(03-01-2018 05:43 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:30 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Is the OVC app free? If the OVC app cost $5 month, how many subscribers do you think it would have?

Yes its free and I don't have a clue if it wasn't. But what % of the SBC fans do you think is buying espn+ for the other content? My guess, 90% if not more are welling to pay $5 just because the SBC is o it.

The point with the OVC is if they can stream good flowing clear content for free. Surely CUSA could if charging $5 a month. The #1 complaint on CUSA TV....

how crappy the stream is or the scoreboard view

BTW in all the games I watched on the OVC (maybe 10) only one had a scoreboard view

If the report from Forbes back in November is true that NHL and MLB out-of-market games are going to be ESPN+ the service is going to be a hit.

I'm already happy to give them $60 a year to quit paying for MLS Live. If I can drop the $115 I'm paying MLB.TV I'm coming out well ahead before watching any Sun Belt games.

(03-01-2018 05:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:43 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:30 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Is the OVC app free? If the OVC app cost $5 month, how many subscribers do you think it would have?

Yes its free and I don't have a clue if it wasn't. But what % of the SBC fans do you think is buying espn+ for the other content? My guess, 90% if not more are welling to pay $5 just because the SBC is o it.

The point with the OVC is if they can stream good flowing clear content for free. Surely CUSA could if charging $5 a month. The #1 complaint on CUSA TV....

how crappy the stream is or the scoreboard view

BTW in all the games I watched on the OVC (maybe 10) only one had a scoreboard view

If the report from Forbes back in November is true that NHL and MLB out-of-market games are going to be ESPN+ the service is going to be a hit.

I'm already happy to give them $60 a year to quit paying for MLS Live. If I can drop the $115 I'm paying MLB.TV I'm coming out well ahead before watching any Sun Belt games.

Yes that's a good deal for those of you that watch major league sports. But i'm having a hard time seeing espn giving away content people are paying $115 a season for. My son pays for the MLB so he will be one of the first to sign up for espn+

But still I bet 90% of SBC fans are buying it for SBC sports...which isn't a bad deal. I would pay it if CUSA went that way. I hope they don't...I hate espn

(03-01-2018 05:51 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:43 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:30 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Is the OVC app free? If the OVC app cost $5 month, how many subscribers do you think it would have?

Yes its free and I don't have a clue if it wasn't. But what % of the SBC fans do you think is buying espn+ for the other content? My guess, 90% if not more are welling to pay $5 just because the SBC is o it.

The point with the OVC is if they can stream good flowing clear content for free. Surely CUSA could if charging $5 a month. The #1 complaint on CUSA TV....

how crappy the stream is or the scoreboard view

BTW in all the games I watched on the OVC (maybe 10) only one had a scoreboard view

If the report from Forbes back in November is true that NHL and MLB out-of-market games are going to be ESPN+ the service is going to be a hit.

I'm already happy to give them $60 a year to quit paying for MLS Live. If I can drop the $115 I'm paying MLB.TV I'm coming out well ahead before watching any Sun Belt games.

Yes that's a good deal for those of you that watch major league sports. But i'm having a hard time seeing espn giving away content people are paying $115 a season for. My son pays for the MLB so he will be one of the first to sign up for espn+

But still I bet 90% of SBC fans are buying it for SBC sports...which isn't a bad deal. I would pay it if CUSA went that way. I hope they don't...I hate espn

Actually makes perfect sense to move out of market content to ESPN+

Right now MLB.tv probably producing $400 million in revenue and NHL game center probably about $100 million. That's $500 million. Optimistically (very optimistically) the two services might generate $600 million, the first figure is probably right.

10 million subscribers for ESPN+ gets you $600 million. 15 million subscribers (just under Hulu's 17 million US) gets you to $900 million a year.

Put people on a monthly deal like Hulu or Netflix instead of the larger subscription and annual renewal notice with an opportunity to cancel, might even reduce the churn on the subscriptions.

Looks like part of the deal is every SB schools will be required to have upgraded production facilities and ESPN will helping out financially with those upgrades.

(03-01-2018 05:43 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:30 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Is the OVC app free? If the OVC app cost $5 month, how many subscribers do you think it would have?

