I hope you're right.

(03-01-2018 02:42 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 02:35 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 02:29 PM)sdcritter Wrote:  This will all be driven by content. Right now it's a no sale with me. I'd only want it during football season and I doubt they'll allow you to sign up and drop when you want. I anticipate a yearly contract. Details will help me make my decision. But if it's Sunbelt, soccer and hockey I'll do something else those days.

Most streaming services are monthly payment, cancel anytime subscriptions. It would be pretty stupid of ESPN+ to make you pay a year upfront for their brand new service. That's just bad marketing.

Exactly. Streaming services may do everything in their power to get people to do an annual subscription. But they will always offer a monthly cancel whenever package.

I do that with mlbtv. Pay monthly and on years the Mets suck, just cancel and renew following year

Or you could just buy the Mets package only for less than the MLB package.

(03-01-2018 02:35 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 02:29 PM)sdcritter Wrote:  This will all be driven by content. Right now it's a no sale with me. I'd only want it during football season and I doubt they'll allow you to sign up and drop when you want. I anticipate a yearly contract. Details will help me make my decision. But if it's Sunbelt, soccer and hockey I'll do something else those days.

Most streaming services are monthly payment, cancel anytime subscriptions. It would be pretty stupid of ESPN+ to make you pay a year upfront for their brand new service. That's just bad marketing.

I'm wondering if the $4.99 per month is the monthly rate if you buy a year and there will be a higher monthly rate or if that is the month to month rate like Netflix and maybe a discount available if you buy an annual subscription.

What the SBC (and CUSA) really needs to do is start a streaming service like the OVC...they have a app on RUKO. If you haven't seen it, the picture for most OVC games are very clear, better than a lot of espn3 broadcast. You still sell your championship game and the weekly games espn puts on TV. All others go to the streaming service

Then you charge a service fee just as espn+ is doing

If each school has 10,000 to sign up for the streaming service at $50 a year or $5 a month you have....

10k x $$50 = 500k x 12

$6,000,000 a year to pay for the service then split between the schools

(03-01-2018 02:56 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 02:35 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 02:29 PM)sdcritter Wrote:  This will all be driven by content. Right now it's a no sale with me. I'd only want it during football season and I doubt they'll allow you to sign up and drop when you want. I anticipate a yearly contract. Details will help me make my decision. But if it's Sunbelt, soccer and hockey I'll do something else those days.

Most streaming services are monthly payment, cancel anytime subscriptions. It would be pretty stupid of ESPN+ to make you pay a year upfront for their brand new service. That's just bad marketing.

I'm wondering if the $4.99 per month is the monthly rate if you buy a year and there will be a higher monthly rate or if that is the month to month rate like Netflix and maybe a discount available if you buy an annual subscription.

For Amazon Prime tv, which is one of Disney's competitors, offers it's package for $10.99 a month or $100 a year. I'm sure Disney will offer a similar deal where the annual subscription is cheaper in the long run.

(03-01-2018 03:02 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  What the SBC (and CUSA) really needs to do is start a streaming service like the OVC...they have a app on RUKO. If you haven't seen it, the picture for most OVC games are very clear, better than a lot of espn3 broadcast. You still sell your championship game and the weekly games espn puts on TV. All others go to the streaming service

Then you charge a service fee just as espn+ is doing

If each school has 10,000 to sign up for the streaming service at $50 a year or $5 a month you have....

10k x $$50 = 500k x 12

$6,000,000 a year to pay for the service then split between the schools

We're essentially doing that except our streaming service is called ESPN+ and offers other content like MLS and MLB games.

I think once ESPN closes on the FOX regionals you will see some of the ESPN3 games get pushed to there and the rest get merged into the new ESPN+. Getting those regionals will get the NHL and MLB games for the app.

Difference is, you're going to get a few more dollars and a HELL of a lot less viewers that won't want to pay for a solely subscription service to watch the games they used to be able to watch free on ESPN3. This all but exterminates casual viewers.

(03-01-2018 03:46 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  Difference is, you're going to get a few more dollars and a HELL of a lot less viewers that won't want to pay for a solely subscription service to watch the games they used to be able to watch free on ESPN3. This all but exterminates casual viewers.

Casual viewers don't peruse ESPN3 streams for something to casually watch. 90% of the people who watched ESPN3 streams of Sunbelt schools were fans of those schools or diehard G5 fans, either of which will be paying $5 a month to watch them again. Casual viewers watch ESPN, 2, U, or News on cable. We will still have select games on those channels for the casual audience.

