Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Why not all NonBCS conferences join together to get own Network
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
10miners Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 219
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 4
I Root For: UTEP
Location:
Post: #1
Why not all NonBCS conferences join together to get own Network
or could c-usa get is own network like big ten and all other conferences?? Well I don't think that would work and I don't think it would survive. But I do think if Mwest ,Cusa,AAC,Sun Belt and the MAc got their own network together it might work.
07-30-2015 05:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Afflicted Offline
Banned

Posts: 4,249
Joined: Sep 2009
I Root For: Rice and UH
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Why not all NonBCS conferences join together to get own Network
This has come up before on this board and I've always been a proponent of the idea. Why not show a bunch of basketball games, tier 3 football games, and olympic sports? Divide prifits evenly.
07-30-2015 05:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Native Georgian Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,519
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 1024
I Root For: TULANE+GA.STATE
Location: Decatur GA
Post: #3
RE: Why not all NonBCS conferences join together to get own Network
Problem comes in dividing up the $$$
07-30-2015 05:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10miners Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 219
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 4
I Root For: UTEP
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Why not all NonBCS conferences join together to get own Network
(07-30-2015 05:46 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Problem comes in dividing up the $$$



easy evenly
07-30-2015 05:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
olliebaba Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 28,102
Joined: Jul 2007
Reputation: 2151
I Root For: Christ
Location: El Paso
Post: #5
RE: Why not all NonBCS conferences join together to get own Network
Egos would create problems among conferences. Those Cabal conferences have their own conference networks and are not representing "other" conferences.
07-30-2015 06:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Cyniclone Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,302
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 813
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Why not all NonBCS conferences join together to get own Network
The problem with this, or pretty much any plan that involves G5 unity, is that not all G5 conferences have the same expectations and ambitions. For that matter, the schools in any given G5 conference have different expectations and ambitions. As a result, the AAC might be offended at the notion of sharing airtime and money evenly or even close to evenly with the Sun Belt. Cincinnati and Boise State would blanche at being seen as equal partners with Eastern Michigan and Idaho. Even when the reality of two conferences or two schools are that they're equal, they probably won't see it that way.
07-30-2015 06:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Noodles Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,234
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 223
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Why not all NonBCS conferences join together to get own Network
Pay each conference based on the tv ratings they draw.
07-30-2015 06:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RonBurgundy Offline
Channel 4 News Team
*

Posts: 1,854
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 76
I Root For: Louisiana Tech
Location: Louisiana
Post: #8
RE: Why not all NonBCS conferences join together to get own Network
Makes way too much sense and it would create an equal playing field. No way Boise State, UConn, or UCF want teams like ULM, Eastern Michigan, or Idaho to have the same TV revenue as them.
07-30-2015 08:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
devyanks90 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,117
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 29
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Eastern PA

Folding@NCAAbbs
Post: #9
RE: Why not all NonBCS conferences join together to get own Network
1. ESPN already has Sun Belt, American and the MAC in long term contracts for full broadcasting rights
2. Isn't this what ASN is trying to do?
07-30-2015 08:21 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Volkmar Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,359
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 467
I Root For: U.T.S.A.
Location: Richmond, Texas
Post: #10
RE: Why not all NonBCS conferences join together to get own Network
Someone correct me if I'm wrong (as I may be), but I think that even if you combine the revenue of all the G5 conferences, it still won't equal the revenue generated by the lowest P5 conference; could've sworn I read that somewhere before. So aside from the nightmarish disputes about how to divvy everything up among 5 conferences and around 70 different schools, I'm not sure we can afford it to begin with.

Btw, the reason I say "around 70" is because though there are 61 full-time schools, there are more who don't have football, who may be part of a conference for other sports. The Sun Belt is one such conference that has other non-football schools within it for other sports.
(This post was last modified: 07-30-2015 08:29 PM by Volkmar.)
07-30-2015 08:27 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
monarchman Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,639
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 18
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Why not all NonBCS conferences join together to get own Network
(07-30-2015 08:21 PM)devyanks90 Wrote:  1. ESPN already has Sun Belt, American and the MAC in long term contracts for full broadcasting rights
2. Isn't this what ASN is trying to do?

