage of this while they can so they can offer something that ULM, NMST, and TXST can't. Some media on their part and no media for the competition is a better deal for chest thumping and recruiting than leveling the fielding for more TV dollars

Depends on your market.

CUSA You have to get south of Little Rock to get any real CUSA name recognition in Arkansas since Tulsa and Memphis left. For most of the population of the state CUSA carries little value outside of familarity with USM and Rice.

(05-27-2014 10:55 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  I think the lack of TV money in the next CUSA deal is more likely to stop realignment than cause it. If gathering big market programs with no consideration of other factors did not work then I don't see how rearranging the membership again is worth a shot given the decrease in playoff money that comes with adding beyond 12 teams.

The only way realignment happens any further is if there are more changes in the P5 that cause numbers to drop below 12 in the MAC, SBC or CUSA or there is a meeting of the minds that creates more compact conferences in light of the lack of extra TV money. Without a big fat TV deal, there isn't going to be any real reason for movement between the SBC and CUSA. Both were one bid basketball leagues and are getting very close to the same ratio of bowls to members. Access to the playoff spot will be an uphill battle in either conference and has more to do with non-conference scheduling than conference membership at this level.

As long as the G5 leagues blindly do what the big boys are doing, then the gap is going to widen both financially and in exposure.

But how much national exposure do you need? You aren't selling tickets in Maine and you aren't recruiting Wyoming.

If you look at the top 15 states in per capita production of FBS recruits you have:

Louisiana
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
District of Columbia
Mississippi
Texas
Ohio
Oklahoma
Utah
South Carolina
Arkansas
Maryland

Several of these states could actually produce more but very few schools have the resources to comb the hinterlands. It's easier to fly into Houston and hit a lot of schools in a few days than it is work through all the rural high schools of Louisiana, Alabama, and Arkansas. It's easier to hit Atlanta and nearby communities than really work over Georgia so the numbers skew a bit favoring urban areas.

But if you are Texas-San Antonio you are better off with more exposures viewable within 150 miles because that's where the bulk of your recruiting comes from and where virtually all of your ticket sales come from.

You are better off being on a TV station in San Antonio that reaches 99.9% of your ticket buyers and many of your potential recruits than being on FS2 or FS1 that reaches a much smaller fraction of your two primary target audiences, potential ticket buyers and potential recruits.

The SEC actually turned down a proposal for an SEC Network five or six years ago that guaranteed greater income than their OTA syndicated network. The reason was the added profit was not seen to be enough to offset the blanket coverage of the footprint by free tv both in reaching recruits and potential ticket buyers. It wasn't until ESPN came to the table and offered substantially more money for an SEC network that they finally caved.

But there is a lesson there. They saw the value in accessibility and it took a massive premium from ESPN for them to give up that accessibility.

Does it really matter if you go to an OTA syndicated deal and make $100,000 less in TV money if you improve your brand and increase attendance by 1,000 per game? Because if you increase your attendance by 1,000 per game you will make back that $100,000 plus more.

(05-27-2014 09:27 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Right now there are three niches the G5 can exploit.

