(07-05-2019 04:42 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 04:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This guy is a former high-up at ABC, so i tend to take his word over that of forum jockeys.

And when he speaks about how much it costs ABC to send a production truck, cameras, board engineers, set up crew, and on air talent to a venue for a game (and house and feed them while they are there)—-his estimate is probably quite valid. But if your using a few students, a staff board engineer, an intern, a computer guy from campus IT, and a staff producer—-all who sleep in their own beds and eat their own food—-using equipment already permanently installed in the venue—the price will be completely different.

yea because ABC does not know how much streaming cost and ABC that is a part of ABC/Disney/ESPN never talks with Disney or ESPN about what streaming cost

and his current employer IMG is not aggressively looking to expand in all area of sports and they have never signed any deals with ESPN or other broadcasters or streamers that involve streaming live sports and the production cost and the shared (or possible shared) cost of that streaming on behalf or universities that they represent

you know things like the LHN, Kansas, Baylor....and they don't run any major events like The Rose Bowl or The Red River Shootout or any major arenas or any services for any conference like the MAC

and even if they do not provide any or all of the production for that they never pay any attention to the number of people and amount of equipment involved so they can use that for their major expansion plans into more aspects of sports

You mean the company that charges for that service, has roughly the same fixed costs to send a crew as ABC, and who is in direct competition with this ESPN+ business model where schools handle productions in house? Yeah. That’s exactly who I’m talking about.

not sure how it matters that IMG (or Learfield) charges for their representation to major universities

and why does IMG have the same cost as ESPN does the AAC hold a monopoly on having a bunch of college kids making $8.50 an hour running around with GoPros and IPhones live streaming the game on facebook to get the cost down?......anyone can do that if they choose to have their production quality at that level even ABC/ESPN

and if they are in competition with ESPN then they should know those cost (especially a guy that was employed by ABC which when it comes to sports is basically ESPN over the air)......and they should know what those cost are and if those cost can be lowered

how does it put one in a good competitive light if you go out and get quoted in an article about the cost to stream games (at your former employer) and then when major programs and conferences come to you and discuss doing business with you you have to explain to them that you were in fact inflating those cost just to somehow make yourself look good.....because along the way people are going to know those cost because athletic department employees switch jobs all the time and often know numbers from their former job when they go to their new job

sort of like a guy that leaves ABC and goes to work for IMG knows the cost associated with streaming production of live sports and he knows that he will not be fooling anyone if he drastically overstates those numbers in a decent sized sports publication

sort of like Neal Pilson would have looked stupid if CBS had given major new money to the SEC SEC SEC for adding aggy (and MU) or if the SEC SEC SEC network had come right out paying $15 million and moved to $20 million per year per team....but of course Neal was right and those thinking otherwise (like known idiot travis clay) were wrong and had to even write an article saying that CBS should just go ahead and sell the SEC SEC SEC contract (with 9 or so years left on it at that time) to someone else because CBS was DoNe For!!!! with the SEC SEC SEC

(07-05-2019 12:04 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  The MAC and CUSA make peanuts (less than 500k) and are doing this so obviously the cost isn't 2m.

The article is claiming that it will cost millions in aggregate, the MAC deal is indeed worth millions per year in aggregate ... it is NOT less than $500k per year for the MAC as a whole ... and it was reported at the time of the MAC deal that for many schools, some substantial share of the increase would be eaten up by the costs of upgrading facilities for ESPN+ production. That was why "all BBall games on ESPN+" was phased on a set of schools per year.

"Millions" is quite vague, but the upside is that the higher end of the range are capital costs that only have to be spent once, so once those capital costs are recovered, it's only the much lower operating and maintenance costs that have to be netted out of the gross revenue.

(07-05-2019 05:10 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  not sure how it matters that IMG (or Learfield) charges for their representation to major universities

and why does IMG have the same cost as ESPN does the AAC hold a monopoly on having a bunch of college kids making $8.50 an hour running around with GoPros and IPhones live streaming the game on facebook to get the cost down?......anyone can do that if they choose to have their production quality at that level even ABC/ESPN

and if they are in competition with ESPN then they should know those cost (especially a guy that was employed by ABC which when it comes to sports is basically ESPN over the air)......and they should know what those cost are and if those cost can be lowered

how does it put one in a good competitive light if you go out and get quoted in an article about the cost to stream games (at your former employer) and then when major programs and conferences come to you and discuss doing business with you you have to explain to them that you were in fact inflating those cost just to somehow make yourself look good.....because along the way people are going to know those cost because athletic department employees switch jobs all the time and often know numbers from their former job when they go to their new job

sort of like a guy that leaves ABC and goes to work for IMG knows the cost associated with streaming production of live sports and he knows that he will not be fooling anyone if he drastically overstates those numbers in a decent sized sports publication

sort of like Neal Pilson would have looked stupid if CBS had given major new money to the SEC SEC SEC for adding aggy (and MU) or if the SEC SEC SEC network had come right out paying $15 million and moved to $20 million per year per team....but of course Neal was right and those thinking otherwise (like known idiot travis clay) were wrong and had to even write an article saying that CBS should just go ahead and sell the SEC SEC SEC contract (with 9 or so years left on it at that time) to someone else because CBS was DoNe For!!!! with the SEC SEC SEC

lol.....Good grief. Here is the quote everyone is spazzing out over.

“The number the American Athletic Conference got, it’s a little misleading because the AAC is going to have to produce a lot of events, and that’s going to cost millions of dollars,” said Lulla, the former head of ABC Sports’ legal and business department and a lead counsel at IMG."


