(07-11-2020 10:43 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Right now the people in danger of actually being culled are people on the margins. To find people on the margins I suggest looking for high student fees. That's going to invariably get you an alarming number of MAC schools and some C-USA/Sun Belt schools.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/h...s-n1145171

https://georgiastatesignal.com/georgia-s...s-country/

Also shows that the MEAC is in bad shape. 7 current or former members are in the top 34, including their 2 basketball schools.

(07-11-2020 09:26 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 08:39 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  C-USA and the MAC go to opposite extremes. C-USA has pretty much all Saturday games, but nothing on ESPN. Games are very hard to find.......

Had to stop you right there. Games are not hard to find anymore. Either they are on some network or they aren't. You do not have to put a whole lot of effort to finding a CUSA, Sun Belt, or MAC game. That whole "it's hard to find a game" excuse jumped the shark a long time ago.

Now you may not like the network or the streaming service the game is being shown but the games are very accessible.

Ehhhh they are easy to find if you're a fan of that team and you're looking for it. I think the "hard to find" argument is more around the casual eyeballs.

After getting home from the Cindy-ECU game last year, I found myself watching BYU-Utah State because it was on my ESPN app.

I obviously look for my team's games, then other AAC games. After that, I just flip around to see what's on. I'm not going to happen upon a game on Facebook just flipping through, seeing which games aren't on a commercial break.

(07-16-2020 08:47 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 09:26 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 08:39 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  C-USA and the MAC go to opposite extremes. C-USA has pretty much all Saturday games, but nothing on ESPN. Games are very hard to find.......

Had to stop you right there. Games are not hard to find anymore. Either they are on some network or they aren't. You do not have to put a whole lot of effort to finding a CUSA, Sun Belt, or MAC game. That whole "it's hard to find a game" excuse jumped the shark a long time ago.

Now you may not like the network or the streaming service the game is being shown but the games are very accessible.

Ehhhh they are easy to find if you're a fan of that team and you're looking for it. I think the "hard to find" argument is more around the casual eyeballs.

Stadium games on Facebook. The world is on Facebook so even if the casual fan was looking for a CUSA game and was told it's on Facebook, that person may chuckle at first but that person couldn't say "how do you find Facebook."

My definition of casual would be lazy, uninterested, or both. Just my opinion of course.

(07-16-2020 08:47 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 09:26 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  Had to stop you right there. Games are not hard to find anymore. Either they are on some network or they aren't. You do not have to put a whole lot of effort to finding a CUSA, Sun Belt, or MAC game. That whole "it's hard to find a game" excuse jumped the shark a long time ago. ...

Ehhhh they are easy to find if you're a fan of that team and you're looking for it. I think the "hard to find" argument is more around the casual eyeballs.

"Hard to find" is simply talking in the wrong terms. If the people are looking for the game, they are already not the casual fan.

Even for someone looking, hypotheticals along the line of, "if I tell you they are on Facebook, then you don't have an excuse" are playing a shell game. The question is whether the randomly selected person actually encounters someone or some messaging that lets them know that, not whether they could easily watch the game if they encountered that messaging.

Everyone here ... the people who are on a bulletin board that talks about conference realignment and has forums dedicated to a range of different non-P5 schools ... can find the games if they are on some streaming service, but there are tens of millions who are totally clueless about that.

(07-16-2020 10:47 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 08:47 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 09:26 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  Had to stop you right there. Games are not hard to find anymore. Either they are on some network or they aren't. You do not have to put a whole lot of effort to finding a CUSA, Sun Belt, or MAC game. That whole "it's hard to find a game" excuse jumped the shark a long time ago. ...

Ehhhh they are easy to find if you're a fan of that team and you're looking for it. I think the "hard to find" argument is more around the casual eyeballs.

"Hard to find" is simply talking in the wrong terms. If the people are looking for the game, they are already not the casual fan.

Even for someone looking, hypotheticals along the line of, "if I tell you they are on Facebook, then you don't have an excuse" are playing a shell game. The question is whether the randomly selected person actually encounters someone or some messaging that lets them know that, not whether they could easily watch the game if they encountered that messaging.

Everyone here ... the people who are on a bulletin board that talks about conference realignment and has forums dedicated to a range of different non-P5 schools ... can find the games if they are on some streaming service, but there are tens of millions who are totally clueless about that.

Well I think Netflix et al. has dramatically changed overall comfort levels with streaming. It's not like 5 years ago when there were big psychological and technical and perceived financial (paywalls) barriers to streaming. These days, streaming is widespread, so those barriers have eroded significantly.

Also, I'm not sure about the "casual fan" concept. College football is not generally watched by random people surfing around on their cable channels and just happening to alight on a game because it's on one of the first 30 channels they scroll past. It's watched by "college football fans", and IMO the people on this board are probably reasonably representative of those fans, we're not some kind of 3-years-in-the-future vanguard or something.