1. Syndicated over-the-air broadcast. Anyone who grew up in SWC or SEC country remembers this (especially SEC country since it lasted until 2013 there). The P5 abandoned this model because it is purely ad driven. Local TV stations do generally get a carriage fee but in the big picture it's not serious money and has more to do with the leverage they have in offering network programming. The issue for syndicated OTA is you need some geographic compactness. An El Dorado/Monroe station obviously wants north Louisiana content, if they can get it, then Arkansas or even Texas or Mississippi based content will work to fill some of the gaps. What they don't want is a lot of Georgia, North Carolina, Viriginia, etc. content. Likewise the broadcaster in Birmingham will take Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia content but start throwing a lot of Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas and they lose interest. The key to OTA is giving them something that will have at least some modest interest when the regional team(s) aren't playing.
2. Regional Sports Network. The RSN's have a real dearth of content unless they are located in an area with a lot of pro concentration. Currently the Fox affiliated networks are getting some spill over Big XII and P12 content but they have lost their ability to purchase SEC over-supply starting this year and lost the Big 10 when BTN launched. Comcast Sports SE held no pro content and they are shutting down because they can no longer purchase excess SEC inventory. Again going back to the lessons of 1994. The RSN's were not quite the staple of the cable subscription of that day. Today most every cable or satellite subscription includes your local RSN. Since the lines for distribution get a bit fuzzy it is hard to state it definitively but my best estimate based on the data I can find is that no G5 conference has more than five teams in any distribution footprint. In other words, there is no critical mass, any RSN taking a contract with an existing G5 is going to be stuck with a majority of games featuring at least one out-of-market team and a minority but significant number of games featuring no in-market teams. What if CUSA-Texas + La. Tech had a package with the Sun Belt west of the Mississippi? That's ten football and 12 basketball schools located in the Fox SW distribution area (nine football, 11 basketball if I'm wrong about Las Cruces). That's critical mass.
3. Digital distribution. This is a rapidly growing field. Next half of all TV's in service are expected to be able to connect to the internet. The market for boxes to connect to the internet is growing with Amazon joining Apple and Roku in the market. This is an intriguing marketplace. First it's a bigger deal in recruiting than many realize. Among African-Americans under age 24, far and away their biggest access point to the internet is mobile devices. While its big with white youth, they are more likely to have access to a desktop or laptop. Connected TV's demographics look like a doughnut right now with poorer and richer households adopting at higher rates than the middle incomes. It is a low cost TV access point for the poor home and it is popular in higher income homes because of the variety of programming and the ability to be free from a program schedule. In the higher income home, it is a programming supplement. So this is a growing arena. What makes it even more interesting is that ESPN is busy locking up as much as it can in digital rights. There really isn't enough P5 content to go around and MLB, NBA and NHL are currently resisting ESPN, Fox, and NBC attempts to get those rights because the subscription model is working for them and they expect it to really boom in the future. Since ESPN is unable to obtain much premium content (currently has to hold back ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU from the digital platform unless you have a validated cable subscription to keep cable and satellite happy), they are going heavy into niche sports, and more regional content. Right now the model is volume and it is apparent that anyone capable of drawing any sort of audience is of value because they want to make the ESPN3 platform too important for internet providers to not offer. As a revenue stream, they've not scratched the surface yet. They carry virtually no advertising even though there is potential there, especially in targeted advertising as they gather demographic information. Right now ESPN is solely focused on gathering are much content as possible and they are generally not paying any production costs. The production cost shifts to the school or to the RSN or syndicated TV network producing locally. The money there is still a few years off but the G5 should be amping up the number of games made available in order to develop a loyal and engaged audience because a loyal and engaged audience will make it a valuable property just as happened with MLS.

As long as G5 leagues try to replicate the P5 model of reaching across several regions instead of one or two the ability to effectively monetize the first two options is severely limited.

The only way the G5 leagues can follow the P5 model is by creating a joint venture placing their TV rights under one LLC owned by the leagues and then distributing revenue based on the games telecast adjusted for network and broadcast window, which is how the NCAA did it until the Supreme Court struck down their deal, and is how the CFA did it until the Big East and SEC pulled out to cut their own deals.

Based on conversations with a friend with 30+ years in broadcast media, I am convinced option three is the future for G5 schools. He has owned second level media rights to numerous D1 & D2 conferences and is on a first name basis with many of the D1 conference offices in the country. He entertains conference commissioners with golf junkets to Europe and other exotic locations. To say he is well connected is an understatement and I listen very carefully to what he has to say.

Keep in mind we're talking second tier rights here. He is so convinced internet TV is the way of the future for G5 conferences his company recently relocated to a major NC city with high tech production facilities and access to on air talent. They have invested millions into state of the art equipment with the sole purpose of winning the digital media rights of G5 schools. I've seen his business plan and the white paper research documents. The guy knows what he is doing and has a solid grasp on the direction of broadcast media rights and exposure for G5 schools.

As the money dries up from traditional public networks digital media will offer these schools world wide exposure. If you have access to the internet, you can see the games. The kicker is that money won't be nearly enough to offset what is lost to the P5 conferences. That is why I firmly believe regional conferences will become a necessity. Perhaps not every school in the state will be in the same conference, but as cost savings become more critical, they just may.

(05-27-2014 03:07 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 09:27 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Right now there are three niches the G5 can exploit.

