(02-27-2024 12:23 PM)7 Wrote:  

(02-27-2024 12:08 PM)HuskiePride12 Wrote:  

(02-27-2024 08:49 AM)Big Red Wrote:  

(02-27-2024 08:11 AM)HuskiePride12 Wrote:  

(02-27-2024 07:37 AM)BigChilla Wrote:  This is surprising. The MAC actually doing something to survive, or maybe even lay the groundwork to thrive is unexpected. I’ve been out of the loop of everything lately so if the rumors of this move were flying I didn’t hear them.

One would have to imagine more moves are coming? Any rumors with legs there? Or are we just guessing?

If I'm the MAC, I go for the jugular on CUSA. Offer Liberty, MTSU and WKU. One less conference helps the MAC. Basketball really improves with MTSU, WKU & UMass and football does with Liberty and WKU.

Would really provide help in negotiating a higher $$ TV contract and would basically allow for a seat at the table each season in the playoff. Split the divisions truly on distance for West & East.

Yeah, I was thinking of a different route but that would be an interesting way to go as well. And quite an aggressive route.

The thing is, I think for the most part, the MAC is pretty safe from being picked over. We really don't have a ton of attractive schools for conferences to go after. But, if we lost a Toledo (or probably Miami), I think it would be pretty detrimental to our conference.

So, there is a bit of a threat there. By getting aggressive, you strengthen your own footing. Then again, maybe you put a target on yourself?

Possibly, but if you are the MAC you are trying to get ahead of the AAC going after a school like Liberty and the Sunbelt going after WKU/MTSU. Would leave the MAC being one of the 3 leftover G5 Conferences since my guess is the MW is going to become the PAC12 again with Oregon state and WSU.

CUSA is hardly hanging on and if they go away as a conference only helps aid the MAC. I hope the MAC commish has some balls and tries to take them out.

Larger pieces of pie for the other G5 conferences then. They changed the fee from FCS to FBS from $5,000 to $5 mil this off-season to eliminate the conferences from back filling easy like CUSA has been doing.

Maybe, just maybe the MAC will do something right. The UMass add was good for the conference overall IMO.

Liberty is kind of gross politically, but in a world where football is king trying to beat the Sun Belt to them makes sense. Feel like the Sun Belt has surpassed the MAC with their recent additions.

I honestly thing no one is going to care about their politics. Everyone knows football drives the bus and the MAC needs to be in the driver seat for once, instead always be the last in line.

It would only be for a while like someone else said. The MAC then would then gladly take the handout (make it a big one) if they leave the conference. Much better at this stage of college football to be proactive than reactive (see PAC12).

With this just all being my opinion, I don't think any of this happens unless those schools don't take a cut of the current TV deal until the current deal expires or ESPN is willing to throw the MAC TV deal in the garbage and negotiate. The MAC schools can't afford to make less on what is already a bad deal.

ESPN right now has been taking a lot of hits lately in regards to money, I wouldn't mind some split deal with some on ESPN and someone like Apple/Amazon/YouTube buying a handful of games. The conference would have a wide range of viewers with those additions and they can create the deal where not all the schools are playing mid-week.

(02-27-2024 02:59 PM)HuskiePride12 Wrote:  ESPN right now has been taking a lot of hits lately in regards to money, I wouldn't mind some split deal with some on ESPN and someone like Apple/Amazon/YouTube buying a handful of games. The conference would have a wide range of viewers with those additions and they can create the deal where not all the schools are playing mid-week.

Not so sure about being guaranteed "a wide range of viewers" by adding a split deal with an Apple/Amazon/YouTube outfit. Check B1G school chat rooms and you'll see a lot of anger and discontent with events not airing on the Big Ten Network but being farmed out to Peacock. Apparently even B1G alums aren't too keen on paying extra.

(02-27-2024 04:26 PM)uiniu57 Wrote:  

(02-27-2024 02:59 PM)HuskiePride12 Wrote:  ESPN right now has been taking a lot of hits lately in regards to money, I wouldn't mind some split deal with some on ESPN and someone like Apple/Amazon/YouTube buying a handful of games. The conference would have a wide range of viewers with those additions and they can create the deal where not all the schools are playing mid-week.

Not so sure about being guaranteed "a wide range of viewers" by adding a split deal with an Apple/Amazon/YouTube outfit. Check B1G school chat rooms and you'll see a lot of anger and discontent with events not airing on the Big Ten Network but being farmed out to Peacock. Apparently even B1G alums aren't too keen on paying extra.