Sure, for some really big games that are hyped on mass media, like the major bowls or the playoffs, or a Alabama vs LSU "game of the century" you're going to get some general public viewing. I am not a baseball fan, e.g., but I tend to tune in to a World Series game or two just because as a sports fan I respect that a major championship is about to be won. But I doubt many people randomly tune in to watch BYU vs Utah State on a college football Saturday. So the issue really is interest in a game, knowledge of a game's existence and ease of access. IMO, streaming has significantly reduced all of those barriers. Platform-related excuses for low ratings are IMO becoming less and less tenable.

(07-17-2020 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 10:47 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 08:47 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 09:26 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  Had to stop you right there. Games are not hard to find anymore. Either they are on some network or they aren't. You do not have to put a whole lot of effort to finding a CUSA, Sun Belt, or MAC game. That whole "it's hard to find a game" excuse jumped the shark a long time ago. ...

Ehhhh they are easy to find if you're a fan of that team and you're looking for it. I think the "hard to find" argument is more around the casual eyeballs.

"Hard to find" is simply talking in the wrong terms. If the people are looking for the game, they are already not the casual fan.

Even for someone looking, hypotheticals along the line of, "if I tell you they are on Facebook, then you don't have an excuse" are playing a shell game. The question is whether the randomly selected person actually encounters someone or some messaging that lets them know that, not whether they could easily watch the game if they encountered that messaging.

Everyone here ... the people who are on a bulletin board that talks about conference realignment and has forums dedicated to a range of different non-P5 schools ... can find the games if they are on some streaming service, but there are tens of millions who are totally clueless about that.

Well I think Netflix et al. has dramatically changed overall comfort levels with streaming. It's not like 5 years ago when there were big psychological and technical and perceived financial (paywalls) barriers to streaming. These days, streaming is widespread, so those barriers have eroded significantly.

Also, I'm not sure about the "casual fan" concept. College football is not generally watched by random people surfing around on their cable channels and just happening to alight on a game because it's on one of the first 30 channels they scroll past. It's watched by "college football fans", and IMO the people on this board are probably reasonably representative of those fans, we're not some kind of 3-years-in-the-future vanguard or something.

Sure, for some really big games that are hyped on mass media, like the major bowls or the playoffs, or a Alabama vs LSU "game of the century" you're going to get some general public viewing. I am not a baseball fan, e.g., but I tend to tune in to a World Series game or two just because as a sports fan I respect that a major championship is about to be won. But I doubt many people randomly tune in to watch BYU vs Utah State on a college football Saturday. So the issue really is interest in a game, knowledge of a game's existence and ease of access. IMO, streaming has significantly reduced all of those barriers. Platform-related excuses for low ratings are IMO becoming less and less tenable.

By casual fan, I was more referring to the casual football fan. Certain outlets are better than others for capturing eyeballs of people who love sports but don't necessarily follow the team in question.

Examples:

NFL: I'm a Panthers fan. If my game is on Fox at 1pm, there is also a game on a 4pm. I'm way more likely to watch some/all of that 4pm FOX broadcast than the 4pm game on CBS, or another region's Fox/CBS broadcast, or online streaming, in that order.

College: Same goes for college. Obviously, the OTA broadcasts get the best ratings. The old guy that only has rabbit ears has 6 channels to choose from ,and a game is on.

Down the line from that...You're more likely to capture the casual football fan if your game is (for instance) on ESPN directly following a huge game. Most people won't change the channel if another game comes on right after.

Down the line from that...If you're watching on (for instance) the ESPN app, you're more likely to end up watching a game also on that app before pivoting to some other streaming service like Facebook. Same goes for ESPN+ in this case.

Yes, if Alabama-LSU(a game that even casual football fans would purposefully find) was on Facebook, then the next game on facebook might get more traction.

I guess I'm saying that, the farther a viewer has to go to get from their broadcast to YOUR broadcast determines how casual a fan you can draw.

(07-17-2020 08:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  I guess I'm saying that, the farther a viewer has to go to get from their broadcast to YOUR broadcast determines how casual a fan you can draw.

Yes, this is much more like it. It's not about "comfort levels" with streaming, it's about whether people are likely to see the game ... either in progress or in a listing of currently streaming content ... and watch it. The casual viewers are not the ones who deliberately sought it out, they are the ones who stumbled across it.

And unlike Netflix, where if you don't run across the ninja Spanish nuns in June you might run across them in July or in August ... if you don't get in front of them when the game is in progress, you've lost your chance.

(07-17-2020 08:39 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 08:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  I guess I'm saying that, the farther a viewer has to go to get from their broadcast to YOUR broadcast determines how casual a fan you can draw.

Yes, this is much more like it. It's not about "comfort levels" with streaming, it's about whether people are likely to see the game ... either in progress or in a listing of currently streaming content ... and watch it. The casual viewers are not the ones who deliberately sought it out, they are the ones who stumbled across it.

