(03-31-2023 09:58 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 09:28 AM)epasnoopy Wrote:  Plus, you've already proven with your views that you think MAC schools destroying their attendance and fanbase is fine

This is not an accurate characterization of my views.

My view, based on personal experience, is that MAC football attendance has always been weak in November and that our fan bases have always been on the small side, so very little is being sacrificed by playing MAC football on November weeknights.

I think we have established that your supposition that the MAC is somehow losing money on its ESPN deal is just bluster.

How have you established that? You've shown no evidence that the cost of creating content is less than the TV revenue of each school.

1. We don't even know the true revenue for each school for the ESPN deal because the conference has been secretive.

If it was such a great deal the MAC wouldn't hide it. Big 10 and SEC have no problem blabbing about their mega TV $$.

2. No one knows the actual cost the schools are expending due to creating their own content. But I'd bet it isn't cheap.

(03-31-2023 07:08 AM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(03-30-2023 04:28 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-30-2023 04:19 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(03-30-2023 01:42 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  It seems to me the competitiveness of individual MAC athletic departments is not the job of the conference commissioner.

But it is his job to help bring the individual schools more $$. Rather than signing that terrible ESPN deal that doesn't even cover the costs of schools producing their own content for ESPN3/+ or equipment.

Link?

The individual schools are responsible for producing their own ESPN3/+ content. ESPN isn't sending out game analysts and TV crews for that.

So who do you think is paying the bill for each school to pay camera crews, announcers/game analysts, for the media control rooms, and all the equipment needed to produce content? Do we think all that is cheap?

https://www.hustlebelt.com/2014/8/19/604...pn-tv-deal

Quote:As mentioned before, this deal includes ALL TV rights. Broadcast and digital, meaning that ESPN3 can broadcast (and will in the near future for men's basketball and football) all MAC sponsored events and MAC home games. This is contingent on a part of the deal that will ramp up on-campus production facilities and infrastructure to a point where the schools can produce coverage of home basketball games for the digital service themselves...

Must be missing the point as the contract went up 8.6M from 1.4M to 10M. Equipment for producing ESPN3/+ production can be used for other things, internal and external as UMass Sports Network or Insider https://umassathletics.com/watch/?Archiv...pe=Archive

(03-29-2023 02:41 PM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 12:56 PM)cmufanatic Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 11:17 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  17-1 so far with lone loss Rice in CBI.

Why does it feel like the MAC is dying via a 1000 cuts. Hate thinking this but it just seems like we are slowly being left behind.

Because we have the worst commissioner in the FBS. He's washed and is out of touch with today's landscape. Time for new blood and energy at the top. Jon Steinbrecher has got to go!

Agree whole heartedly!

(03-31-2023 04:32 PM)magoo Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 02:41 PM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 12:56 PM)cmufanatic Wrote:  

(03-29-2023 11:17 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  17-1 so far with lone loss Rice in CBI.

Why does it feel like the MAC is dying via a 1000 cuts. Hate thinking this but it just seems like we are slowly being left behind.

Because we have the worst commissioner in the FBS. He's washed and is out of touch with today's landscape. Time for new blood and energy at the top. Jon Steinbrecher has got to go!

Agree whole heartedly!

Wow, like Steinbrecher a lot. His changes in slightly uneven distribution of NCAA credits , not taking so many body games and rewarding home court OOC initially saw a little promise. He does not recruit the ADs and coaches etc. The number of bowl tie-ins is positive and the media contract from 1.4M to 10 M was great with the renegotiations of those last 3 years bump to 8M was great. He also jettison us, prioritizing MAC teams. Of course feel that long term potential should be on an expansion matrix style checks and not so absolute on being financially positive from the get go. Think that positive media exposure, rivals, institutional strength and past, present and potential should all be there with financial. Of course if the MAC distributed 1M less to each football only and additional media money is there, it will not be financially positive for the get go but close to break even. It's a must for BB games to be split between the top 4 MAC teams and random everyone else.

Definitely like him a lot and because he could help us more, even more than the MWC Commissioner.

(03-31-2023 01:53 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 09:58 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 09:28 AM)epasnoopy Wrote:  Plus, you've already proven with your views that you think MAC schools destroying their attendance and fanbase is fine

This is not an accurate characterization of my views.

My view, based on personal experience, is that MAC football attendance has always been weak in November and that our fan bases have always been on the small side, so very little is being sacrificed by playing MAC football on November weeknights.

I think we have established that your supposition that the MAC is somehow losing money on its ESPN deal is just bluster.

How have you established that?

Because you are offering no proof of what you are saying.

Bruce invited you to offer some proof, and you have not. I think we can dismiss what you are saying at this point.

(03-31-2023 08:15 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 01:53 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 09:58 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 09:28 AM)epasnoopy Wrote:  Plus, you've already proven with your views that you think MAC schools destroying their attendance and fanbase is fine

This is not an accurate characterization of my views.

My view, based on personal experience, is that MAC football attendance has always been weak in November and that our fan bases have always been on the small side, so very little is being sacrificed by playing MAC football on November weeknights.

I think we have established that your supposition that the MAC is somehow losing money on its ESPN deal is just bluster.

How have you established that?

Because you are offering no proof of what you are saying.

Bruce invited you to offer some proof, and you have not. I think we can dismiss what you are saying at this point.