Where did he lie? Where did he give a number that wasn't true? Hell, where did even give a number? Did he even give a range? What is the context for "costing millions"? Is the context annually? Is it for the entire conference? Is the context per school over the life of the deal? Did he contact any of the schools to get a detailed outline of their production plans or do an inventory of the current production capabilities of each school before making his estimate? When he made the estimate---was he aware than every AAC school is already producing streams for many of these events that air on their own proprietary school web sites? Or is this just another vague off the cuff---"it COULD cost AS MUCH AS" type estimate?

Its a one line quote in sports article written by a sports writer who probably knows less about ESPN+ production costs than half the people on this board. Then the crazies on the board here start extrapolating that its 90% of the AAC contract.

Im going with the statement from the guy who used run the CBS-Sports Division (Im guessing he knows something about production costs), the guy who contracted with media experts and consultants for detailed reports on costs in anticipation of a possible ESPN+ deal, the guy who actually set up the AAC Digital Network that produces hundreds of events every year, the guy who talked to his individual schools about their individual plans for upgrades and handling the production costs for these games, the guy who was actually in the room when the deal was done----Thats the guy Im listening to who says the actual costs are just a small fraction of the 2 million per school estimate that was thrown out there by a San Diego paper a few months ago.

Aresco's claim seems pretty reasonable when you look at all the schools with tiny budgets that have been producing ESPN3 streams for years. Common sense tells you schools with total budgets 5-10 million dollars dont have 2 million dollars a year to spend on producing ESPN+ content....yet all their games are right there on ESPN3/ESPN+. The only viable conclusion is it can be done relatively cheaply. Sure, if you want it to look like Monday Night Football, you can spend as much as you like---but you can generate a respectable quality product for a far less than the 2 million a year per school figure many are throwing around these days.

(07-05-2019 04:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This guy is a former high-up at ABC, so i tend to take his word over that of forum jockeys.

And when he speaks about how much it costs ABC to send a production truck, cameras, board engineers, set up crew, and on air talent to a venue for a game (and house and feed them while they are there)—-his estimate is probably quite valid. But if your using a few students, a staff board engineer, an intern, a computer guy from campus IT, and a staff producer—-all who sleep in their own beds and eat their own food—-using equipment already permanently installed in the venue—the price will be completely different.

But that's the rub: ESPN is insisting on ESPN-level quality. You don't get that with 3 undergrad film majors operating a steady-cam on the sidelines.

You need everything to be professional level.

(07-05-2019 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 04:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This guy is a former high-up at ABC, so i tend to take his word over that of forum jockeys.

And when he speaks about how much it costs ABC to send a production truck, cameras, board engineers, set up crew, and on air talent to a venue for a game (and house and feed them while they are there)—-his estimate is probably quite valid. But if your using a few students, a staff board engineer, an intern, a computer guy from campus IT, and a staff producer—-all who sleep in their own beds and eat their own food—-using equipment already permanently installed in the venue—the price will be completely different.

But that's the rub: ESPN is insisting on ESPN-level quality. You don't get that with 3 undergrad film majors operating a steady-cam on the sidelines.

You need everything to be professional level.

The stuff Im talking about looks just like the typical ESPN3/ESPN+ productions. Have you ever watched a Texas St game? Clearly it doesnt take much to meet the minimum standards. Im sure a solid respectable moderately upgraded level of production can be done at a reasonable price. Students, interns, recent grads have to get their start somewhere.

(07-05-2019 05:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 05:10 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  not sure how it matters that IMG (or Learfield) charges for their representation to major universities

and why does IMG have the same cost as ESPN does the AAC hold a monopoly on having a bunch of college kids making $8.50 an hour running around with GoPros and IPhones live streaming the game on facebook to get the cost down?......anyone can do that if they choose to have their production quality at that level even ABC/ESPN

and if they are in competition with ESPN then they should know those cost (especially a guy that was employed by ABC which when it comes to sports is basically ESPN over the air)......and they should know what those cost are and if those cost can be lowered

how does it put one in a good competitive light if you go out and get quoted in an article about the cost to stream games (at your former employer) and then when major programs and conferences come to you and discuss doing business with you you have to explain to them that you were in fact inflating those cost just to somehow make yourself look good.....because along the way people are going to know those cost because athletic department employees switch jobs all the time and often know numbers from their former job when they go to their new job

sort of like a guy that leaves ABC and goes to work for IMG knows the cost associated with streaming production of live sports and he knows that he will not be fooling anyone if he drastically overstates those numbers in a decent sized sports publication

sort of like Neal Pilson would have looked stupid if CBS had given major new money to the SEC SEC SEC for adding aggy (and MU) or if the SEC SEC SEC network had come right out paying $15 million and moved to $20 million per year per team....but of course Neal was right and those thinking otherwise (like known idiot travis clay) were wrong and had to even write an article saying that CBS should just go ahead and sell the SEC SEC SEC contract (with 9 or so years left on it at that time) to someone else because CBS was DoNe For!!!! with the SEC SEC SEC

lol.....Good grief. Here is the quote everyone is spazzing out over.

“The number the American Athletic Conference got, it’s a little misleading because the AAC is going to have to produce a lot of events, and that’s going to cost millions of dollars,” said Lulla, the former head of ABC Sports’ legal and business department and a lead counsel at IMG."


Where did he lie? Where did he give a number that wasn't true? Hell, where did even give a number? Did he even give a range? What is the context for "costing millions"? Is the context annually? Is it for the entire conference? Is the context per school over the life of the deal? Did he contact any of the schools to get a detailed outline of their production plans or do an inventory of the current production capabilities of each school before making his estimate? When he made the estimate---was he aware than every AAC school is already producing streams for many of these events that air on their own proprietary school web sites? Or is this just another vague off the cuff---"it COULD cost AS MUCH AS" type estimate?