If Apple or Amazon offered the MAC a bag and let them play all (or at least most) games on Saturday I’d hope we’d jump at it. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is more important than getting games back to Saturday

(02-27-2024 05:26 PM)7 Wrote:  

(02-27-2024 04:26 PM)uiniu57 Wrote:  

(02-27-2024 02:59 PM)HuskiePride12 Wrote:  ESPN right now has been taking a lot of hits lately in regards to money, I wouldn't mind some split deal with some on ESPN and someone like Apple/Amazon/YouTube buying a handful of games. The conference would have a wide range of viewers with those additions and they can create the deal where not all the schools are playing mid-week.

Not so sure about being guaranteed "a wide range of viewers" by adding a split deal with an Apple/Amazon/YouTube outfit. Check B1G school chat rooms and you'll see a lot of anger and discontent with events not airing on the Big Ten Network but being farmed out to Peacock. Apparently even B1G alums aren't too keen on paying extra.

If Apple or Amazon offered the MAC a bag and let them play all (or at least most) games on Saturday I’d hope we’d jump at it. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is more important than getting games back to Saturday

Agreed, get Saturdays back and build back live attendance.

I hear many mention possible streaming platform options like Amazon or AppleTV+ and I just have a few questions.

What would such a package include? Football only? Football and men's and women's basketball? Other sports?

I know the ESPN deal includes many sports (for some schools based on their own infrastructure and ability to broadcast) for 11 bucks a month ($132 Per year).

What per month subscriber fee do you think either an Amazon or Apple would have to charge to deliver on the basics? The current deal with MLS costs $100 per customer but you'd have to figure there are considerably more people interested in the MLS package than a MAC package.

Realistically, how many subscribers do you think a MAC "channel" would generate for one of these platforms? MLS Season Pass has over 2 million subscribers. I doubt the MAC could generate even a quarter of that. Heck, I'd be surprised if the MAC could get 1% of that number.

(02-28-2024 08:58 AM)Big Red Wrote:  I hear many mention possible streaming platform options like Amazon or AppleTV+ and I just have a few questions.

What would such a package include? Football only? Football and men's and women's basketball? Other sports?

I know the ESPN deal includes many sports (for some schools based on their own infrastructure and ability to broadcast) for 11 bucks a month ($132 Per year).

What per month subscriber fee do you think either an Amazon or Apple would have to charge to deliver on the basics? The current deal with MLS costs $100 per customer but you'd have to figure there are considerably more people interested in the MLS package than a MAC package.

Realistically, how many subscribers do you think a MAC "channel" would generate for one of these platforms? MLS Season Pass has over 2 million subscribers. I doubt the MAC could generate even a quarter of that.

These are valid question for you sure. I would think if the MAC ever went to one of these services it would be more than football. The current deal with ESPN includes men’s and women’s hoops (and more), so I would think anything on a streaming platform would be the same.

The how many subscribers would it generate is really the ultimate question. I think the hope would he being the first conference that does entirely streaming helps Apple or Amazon really get their foot in the door. The MAC obviously doesn’t generate the subscribers MLS did, but when the Apple deal was announced there was plenty of skeptics about them being able to get subscribers too.

A lot of unknowns, but like I said at the start I do think your questions are fair.

(02-28-2024 09:04 AM)7 Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 08:58 AM)Big Red Wrote:  I hear many mention possible streaming platform options like Amazon or AppleTV+ and I just have a few questions.

What would such a package include? Football only? Football and men's and women's basketball? Other sports?

I know the ESPN deal includes many sports (for some schools based on their own infrastructure and ability to broadcast) for 11 bucks a month ($132 Per year).

What per month subscriber fee do you think either an Amazon or Apple would have to charge to deliver on the basics? The current deal with MLS costs $100 per customer but you'd have to figure there are considerably more people interested in the MLS package than a MAC package.

Realistically, how many subscribers do you think a MAC "channel" would generate for one of these platforms? MLS Season Pass has over 2 million subscribers. I doubt the MAC could generate even a quarter of that.

These are valid question for you sure. I would think if the MAC ever went to one of these services it would be more than football. The current deal with ESPN includes men’s and women’s hoops (and more), so I would think anything on a streaming platform would be the same.

The how many subscribers would it generate is really the ultimate question. I think the hope would he being the first conference that does entirely streaming helps Apple or Amazon really get their foot in the door. The MAC obviously doesn’t generate the subscribers MLS did, but when the Apple deal was announced there was plenty of skeptics about them being able to get subscribers too.