This. Plus, contrary to the popular opinion of some in the message board world, not all G5 schools are created equal. There is a significant range in fan support, resources, etc. Some will be more appealing to networks than others.
(This post was last modified: 07-30-2015 09:19 PM by monarchman.)
07-30-2015 08:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Why not all NonBCS conferences join together to get own Network
It would be very profitable. The only issue would be expenses. However, the other day the ASN article indicated the total coast of airing all the CUSA football games was just 3 million dollars. For that, ASN airs a solid quality product. That tells me that a G5 network could do quite well as long it keeps its carriage rate low enough to be on every carriers basic tier. At 25 cents a subscriber, a network would bring in about 25 million a MONTH (assuming its on most carriers basic tier like ESPN, and for just a quarter a subscriber---it probably would be). Subtracting expenses, it would spin off $200 to $225 million a year in profit. Better yet, every G5 conference would still have enough content to sell its tier one and tier 2 packages to the ESPN's and Fox Sports-1's of the world. Base the payout on the payout of every conferences Tier 1 and Tier 2 packages with a floor. So, 1 share for every conference regardless of earnings. Then one share per million earned per year with a floor of one.

5-shares (1 share each conference)
14-shares for CUSA (1 share for each million that CUSA earns for media)
20-shares for MW (1 share for each million that the MW earns for media)
22-shares for AAC (same as above)
10-shares for MAC
1-share for SB

That works out to 72 total shares. If the network made 200 million in a year, each share would be worth 2.7777 million. CUSA would have 15 shares which would convert to 41.7 million. The Sunbelt would make just 5.56 million. But the shares would be recalculated every year. If the Sunbelt gets a better contract, its improved contract value would increase the number of shares the Sunbelt receives in the calculation. Maybe there could be a component that reflects ratings so the Sunbelt doesn't get screwed so badly. Perhaps the total earnings could be divided into "pools' based on different criteria (like the CFP money is). So using two pools of money, maybe 40% of the G5 network money is divided evenly, and 60% of the G5 network money is divided using the "share" system above.

The point is, you cant just value all the content evenly because its not valued the same by the market. You'll never get everyone to buy in with "everyone gets the same thing" concept. On the other hand, as you can see, its pretty stupid for the G5 conferences not to work together because a G5 network would probably generate 3 or 4 times the value of all the G5's combined media earnings. Saying no to an uneven revenue system like the one above means CUSA would walk away from 42 million dollars. Saying no to a shared G5 network with uneven revenue sharing means the AAC would walk away from 63 million. It makes no sense not to work toward something like this. Even though the SB only gets about 6 million, that's 6 million more than they currently get.

It may take some horse trading, but there is a reasonable way to split the money that everyone could live with. The real problem is nobody in a G5 leadership role has any freakin vision because its clear there is big money to be made.
(This post was last modified: 07-31-2015 01:01 AM by Attackcoog.)
07-30-2015 09:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NanoDawg Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,665
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 86
I Root For: LaTech
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Why not all NonBCS conferences join together to get own Network
(07-30-2015 09:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It would be very profitable. The only issue would be expenses. However, the other day the ASN article indicated the total coast of airing all the CUSA football games was just 3 million dollars. For that, ASN airs a solid quality product. That tells me that a G5 network could do quite well as long it keeps its carriage rate low enough to be on every carriers basic tier. At 25 cents a subscriber, a network would bring in about 25 million a MONTH (assuming its on most carriers basic tier like ESPN, and for just a quarter a subscriber---it probably would be). Subtracting expenses, it would spin off $200 to $225 million a year in profit. Better yet, every G5 conference would still have enough content to sell its tier one and tier 2 packages to the ESPN's and Fox Sports-1's of the world. Base the payout on the payout of every conferences Tier 1 and Tier 2 packages with a floor. So, 1 share for every conference regardless of earnings. Then one share per million earned per year with a floor of one.