Its a one line quote in sports article written by a sports writer who probably knows less about ESPN+ production costs than half the people on this board. Then the crazies on the board here start extrapolating that its 90% of the AAC contract.

Im going with the statement from the guy who used run the CBS-Sports Division (Im guessing he knows something about production costs), the guy who contracted with media experts and consultants for detailed reports on costs in anticipation of a possible ESPN+ deal, the guy who actually set up the AAC Digital Network that produces hundreds of events every year, the guy who talked to his individual schools about their individual plans for upgrades and handling the production costs for these games, the guy who was actually in the room when the deal was done----Thats the guy Im listening to who says the actual costs are just a small fraction of the 2 million per school estimate that was thrown out there by a San Diego paper a few months ago.

Aresco's claim seems pretty reasonable when you look at all the schools with tiny budgets that have been producing ESPN3 streams for years. Common sense tells you schools with total budgets 5-10 million dollars dont have 2 million dollars a year to spend on producing ESPN+ content....yet all their games are right there on ESPN3/ESPN+. The only viable conclusion is it can be done relatively cheaply. Sure, if you want it to look like Monday Night Football, you can spend as much as you like---but you can generate a respectable quality product for a far less than the 2 million a year per school figure many are throwing around these days.

you seem to not have a real argument or you present it poorly

you call out that the person works for IMG and that IMG takes a cut of the contracts they sign with universities (we all knew that) and you fail,to explain how that is relevant at all or how that means he does not know what streaming a live sporting event cost

then you point out that IMG is in competition with ESPN+

you fail to further explain that argument either (possibly because you really can't, but you just tossed it out there again as if that makes him less credible)

so one could conclude you were trying to imply that he might be willing to falsely present the cost of streaming live events for the AAC because he is in competition with the AAC

so that is where I stated that he would not have any reason to falsely present those numbers or to inflate them because those he will be trying to do business with will know the numbers themselves and if he is falsely stating those numbers in that article they will know that and it would reflect poorly on him

was there some other argument you were trying to make when you stated that he is in competition with ESPN for streaming live sports?

and you are trying to say that a few million in cost to stream all the required event is no big deal, but in a 12 team conference getting about $5.5 million per year per team to start the agreement (excluding any production cost they eat) then say $2.4 million a year in cost is $200,000 per year or $200,000 per member

from the ECU article saying by the 3rd year 1,000 events will be streamed (so 333 a year) that is only $7,000 per event in production cost which is very low

it it is closer to the low end of PAC 12 OLYMPIC event production cost then you are looking at over $400,000 per conference member per year which is a meaningful % off of the expected payout

and really at $5.5 million to start out and $7 million per year average $200,000 is a meaningful amount and double that is much more meaningful

(07-05-2019 06:34 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 05:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 05:10 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  not sure how it matters that IMG (or Learfield) charges for their representation to major universities

and why does IMG have the same cost as ESPN does the AAC hold a monopoly on having a bunch of college kids making $8.50 an hour running around with GoPros and IPhones live streaming the game on facebook to get the cost down?......anyone can do that if they choose to have their production quality at that level even ABC/ESPN

and if they are in competition with ESPN then they should know those cost (especially a guy that was employed by ABC which when it comes to sports is basically ESPN over the air)......and they should know what those cost are and if those cost can be lowered

how does it put one in a good competitive light if you go out and get quoted in an article about the cost to stream games (at your former employer) and then when major programs and conferences come to you and discuss doing business with you you have to explain to them that you were in fact inflating those cost just to somehow make yourself look good.....because along the way people are going to know those cost because athletic department employees switch jobs all the time and often know numbers from their former job when they go to their new job

sort of like a guy that leaves ABC and goes to work for IMG knows the cost associated with streaming production of live sports and he knows that he will not be fooling anyone if he drastically overstates those numbers in a decent sized sports publication

sort of like Neal Pilson would have looked stupid if CBS had given major new money to the SEC SEC SEC for adding aggy (and MU) or if the SEC SEC SEC network had come right out paying $15 million and moved to $20 million per year per team....but of course Neal was right and those thinking otherwise (like known idiot travis clay) were wrong and had to even write an article saying that CBS should just go ahead and sell the SEC SEC SEC contract (with 9 or so years left on it at that time) to someone else because CBS was DoNe For!!!! with the SEC SEC SEC

lol.....Good grief. Here is the quote everyone is spazzing out over.

“The number the American Athletic Conference got, it’s a little misleading because the AAC is going to have to produce a lot of events, and that’s going to cost millions of dollars,” said Lulla, the former head of ABC Sports’ legal and business department and a lead counsel at IMG."


Where did he lie? Where did he give a number that wasn't true? Hell, where did even give a number? Did he even give a range? What is the context for "costing millions"? Is the context annually? Is it for the entire conference? Is the context per school over the life of the deal? Did he contact any of the schools to get a detailed outline of their production plans or do an inventory of the current production capabilities of each school before making his estimate? When he made the estimate---was he aware than every AAC school is already producing streams for many of these events that air on their own proprietary school web sites? Or is this just another vague off the cuff---"it COULD cost AS MUCH AS" type estimate?

Its a one line quote in sports article written by a sports writer who probably knows less about ESPN+ production costs than half the people on this board. Then the crazies on the board here start extrapolating that its 90% of the AAC contract.

Im going with the statement from the guy who used run the CBS-Sports Division (Im guessing he knows something about production costs), the guy who contracted with media experts and consultants for detailed reports on costs in anticipation of a possible ESPN+ deal, the guy who actually set up the AAC Digital Network that produces hundreds of events every year, the guy who talked to his individual schools about their individual plans for upgrades and handling the production costs for these games, the guy who was actually in the room when the deal was done----Thats the guy Im listening to who says the actual costs are just a small fraction of the 2 million per school estimate that was thrown out there by a San Diego paper a few months ago.

