Craig Thompson has been in Chicago every other month meeting in Stadium's Headquarters. Stadium now has new stations active in MW footprint including those where the schools are located.

I think the MW will take a giant leap forward with Stadium just as they did before with the College Sports Network.
Some games will be on the OTA network (and therefore on the Pluto, Roku and watchstadium main channel). Some games on the MWDN via the Stadium Platform (apps, Roku..etc) and some on Facebook via Stadium's FB page.

I like Stadium as a carrier for 3rd tier content. But they are a very low paying low exposure platform. If they are any more than a third tier carrier in the next MW deal---then that would be a very negative indicator for the coming MW TV deal value.

(08-03-2018 01:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I like Stadium as a carrier for 3rd tier content. But they are a very low paying low exposure platform. If they are any more than a third tier carrier in the next MW deal---then that would be a very negative indicator for the coming MW TV deal value.

We'll see. I don't think it will be as negative as you think if it's for 2nd tier games. Not sure how hard they push for CUSA games, but they seem to want us more than CUSA.

It provide better exposure in a lot ways for us compared to ESPN/CBSSN start times. In addition for fans showing up due to better start times.

(08-03-2018 02:20 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 01:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I like Stadium as a carrier for 3rd tier content. But they are a very low paying low exposure platform. If they are any more than a third tier carrier in the next MW deal---then that would be a very negative indicator for the coming MW TV deal value.

We'll see. I don't think it will be as negative as you think if it's for 2nd tier games. Not sure how hard they push for CUSA games, but they seem to want us more than CUSA.

It provide better exposure in a lot ways for us compared to ESPN/CBSSN start times. In addition for fans showing up due to better start times.

Stadium and streaming platforms dont have to rigidly allocate their content to a finite number of time constrained broadcast windows. So, that is a huge help to the schools on start times. Hosuton has a home game vs Arizona where Sumlin will be making his first return to the UH campus as an opposing coach. That would typically be a sellout with a Sept 7pm kickoff. ESPN has us slated for an ABC 11am game. With Houstons sweltering heat and humidity---that 11am hot sun kick off wont be nearly as well attended as the same game played at 7pm. So--I definitely get it. The MW may find a million or two a team isnt worth the crappy kick times that iritate their primary customers. While I know getting a big TV deal by selling our soul to TV is probably good for the program---as a season ticket holder---every streamed game is an automatic 7pm kick off---which is a hell of a lot more fun for me than miserably hot 11am affairs. lol...So--on that selfish level---I like the streamed games a lot.

(08-03-2018 12:14 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Craig Thompson has been in Chicago every other month meeting in Stadium's Headquarters. Stadium now has new stations active in MW footprint including those where the schools are located.

I think the MW will take a giant leap forward with Stadium just as they did before with the College Sports Network.
Some games will be on the OTA network (and therefore on the Pluto, Roku and watchstadium main channel). Some games on the MWDN via the Stadium Platform (apps, Roku..etc) and some on Facebook via Stadium's FB page.

Doubt it. There’s only 1 other conference in the west. Why the heck would they do this? Unless they really hate ESPIN....I guess I can respect that Hahahaha

(08-03-2018 02:20 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 01:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I like Stadium as a carrier for 3rd tier content. But they are a very low paying low exposure platform. If they are any more than a third tier carrier in the next MW deal---then that would be a very negative indicator for the coming MW TV deal value.

We'll see. I don't think it will be as negative as you think if it's for 2nd tier games. Not sure how hard they push for CUSA games, but they seem to want us more than CUSA.

It provide better exposure in a lot ways for us compared to ESPN/CBSSN start times. In addition for fans showing up due to better start times.

MWC went all in on CSTV (now CBSSN) because CSTV threw more money than ESPN AND offered better times and dates.

Maybe Stadium is that well capitalized and can make a serious play for MWC, but I am skeptical. This is a network built on a network that was bleeding so much the plug got pulled after a year and Sinclair a purported partner in this venture isn't even clearing space for it on a consistent basis. The online price is fairly reasonable. It's the same price as ESPN+ just less content.