(03-01-2018 03:55 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 03:46 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  Difference is, you're going to get a few more dollars and a HELL of a lot less viewers that won't want to pay for a solely subscription service to watch the games they used to be able to watch free on ESPN3. This all but exterminates casual viewers.

Casual viewers don't peruse ESPN3 streams for something to casually watch. 90% of the people who watched ESPN3 streams of Sunbelt schools were fans of those schools or diehard G5 fans, either of which will be paying $5 a month to watch them again. Casual viewers watch ESPN, 2, U, or News on cable. We will still have select games on those channels for the casual audience.

Exactly. This ESPN Plus thing changes nothing as far as viewership. The same people that watched or surfed ESPN3 is going to be the same that watch or surf ESPN Plus.

(03-01-2018 01:05 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 12:57 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Regardless of how much our TV contract increases, this should be the final nail in the coffin of the notions that:

1. Shrinking TV revenue is a G5 problem and not a CUSA problem.

2. Schools in large cities make media rights valuable rather than schools with large fan bases (Duh!)

If we were to bring on (say) any two of ODU, MTSU, WKU, Marshall, La Tech, Southern Miss, the amount of boost we would get from TV money and CFP by solidifying ourselves as better football conference than the MAC or CUSA in football would be more than the pocket change we get in travel costs that probably wouldn't do anything to help attendance.

We now have no TV. What our conference has now done is decrease our free TV exposure to zero, while making our fans pay to watch games. Anyone who thinks this is a good deal is smoking something illegal in most states.

I admit I have not read through the entire agreement but where does it say that all our football games will be relegated to ESPN+ ?

(03-01-2018 03:32 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  I think once ESPN closes on the FOX regionals you will see some of the ESPN3 games get pushed to there and the rest get merged into the new ESPN+. Getting those regionals will get the NHL and MLB games for the app.

Bare minimum, they are going to put out-of-market MLB, NHL and MLS on there.

If they can make the deals work with cable and satellite, you might also get Fox RSN based on your IP Address but that's a tougher negotiation.

(03-01-2018 04:23 PM)AppinATL Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:05 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 12:57 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Regardless of how much our TV contract increases, this should be the final nail in the coffin of the notions that:

1. Shrinking TV revenue is a G5 problem and not a CUSA problem.

2. Schools in large cities make media rights valuable rather than schools with large fan bases (Duh!)

If we were to bring on (say) any two of ODU, MTSU, WKU, Marshall, La Tech, Southern Miss, the amount of boost we would get from TV money and CFP by solidifying ourselves as better football conference than the MAC or CUSA in football would be more than the pocket change we get in travel costs that probably wouldn't do anything to help attendance.

We now have no TV. What our conference has now done is decrease our free TV exposure to zero, while making our fans pay to watch games. Anyone who thinks this is a good deal is smoking something illegal in most states.

I admit I have not read through the entire agreement but where does it say that all our football games will be relegated to ESPN+ ?

It doesn't. We are going from 7 guaranteed ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU games to 10.

(03-01-2018 03:46 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  Difference is, you're going to get a few more dollars and a HELL of a lot less viewers that won't want to pay for a solely subscription service to watch the games they used to be able to watch free on ESPN3. This all but exterminates casual viewers.

If you are a Cubs fan in Atlanta, you are going to subscribe.
If you are a Chicago Blackhawks fan in San Antonio you are going to subscribe.
If you are an LA Galaxy fan in Charlotte you are going to subscribe.

AND you will also get all Sun Belt content.

What once required a $70 fee to MLS, $115 to MLB, $139 to NHL and a cable/satellite subscription or internet from a paying provider is now $60 a month and you are getting more Sun Belt hoops than you got from ESPN3.

(03-01-2018 04:18 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 03:55 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 03:46 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  Difference is, you're going to get a few more dollars and a HELL of a lot less viewers that won't want to pay for a solely subscription service to watch the games they used to be able to watch free on ESPN3. This all but exterminates casual viewers.

Casual viewers don't peruse ESPN3 streams for something to casually watch. 90% of the people who watched ESPN3 streams of Sunbelt schools were fans of those schools or diehard G5 fans, either of which will be paying $5 a month to watch them again. Casual viewers watch ESPN, 2, U, or News on cable. We will still have select games on those channels for the casual audience.

Exactly. This ESPN Plus thing changes nothing as far as viewership. The same people that watched or surfed ESPN3 is going to be the same that watch or surf ESPN Plus.