Aresco's claim seems pretty reasonable when you look at all the schools with tiny budgets that have been producing ESPN3 streams for years. Common sense tells you schools with total budgets 5-10 million dollars dont have 2 million dollars a year to spend on producing ESPN+ content....yet all their games are right there on ESPN3/ESPN+. The only viable conclusion is it can be done relatively cheaply. Sure, if you want it to look like Monday Night Football, you can spend as much as you like---but you can generate a respectable quality product for a far less than the 2 million a year per school figure many are throwing around these days.

you seem to not have a real argument or you present it poorly

you call out that the person works for IMG and that IMG takes a cut of the contracts they sign with universities (we all knew that) and you fail,to explain how that is relevant at all or how that means he does not know what streaming a live sporting event cost

then you point out that IMG is in competition with ESPN+

you fail to further explain that argument either (possibly because you really can't, but you just tossed it out there again as if that makes him less credible)

so one could conclude you were trying to imply that he might be willing to falsely present the cost of streaming live events for the AAC because he is in competition with the AAC

so that is where I stated that he would not have any reason to falsely present those numbers or to inflate them because those he will be trying to do business with will know the numbers themselves and if he is falsely stating those numbers in that article they will know that and it would reflect poorly on him

was there some other argument you were trying to make when you stated that he is in competition with ESPN for streaming live sports?

and you are trying to say that a few million in cost to stream all the required event is no big deal, but in a 12 team conference getting about $5.5 million per year per team to start the agreement (excluding any production cost they eat) then say $2.4 million a year in cost is $200,000 per year or $200,000 per member

from the ECU article saying by the 3rd year 1,000 events will be streamed (so 333 a year) that is only $7,000 per event in production cost which is very low

it it is closer to the low end of PAC 12 OLYMPIC event production cost then you are looking at over $400,000 per conference member per year which is a meaningful % off of the expected payout

and really at $5.5 million to start out and $7 million per year average $200,000 is a meaningful amount and double that is much more meaningful

lol...perhaps thats because i cant tell what your arguing either. You didnt post the links---but you outlined (in post #8 of this thread) several ranges of possible costs ----anywhere from 15K to 25K per event----to $50K per event-----to 8K per event. Of course, the quote in the OP doesnt even set a range, a specific number, or supply enough context to estimate a specific number for the cost.

So, I'll make it simple as to where Im coming from. Most of the crazies on here think the costs will be 2 million per year per school based on a article that appeared several months ago. I have argued that the costs to produce the ESPN content will be far lower--probably in the range of about $200-400K per school--and the actual net costs may be below that. So I wouldnt say the numbers you attribute to ECU are not all that far off.

However, a point many miss----those are raw costs. Most of the AAC schools have been producing streams for their own individual school websites for most all of the events that will soon be headed to ESPN+. Also, Aresco has indicated that the American Digital Network will be going away (replaced by an ESPN+ version of a conference network for the AAC). The American Digital Network also produced a number of events (represents a cost) and the digital network platform represented a significant ongoing cost. So, you have to net out those already existing local school and conference wide production costs to figure out how "ESPN+ production costs" really effects the revenue from the contract payout. Right now Im thinking total ESPN+ production costs will be around 200-400K per school per year and the actual net additional costs may be as little as $100-200K.

So, if your position on ESPN+ costs per school is 200K per school annually---thats well within the range I think they will fall into. In fact, at $200K, once you net out the current costs, the schools may find the difference in current costs for streaming and the costs for the new ESPN+ deal to be negligible.

(07-05-2019 06:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 04:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This guy is a former high-up at ABC, so i tend to take his word over that of forum jockeys.

And when he speaks about how much it costs ABC to send a production truck, cameras, board engineers, set up crew, and on air talent to a venue for a game (and house and feed them while they are there)—-his estimate is probably quite valid. But if your using a few students, a staff board engineer, an intern, a computer guy from campus IT, and a staff producer—-all who sleep in their own beds and eat their own food—-using equipment already permanently installed in the venue—the price will be completely different.

But that's the rub: ESPN is insisting on ESPN-level quality. You don't get that with 3 undergrad film majors operating a steady-cam on the sidelines.

You need everything to be professional level.

The stuff Im talking about looks just like the typical ESPN3/ESPN+ productions. Have you ever watched a Texas St game? Clearly it doesnt take much to meet the minimum standards. Im sure a solid respectable moderately upgraded level of production can be done at a reasonable price. Students, interns, recent grads have to get their start somewhere.

Schools had to get money in the game to get students to work for them. I transferred in my undergrad, and worked summers at both schools. The small private college paid for my room and board to have me work at minimum wage. Penn State charged me for that stuff and still only paid minimum wage. At the end of the summer, over half the kids quit.

Where I work now, the wages and terms are far better. I’m sure the schools have to pay better coin to get that “cheap help.” The students the schools would want for events aren’t working for peanuts. Dear State’s name alone won’t force them to do all the work.

So, discount rate for production? Yeah, I’m sure it is. Fire sale or children in a Chinese mill prices? Doubtful.

(07-05-2019 08:06 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 04:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This guy is a former high-up at ABC, so i tend to take his word over that of forum jockeys.

And when he speaks about how much it costs ABC to send a production truck, cameras, board engineers, set up crew, and on air talent to a venue for a game (and house and feed them while they are there)—-his estimate is probably quite valid. But if your using a few students, a staff board engineer, an intern, a computer guy from campus IT, and a staff producer—-all who sleep in their own beds and eat their own food—-using equipment already permanently installed in the venue—the price will be completely different.