Yes its free and I don't have a clue if it wasn't. But what % of the SBC fans do you think is buying espn+ for the other content? My guess, 90% if not more are welling to pay $5 just because the SBC is o it.

The point with the OVC is if they can stream good flowing clear content for free. Surely CUSA could if charging $5 a month. The #1 complaint on CUSA TV....

how crappy the stream is or the scoreboard view

BTW in all the games I watched on the OVC (maybe 10) only one had a scoreboard view

I'm sure CUSA schools could improve quality, but I don't think a CUSA.TV charging $5/month would generate enough subscribers to make $2 million/year per school

(03-01-2018 06:20 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:43 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:30 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Is the OVC app free? If the OVC app cost $5 month, how many subscribers do you think it would have?

Yes its free and I don't have a clue if it wasn't. But what % of the SBC fans do you think is buying espn+ for the other content? My guess, 90% if not more are welling to pay $5 just because the SBC is o it.

The point with the OVC is if they can stream good flowing clear content for free. Surely CUSA could if charging $5 a month. The #1 complaint on CUSA TV....

how crappy the stream is or the scoreboard view

BTW in all the games I watched on the OVC (maybe 10) only one had a scoreboard view

I'm sure CUSA schools could improve quality, but I don't think a CUSA.TV charging $5/month would generate enough subscribers to make $2 million/year per school

That's why we're charging $10.95/month and not requiring a good quality feed.

(03-01-2018 06:20 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:43 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 05:30 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Is the OVC app free? If the OVC app cost $5 month, how many subscribers do you think it would have?

Yes its free and I don't have a clue if it wasn't. But what % of the SBC fans do you think is buying espn+ for the other content? My guess, 90% if not more are welling to pay $5 just because the SBC is o it.

The point with the OVC is if they can stream good flowing clear content for free. Surely CUSA could if charging $5 a month. The #1 complaint on CUSA TV....

how crappy the stream is or the scoreboard view

BTW in all the games I watched on the OVC (maybe 10) only one had a scoreboard view

I'm sure CUSA schools could improve quality, but I don't think a CUSA.TV charging $5/month would generate enough subscribers to make $2 million/year per school

I don't believe CUSA is getting anywhere close to that 2 million per school now. More like 250k per school.

If you sold the championships thats shown on TV and the same amount of games we have on CBSSN and BEIN....

There's close to the same value we are getting today. The only difference between what the SBC and CUSA would be doing is giving espn+ the other content and CUSA developing their own app and cutting out stadium (who I really like) for streaming

(03-01-2018 04:50 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 02:48 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I would agree with that but it also voids the Sun Belt's ability to grow the brand as well. Of course, all of us are already getting pushed aside anyway by the powers, and this is the acceptance of that by the league.

The reason why C-USA 1.0 was able to emerge and be a player leading some teams to be able to join power leagues or be on the cusp or at least have privileged 5 TV deal is because they fought back against that. The Fox and CBS deals of over a decade ago weren't perfect, but it was better than being relegated to third class citizen by ESPN. If there is anything that we have left in current C-USA it's at least that hope to continue to carry on the fight. The Sun Belt clearly just gave up today and acquiesced to the powers that be.

If you want to grow your brand, I'd argue it's better to have more games on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU and not places like ESPN3, beIN, Facebook Live, and stations that most cable packages don't have like CBS Sports.

The main downside I see to this TV deal is having to pay for the content you used to be able to get on ESPN3 for free, but it's not like ESPN3 is only dumping Sun Belt content, and it's only $20 to get every football game for a season and all of the other content ESPN will put on Plus.

At its height ESPN subscriber base was just over 100 million. Obviously only a fraction of those truly had their cable subscriptions because of sports but the fact remains. Since hitting their peak a few years ago ESPN has been hemorrhaging subscribers. Will they all return to streaming? We don't know. Sports fandom isn't what it used to be.

Facebook, on the other hand, has over a billion daily users. So, by every measurement Facebook could put ESPN out of business if they really wanted to. The point is the potential to grow is higher with Facebook than it is ESPN long term. The problem is all this stuff is in its infancy. There's a long way to go before we know if this is viable or not but I like the potential. And I like not being beholden to have pay ESPN twice for content I want to see.