A lot of unknowns, but like I said at the start I do think your questions are fair.

The MLS numbers are probably boosted by including season ticket holders as a bonus to their tickets but...I don't see the MAC being able to also provide that benefit.

(02-26-2024 06:27 PM)7 Wrote:  

(02-26-2024 06:13 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(02-26-2024 06:09 PM)7 Wrote:  

(02-26-2024 06:04 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  Wonder why CUSA chose to take Delaware over UMass.

Says UMass applied to both conferences.

In looking at the records, UMass has a combined four FBS wins in last 5 seasons. They will be duking it out with Akron for that coveted one FBS win every season.

I know we are all miserable about everything, but per Thamel (who broke the news) UMASS chose the MAC.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...-26-season

Toledo fans must be miserable too. Most of their board doesn't think much of the addition either.

I mean they live in Toledo so this checks out

Well played. Though I wonder if they'd say the same about DeKalb.

(02-28-2024 09:07 AM)Big Red Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 09:04 AM)7 Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 08:58 AM)Big Red Wrote:  I hear many mention possible streaming platform options like Amazon or AppleTV+ and I just have a few questions.

What would such a package include? Football only? Football and men's and women's basketball? Other sports?

I know the ESPN deal includes many sports (for some schools based on their own infrastructure and ability to broadcast) for 11 bucks a month ($132 Per year).

What per month subscriber fee do you think either an Amazon or Apple would have to charge to deliver on the basics? The current deal with MLS costs $100 per customer but you'd have to figure there are considerably more people interested in the MLS package than a MAC package.

Realistically, how many subscribers do you think a MAC "channel" would generate for one of these platforms? MLS Season Pass has over 2 million subscribers. I doubt the MAC could generate even a quarter of that.

These are valid question for you sure. I would think if the MAC ever went to one of these services it would be more than football. The current deal with ESPN includes men’s and women’s hoops (and more), so I would think anything on a streaming platform would be the same.

The how many subscribers would it generate is really the ultimate question. I think the hope would he being the first conference that does entirely streaming helps Apple or Amazon really get their foot in the door. The MAC obviously doesn’t generate the subscribers MLS did, but when the Apple deal was announced there was plenty of skeptics about them being able to get subscribers too.

A lot of unknowns, but like I said at the start I do think your questions are fair.

The MLS numbers are probably boosted by including season ticket holders as a bonus to their tickets but...I don't see the MAC being able to also provide that benefit.

Messi helps too lol

(02-28-2024 09:54 AM)7 Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 09:07 AM)Big Red Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 09:04 AM)7 Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 08:58 AM)Big Red Wrote:  I hear many mention possible streaming platform options like Amazon or AppleTV+ and I just have a few questions.

What would such a package include? Football only? Football and men's and women's basketball? Other sports?

I know the ESPN deal includes many sports (for some schools based on their own infrastructure and ability to broadcast) for 11 bucks a month ($132 Per year).

What per month subscriber fee do you think either an Amazon or Apple would have to charge to deliver on the basics? The current deal with MLS costs $100 per customer but you'd have to figure there are considerably more people interested in the MLS package than a MAC package.

Realistically, how many subscribers do you think a MAC "channel" would generate for one of these platforms? MLS Season Pass has over 2 million subscribers. I doubt the MAC could generate even a quarter of that.

These are valid question for you sure. I would think if the MAC ever went to one of these services it would be more than football. The current deal with ESPN includes men’s and women’s hoops (and more), so I would think anything on a streaming platform would be the same.

The how many subscribers would it generate is really the ultimate question. I think the hope would he being the first conference that does entirely streaming helps Apple or Amazon really get their foot in the door. The MAC obviously doesn’t generate the subscribers MLS did, but when the Apple deal was announced there was plenty of skeptics about them being able to get subscribers too.

A lot of unknowns, but like I said at the start I do think your questions are fair.

The MLS numbers are probably boosted by including season ticket holders as a bonus to their tickets but...I don't see the MAC being able to also provide that benefit.

Messi helps too lol

He does. Granted, they launched the service before he signed with Miami but he definitely helps. It's also a global subscription since 1) soccer is a global sport amd 2) Messi has fans all over the world. Two things NOT in the MACs favor obviously.

Personally, I dont see why either of these services would want to strike any kind of deal with the MAC at all, let alone one that would 1) make sense or 2) be something fans would be excited to buy.