1. Syndicated over-the-air broadcast. Anyone who grew up in SWC or SEC country remembers this (especially SEC country since it lasted until 2013 there). The P5 abandoned this model because it is purely ad driven. Local TV stations do generally get a carriage fee but in the big picture it's not serious money and has more to do with the leverage they have in offering network programming. The issue for syndicated OTA is you need some geographic compactness. An El Dorado/Monroe station obviously wants north Louisiana content, if they can get it, then Arkansas or even Texas or Mississippi based content will work to fill some of the gaps. What they don't want is a lot of Georgia, North Carolina, Viriginia, etc. content. Likewise the broadcaster in Birmingham will take Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia content but start throwing a lot of Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas and they lose interest. The key to OTA is giving them something that will have at least some modest interest when the regional team(s) aren't playing.
2. Regional Sports Network. The RSN's have a real dearth of content unless they are located in an area with a lot of pro concentration. Currently the Fox affiliated networks are getting some spill over Big XII and P12 content but they have lost their ability to purchase SEC over-supply starting this year and lost the Big 10 when BTN launched. Comcast Sports SE held no pro content and they are shutting down because they can no longer purchase excess SEC inventory. Again going back to the lessons of 1994. The RSN's were not quite the staple of the cable subscription of that day. Today most every cable or satellite subscription includes your local RSN. Since the lines for distribution get a bit fuzzy it is hard to state it definitively but my best estimate based on the data I can find is that no G5 conference has more than five teams in any distribution footprint. In other words, there is no critical mass, any RSN taking a contract with an existing G5 is going to be stuck with a majority of games featuring at least one out-of-market team and a minority but significant number of games featuring no in-market teams. What if CUSA-Texas + La. Tech had a package with the Sun Belt west of the Mississippi? That's ten football and 12 basketball schools located in the Fox SW distribution area (nine football, 11 basketball if I'm wrong about Las Cruces). That's critical mass.
3. Digital distribution. This is a rapidly growing field. Next half of all TV's in service are expected to be able to connect to the internet. The market for boxes to connect to the internet is growing with Amazon joining Apple and Roku in the market. This is an intriguing marketplace. First it's a bigger deal in recruiting than many realize. Among African-Americans under age 24, far and away their biggest access point to the internet is mobile devices. While its big with white youth, they are more likely to have access to a desktop or laptop. Connected TV's demographics look like a doughnut right now with poorer and richer households adopting at higher rates than the middle incomes. It is a low cost TV access point for the poor home and it is popular in higher income homes because of the variety of programming and the ability to be free from a program schedule. In the higher income home, it is a programming supplement. So this is a growing arena. What makes it even more interesting is that ESPN is busy locking up as much as it can in digital rights. There really isn't enough P5 content to go around and MLB, NBA and NHL are currently resisting ESPN, Fox, and NBC attempts to get those rights because the subscription model is working for them and they expect it to really boom in the future. Since ESPN is unable to obtain much premium content (currently has to hold back ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU from the digital platform unless you have a validated cable subscription to keep cable and satellite happy), they are going heavy into niche sports, and more regional content. Right now the model is volume and it is apparent that anyone capable of drawing any sort of audience is of value because they want to make the ESPN3 platform too important for internet providers to not offer. As a revenue stream, they've not scratched the surface yet. They carry virtually no advertising even though there is potential there, especially in targeted advertising as they gather demographic information. Right now ESPN is solely focused on gathering are much content as possible and they are generally not paying any production costs. The production cost shifts to the school or to the RSN or syndicated TV network producing locally. The money there is still a few years off but the G5 should be amping up the number of games made available in order to develop a loyal and engaged audience because a loyal and engaged audience will make it a valuable property just as happened with MLS.

As long as G5 leagues try to replicate the P5 model of reaching across several regions instead of one or two the ability to effectively monetize the first two options is severely limited.

The only way the G5 leagues can follow the P5 model is by creating a joint venture placing their TV rights under one LLC owned by the leagues and then distributing revenue based on the games telecast adjusted for network and broadcast window, which is how the NCAA did it until the Supreme Court struck down their deal, and is how the CFA did it until the Big East and SEC pulled out to cut their own deals.

Based on conversations with a friend with 30+ years in broadcast media, I am convinced option three is the future for G5 schools. He has owned second level media rights to numerous D1 & D2 conferences and is on a first name basis with many of the D1 conference offices in the country. He entertains conference commissioners with golf junkets to Europe and other exotic locations. To say he is well connected is an understatement and I listen very carefully to what he has to say.