Sinclair markets where Stadium isn't on a Sinclair station * means Stadium lists an affiliate in the market but it isn't a Sinclair station.
Alabama
Mobile.*
[b]Arkansas[/b]
Little Rock*
California
Chico
Eureka
DC
Washington
Florida
Gainesville
Georgia
Albany
Macon
[b]Iowa[/b]
Des Moines*
Idaho
Lewiston
[b]Illinois[/b]
Peoria
Indiana
South Bend
Kentucky
Lexington
Maryland
Baltimore
Michigan
Kalamazoo
Traverse City
Minnesota
Minneapolis
[b]Missouri[/b]
Columbia
Hannibal
Kirksville
Montana
Missoula
Kalispell
Butte
Bozeman
Nebraska
Hayes Center
Kearney
Lincoln
North Platte
Nevada
Elko
New York
Rochester
Syracuse
Ohio
Stebeunville (Wheeling WV)
Oklahoma
Tulsa*
Oregon
Eugene
Medford
Pennsylvania
Harrisburg
Johnstown
Scranton
Rhode Island
Providence
South Carolina
Charleston
Savannah
Tennessee
Chattanooga
Knoxville
Bristol
Texas
Abilene
Austin*
Harlingen*
San Angelo
Virginia
Richmond
Wisconsin
Green Bay
Madison*
Milwaukee
Utah
Salt Lake City*
St George

Just to follow up
There seems to be no easily discernible pattern in which markets Sinclair is clearing space in.
I know Little Rock was on ASN but not Stadium. There are a bunch of tiny market stations but also stations in decent sized market that aren't participating.

(08-03-2018 04:39 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 02:20 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 01:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I like Stadium as a carrier for 3rd tier content. But they are a very low paying low exposure platform. If they are any more than a third tier carrier in the next MW deal---then that would be a very negative indicator for the coming MW TV deal value.

We'll see. I don't think it will be as negative as you think if it's for 2nd tier games. Not sure how hard they push for CUSA games, but they seem to want us more than CUSA.

It provide better exposure in a lot ways for us compared to ESPN/CBSSN start times. In addition for fans showing up due to better start times.

MWC went all in on CSTV (now CBSSN) because CSTV threw more money than ESPN AND offered better times and dates.

Maybe Stadium is that well capitalized and can make a serious play for MWC, but I am skeptical. This is a network built on a network that was bleeding so much the plug got pulled after a year and Sinclair a purported partner in this venture isn't even clearing space for it on a consistent basis. The online price is fairly reasonable. It's the same price as ESPN+ just less content.

I think with the merger with 120 Sports, ASN and Campus Insiders that do have more capital as they are more aggressive of getting the OTA stations and multi-platform streaming offering.

But the big thing you have the right people this time to manage the company and I believe the owner of the White Sox is the president of Stadium. Which is probably better if you aren't as well capitalized because with the owners knowing what they are doing and having a sports background, they can grow Stadium organically....so far it seems to be working.

(08-03-2018 03:47 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 12:14 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Craig Thompson has been in Chicago every other month meeting in Stadium's Headquarters. Stadium now has new stations active in MW footprint including those where the schools are located.

I think the MW will take a giant leap forward with Stadium just as they did before with the College Sports Network.
Some games will be on the OTA network (and therefore on the Pluto, Roku and watchstadium main channel). Some games on the MWDN via the Stadium Platform (apps, Roku..etc) and some on Facebook via Stadium's FB page.

Doubt it. There’s only 1 other conference in the west. Why the heck would they do this? Unless they really hate ESPIN....I guess I can respect that Hahahaha

Oh yeah, we really don't care for ESPN. If it wasn't for Boise St, we wouldn't be with them at all.
As stated above, the MW ditched ESPN and went with an upstart company along with the Mtn.

I think it is a risk worth taking seeing how not just ESPN but other sports channels are losing subscribers (But ESPN is the big one that loses more since they are in more households than other channels...for now.)

(08-03-2018 02:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 02:20 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 01:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I like Stadium as a carrier for 3rd tier content. But they are a very low paying low exposure platform. If they are any more than a third tier carrier in the next MW deal---then that would be a very negative indicator for the coming MW TV deal value.

We'll see. I don't think it will be as negative as you think if it's for 2nd tier games. Not sure how hard they push for CUSA games, but they seem to want us more than CUSA.

It provide better exposure in a lot ways for us compared to ESPN/CBSSN start times. In addition for fans showing up due to better start times.