No you've just added anyone who is a hockey, baseball, or soccer fan whose favorite team is out-of-market.

(03-01-2018 01:54 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Actually, this may push more momentum to reorganizing. We'll see if the details get published, but if the SB deal moves from the 100K annual to $1 - 2 million annual, the CUSA/SB are the same. What better way to improve the 200k each school gets by reducing travel expenses.

I brought this up on another thread, but it's worth repeating.

Back when we were in the SoCon, some of our best attended games were against Furman University and Wofford College (two private schools with small enrollment, the latter being the smallest enrollment of any DI school).

Our attendance was better against those small private schools than a few of the larger public schools because more of our fans wanted to watch us play those small schools because the small schools were relevant in FCS.

Likewise, I can be pretty sure more of our fans would rather see Ark State or ULL than UNCC or FAU and attendance overall would also be better with the former two.

The travel costs savings are just not going to justify what we could get by bolstering the value of the TV contract and improving the CFP payouts each year.

Sure, if those are the comparisons, then I agree.

But, and I mean this as no disrespect, I would rather App share a league with UNCC than ULM because UNCC at least generates local, regional interest. I'd rather App share with the Florida schools than the Texas schools because both are far but at least App recruits Florida. I would hope for a long term non conference series with Arkansas State, but it makes more sense to be in a league with Marshall. Both have comparable pedigrees this decade. And so on.

(03-01-2018 05:34 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:54 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Actually, this may push more momentum to reorganizing. We'll see if the details get published, but if the SB deal moves from the 100K annual to $1 - 2 million annual, the CUSA/SB are the same. What better way to improve the 200k each school gets by reducing travel expenses.

I brought this up on another thread, but it's worth repeating.

Back when we were in the SoCon, some of our best attended games were against Furman University and Wofford College (two private schools with small enrollment, the latter being the smallest enrollment of any DI school).

Our attendance was better against those small private schools than a few of the larger public schools because more of our fans wanted to watch us play those small schools because the small schools were relevant in FCS.

Likewise, I can be pretty sure more of our fans would rather see Ark State or ULL than UNCC or FAU and attendance overall would also be better with the former two.

The travel costs savings are just not going to justify what we could get by bolstering the value of the TV contract and improving the CFP payouts each year.

Sure, if those are the comparisons, then I agree.

But, and I mean this as no disrespect, I would rather App share a league with UNCC than ULM because UNCC at least generates local, regional interest. I'd rather App share with the Florida schools than the Texas schools because both are far but at least App recruits Florida. I would hope for a long term non conference series with Arkansas State, but it makes more sense to be in a league with Marshall. Both have comparable pedigrees this decade. And so on.

And you are going to play Arkansas State on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday in league play so we end up being bad for your out-of-town attendance. You will sell more tickets for UNCC on Saturday but you will lose Marshall to mid-week.

I would gladly pay $5 a month to see every App game home and away in the major sports with a consistent level of production quality. Add in more games on the main ESPN channels, and a better payout for the schools. It seems like a major upgrade so far.

Question is, in what ways (on how many different platforms) will fans who have already cut the cord be able to access this content?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

(03-01-2018 01:24 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:08 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:05 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 12:57 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Regardless of how much our TV contract increases, this should be the final nail in the coffin of the notions that:

1. Shrinking TV revenue is a G5 problem and not a CUSA problem.

2. Schools in large cities make media rights valuable rather than schools with large fan bases (Duh!)

If we were to bring on (say) any two of ODU, MTSU, WKU, Marshall, La Tech, Southern Miss, the amount of boost we would get from TV money and CFP by solidifying ourselves as better football conference than the MAC or CUSA in football would be more than the pocket change we get in travel costs that probably wouldn't do anything to help attendance.

We now have no TV. What our conference has now done is decrease our free TV exposure to zero, while making our fans pay to watch games. Anyone who thinks this is a good deal is smoking something illegal in most states.

we already pay to watch games. espn platforms involve some type of subscription.

i'd like to hear all the details first.

Correct. We pay for ESPN networks in our cable bill. Let’s look st the numbers first, but this is a big deal to have all sports on the networks and a keystone of ESPN Plus. I’m told our ESPN 3 games are some of the more popular non-P5 programs on the streaming format. That means our fans, wether they are showing up in person or streaming the games, have a lot of interest in watching the SBC. This give us a chance to monetize that.

You actually pay more for the cable subscription to ESPN than you would this service right?