And unlike Netflix, where if you don't run across the ninja Spanish nuns in June you might run across them in July or in August ... if you don't get in front of them when the game is in progress, you've lost your chance.

Exactly. We have some family who we stay with for games that have Dish. When our game is over, or Friday night before our game, we spend the majority of our time cruising through the guide looking at the various games that are on, or will just leave it on ESPN Goal Line. Games that are on Facebook or ESPN+ aren't on our radar in that situation.

If you're 100% streaming, like we are at my house, then you usually stick to what's on the app you are using. I use the ESPN app, so I usually see the games that end up on ESPN channels and (the soon to be banished) ESPN3.

That will change soon. Switching to Hulu Live. That will put channels like FS1 and CBS Sport Network back on my "casual football viewing" radar. I just looked today, and ESPN+ still isn't incorporated into the Hulu app. i.e. you still have to exit and go to the ESPN app. That will limit my ESPN+ viewing to just the games I search out for.

Same goes for Facebook. I'd be way more likely to come across a game to watch on facebook if they'd join forced with a existing streaming service like Hulu or YoutubeTV...or if they've pick up a handful of other conferences.

(07-17-2020 08:39 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 08:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  I guess I'm saying that, the farther a viewer has to go to get from their broadcast to YOUR broadcast determines how casual a fan you can draw.

Yes, this is much more like it. It's not about "comfort levels" with streaming, it's about whether people are likely to see the game ... either in progress or in a listing of currently streaming content ... and watch it. The casual viewers are not the ones who deliberately sought it out, they are the ones who stumbled across it.

The point you guys are IMO missing is that the "comfort level" with streaming means that streaming platforms are now part of the "casual surfing" that results in "stumbling across" things, including games.

(07-17-2020 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 08:39 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 08:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  I guess I'm saying that, the farther a viewer has to go to get from their broadcast to YOUR broadcast determines how casual a fan you can draw.

Yes, this is much more like it. It's not about "comfort levels" with streaming, it's about whether people are likely to see the game ... either in progress or in a listing of currently streaming content ... and watch it. The casual viewers are not the ones who deliberately sought it out, they are the ones who stumbled across it.

The point you guys are IMO missing is that the "comfort level" with streaming means that streaming platforms are now part of the "casual surfing" that results in "stumbling across" things, including games.

I guess, but I would be interested to hear a polling of random sports fans on what their general routine is. If it includes jumping between CBS/ESPN/FS1/Youtube/Facebook/etc during commercial breaks, then I stand corrected.

(07-17-2020 11:24 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 08:39 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 08:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  I guess I'm saying that, the farther a viewer has to go to get from their broadcast to YOUR broadcast determines how casual a fan you can draw.

Yes, this is much more like it. It's not about "comfort levels" with streaming, it's about whether people are likely to see the game ... either in progress or in a listing of currently streaming content ... and watch it. The casual viewers are not the ones who deliberately sought it out, they are the ones who stumbled across it.

The point you guys are IMO missing is that the "comfort level" with streaming means that streaming platforms are now part of the "casual surfing" that results in "stumbling across" things, including games.

I guess, but I would be interested to hear a polling of random sports fans on what their general routine is. If it includes jumping between CBS/ESPN/FS1/Youtube/Facebook/etc during commercial breaks, then I stand corrected.

Likewise. A poll would be interesting.

When I think of casual fan exposure, broadcasts outside the home like sports bars, restaurants, auto repair, tire change, dentist office (mine is always set to ESPN), gyms...come to mind. Places people end up watching a game b/c it's on, not b/c they seek it out.

I overwhelmingly watch televised games (college and pro) involving the teams for which I root. As big a Vanderbilt fan as I am, I don't watch many SEC games not featuring the Commodores — though I will watch the fourth quarter or final eight minutes or so of a major SEC contest.

I do agree with GulfCoastGal that for broadcasts "outside the home," folks typically watch a game "because it's being televised" and not necessarily because they want to see that specific game.

(07-17-2020 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 08:39 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 08:26 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  I guess I'm saying that, the farther a viewer has to go to get from their broadcast to YOUR broadcast determines how casual a fan you can draw.

Yes, this is much more like it. It's not about "comfort levels" with streaming, it's about whether people are likely to see the game ... either in progress or in a listing of currently streaming content ... and watch it. The casual viewers are not the ones who deliberately sought it out, they are the ones who stumbled across it.

The point you guys are IMO missing is that the "comfort level" with streaming means that streaming platforms are now part of the "casual surfing" that results in "stumbling across" things, including games.

But just putting "streaming platforms" in a single big box only works if we can assume that people just pick an app at random and look for something to watch, and then pick another app at random and look for something there. People will have a set of places they look at for things to watch.

It would be surprising if the apps that are built around the higher penetration cable sports networks don't have a larger footprint in terms of the go-to streaming apps that people look at. That is an effect that is assumed away in treating all live streaming in no matter what source as all generically equivalent.