Keep in mind we're talking second tier rights here. He is so convinced internet TV is the way of the future for G5 conferences his company recently relocated to a major NC city with high tech production facilities and access to on air talent. They have invested millions into state of the art equipment with the sole purpose of winning the digital media rights of G5 schools. I've seen his business plan and the white paper research documents. The guy knows what he is doing and has a solid grasp on the direction of broadcast media rights and exposure for G5 schools.

As the money dries up from traditional public networks digital media will offer these schools world wide exposure. If you have access to the internet, you can see the games. The kicker is that money won't be nearly enough to offset what is lost to the P5 conferences. That is why I firmly believe regional conferences will become a necessity. Perhaps not every school in the state will be in the same conference, but as cost savings become more critical, they just may.

I'm pretty sure I know who you are referencing.

The only point of divergence I have with his thoughts on digital is that an aggregator like ESPN is better positioned for this game because they are buying up so much content that they will be able to leverage it into extracting carriage fees from internet service providers. Right now they are already getting a carriage fee for digital but it is nickles and dimes compared to the roughly half billion per month they are getting from cable operators.

Add carriage fees to the picture and you can be talking real money.

^ I think March's announcement of the new ESPN3 conference channels are the first step for ESPN. All those conferences will have their own ESPN Digital Network similar to the SEC/ESPN Network.

A Sun Belt fan who purchases the SBC Channel Subscription will have access to all SBC games on ESPN not just the current ESPN3 games.

For example, for $20 a month a Sun Belt fan who doesn't have cable or DirecTV can buy this subscription and also watch the Tuesday/Wednesday ESPN2 and ESPNU games in addition to the ESPN3 games but no other 2/U content. Imagine in like MLB.tv except SBC.tv on Roku's, AppleTVs, Phones, an embedded into the new generation of SmartTVs. Sports Center would also be included in this channel as the aggregator content ArkStFan talks about.

ESPN has completely abandoned ESPN Plus their Regional TV division and even closed down the website and changed it to ESPN Events. The new American Conference TV contract replaced their syndicates ESPN regional OTA games with ESPN News games. I think the new MAC TV negotiations will also have ESPN wanting to end those and having them replaced. ESPN wants to cut off OTA regional packages and the only OTA games allowed may be 3rd tier rights negotiated by individual schools to local affiliates whereas by ESPN contract will only be allowed if ESPN3 gets the production feed for free for Digital Broadcast as part of SBC.tv or MAC.tv.

ESPN will make more money selling these specific conference networks like SBC.tv and MAC.tv then trying to stuff as much junk as possible to meet everybody's needs on one channel.

Sports Center will be included in the SBC.tv package to also serve as aggregator and advertiser. While watching for SBC content and highlights, they advertise the Alabama vs LSU game to SBC fans. Hey, why not upgrade your SBC.tv package into the NCAA Game Ticket package for an extra $20 a month more and also see the other big games?

And to the NCAA Game Ticket subscribers who are also casual SBC fans watching the Tuesday/Wednesday ESPN2 and ESPNU games, why not spend the extra $20 to get the SBC.tv extension package and see all the other conference games? (Espn3 games)

(05-27-2014 06:38 AM)zeebart21 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 06:11 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:42 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:02 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:40 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  No doubt a lot of ego's would have to be set aside. LaTech and Marshall being the primary ones.

It isn't personal, it's business. You want CUSA members to see things from an SBC prospective, which just won't happen. You want a geographic realignment because you live with the fear that UL-L,TX St, GA St, or AState will be invited to join CUSA and you're smart enough to know that that would be disastrous for the SBC. I don't blame an App St fan for feeling this way. I would too. Right now, CUSA has no presence in Arkansas or Georgia, so AState and GA St have that going for them, but any of the four mentioned SBC members would fit nicely into CUSA's footprint.

After following this stuff for 30+ years I completely understand no decision in collegiate athletics is personal. It's always completely selfish.

To be clear, I have no fear of any of the schools you mentioned leaving for CUSA. The only way they expand is if an outside influence, say the Big XII, makes a move on a AAC school and the resulting domino effect makes it way down to CUSA. Anyone in their right mind understands the SunBelt will be, probably already is (the exception of Idaho), a superior football conference to the new CUSA. Basketball is another issue, but this discussion is about realignment and we all know football drives that bus at the G5 level.