No proof? I literally linked an article that said MAC schools are responsible for producing their own content. Do you think the cost to the schools is nothing for that?

It's like talking to a brick wall here.

Here's more proof that it isn't cheap to produce content. This is per video content and doesn't even account for the costs of schools acquiring their own equipment and production rooms.

(03-31-2023 09:55 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 08:15 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 01:53 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 09:58 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 09:28 AM)epasnoopy Wrote:  Plus, you've already proven with your views that you think MAC schools destroying their attendance and fanbase is fine

This is not an accurate characterization of my views.

My view, based on personal experience, is that MAC football attendance has always been weak in November and that our fan bases have always been on the small side, so very little is being sacrificed by playing MAC football on November weeknights.

I think we have established that your supposition that the MAC is somehow losing money on its ESPN deal is just bluster.

How have you established that?

Because you are offering no proof of what you are saying.

Bruce invited you to offer some proof, and you have not. I think we can dismiss what you are saying at this point.

No proof? I literally linked an article that said MAC schools are responsible for producing their own content. Do you think the cost to the schools is nothing for that?

It has been known from Day One that the headline per-school dollar figure in the MAC's television deal does not include certain production costs borne by schools. That's not a revelation, even if that nuance sometimes gets lost when casual fans get to talking about television deals.

What you are claiming is something quite different. You are claiming these production costs are so big that MAC schools are actually losing money on this deal. Here is what you said:

(03-30-2023 04:19 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(03-30-2023 01:42 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  It seems to me the competitiveness of individual MAC athletic departments is not the job of the conference commissioner.

But it is his job to help bring the individual schools more $$. Rather than signing that terrible ESPN deal that doesn't even cover the costs of schools producing their own content for ESPN3/+ or equipment.

That's quite a claim, and you haven't come remotely close to backing it up. Posting links to random articles about television production costs in other settings do not demonstrate what you are saying.

Quote:It's like talking to a brick wall here.

(03-31-2023 09:55 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  ... No proof? I literally linked an article that said MAC schools are responsible for producing their own content. Do you think the cost to the schools is nothing for that?

That is evidence for the claim, "the headline media earnings is overstated because the schools have to produce their own ESPN3/ESPN+ content". Which is a long established fact, but on its own wouldn't be the basis for criticizing the Commissioner, or still more the Presidents whose desires the Commissioner is responsible for implementing.

Of course, the production costs are not substantially greater at most schools, since as detailed in the article you linked to, most schools were streaming their own games before.

What changed was the infrastructure costs, but the new infrastructure is an investment, and it seems likely that the increment in earnings in the contract extension was more than enough to cover the cost of the required infrastructure upgrade at most schools.

And of course, the schools own that infrastructure, rather than the broadcaster bringing in temporary mobile facilities to televise a game and then moving on, so once the upgrades are complete and paid for, net revenue as a share of gross revenue is going to increase.

Quote: It's like talking to a brick wall here.

That'd be because you made one claim, and your evidence appears to be, "I assume it's true, so it's true unless you can prove that the claim is false."

Quote: Here's more proof that it isn't cheap to produce content.

"Content production is not free" is not your claim. Your claim requires showing "The extra money spent on video production to satisfy the terms of the contract extension is greater than the extra revenue from the contract extension".

It seems that you don't have any evidence that directly supports that claim, since what you have presented as evidence to support the claim doesn't show that:

[Extra Revenue] - [Extra Costs] < 0

So unpacking the full criticism, the MAC Commissioner has been doing a bad job because, while you can't prove it, you assume that the ESPN streaming adds more to total athletic costs (over the streaming the schools were doing before) than the contract extension adds to athletic revenue.

(04-05-2023 09:40 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-31-2023 09:55 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  ... No proof? I literally linked an article that said MAC schools are responsible for producing their own content. Do you think the cost to the schools is nothing for that?

That is evidence for the claim, "the headline media earnings is overstated because the schools have to produce their own ESPN3/ESPN+ content". Which is a long established fact, but on its own wouldn't be the basis for criticizing the Commissioner, or still more the Presidents whose desires the Commissioner is responsible for implementing.

Of course, the production costs are not substantially greater at most schools, since as detailed in the article you linked to, most schools were streaming their own games before.

What changed was the infrastructure costs, but the new infrastructure is an investment, and it seems likely that the increment in earnings in the contract extension was more than enough to cover the cost of the required infrastructure upgrade at most schools.

And of course, the schools own that infrastructure, rather than the broadcaster bringing in temporary mobile facilities to televise a game and then moving on, so once the upgrades are complete and paid for, net revenue as a share of gross revenue is going to increase.

Quote: It's like talking to a brick wall here.

That'd be because you made one claim, and your evidence appears to be, "I assume it's true, so it's true unless you can prove that the claim is false."

Quote: Here's more proof that it isn't cheap to produce content.

"Content production is not free" is not your claim. Your claim requires showing "The extra money spent on video production to satisfy the terms of the contract extension is greater than the extra revenue from the contract extension".

It seems that you don't have any evidence that directly supports that claim, since what you have presented as evidence to support the claim doesn't show that:

[Extra Revenue] - [Extra Costs] < 0

So unpacking the full criticism, the MAC Commissioner has been doing a bad job because, while you can't prove it, you assume that the ESPN streaming adds more to total athletic costs (over the streaming the schools were doing before) than the contract extension adds to athletic revenue.

Bingo, excellent post, Bruce!