But that's the rub: ESPN is insisting on ESPN-level quality. You don't get that with 3 undergrad film majors operating a steady-cam on the sidelines.

You need everything to be professional level.

The stuff Im talking about looks just like the typical ESPN3/ESPN+ productions. Have you ever watched a Texas St game? Clearly it doesnt take much to meet the minimum standards. Im sure a solid respectable moderately upgraded level of production can be done at a reasonable price. Students, interns, recent grads have to get their start somewhere.

Schools had to get money in the game to get students to work for them. I transferred in my undergrad, and worked summers at both schools. The small private college paid for my room and board to have me work at minimum wage. Penn State charged me for that stuff and still only paid minimum wage. At the end of the summer, over half the kids quit.

Where I work now, the wages and terms are far better. I’m sure the schools have to pay better coin to get that “cheap help.” The students the schools would want for events aren’t working for peanuts. Dear State’s name alone won’t force them to do all the work.

So, discount rate for production? Yeah, I’m sure it is. Fire sale or children in a Chinese mill prices? Doubtful.

lol...Phil Knight says it will work.

(07-05-2019 06:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 04:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This guy is a former high-up at ABC, so i tend to take his word over that of forum jockeys.

And when he speaks about how much it costs ABC to send a production truck, cameras, board engineers, set up crew, and on air talent to a venue for a game (and house and feed them while they are there)—-his estimate is probably quite valid. But if your using a few students, a staff board engineer, an intern, a computer guy from campus IT, and a staff producer—-all who sleep in their own beds and eat their own food—-using equipment already permanently installed in the venue—the price will be completely different.

But that's the rub: ESPN is insisting on ESPN-level quality. You don't get that with 3 undergrad film majors operating a steady-cam on the sidelines.

You need everything to be professional level.

The stuff Im talking about looks just like the typical ESPN3/ESPN+ productions. Have you ever watched a Texas St game? Clearly it doesnt take much to meet the minimum standards. Im sure a solid respectable moderately upgraded level of production can be done at a reasonable price. Students, interns, recent grads have to get their start somewhere.

Dude, those are union jobs. They wont have students and interns manning cameras or manning the boards. Who is calling the shots in the control booth? Who is directing? Who is over seeing all the different departments? If you know TV you'd know it takes a lot more than just some kids with cameras to make something look professional week in and week out.

(07-05-2019 09:23 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 04:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This guy is a former high-up at ABC, so i tend to take his word over that of forum jockeys.

And when he speaks about how much it costs ABC to send a production truck, cameras, board engineers, set up crew, and on air talent to a venue for a game (and house and feed them while they are there)—-his estimate is probably quite valid. But if your using a few students, a staff board engineer, an intern, a computer guy from campus IT, and a staff producer—-all who sleep in their own beds and eat their own food—-using equipment already permanently installed in the venue—the price will be completely different.

But that's the rub: ESPN is insisting on ESPN-level quality. You don't get that with 3 undergrad film majors operating a steady-cam on the sidelines.

You need everything to be professional level.

The stuff Im talking about looks just like the typical ESPN3/ESPN+ productions. Have you ever watched a Texas St game? Clearly it doesnt take much to meet the minimum standards. Im sure a solid respectable moderately upgraded level of production can be done at a reasonable price. Students, interns, recent grads have to get their start somewhere.

Dude, those are union jobs. They wont have students and interns manning cameras or manning the boards. Who is calling the shots in the control booth? Who is directing? Who is over seeing all the different departments? If you know TV you'd know it takes a lot more than just some kids with cameras to make something look professional week in and week out.

Union internet jobs? Spend some time outside of New York.

First thing you should know is the local news in most small markets is largely delivered to the audience by young kids right out of college, working dirt cheap, directed by a small group of slightly more experienced guys. Anyone worth a crap moves on to better jobs in bigger markets after paying their dues fairly quickly or they quit due to the low pay and do something else. The cameramen and board engineers in these places make next to nothing.

So, the schools work in a similar manner. The way it generally works is there is a small professional staff that handles the direction, technical stuff and the board. The on air talent is often the staff "voice of Ragin Ragdolls", a PA announcer, or local free lance radio talent (another group that makes next to nothing early in their careers). A low level athletic department staffer will probably work as the spotter. Depending on the event, the cameras may be all run by Radio-TV students or free lance cameramen from local TV stations--or a mix of both. Something like a womens soccer game might have all the cameras run by students. A football game might be all free lance guys. Just depends. Board and director will be staff positions. Students and low level athletic staff pitch in for the grunt work and behind the scenes stuff. Understand, most of these events arent exactly the NBA Finals. You might only have a few hundred folks even bother streaming some of this stuff. If a student running a camera misses a shot---they miss the shot. Its not the end of the world. Heck--its not like the pros dont miss a shot every once in a while as well.

Complete cluelessness on his part. The ignorance is actually offensive.

(07-05-2019 09:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  First thing you should know is the local news in most small markets is largely delivered to the audience by young kids right out of college, working dirt cheap, directed by a small group of slightly more experienced guys. Anyone worth a crap moves on to better jobs fairly quickly or they quit due to the low pay and do something else. The cameramen and board engineers in these places make next to nothing.

What? I actually agree with your take on student-run college broadcasts, but this one is wild to me. Most college grads in news flock to major markets and the smaller ones are stuck with the guy who's been there for 45 years.

(07-05-2019 09:23 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 04:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This guy is a former high-up at ABC, so i tend to take his word over that of forum jockeys.