It also creates a barrier to the casual fan. Something I was concerned about with the MLS deal. They have weekly games that are for free on the app and sometimes a game on FOX or FS1/2. But those are more rare. And the Messi/Miami games are almost exclusively behind the pay wall (smartly).

But with a deal like this, you completely eliminate any casual fan. Heck, we already have fans who don't want to pay for ESPN+ and that subscription comes with a ton more content than just the MAC.

You would be limiting MAC viewership to pretty much only MAC fans and maybe some venues that cater to sports betting.

Personally, I understand the complaints with the espn deal and the desire to get away from weeknight games. But I really dont see a better distribution vehicle for the cost and added benefits (additional content, lower profile conference sports, etc) than sticking with espn.

I mean, I can justify the 11 bucks for ESPN because I watch other things on the app than just NIU football and basketball.

But I'd be hard pressed to pull the trigger on 100 bucks (or more) for ONLY MAC content in addition to ESPN (which I'm not dropping because I use a lot) and the other services I get.

At least with espn, if you want to pay monthly and then drop...you can.

With a streaming deal, it's probably all or nothing since it only covers those seasons anyway.

(02-28-2024 10:19 AM)Big Red Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 09:54 AM)7 Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 09:07 AM)Big Red Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 09:04 AM)7 Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 08:58 AM)Big Red Wrote:  I hear many mention possible streaming platform options like Amazon or AppleTV+ and I just have a few questions.

What would such a package include? Football only? Football and men's and women's basketball? Other sports?

I know the ESPN deal includes many sports (for some schools based on their own infrastructure and ability to broadcast) for 11 bucks a month ($132 Per year).

What per month subscriber fee do you think either an Amazon or Apple would have to charge to deliver on the basics? The current deal with MLS costs $100 per customer but you'd have to figure there are considerably more people interested in the MLS package than a MAC package.

Realistically, how many subscribers do you think a MAC "channel" would generate for one of these platforms? MLS Season Pass has over 2 million subscribers. I doubt the MAC could generate even a quarter of that.

These are valid question for you sure. I would think if the MAC ever went to one of these services it would be more than football. The current deal with ESPN includes men’s and women’s hoops (and more), so I would think anything on a streaming platform would be the same.

The how many subscribers would it generate is really the ultimate question. I think the hope would he being the first conference that does entirely streaming helps Apple or Amazon really get their foot in the door. The MAC obviously doesn’t generate the subscribers MLS did, but when the Apple deal was announced there was plenty of skeptics about them being able to get subscribers too.

A lot of unknowns, but like I said at the start I do think your questions are fair.

The MLS numbers are probably boosted by including season ticket holders as a bonus to their tickets but...I don't see the MAC being able to also provide that benefit.

Messi helps too lol

He does. Granted, they launched the service before he signed with Miami but he definitely helps. It's also a global subscription since 1) soccer is a global sport amd 2) Messi has fans all over the world. Two things NOT in the MACs favor obviously.

Personally, I dont see why either of these services would want to strike any kind of deal with the MAC at all, let alone one that would 1) make sense or 2) be something fans would be excited to buy.

It also creates a barrier to the casual fan. Something I was concerned about with the MLS deal. They have weekly games that are for free on the app and sometimes a game on FOX or FS1/2. But those are more rare. And the Messi/Miami games are almost exclusively behind the pay wall (smartly).

But with a deal like this, you completely eliminate any casual fan. Heck, we already have fans who don't want to pay for ESPN+ and that subscription comes with a ton more content than just the MAC.

You would be limiting MAC viewership to pretty much only MAC fans and maybe some venues that cater to sports betting.

Personally, I understand the complaints with the espn deal and the desire to get away from weeknight games. But I really dont see a better distribution vehicle for the cost and added benefits (additional content, lower profile conference sports, etc) than sticking with espn.

I mean, I can justify the 11 bucks for ESPN because I watch other things on the app than just NIU football and basketball.

But I'd be hard pressed to pull the trigger on 100 bucks (or more) for ONLY MAC content in addition to ESPN (which I'm not dropping because I use a lot) and the other services I get.

At least with espn, if you want to pay monthly and then drop...you can.

With a streaming deal, it's probably all or nothing since it only covers those seasons anyway.

Maybe I am jaded from MACtion, but I could not possibly care less about “exposure” anymore. I don’t need degenerate gamblers and barstool sports watching games on weeknights anymore. The entire point of MACtion was exposure and I think the conference and absolutely fanbases have gone backwards because of it.