The P5 playoff payout to G5 schools is modeled around a 12 member conference. Additional members only decrease the individual school payouts and no CUSA president is going to vote themselves a reduction in revenue. Especially after their new conference TV deal is announced. CUSA was poised to raid the SunBelt of two more schools, but that was stopped dead in its tracks when the playoff revenue plan was announced.

I think you better resign yourself to the idea that regional schools are the future for the SunBelt and CUSA. My contacts in the broadcast media hierarchy say it is only a matter of time until the dollars dry up. Aligning regionally will be the only way our schools survive in their present form. Unless you think going back to FCS is a better option.

I agree that regional GO5 conferences make sense, but I also understand that there will be overlap amongst those regions. Many people (like me), think it makes more sense for Rice and Houston to play in different conferences than it does for them to share the same conference. The same thing can be said about UTSA and TX St., UTEP and NMSU, or La Tech and ULM. We can play each other if we want to, but we can all still retain a degree of separation that helps to define our differences. The point I was making is that La Tech does not want to be in the same conference as ULM. That is in no way a knock against ULM or the SBC. It is a simple business decision. You're reference to La Tech's ego being a problem was not correct. That's all I was saying.

HAHA!! Go home fool. you're drunk.

Have your pubescent AD keep an eye on whats happening at UL, maybe one day you can be successful too.

Z

I don't drink, but I have for quite some time now come to believe that some of your idiotic posts are a direct result of your being drunk. It's either that, or you're just so ignorant that you don't realize what a laughing stock you are. Every bully I've ever known was stupid, and even though you don't realize it, I'm willing to bet that your behavior and pure stupidity are embarrassing to most UL-L fans.

(05-28-2014 05:40 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 06:38 AM)zeebart21 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 06:11 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:42 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:02 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  It isn't personal, it's business. You want CUSA members to see things from an SBC prospective, which just won't happen. You want a geographic realignment because you live with the fear that UL-L,TX St, GA St, or AState will be invited to join CUSA and you're smart enough to know that that would be disastrous for the SBC. I don't blame an App St fan for feeling this way. I would too. Right now, CUSA has no presence in Arkansas or Georgia, so AState and GA St have that going for them, but any of the four mentioned SBC members would fit nicely into CUSA's footprint.

After following this stuff for 30+ years I completely understand no decision in collegiate athletics is personal. It's always completely selfish.

To be clear, I have no fear of any of the schools you mentioned leaving for CUSA. The only way they expand is if an outside influence, say the Big XII, makes a move on a AAC school and the resulting domino effect makes it way down to CUSA. Anyone in their right mind understands the SunBelt will be, probably already is (the exception of Idaho), a superior football conference to the new CUSA. Basketball is another issue, but this discussion is about realignment and we all know football drives that bus at the G5 level.

The P5 playoff payout to G5 schools is modeled around a 12 member conference. Additional members only decrease the individual school payouts and no CUSA president is going to vote themselves a reduction in revenue. Especially after their new conference TV deal is announced. CUSA was poised to raid the SunBelt of two more schools, but that was stopped dead in its tracks when the playoff revenue plan was announced.

I think you better resign yourself to the idea that regional schools are the future for the SunBelt and CUSA. My contacts in the broadcast media hierarchy say it is only a matter of time until the dollars dry up. Aligning regionally will be the only way our schools survive in their present form. Unless you think going back to FCS is a better option.

I agree that regional GO5 conferences make sense, but I also understand that there will be overlap amongst those regions. Many people (like me), think it makes more sense for Rice and Houston to play in different conferences than it does for them to share the same conference. The same thing can be said about UTSA and TX St., UTEP and NMSU, or La Tech and ULM. We can play each other if we want to, but we can all still retain a degree of separation that helps to define our differences. The point I was making is that La Tech does not want to be in the same conference as ULM. That is in no way a knock against ULM or the SBC. It is a simple business decision. You're reference to La Tech's ego being a problem was not correct. That's all I was saying.

HAHA!! Go home fool. you're drunk.

Have your pubescent AD keep an eye on whats happening at UL, maybe one day you can be successful too.