(03-01-2018 04:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Now I'm still waiting for a real announcement on the NHL and MLB but this is a freaking game changing package if Forbes is right.

I agree, if this is true, and the Disney-Fox merger goes through... then it's time to buy some Disney stocks...

(03-01-2018 04:50 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 02:48 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I would agree with that but it also voids the Sun Belt's ability to grow the brand as well. Of course, all of us are already getting pushed aside anyway by the powers, and this is the acceptance of that by the league.

The reason why C-USA 1.0 was able to emerge and be a player leading some teams to be able to join power leagues or be on the cusp or at least have privileged 5 TV deal is because they fought back against that. The Fox and CBS deals of over a decade ago weren't perfect, but it was better than being relegated to third class citizen by ESPN. If there is anything that we have left in current C-USA it's at least that hope to continue to carry on the fight. The Sun Belt clearly just gave up today and acquiesced to the powers that be.

If you want to grow your brand, I'd argue it's better to have more games on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU and not places like ESPN3, beIN, Facebook Live, and stations that most cable packages don't have like CBS Sports.

The main downside I see to this TV deal is having to pay for the content you used to be able to get on ESPN3 for free, but it's not like ESPN3 is only dumping Sun Belt content, and it's only $20 to get every football game for a season and all of the other content ESPN will put on Plus.

Okay, since I have no dogs in this fight. Since I cut the cable and went to PSVUE then YouTube, the way around the streaming limitations was watch a game on Streaming Channel and the other on WatchESPN. So, I tended to watch more SBC than CUSA. I like App St and hope Charlotte will do well. So I would try and watch either if on TV. However, I rarely was on Stadium and would see SBC games as viewing options on WatchESPN. So I was more likely to watch a SBC team while waiting for ACC game or was there already and see App State was playing.

The negative, if the plan is to pay an additional 5 dollars, I doubt I will pay that. My question is how will regional teams be handled? I like the Carolina Hurricanes but I am not going to pay an extra 5 to watch them when I got the games for free. You think the State Teams will be on a ESPN regional channel, and available via ESPN+ out of market.

Finally, if CUSA gets this offer, they should jump at it in a heartbeat. I don't get Substations but I do get the networks. I enjoyed Marshall last season but watching a CUSA game was rarely an option for me last season. It was not easily available as was the ESPN3 games.

(03-01-2018 07:31 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 04:50 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 02:48 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I would agree with that but it also voids the Sun Belt's ability to grow the brand as well. Of course, all of us are already getting pushed aside anyway by the powers, and this is the acceptance of that by the league.

The reason why C-USA 1.0 was able to emerge and be a player leading some teams to be able to join power leagues or be on the cusp or at least have privileged 5 TV deal is because they fought back against that. The Fox and CBS deals of over a decade ago weren't perfect, but it was better than being relegated to third class citizen by ESPN. If there is anything that we have left in current C-USA it's at least that hope to continue to carry on the fight. The Sun Belt clearly just gave up today and acquiesced to the powers that be.

If you want to grow your brand, I'd argue it's better to have more games on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU and not places like ESPN3, beIN, Facebook Live, and stations that most cable packages don't have like CBS Sports.

The main downside I see to this TV deal is having to pay for the content you used to be able to get on ESPN3 for free, but it's not like ESPN3 is only dumping Sun Belt content, and it's only $20 to get every football game for a season and all of the other content ESPN will put on Plus.

At its height ESPN subscriber base was just over 100 million. Obviously only a fraction of those truly had their cable subscriptions because of sports but the fact remains. Since hitting their peak a few years ago ESPN has been hemorrhaging subscribers. Will they all return to streaming? We don't know. Sports fandom isn't what it used to be.

Facebook, on the other hand, has over a billion daily users. So, by every measurement Facebook could put ESPN out of business if they really wanted to. The point is the potential to grow is higher with Facebook than it is ESPN long term. The problem is all this stuff is in its infancy. There's a long way to go before we know if this is viable or not but I like the potential. And I like not being beholden to have pay ESPN twice for content I want to see.