5-shares (1 share each)
14-shares for CUSA
20-shares for MW
22-shares for AAC
10-shares for MAC
1-share for SB

72 total shares. If the network made 200 million in a year, each share would be worth 2.7777 million. CUSA would have 15 shares which would convert to 41.7 million. The Sunbelt would make just 5.56 million. But the shares would be recalculated every year. If the Sunbelt gets a better contract, its improved contract value would increase the number of shares the Sunbelt receives in the calculation. Maybe there could be a component that reflects ratings so the Sunbelt doesn't get screwed so badly. Perhaps the total earnings could be divided into "pools' based on different criteria (like the CFP money is). So , maybe 40% of the money is divided evenly, and 60% of the money is divided using the "share" system above.

The point is, you cant just value all the content evenly because its not valued the same by the market. You'll never get everyone to buy in with that concept. On the other hand, as you can see, its pretty stupid not to work together because a G5 network would probably generate 3 or 4 times the value of all the G5's combined media earnings. Using the system above, CUSA would walk away from 42 million dollars. The AAC would walk away from 63 million. Even though the SB only gets about 6 million, that's 6 million more than they currently get. It may take some horse trading, but there is a reasonable way to split the money that everyone could live with. The real problem is nobody in a G5 leadership role has any freakin vision because its clear there is big money to be made.

I like the concept that you are throwing out here. It just makes to much sense for G5 leaderships though :)
07-30-2015 10:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


EagNBran Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,833
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 114
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Why not all NonBCS conferences join together to get own Network
It may be profitable, but if I make $1 that's technically profitable. So you take conferences that have TV contracts and see if they'll personally make more. If not, that conference doesn't want to be in. So MTN West and AAC probably wouldn't want to join and I personally don't want our conference seen on the level of Sun Belt/MAC. I know some of you respect those conferences a lot, but recruiting will hurt when players think we're lower on the totem pole or on the same rung.
07-31-2015 07:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FIUFan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,498
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 96
I Root For: FIU
Location: Coral Gables, FL
Post: #15
RE: Why not all NonBCS conferences join together to get own Network
(07-30-2015 05:23 PM)10miners Wrote:  or could c-usa get is own network like big ten and all other conferences?? Well I don't think that would work and I don't think it would survive. But I do think if Mwest ,Cusa,AAC,Sun Belt and the MAc got their own network together it might work.

Boils down to one thing; can you round up enough advertising revenue to fund a national network?
07-31-2015 09:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Why not all NonBCS conferences join together to get own Network
(07-31-2015 07:08 AM)EagNBran Wrote:  It may be profitable, but if I make $1 that's technically profitable. So you take conferences that have TV contracts and see if they'll personally make more. If not, that conference doesn't want to be in. So MTN West and AAC probably wouldn't want to join and I personally don't want our conference seen on the level of Sun Belt/MAC. I know some of you respect those conferences a lot, but recruiting will hurt when players think we're lower on the totem pole or on the same rung.

Why would anyone not want to be in when its simply tier 3 properties. The best way to do it is to set aside 10 games from each conference. That's 50 games. Maybe you reserve 2 decent games from each conference---and the other 8 games are essentially what would be considered 3rd tier inventory. The only key would be the 5 conferences would have to coordinate the inventory so the network is fully stocked each week. The rest of each conference's inventory (what is usually considered Tier I and II inventory) is sold to ESPN and networks just like it always is. The G5 Network money is found money. It would have virtually no affect on the current media earnings of each conference. It only adds to those current media earnings.
(This post was last modified: 07-31-2015 04:28 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-31-2015 04:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Storm Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 69
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation: 4
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location: Covington, La.
Post: #17
RE: Why not all NonBCS conferences join together to get own Network
(07-30-2015 09:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It would be very profitable. The only issue would be expenses. However, the other day the ASN article indicated the total coast of airing all the CUSA football games was just 3 million dollars. For that, ASN airs a solid quality product. That tells me that a G5 network could do quite well as long it keeps its carriage rate low enough to be on every carriers basic tier. At 25 cents a subscriber, a network would bring in about 25 million a MONTH (assuming its on most carriers basic tier like ESPN, and for just a quarter a subscriber---it probably would be). Subtracting expenses, it would spin off $200 to $225 million a year in profit. Better yet, every G5 conference would still have enough content to sell its tier one and tier 2 packages to the ESPN's and Fox Sports-1's of the world. Base the payout on the payout of every conferences Tier 1 and Tier 2 packages with a floor. So, 1 share for every conference regardless of earnings. Then one share per million earned per year with a floor of one.