Z

I don't drink, but I have for quite some time now come to believe that some of your idiotic posts are a direct result of your being drunk. It's either that, or you're just so ignorant that you don't realize what a laughing stock you are. Every bully I've ever known was stupid, and even though you don't realize it, I'm willing to bet that your behavior and pure stupidity are embarrassing to most UL-L fans.

Preciate it.

Y'all keep watching what we are doing down in Lafayette. We have surpassed you in 3 short years, since our admin got halfway serious about athletics. Just wait and see what the next 5 years hold for both of our schools!! HAHA!

Z

(05-27-2014 03:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'm pretty sure I know who you are referencing.

The only point of divergence I have with his thoughts on digital is that an aggregator like ESPN is better positioned for this game because they are buying up so much content that they will be able to leverage it into extracting carriage fees from internet service providers. Right now they are already getting a carriage fee for digital but it is nickles and dimes compared to the roughly half billion per month they are getting from cable operators.

Add carriage fees to the picture and you can be talking real money.

No question ESPN is better positioned to seize control of this thing. They could wrap up the digital end by tying it to weekly national exposures on their cable networks. My question is will conferences continue allowing ESPN to dictate these dreadful early weeknight games? Is the relatively small amount of national exposure really worth the image hit of showing games with half empty stands and the PR hit of depriving your season ticket holders of a game they paid for?

With App being somewhat remote and most of our actual ticket buying fan base is 2-3 hours away from campus, there is no way we will get anywhere close to a normal crowd on a early week night. However, I have not seen any indication a more metropolitan location significantly improves the attendance of these games either.

(05-28-2014 07:25 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 03:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'm pretty sure I know who you are referencing.

The only point of divergence I have with his thoughts on digital is that an aggregator like ESPN is better positioned for this game because they are buying up so much content that they will be able to leverage it into extracting carriage fees from internet service providers. Right now they are already getting a carriage fee for digital but it is nickles and dimes compared to the roughly half billion per month they are getting from cable operators.

Add carriage fees to the picture and you can be talking real money.

No question ESPN is better positioned to seize control of this thing. They could wrap up the digital end by tying it to weekly national exposures on their cable networks. My question is will conferences continue allowing ESPN to dictate these dreadful early weeknight games? Is the relatively small amount of national exposure really worth the image hit of showing games with half empty stands and the PR hit of depriving your season ticket holders of a game they paid for?

With App being somewhat remote and most of our actual ticket buying fan base is 2-3 hours away from campus, there is no way we will get anywhere close to a normal crowd on a early week night. However, I have not seen any indication a more metropolitan location significantly improves the attendance of these games either.

AState had a near sellout against ULM for a Thursday night, but they had beaten Arkansas earlier in the season, the problem though was traffic was a complete cluster and a lot of people (me included) didn't make it in until well after kickoff then the family plan seats start emptying out after halftime because that's where the families with small kids are and they start heading out to get the kiddos in bed.

Our Tuesday night game last year was "officially" 80% full but was closer to 65% because a large number of lower level season ticket holder seats were empty. Where I sit, with required donation and ticket it will cost you a minimum of $62.50 a game to sit there, it is sold out with a waiting list and easily half the seats were empty that night.

You start having too many games on the season ticket plan that people can't make and you start losing season ticket holders.

But 767,000 people watched that game on TV. The MAC weeknight games involving NIU last year drew a million viewers and more. Those are numbers that warrant the games. The SBC Tuesday night game the week before drew 456k viewers, I'm not so sure a half million is worth the trouble.

(05-27-2014 07:20 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  ^ I think March's announcement of the new ESPN3 conference channels are the first step for ESPN. All those conferences will have their own ESPN Digital Network similar to the SEC/ESPN Network.

A Sun Belt fan who purchases the SBC Channel Subscription will have access to all SBC games on ESPN not just the current ESPN3 games.

For example, for $20 a month a Sun Belt fan who doesn't have cable or DirecTV can buy this subscription and also watch the Tuesday/Wednesday ESPN2 and ESPNU games in addition to the ESPN3 games but no other 2/U content. Imagine in like MLB.tv except SBC.tv on Roku's, AppleTVs, Phones, an embedded into the new generation of SmartTVs. Sports Center would also be included in this channel as the aggregator content ArkStFan talks about.