100% of those ESPN subscribers were paying a cable or satellite bill of which about $7 each month was going to ESPN.
The billion Facebook users pay nothing except giving up personal data.

Facebook makes less than 20 cents per user per month and about 50 cents per user per month in the US.

Facebook just to match ESPN would have to give up about 2/3rds of its profits to acquire content.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

clt is amazed that sunbelt is going online, when most of the belters have dial up.

(03-01-2018 07:58 PM)ghostofclt Wrote:  clt is amazed that sunbelt is going online, when most of the belters have dial up.

One conference increased football games on traditional tv by 40%, increased online basketball games from 30% to 100%, as well as an expansion to 500 events across all sports, and maybe even increased money.

One conference had their tv revenue cut by over 80% and moved games to cbs sports network and Al Jazeera tv.

(03-01-2018 09:08 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  One conference increased football games on traditional tv by 40%, increased online basketball games from 30% to 100%, as well as an expansion to 500 events across all sports, and maybe even increased money.

One conference had their tv revenue cut by over 80% and moved games to cbs sports network and Al Jazeera tv.

clt says you need to get off this chat page, people are stacking up at the Drive thru and they want some zaxbys. Don’t forget to ask them if they want bbq sauce.

That’s just silly. Zaxbys is a Georgia Southern alum owned business no App alum works for a GS alum.

(03-01-2018 09:25 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  That’s just silly. Zaxbys is a Georgia Southern alum owned business no App alum works for a GS alum.

clt says who mentioned Georgia State?

I have no interest in ever signing another deal with ESPN. I have no interest is seeing C-USA sell their soul like the MAC and now Sun Belt have. If we are going to be streaming games anyway, I'd much rather watch them on Stadium, Facebook, or build our own network on Pluto. We need to retain our rights. If we keep control of C-USA, we can grow C-USA. I can't see that happening if C-USA end up stuck on ESPN's new pay-per-view streaming service, that also requires you to have a regular ESPN service.

(03-01-2018 07:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 07:31 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 04:50 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 02:48 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  I would agree with that but it also voids the Sun Belt's ability to grow the brand as well. Of course, all of us are already getting pushed aside anyway by the powers, and this is the acceptance of that by the league.

The reason why C-USA 1.0 was able to emerge and be a player leading some teams to be able to join power leagues or be on the cusp or at least have privileged 5 TV deal is because they fought back against that. The Fox and CBS deals of over a decade ago weren't perfect, but it was better than being relegated to third class citizen by ESPN. If there is anything that we have left in current C-USA it's at least that hope to continue to carry on the fight. The Sun Belt clearly just gave up today and acquiesced to the powers that be.

If you want to grow your brand, I'd argue it's better to have more games on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU and not places like ESPN3, beIN, Facebook Live, and stations that most cable packages don't have like CBS Sports.

The main downside I see to this TV deal is having to pay for the content you used to be able to get on ESPN3 for free, but it's not like ESPN3 is only dumping Sun Belt content, and it's only $20 to get every football game for a season and all of the other content ESPN will put on Plus.

At its height ESPN subscriber base was just over 100 million. Obviously only a fraction of those truly had their cable subscriptions because of sports but the fact remains. Since hitting their peak a few years ago ESPN has been hemorrhaging subscribers. Will they all return to streaming? We don't know. Sports fandom isn't what it used to be.

Facebook, on the other hand, has over a billion daily users. So, by every measurement Facebook could put ESPN out of business if they really wanted to. The point is the potential to grow is higher with Facebook than it is ESPN long term. The problem is all this stuff is in its infancy. There's a long way to go before we know if this is viable or not but I like the potential. And I like not being beholden to have pay ESPN twice for content I want to see.

100% of those ESPN subscribers were paying a cable or satellite bill of which about $7 each month was going to ESPN.
The billion Facebook users pay nothing except giving up personal data.

Facebook makes less than 20 cents per user per month and about 50 cents per user per month in the US.

Facebook just to match ESPN would have to give up about 2/3rds of its profits to acquire content.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And Facebook is going to become the social media platform of old and uncool people sooner rather than later.

Don't count on it. FB has barely began scratching the surface on what they can do with their subscriber base. As they begin to add more services they will become as valuable as Apple or Google.