5-shares (1 share each conference)
14-shares for CUSA (1 share for each million that CUSA earns for media)
20-shares for MW (1 share for each million that the MW earns for media)
22-shares for AAC (same as above)
10-shares for MAC
1-share for SB

That works out to 72 total shares. If the network made 200 million in a year, each share would be worth 2.7777 million. CUSA would have 15 shares which would convert to 41.7 million. The Sunbelt would make just 5.56 million. But the shares would be recalculated every year. If the Sunbelt gets a better contract, its improved contract value would increase the number of shares the Sunbelt receives in the calculation. Maybe there could be a component that reflects ratings so the Sunbelt doesn't get screwed so badly. Perhaps the total earnings could be divided into "pools' based on different criteria (like the CFP money is). So using two pools of money, maybe 40% of the G5 network money is divided evenly, and 60% of the G5 network money is divided using the "share" system above.

The point is, you cant just value all the content evenly because its not valued the same by the market. You'll never get everyone to buy in with "everyone gets the same thing" concept. On the other hand, as you can see, its pretty stupid for the G5 conferences not to work together because a G5 network would probably generate 3 or 4 times the value of all the G5's combined media earnings. Saying no to an uneven revenue system like the one above means CUSA would walk away from 42 million dollars. Saying no to a shared G5 network with uneven revenue sharing means the AAC would walk away from 63 million. It makes no sense not to work toward something like this. Even though the SB only gets about 6 million, that's 6 million more than they currently get.

It may take some horse trading, but there is a reasonable way to split the money that everyone could live with. The real problem is nobody in a G5 leadership role has any freakin vision because its clear there is big money to be made.

I really like the idea, but have questions. I'm not savvy to TV/Media contracting, so that's why I ask. What exactly are the "shares" based on? Is this TV DMA, sunbscribers, advertising or something you made up? Why does AAC have more than MW or CUSA? What is the formula for "per million earned" and where does than come from?
08-01-2015 12:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Why not all NonBCS conferences join together to get own Network
(08-01-2015 12:12 PM)Storm Wrote:  
(07-30-2015 09:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It would be very profitable. The only issue would be expenses. However, the other day the ASN article indicated the total coast of airing all the CUSA football games was just 3 million dollars. For that, ASN airs a solid quality product. That tells me that a G5 network could do quite well as long it keeps its carriage rate low enough to be on every carriers basic tier. At 25 cents a subscriber, a network would bring in about 25 million a MONTH (assuming its on most carriers basic tier like ESPN, and for just a quarter a subscriber---it probably would be). Subtracting expenses, it would spin off $200 to $225 million a year in profit. Better yet, every G5 conference would still have enough content to sell its tier one and tier 2 packages to the ESPN's and Fox Sports-1's of the world. Base the payout on the payout of every conferences Tier 1 and Tier 2 packages with a floor. So, 1 share for every conference regardless of earnings. Then one share per million earned per year with a floor of one.