ESPN has completely abandoned ESPN Plus their Regional TV division and even closed down the website and changed it to ESPN Events. The new American Conference TV contract replaced their syndicates ESPN regional OTA games with ESPN News games. I think the new MAC TV negotiations will also have ESPN wanting to end those and having them replaced. ESPN wants to cut off OTA regional packages and the only OTA games allowed may be 3rd tier rights negotiated by individual schools to local affiliates whereas by ESPN contract will only be allowed if ESPN3 gets the production feed for free for Digital Broadcast as part of SBC.tv or MAC.tv.

ESPN will make more money selling these specific conference networks like SBC.tv and MAC.tv then trying to stuff as much junk as possible to meet everybody's needs on one channel.

Sports Center will be included in the SBC.tv package to also serve as aggregator and advertiser. While watching for SBC content and highlights, they advertise the Alabama vs LSU game to SBC fans. Hey, why not upgrade your SBC.tv package into the NCAA Game Ticket package for an extra $20 a month more and also see the other big games?

And to the NCAA Game Ticket subscribers who are also casual SBC fans watching the Tuesday/Wednesday ESPN2 and ESPNU games, why not spend the extra $20 to get the SBC.tv extension package and see all the other conference games? (Espn3 games)

Remember also that ESPN is selling a lot of AAC content to CBSS. ESPN has more content currently than they can show. That will have a future impact as well on rights fees.

And nobody knows the terms of the ESPN / CBSSN terms. ESPN may have kept the digital rights and might be able to show the AAC licensed games on ESPN3. CBSSN shows minor league baseball games now where the game is on Thursday night prime time on cable CBSSN but also streamed digitally the same feed with CBS logos on MiLB.tv. The new conference digital espn channels could show those games too.

(05-26-2014 10:17 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:51 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  One thing that you have to credit the Sunbelt with is that the Conference has learned to make do without a lot of tv money. The article mentions the possibility that tv contracts for some of the G5 conferences might be lower this time around. You have to scroll down one or two to get to the story.
http://g5conferencenews.blogspot.com/

It's been my opinion for some time now CUSA's new line up will result in far less TV dollars when their next TV contract is rolled out. The SunBelt's TV money will likely stay about the same. While I agree there will likely be some realignment among CUSA and the SunBelt I think it will be more of a re-shuffling of the deck among to create more regional conferences. I do not see a conference featuring the "so called best of the three" being created just to compete with the AAC & MWC.

It is wishful thinking on my part, but it would make sense to see exit fees waived in order to settle this thing once and for all.

We have a winner with the regional conferences!!! And guess what, that's going to include Liberty, JMU, EKU, UT-C, ETSU, Montana, Montana State, Sam Houston State, Missouri State, Lamar, Richmond, North Dakota State, and potentially a few others looking to get in the mix.
These whispers have been going on forever it seems like, the playoff has set into motion what will eventually be another split into Division I, one where I honestly believe what we know as FCS will drop their numbers down to around 53-55 scholarships max and those programs that want to step up, will with a new division that supports around 70-75 scholarships with a smaller stipend (an extra 500-1000) for "full cost." I don't believe it to happen next week, but within the next 5-10 years, this is where we're headed.

(05-28-2014 09:18 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  And nobody knows the terms of the ESPN / CBSSN terms. ESPN may have kept the digital rights and might be able to show the AAC licensed games on ESPN3. CBSSN shows minor league baseball games now where the game is on Thursday night prime time on cable CBSSN but also streamed digitally the same feed with CBS logos on MiLB.tv. The new conference digital espn channels could show those games too.

The rumor for what its worth, is that ESPN is giving CBS those games at less than what CBS is paying per game for CUSA telecasts and is reserving PPV rights and digital rights though I don't know that they are exercising them currently.

(05-28-2014 09:44 AM)Buccaneerlover Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:17 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:51 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  One thing that you have to credit the Sunbelt with is that the Conference has learned to make do without a lot of tv money. The article mentions the possibility that tv contracts for some of the G5 conferences might be lower this time around. You have to scroll down one or two to get to the story.
http://g5conferencenews.blogspot.com/

It's been my opinion for some time now CUSA's new line up will result in far less TV dollars when their next TV contract is rolled out. The SunBelt's TV money will likely stay about the same. While I agree there will likely be some realignment among CUSA and the SunBelt I think it will be more of a re-shuffling of the deck among to create more regional conferences. I do not see a conference featuring the "so called best of the three" being created just to compete with the AAC & MWC.