Stadium and streaming platforms dont have to rigidly allocate their content to a finite number of time constrained broadcast windows. So, that is a huge help to the schools on start times. Hosuton has a home game vs Arizona where Sumlin will be making his first return to the UH campus as an opposing coach. That would typically be a sellout with a Sept 7pm kickoff. ESPN has us slated for an ABC 11am game. With Houstons sweltering heat and humidity---that 11am hot sun kick off wont be nearly as well attended as the same game played at 7pm. So--I definitely get it. The MW may find a million or two a team isnt worth the crappy kick times that iritate their primary customers. While I know getting a big TV deal by selling our soul to TV is probably good for the program---as a season ticket holder---every streamed game is an automatic 7pm kick off---which is a hell of a lot more fun for me than miserably hot 11am affairs. lol...So--on that selfish level---I like the streamed games a lot.

Here is just some rough math.
If better start times gives you 5,000 more fans for games. Taking the price of a ticket at $25 = $125,000 addition revenue for that game. Times 6 games = $750,000. So it could be better.

Not to mention getting more fans for concessions, donations, people on campus.

(08-03-2018 05:44 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 02:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 02:20 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 01:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I like Stadium as a carrier for 3rd tier content. But they are a very low paying low exposure platform. If they are any more than a third tier carrier in the next MW deal---then that would be a very negative indicator for the coming MW TV deal value.

We'll see. I don't think it will be as negative as you think if it's for 2nd tier games. Not sure how hard they push for CUSA games, but they seem to want us more than CUSA.

It provide better exposure in a lot ways for us compared to ESPN/CBSSN start times. In addition for fans showing up due to better start times.

Stadium and streaming platforms dont have to rigidly allocate their content to a finite number of time constrained broadcast windows. So, that is a huge help to the schools on start times. Hosuton has a home game vs Arizona where Sumlin will be making his first return to the UH campus as an opposing coach. That would typically be a sellout with a Sept 7pm kickoff. ESPN has us slated for an ABC 11am game. With Houstons sweltering heat and humidity---that 11am hot sun kick off wont be nearly as well attended as the same game played at 7pm. So--I definitely get it. The MW may find a million or two a team isnt worth the crappy kick times that iritate their primary customers. While I know getting a big TV deal by selling our soul to TV is probably good for the program---as a season ticket holder---every streamed game is an automatic 7pm kick off---which is a hell of a lot more fun for me than miserably hot 11am affairs. lol...So--on that selfish level---I like the streamed games a lot.

Here is just some rough math.
If better start times gives you 5,000 more fans for games. Taking the price of a ticket at $25 = $125,000 addition revenue for that game. Times 6 games = $750,000. So it could be better.

Not to mention getting more fans for concessions, donations, people on campus.

Not to mention its just more fun with the bigger crowd--so the chances that a single game ticket buyer might decide to make another game that season (or even become a future season ticket holder) is significantly increased. Honestly---setting optimum kick off times and creating the best "in stadium" fan experience possible is really about prioritizing the development of the programs core fan base. Thats ultimately the most strategic long term strategy there is. It wont result in a better TV deal payday--but if successful, it could very well result in much better long term revenue streams for MW programs. Its worth noting that, despite those big TV deals---most P5 schools still derive much more revenue from ticket sales and donations than they do from TV.

(08-03-2018 05:33 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 04:39 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 02:20 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(08-03-2018 01:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I like Stadium as a carrier for 3rd tier content. But they are a very low paying low exposure platform. If they are any more than a third tier carrier in the next MW deal---then that would be a very negative indicator for the coming MW TV deal value.

We'll see. I don't think it will be as negative as you think if it's for 2nd tier games. Not sure how hard they push for CUSA games, but they seem to want us more than CUSA.

It provide better exposure in a lot ways for us compared to ESPN/CBSSN start times. In addition for fans showing up due to better start times.

MWC went all in on CSTV (now CBSSN) because CSTV threw more money than ESPN AND offered better times and dates.

Maybe Stadium is that well capitalized and can make a serious play for MWC, but I am skeptical. This is a network built on a network that was bleeding so much the plug got pulled after a year and Sinclair a purported partner in this venture isn't even clearing space for it on a consistent basis. The online price is fairly reasonable. It's the same price as ESPN+ just less content.

I think with the merger with 120 Sports, ASN and Campus Insiders that do have more capital as they are more aggressive of getting the OTA stations and multi-platform streaming offering.

But the big thing you have the right people this time to manage the company and I believe the owner of the White Sox is the president of Stadium. Which is probably better if you aren't as well capitalized because with the owners knowing what they are doing and having a sports background, they can grow Stadium organically....so far it seems to be working.

Interesting article about how Stadium expects to differentiate itself from ESPN and Fox:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/bre...story.html

"We’re actually not big into opinionists and hot takes; we’re going with insiders. We go with information. We go with news."