5-shares (1 share each conference)
14-shares for CUSA (1 share for each million that CUSA earns for media)
20-shares for MW (1 share for each million that the MW earns for media)
22-shares for AAC (same as above)
10-shares for MAC
1-share for SB

That works out to 72 total shares. If the network made 200 million in a year, each share would be worth 2.7777 million. CUSA would have 15 shares which would convert to 41.7 million. The Sunbelt would make just 5.56 million. But the shares would be recalculated every year. If the Sunbelt gets a better contract, its improved contract value would increase the number of shares the Sunbelt receives in the calculation. Maybe there could be a component that reflects ratings so the Sunbelt doesn't get screwed so badly. Perhaps the total earnings could be divided into "pools' based on different criteria (like the CFP money is). So using two pools of money, maybe 40% of the G5 network money is divided evenly, and 60% of the G5 network money is divided using the "share" system above.

The point is, you cant just value all the content evenly because its not valued the same by the market. You'll never get everyone to buy in with "everyone gets the same thing" concept. On the other hand, as you can see, its pretty stupid for the G5 conferences not to work together because a G5 network would probably generate 3 or 4 times the value of all the G5's combined media earnings. Saying no to an uneven revenue system like the one above means CUSA would walk away from 42 million dollars. Saying no to a shared G5 network with uneven revenue sharing means the AAC would walk away from 63 million. It makes no sense not to work toward something like this. Even though the SB only gets about 6 million, that's 6 million more than they currently get.

It may take some horse trading, but there is a reasonable way to split the money that everyone could live with. The real problem is nobody in a G5 leadership role has any freakin vision because its clear there is big money to be made.

I really like the idea, but have questions. I'm not savvy to TV/Media contracting, so that's why I ask. What exactly are the "shares" based on? Is this TV DMA, sunbscribers, advertising or something you made up? Why does AAC have more than MW or CUSA? What is the formula for "per million earned" and where does than come from?

The short answer is that it was just a suggestion I made up.

The share idea was just something I thought up to reflect differing media values. Its just based on the market values of each conferences contract. My only point is that in order to bring everyone to the table, you cant treat everyone as if they are the same because the conferences bringing the higher market value content will object and wont be involved. To work well, you probably need everyone to be involved (as it maximizes the liklihood that most every cable system will feel the need to carry the network). My feeling is, you can probably work out some sort of profit sharing deal where a portion of the money IS shared equally and a portion of the money is divided in a way that reflects the differences in the value of the inventory being supplied. The benefit of my system is that as conferences become more valuable to networks, the number of shares they receive from the G5 network increase (so nobody is "locked" into a weak earnings position forever). That said, its just ONE idea. Im sure others could come up with other reasonable ways to accomplish the same thing.
(This post was last modified: 08-01-2015 07:10 PM by Attackcoog.)
08-01-2015 07:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
airtroop Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 2,256
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 48
I Root For: South Alabama
Location: Mobile, AL
Post: #19
RE: Why not all NonBCS conferences join together to get own Network
(07-31-2015 07:08 AM)EagNBran Wrote:  It may be profitable, but if I make $1 that's technically profitable. So you take conferences that have TV contracts and see if they'll personally make more. If not, that conference doesn't want to be in. So MTN West and AAC probably wouldn't want to join and I personally don't want our conference seen on the level of Sun Belt/MAC. I know some of you respect those conferences a lot, but recruiting will hurt when players think we're lower on the totem pole or on the same rung.

So when does C-USA leapfrog the MAC & the SBC into the P5? Newsflash: We're ALL G5's to the rest of the world and very few college football fans can go down the list of G5's and name the conference they belong to.

I think the OP has a fantastic idea, which is why it'll never be adopted... along with egotistical opinions such as the one above. It's shared BTW, with the ACC & MWC in regards to C-USA as well. Another reason why the OP's great idea will never take fruition. Sadly.
08-01-2015 09:11 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chidave Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 894
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Charlotte 49ers
Location:
Post: #20
RE: Why not all NonBCS conferences join together to get own Network
Four letters, ESPN. They own too much of the other G-5 content for this to happen. Like someone stated though, this is what ASN is trying to do with CUSA and some FCS conferences. There's is a void for football games on local OTA stations with ESPN locking down so much content, hopefully ASN can take advantage of that (with CUSA reaping the benefits).
08-01-2015 09:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.