And when he speaks about how much it costs ABC to send a production truck, cameras, board engineers, set up crew, and on air talent to a venue for a game (and house and feed them while they are there)—-his estimate is probably quite valid. But if your using a few students, a staff board engineer, an intern, a computer guy from campus IT, and a staff producer—-all who sleep in their own beds and eat their own food—-using equipment already permanently installed in the venue—the price will be completely different.

But that's the rub: ESPN is insisting on ESPN-level quality. You don't get that with 3 undergrad film majors operating a steady-cam on the sidelines.

You need everything to be professional level.

The stuff Im talking about looks just like the typical ESPN3/ESPN+ productions. Have you ever watched a Texas St game? Clearly it doesnt take much to meet the minimum standards. Im sure a solid respectable moderately upgraded level of production can be done at a reasonable price. Students, interns, recent grads have to get their start somewhere.

Dude, those are union jobs. They wont have students and interns manning cameras or manning the boards. Who is calling the shots in the control booth? Who is directing? Who is over seeing all the different departments? If you know TV you'd know it takes a lot more than just some kids with cameras to make something look professional week in and week out.

yea some people do not understand that pretty much everything with major TV or film is 100% union even in strong right to work states

it is not an "internet job" it still has the same classifications as if it was over the air TV and it still has the same wage rates

it is dictated by the people at the higher levels of the production because that is how they keep their pay high as they worked their way up through the machine and now they are not going to bow out of it no matter what because that ruins their career forever in the industry and it is not worth the risk

you are not going to find any production engineer that says he will take a job with a bunch of non union people under him because he knows as soon as he accepts that it opens his wages up to being lowered eventually no matter what they try and offer him to say yes to the job to start

and if he does not say yes to the eventual wage cut his reward will be losing his job one way or another and then having no ability to go anywhere else because he stepped in the union rules or he will be transferred somewhere where he is hated and no one will work for him or work well with him.....and his career advancement will be over even if he can keep that job

(07-05-2019 10:12 PM)scoscox Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 09:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  First thing you should know is the local news in most small markets is largely delivered to the audience by young kids right out of college, working dirt cheap, directed by a small group of slightly more experienced guys. Anyone worth a crap moves on to better jobs fairly quickly or they quit due to the low pay and do something else. The cameramen and board engineers in these places make next to nothing.

What? I actually agree with your take on student-run college broadcasts, but this one is wild to me. Most college grads in news flock to major markets and the smaller ones are stuck with the guy who's been there for 45 years.

lol.. that happens too.

(07-05-2019 10:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol.. that happens too.

the other alternative is the middle aged soccer mom

(07-05-2019 10:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 10:20 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 09:23 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  But that's the rub: ESPN is insisting on ESPN-level quality. You don't get that with 3 undergrad film majors operating a steady-cam on the sidelines.

You need everything to be professional level.

The stuff Im talking about looks just like the typical ESPN3/ESPN+ productions. Have you ever watched a Texas St game? Clearly it doesnt take much to meet the minimum standards. Im sure a solid respectable moderately upgraded level of production can be done at a reasonable price. Students, interns, recent grads have to get their start somewhere.

Dude, those are union jobs. They wont have students and interns manning cameras or manning the boards. Who is calling the shots in the control booth? Who is directing? Who is over seeing all the different departments? If you know TV you'd know it takes a lot more than just some kids with cameras to make something look professional week in and week out.

yea some people do not understand that pretty much everything with major TV or film is 100% union even in strong right to work states

it is not an "internet job" it still has the same classifications as if it was over the air TV and it still has the same wage rates

it is dictated by the people at the higher levels of the production because that is how they keep their pay high as they worked their way up through the machine and now they are not going to bow out of it no matter what because that ruins their career forever in the industry and it is not worth the risk

you are not going to find any production engineer that says he will take a job with a bunch of non union people under him because he knows as soon as he accepts that it opens his wages up to being lowered eventually no matter what they try and offer him to say yes to the job to start

and if he does not say yes to the eventual wage cut his reward will be losing his job one way or another and then having no ability to go anywhere else because he stepped in the union rules or he will be transferred somewhere where he is hated and no one will work for him or work well with him.....and his career advancement will be over even if he can keep that job

Well, if that is truly the case---I stand corrected. I was under the impression these school in house internet based production departments did not fall under any union protections (especially in right to work states) and that students could gain experience working even in the camera positions. Still, I dont think even union tv cameramen are making much. lol....I had a friend who was cameraman. Poor guy lived in virtual poverty. This article says the average pay is $41,600 with the lowest paid 10% making $18,800 or less.

ttps://work.chron.com/salaries-television-cameramen-8233.html

it depends on who you are and what you do

if you only hold the camera for the news cast at a local station and their morning or mid day shows (if they have any) you are not making great money and you probably have a part time job or if you work few enough hours behind the camera a "real job"

if it is at the station you might do sales, perhaps some engineering, post production, commercials ect

for events like the Super Bowl in dallas they will bring in cameramen from as far away as Lubbock if not further and stage them on hotel rooms about an hours drive from the venue each way and those guys will all be union (even if they can't stand unions it is just how it is)

also in any decent sized media production (TV or film) you are be dealing with the teamsters.....100% of the people that drive the trucks and vans ect for any of that are teamsters and they again will not come to work for the production unless union rules and wages are in place

and since you are either renting those trucks, production vans, honey wagons, catering trucks, generator trucks ect or you are a major company that has their own (like ESPN) you are again dealing with the teamsters......because no rental company will be in business to rent that equipment if they do not either have their own teamster members to drive them or they only rent to companies that will put teamsters behind the wheel......because no one in the major media states will do business with them if they do not exclusively use teamsters....and without that business you are out of business

(07-05-2019 10:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 10:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 10:20 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 09:23 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 06:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The stuff Im talking about looks just like the typical ESPN3/ESPN+ productions. Have you ever watched a Texas St game? Clearly it doesnt take much to meet the minimum standards. Im sure a solid respectable moderately upgraded level of production can be done at a reasonable price. Students, interns, recent grads have to get their start somewhere.