The question of how much money Apple or Amazon would offer up to the conference because of lack of interest in a MAC only package is absolutely fair, but there’s also more ways to do it than offering a MAC only package. For example Apple TV has exclusive Friday night baseball games that you have to have Apple TV plus for, which is more along the lines of the price of ESPN+. Peacock has the EPL included in the monthly fee, not a stand alone package.

It all comes down to how much money they offer, but if that’s right I have no qualms putting everything behind a paywall.

(02-28-2024 11:20 AM)7 Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 10:19 AM)Big Red Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 09:54 AM)7 Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 09:07 AM)Big Red Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 09:04 AM)7 Wrote:  These are valid question for you sure. I would think if the MAC ever went to one of these services it would be more than football. The current deal with ESPN includes men’s and women’s hoops (and more), so I would think anything on a streaming platform would be the same.

The how many subscribers would it generate is really the ultimate question. I think the hope would he being the first conference that does entirely streaming helps Apple or Amazon really get their foot in the door. The MAC obviously doesn’t generate the subscribers MLS did, but when the Apple deal was announced there was plenty of skeptics about them being able to get subscribers too.

A lot of unknowns, but like I said at the start I do think your questions are fair.

The MLS numbers are probably boosted by including season ticket holders as a bonus to their tickets but...I don't see the MAC being able to also provide that benefit.

Messi helps too lol

He does. Granted, they launched the service before he signed with Miami but he definitely helps. It's also a global subscription since 1) soccer is a global sport amd 2) Messi has fans all over the world. Two things NOT in the MACs favor obviously.

Personally, I dont see why either of these services would want to strike any kind of deal with the MAC at all, let alone one that would 1) make sense or 2) be something fans would be excited to buy.

It also creates a barrier to the casual fan. Something I was concerned about with the MLS deal. They have weekly games that are for free on the app and sometimes a game on FOX or FS1/2. But those are more rare. And the Messi/Miami games are almost exclusively behind the pay wall (smartly).

But with a deal like this, you completely eliminate any casual fan. Heck, we already have fans who don't want to pay for ESPN+ and that subscription comes with a ton more content than just the MAC.

You would be limiting MAC viewership to pretty much only MAC fans and maybe some venues that cater to sports betting.

Personally, I understand the complaints with the espn deal and the desire to get away from weeknight games. But I really dont see a better distribution vehicle for the cost and added benefits (additional content, lower profile conference sports, etc) than sticking with espn.

I mean, I can justify the 11 bucks for ESPN because I watch other things on the app than just NIU football and basketball.

But I'd be hard pressed to pull the trigger on 100 bucks (or more) for ONLY MAC content in addition to ESPN (which I'm not dropping because I use a lot) and the other services I get.

At least with espn, if you want to pay monthly and then drop...you can.

With a streaming deal, it's probably all or nothing since it only covers those seasons anyway.

Maybe I am jaded from MACtion, but I could not possibly care less about “exposure” anymore. I don’t need degenerate gamblers and barstool sports watching games on weeknights anymore. The entire point of MACtion was exposure and I think the conference and absolutely fanbases have gone backwards because of it.

The question of how much money Apple or Amazon would offer up to the conference because of lack of interest in a MAC only package is absolutely fair, but there’s also more ways to do it than offering a MAC only package. For example Apple TV has exclusive Friday night baseball games that you have to have Apple TV plus for, which is more along the lines of the price of ESPN+. Peacock has the EPL included in the monthly fee, not a stand alone package.

It all comes down to how much money they offer, but if that’s right I have no qualms putting everything behind a paywall.

Correct. I would be open to even trying to mimic a deal the AAC did with the CW (channel 9). I'm sure it is small amount of $$, but you could write into the contract with ESPN the MAC gets a quarter of the football season to sell elsewhere.

I'm fine if they do what the PAC / AAC did also with having one game a week on week night (thurs/friday). That would be only for exposure especially with nothing being on Fridays currently during the football season. Thursday just competes with the NFL now.

MAC needs to get creative on bringing in more money. That is why if you make the overall conference stronger (eliminating CUSA) odds of getting a team to the playoff more often gets the conference more $$ even if they get smoked.

The CW blows. I can’t get the football games on Hulu with the CW.

That’s a hard pass for me.

Whatever happens with the TV situation, have to think adding UMASS is pretty positive news. Adding a team while some other conferences are imploding / disappearing is a win, no matter how bad their football team has been. And if it means they add UConn for football only, that'd be great too.