It is wishful thinking on my part, but it would make sense to see exit fees waived in order to settle this thing once and for all.

We have a winner with the regional conferences!!! And guess what, that's going to include Liberty, JMU, EKU, UT-C, ETSU, Montana, Montana State, Sam Houston State, Missouri State, Lamar, Richmond, North Dakota State, and potentially a few others looking to get in the mix.
These whispers have been going on forever it seems like, the playoff has set into motion what will eventually be another split into Division I, one where I honestly believe what we know as FCS will drop their numbers down to around 53-55 scholarships max and those programs that want to step up, will with a new division that supports around 70-75 scholarships with a smaller stipend (an extra 500-1000) for "full cost." I don't believe it to happen next week, but within the next 5-10 years, this is where we're headed.

I don't think we're headed that far primarily because the current G5 would have no interest competing with many of those FCS teams.

We'll gladly bring one or two in that make sense, but G5 will always be combined with the P5, and always be above FCS.

Google Fiber to Carry SEC Network for August 14, 2014 Debut

ESPN and Google Fiber have reached an agreement for carriage of the SEC Network on Google Fiber when the multiplatform network launches on August 14, 2014. The channel will be available to fans and followers of the Southeastern Conference in Kansas City (KS and MO) and Provo (UT) at launch. It will also be available in Austin (TX) when Google's network is completed there. Google Fiber subscribers will also have authenticated access to additional live events scheduled for the SEC Network’s digital platform, with the ability to watch SEC Network content anytime, anywhere on their television, computer, tablet or mobile device.
...
...
...

(05-28-2014 10:09 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 09:44 AM)Buccaneerlover Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 10:17 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:51 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  One thing that you have to credit the Sunbelt with is that the Conference has learned to make do without a lot of tv money. The article mentions the possibility that tv contracts for some of the G5 conferences might be lower this time around. You have to scroll down one or two to get to the story.
http://g5conferencenews.blogspot.com/

It's been my opinion for some time now CUSA's new line up will result in far less TV dollars when their next TV contract is rolled out. The SunBelt's TV money will likely stay about the same. While I agree there will likely be some realignment among CUSA and the SunBelt I think it will be more of a re-shuffling of the deck among to create more regional conferences. I do not see a conference featuring the "so called best of the three" being created just to compete with the AAC & MWC.

It is wishful thinking on my part, but it would make sense to see exit fees waived in order to settle this thing once and for all.

We have a winner with the regional conferences!!! And guess what, that's going to include Liberty, JMU, EKU, UT-C, ETSU, Montana, Montana State, Sam Houston State, Missouri State, Lamar, Richmond, North Dakota State, and potentially a few others looking to get in the mix.
These whispers have been going on forever it seems like, the playoff has set into motion what will eventually be another split into Division I, one where I honestly believe what we know as FCS will drop their numbers down to around 53-55 scholarships max and those programs that want to step up, will with a new division that supports around 70-75 scholarships with a smaller stipend (an extra 500-1000) for "full cost." I don't believe it to happen next week, but within the next 5-10 years, this is where we're headed.

I don't think we're headed that far primarily because the current G5 would have no interest competing with many of those FCS teams.

We'll gladly bring one or two in that make sense, but G5 will always be combined with the P5, and always be above FCS.

You won't have a choice. History has a funny way of repeating itself, there will be a period of open transition for teams that want to move up. And of the ones mentioned, Richmond, Montana, Montana State, Sam Houston, North Dakota State, EKU, and Liberty have all had recent playoff success. UT-C has drastically improved under Huesman and continues to do so, even with attendance. ETSU is slashing Olympic budgets to throw at football and have a championship level program (look at the hires on the field and in administration). Fans of G5 programs have to realize you're not in a position to thumb your noses at programs looking to move up/improve themselves, all of you were once there and are still trying to get better.
Regional, geographic conferences are much more beneficial for all of the mentioned schools and in the G5 conferences. The TV money is table scraps, so focus on perfecting web streams and getting fannies in the seats. Close rivalries, familiarity with schools. ETSU fans have experienced it first hand the last decade not playing Appalachian, Western Carolina, UT-C, and other regional teams and instead playing Stetson and A-Sun teams. It was a disaster and fans didn't show up.
Give it time, it will be to that extreme.