Dude, those are union jobs. They wont have students and interns manning cameras or manning the boards. Who is calling the shots in the control booth? Who is directing? Who is over seeing all the different departments? If you know TV you'd know it takes a lot more than just some kids with cameras to make something look professional week in and week out.

yea some people do not understand that pretty much everything with major TV or film is 100% union even in strong right to work states

it is not an "internet job" it still has the same classifications as if it was over the air TV and it still has the same wage rates

it is dictated by the people at the higher levels of the production because that is how they keep their pay high as they worked their way up through the machine and now they are not going to bow out of it no matter what because that ruins their career forever in the industry and it is not worth the risk

you are not going to find any production engineer that says he will take a job with a bunch of non union people under him because he knows as soon as he accepts that it opens his wages up to being lowered eventually no matter what they try and offer him to say yes to the job to start

and if he does not say yes to the eventual wage cut his reward will be losing his job one way or another and then having no ability to go anywhere else because he stepped in the union rules or he will be transferred somewhere where he is hated and no one will work for him or work well with him.....and his career advancement will be over even if he can keep that job

Well, if that is truly the case---I stand corrected. I was under the impression these school in house internet based production departments did not fall under any union protections (especially in right to work states) and that students could gain experience working even in the camera positions. Still, I dont think even union tv cameramen are making much. lol....I had a friend who was cameraman. Poor guy lived in virtual poverty. This article says the average pay is $41,600 with the lowest paid 10% making $18,800 or less.

ttps://work.chron.com/salaries-television-cameramen-8233.html

it depends on who you are and what you do

if you only hold the camera for the news cast at a local station and their morning or mid day shows (if they have any) you are not making great money and you probably have a part time job or if you work few enough hours behind the camera a "real job"

if it is at the station you might do sales, perhaps some engineering, post production, commercials ect

for events like the Super Bowl in dallas they will bring in cameramen from as far away as Lubbock if not further and stage them on hotel rooms about an hours drive from the venue each way and those guys will all be union (even if they can't stand unions it is just how it is)

also in any decent sized media production (TV or film) you are be dealing with the teamsters.....100% of the people that drive the trucks and vans ect for any of that are teamsters and they again will not come to work for the production unless union rules and wages are in place

and since you are either renting those trucks, production vans, honey wagons, catering trucks, generator trucks ect or you are a major company that has their own (like ESPN) you are again dealing with the teamsters......because no rental company will be in business to rent that equipment if they do not either have their own teamster members to drive them or they only rent to companies that will put teamsters behind the wheel......because no one in the major media states will do business with them if they do not exclusively use teamsters....and without that business you are out of business

Look, I’m not a union expert—but what I’m describing is not a method I dreamed up to produce stuff for ESPN+ on the cheap. It’s the way many schools who don’t have millions to spend on tv production crews are currently producing respectable quality content for ESPN3/+. The only thing I can figure is maybe these in house university internet production departments dont fall under union rules. These articles describe what Ive been talking about. The kids in these articles are doing camera work and more. Idk---maybe some sort of union exemption for educational institutions makes it possible. The first article is about students at George Mason University working on ESPN+ productions. The other 2 articles are about the same type of student invovement in ESPN3/+ productions at Stephen F Austin and Lipscomb U.


How many college students can say they got their work on ESPN as an undergraduate? At George Mason University, it is a perk that can be claimed by the nearly 30 students who are part of the Sports Broadcasting Team in the office of Student Media.

ESPN+ (ESPN’s streaming service) uses productions by the Sports Broadcasting Team to show Patriot soccer, lacrosse, women's volleyball, baseball and softball. Students handle all aspects of the production, including writing scripts, doing play-by-play and color commentary, handling tech services and working the cameras.

“Having these broadcasts published on ESPN really makes this feel professional,” said Natalie McCarthy, a senior sport management major. “You have a bigger incentive to make sure everything looks good and is done just right.”

But Carroll said his priority is allowing students to explore their interests as early as possible. And that, said Collin Telez, a junior sport management major, allows students to try different things.

“Right now, I’m doing camera work,” he said. “But soon I’ll train to do technical and directive work.”


https://www2.gmu.edu/news/576956

This is from Stephen F Austin.

This partnership with ESPN benefits SFA in so many ways. Our university and campus is being promoted year-round on the world's largest sports network, said Stephen F. Austin State University President Dr. Baker Pattillo.
It gives our students an opportunity to gain instrumental experience currently available to only a few schools in the country. Finally, our fans and alumni can now keep up with SFA athletics contests from anywhere around the world;

The Athletics Department teamed up with the Department of Mass Communication to create a class to allow radio/television students the opportunity to get real-world experience with some of the top equipment in the industry. Currently there are 15 students enrolled and they operate everything from switcher, cameras, replay, audio, graphics, and shading stations during broadcasts.

https://sfajacks.com/news/2016/2/18/SFA_...ESPN3.aspx


This is one about Lipscomb University--

Students are gaining valuable experience through Lipscomb’s ESPN3 program.

“The students are running cameras, capturing what’s happening on the playing field. They’re doing the replays and the graphics that are on the screen. They are running the control room. This program gives our students all kinds of opportunities to learn a variety of real-world experiences because they are the ones in the field making this happen,” says Gilliam.