(02-28-2024 12:24 PM)BigChilla Wrote:  The CW blows. I can’t get the football games on Hulu with the CW.

That’s a hard pass for me.

You can get a TV antenna for the same cost as a month for Hulu and watch all the games you want.

(02-28-2024 02:20 PM)HuskiePride12 Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 12:24 PM)BigChilla Wrote:  The CW blows. I can’t get the football games on Hulu with the CW.

That’s a hard pass for me.

You can get a TV antenna for the same cost as a month for Hulu and watch all the games you want.

How many games can the CW put on at one time?

I also know they have a contract to televise LIV on Satudays (when they have events) which would also congest their schedule (because I'mpretty certain LIV/PIF pays the CW to carry their events).

(02-28-2024 12:24 PM)BigChilla Wrote:  The CW blows. I can’t get the football games on Hulu with the CW.

That’s a hard pass for me.

The CW is a free broadcast channel. You just buy an HD antenna and get it for free. Same as ABC, CBS, Fox, etc.

(02-28-2024 11:20 AM)7 Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 10:19 AM)Big Red Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 09:54 AM)7 Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 09:07 AM)Big Red Wrote:  

(02-28-2024 09:04 AM)7 Wrote:  These are valid question for you sure. I would think if the MAC ever went to one of these services it would be more than football. The current deal with ESPN includes men’s and women’s hoops (and more), so I would think anything on a streaming platform would be the same.

The how many subscribers would it generate is really the ultimate question. I think the hope would he being the first conference that does entirely streaming helps Apple or Amazon really get their foot in the door. The MAC obviously doesn’t generate the subscribers MLS did, but when the Apple deal was announced there was plenty of skeptics about them being able to get subscribers too.

A lot of unknowns, but like I said at the start I do think your questions are fair.

The MLS numbers are probably boosted by including season ticket holders as a bonus to their tickets but...I don't see the MAC being able to also provide that benefit.

Messi helps too lol

He does. Granted, they launched the service before he signed with Miami but he definitely helps. It's also a global subscription since 1) soccer is a global sport amd 2) Messi has fans all over the world. Two things NOT in the MACs favor obviously.

Personally, I dont see why either of these services would want to strike any kind of deal with the MAC at all, let alone one that would 1) make sense or 2) be something fans would be excited to buy.

It also creates a barrier to the casual fan. Something I was concerned about with the MLS deal. They have weekly games that are for free on the app and sometimes a game on FOX or FS1/2. But those are more rare. And the Messi/Miami games are almost exclusively behind the pay wall (smartly).

But with a deal like this, you completely eliminate any casual fan. Heck, we already have fans who don't want to pay for ESPN+ and that subscription comes with a ton more content than just the MAC.

You would be limiting MAC viewership to pretty much only MAC fans and maybe some venues that cater to sports betting.

Personally, I understand the complaints with the espn deal and the desire to get away from weeknight games. But I really dont see a better distribution vehicle for the cost and added benefits (additional content, lower profile conference sports, etc) than sticking with espn.

I mean, I can justify the 11 bucks for ESPN because I watch other things on the app than just NIU football and basketball.

But I'd be hard pressed to pull the trigger on 100 bucks (or more) for ONLY MAC content in addition to ESPN (which I'm not dropping because I use a lot) and the other services I get.

At least with espn, if you want to pay monthly and then drop...you can.

With a streaming deal, it's probably all or nothing since it only covers those seasons anyway.

Maybe I am jaded from MACtion, but I could not possibly care less about “exposure” anymore. I don’t need degenerate gamblers and barstool sports watching games on weeknights anymore. The entire point of MACtion was exposure and I think the conference and absolutely fanbases have gone backwards because of it.

The question of how much money Apple or Amazon would offer up to the conference because of lack of interest in a MAC only package is absolutely fair, but there’s also more ways to do it than offering a MAC only package. For example Apple TV has exclusive Friday night baseball games that you have to have Apple TV plus for, which is more along the lines of the price of ESPN+. Peacock has the EPL included in the monthly fee, not a stand alone package.

It all comes down to how much money they offer, but if that’s right I have no qualms putting everything behind a paywall.

Yea I think it's been shown that "exposure" has not helped anything. And games that are streamed is not exposure. Even E$PNU can barely be called exposure. The only exposure we really get is from sitting in the cold and wind on Tuesday nights in November.

What it is what it does what it is what it isn’t

Just popped on here to say “F#ck Liberty”.

Thank you.