“There are so many benefits for students who work on an ESPN3 production team,” Colborne agrees. “They get hands-on experience, make connections with people in the industry and their work gets national exposure. And we know they are working hard to produce a quality product.”

https://www.lipscomb.edu/news/lipscombs-...l-standard

(07-05-2019 10:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 10:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 10:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 10:20 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 09:23 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Dude, those are union jobs. They wont have students and interns manning cameras or manning the boards. Who is calling the shots in the control booth? Who is directing? Who is over seeing all the different departments? If you know TV you'd know it takes a lot more than just some kids with cameras to make something look professional week in and week out.

yea some people do not understand that pretty much everything with major TV or film is 100% union even in strong right to work states

it is not an "internet job" it still has the same classifications as if it was over the air TV and it still has the same wage rates

it is dictated by the people at the higher levels of the production because that is how they keep their pay high as they worked their way up through the machine and now they are not going to bow out of it no matter what because that ruins their career forever in the industry and it is not worth the risk

you are not going to find any production engineer that says he will take a job with a bunch of non union people under him because he knows as soon as he accepts that it opens his wages up to being lowered eventually no matter what they try and offer him to say yes to the job to start

and if he does not say yes to the eventual wage cut his reward will be losing his job one way or another and then having no ability to go anywhere else because he stepped in the union rules or he will be transferred somewhere where he is hated and no one will work for him or work well with him.....and his career advancement will be over even if he can keep that job

Well, if that is truly the case---I stand corrected. I was under the impression these school in house internet based production departments did not fall under any union protections (especially in right to work states) and that students could gain experience working even in the camera positions. Still, I dont think even union tv cameramen are making much. lol....I had a friend who was cameraman. Poor guy lived in virtual poverty. This article says the average pay is $41,600 with the lowest paid 10% making $18,800 or less.

ttps://work.chron.com/salaries-television-cameramen-8233.html

it depends on who you are and what you do

if you only hold the camera for the news cast at a local station and their morning or mid day shows (if they have any) you are not making great money and you probably have a part time job or if you work few enough hours behind the camera a "real job"

if it is at the station you might do sales, perhaps some engineering, post production, commercials ect

for events like the Super Bowl in dallas they will bring in cameramen from as far away as Lubbock if not further and stage them on hotel rooms about an hours drive from the venue each way and those guys will all be union (even if they can't stand unions it is just how it is)

also in any decent sized media production (TV or film) you are be dealing with the teamsters.....100% of the people that drive the trucks and vans ect for any of that are teamsters and they again will not come to work for the production unless union rules and wages are in place

and since you are either renting those trucks, production vans, honey wagons, catering trucks, generator trucks ect or you are a major company that has their own (like ESPN) you are again dealing with the teamsters......because no rental company will be in business to rent that equipment if they do not either have their own teamster members to drive them or they only rent to companies that will put teamsters behind the wheel......because no one in the major media states will do business with them if they do not exclusively use teamsters....and without that business you are out of business

Look, I’m not a union expert—but what I’m describing is not a method I dreamed up to produce stuff for ESPN+ on the cheap. It’s the way many schools who don’t have millions to spend on tv production crews are currently producing respectable quality content for ESPN3/+. The only thing I can figure is maybe these in house university internet production departments dont fall under union rules. These kids in these articles are doing camera work and more. Idk---maybe some sort of union exemption for educational institutions makes it possible. The first article is about students at George Mason University working on ESPN+ productions. The other 2 articles are about the same type of student invovement in ESPN3/+ productions at Stephen F Austin and Lipscomb U.


How many college students can say they got their work on ESPN as an undergraduate? At George Mason University, it is a perk that can be claimed by the nearly 30 students who are part of the Sports Broadcasting Team in the office of Student Media.

ESPN+ (ESPN’s streaming service) uses productions by the Sports Broadcasting Team to show Patriot soccer, lacrosse, women's volleyball, baseball and softball. Students handle all aspects of the production, including writing scripts, doing play-by-play and color commentary, handling tech services and working the cameras.

“Having these broadcasts published on ESPN really makes this feel professional,” said Natalie McCarthy, a senior sport management major. “You have a bigger incentive to make sure everything looks good and is done just right.”

But Carroll said his priority is allowing students to explore their interests as early as possible. And that, said Collin Telez, a junior sport management major, allows students to try different things.

“Right now, I’m doing camera work,” he said. “But soon I’ll train to do technical and directive work.”


https://www2.gmu.edu/news/576956

This is from Stephen F Austin.

This partnership with ESPN benefits SFA in so many ways. Our university and campus is being promoted year-round on the world's largest sports network, said Stephen F. Austin State University President Dr. Baker Pattillo.
It gives our students an opportunity to gain instrumental experience currently available to only a few schools in the country. Finally, our fans and alumni can now keep up with SFA athletics contests from anywhere around the world;

The Athletics Department teamed up with the Department of Mass Communication to create a class to allow radio/television students the opportunity to get real-world experience with some of the top equipment in the industry. Currently there are 15 students enrolled and they operate everything from switcher, cameras, replay, audio, graphics, and shading stations during broadcasts.

https://sfajacks.com/news/2016/2/18/SFA_...ESPN3.aspx


This is one about Lipscomb University--

Students are gaining valuable experience through Lipscomb’s ESPN3 program.

“The students are running cameras, capturing what’s happening on the playing field. They’re doing the replays and the graphics that are on the screen. They are running the control room. This program gives our students all kinds of opportunities to learn a variety of real-world experiences because they are the ones in the field making this happen,” says Gilliam.

“There are so many benefits for students who work on an ESPN3 production team,” Colborne agrees. “They get hands-on experience, make connections with people in the industry and their work gets national exposure. And we know they are working hard to produce a quality product.”

https://www.lipscomb.edu/news/lipscombs-...l-standard

They don't look to be in a "union" lol.