Arkstfan

Good points but remember ESPN topped out at around 100 million homes. Let's say they go totally online direct sales and can do almost as good as Netflix and hit 30 million direct subscribers. When ESPN hit peak, it was making about $610 million per month. Now if they can hit 30 million direct subscribers at $25 a month that produces $750 million per month. That's not a crazy number when you consider Sky Sports which does not include ESPN's European content is just over $27 per month with an 18 month contract, it's $36 per month without a contract and that's with you buying another bundle with it and if you want 4K it is even higher. For streaming in the UK, you can get standard def for $40 a month. HD streaming is $50 a month and 4k will run you $90 a month but with all those you are getting some other channels included and buy directly from your internet provider. Remember all those are basically just English soccer with a few odds and ends tossed in. Nothing at all similar to having four major pro leagues and colleges and import soccer and MLS like you get here. Yes, it will price people out but the subscribers remaining are going to be very valuable to advertisers simply because they have the disposable income to afford the subscriptions.

I went to the googles to check on the timeline. When CUSA did the six team expansion things were quite a bit different. Obviously ECU, Tulane, and Tulsa were still in. But more than that the post-season situation was in the air. There was general agreement there would be a playoff but it was not yet settled what that would look like and there was a significant amount of support for playing the bowls and then selecting #1 and #2 after the bowls to play a single game. There was no idea yet what the revenue sharing situation would be. Even when they did iron it out (post-CUSA expansion) it ended up changing, going from conferences being guaranteed $12 million to conferences being guaranteed $10 million and the performance pool being increased. The TV situation has as we all know changed. Given the number of things that are different today vs when the decisions were made I think it is logical that there are a number of athletic directors and presidents saying privately "If we knew then what we know now, we would have done things differently". Changes in the economic realm of intercollegiate football always triggers realignment. There was realignment when bus and airplane replaced the train as the primary way to move teams around. When TV dollars and exposure had greater importance under the NCAA contract you saw the SWC add Houston and Pac-8 add Arizona and Arizona State to get more exposures for their conferences because 8 was a bad number when you were capped on how many times you could appear on TV. When conferences began negotiating their own TV we saw teams fleeing independence to join a conference and the Big 10 and SEC and ACC expanded while Big East and CUSA formed in football. When rights fees started driving the TV money we saw this latest round of expansion. Now down on the fringes of Division I we've seen the Big South add a couple schools who left their conferences to get into cheaper and more compact travel. I don't think it is an accident that multiple stories have come out USM. They are near the center of CUSA but an outlier within their division. It wouldn't take a lot to put together a group of schools that USM would be near the center of. I don't think it is an accident that ODU has been the flashpoint of a number of stories because it wouldn't take much to convert CUSA East into a relatively compact league for them.

That's really the question here Wag. Is Disney merely trying to buy market share? After all the regionals are nice leverage piece if you are bundling the various flavors of ESPN to sell to cable/satellite/internet bundlers (ie. Sling) Or is Disney buying media rights and distribution? If it is the former, this may be the start of the end. But I think there is a real possibility that a year or two from now you are going to get an ad or email offering you ESPN+ and for X dollars per month you can watch ESPN+ Dallas online and get all the usual ESPN national content and get the Mavericks, Stars, and Rangers or some combination for that price.

Had similar thoughts about Anderson and SMU. Our QB went out in the first half and we collapsed so I can't see the fans thinking they need to hire him.

Move to Arkansas. We are getting medical pot eventually. Though the studies show that glaucoma patients who try pot end up being more compliant with their meds because they notice how fast pot wears off. (Weird fact of the day). My 85 year old father had cataract surgery, has better vision than I do now so hope that works out. Glad you aren't dealing with retinopathy with the diabetes. Not a lot they can do other than laser surgery to stop the decline but can't bring back what you lose.

UCF and USF (especially UCF in my observation) have really branded themselves as community teams. Doesn't hurt that Florida has such a transient population that a lot of the audience doesn't care about UF and FSU.

And the capacity to "go local" has blurred the traditional lines. If you have Fox SW on cable in central or eastern Arkansas you get the Memphis Grizzlies, in western Arkansas the OKC Thunder and south Arkansas you get the Mavericks. That used to be much harder to do.

College football is going to need to follow the MLS model in my opinion. There must always be some seating available that is competitively priced against going to the movies. Some mid-priced seating for the cheap seat people to grow into, and lots of premium seating where your ticket gets you good parking and non-alcohol concessions. Most schools lack that cheap seat option except for students. Administrations have to engage students. Not just to boost football attendance but to provide value over online education. If all you do is go to class and go back to your room, you might as well be taking online classes.

I think if CUSA had stuck to the first plan, add UNT and MAYBE add FIU things would have worked better but the problem was ECU got Marshall and UAB on board to easternize the conference and it became a tack on here and tack on there. Guy I highly respect said when the realignment shots started getting fired that there were two paths to stability. First would be two really good leagues that would be at the MWC level or maybe better. One eastern and one southern and then a what's left league that stretched across the region. Second would be one good league across the east and south and a southern league and an eastern league chasing them. With ESPN chasing the Fox Regionals, I think regional football is becoming more viable. But regionalized or not, FAU and FIU are probably going to have to be heavily subsidized by the school no matter what. That is a winner/front-runner market. Even ACC membership with big names regularly on the bill hasn't made Miami a strong attendance school. They have to be well up in the ratings for the locals to care.

Be interesting what the spread looks like at Arkansas next year with a bunch of guys recruited to play Big 10 smashmouth football.

Losing their frickin minds. They don't know crap about football outside of the SEC West and all they see is a mediocre record in AAC. They think their admin has lost their mind.

Disney is doubling down on sports trying to buy all the Fox Regionals. With ESPN's inventory I think you will see less Baylor-Kansas on 7 different Fox Regionals and a lot more of the local interest content that is on ESPN3 shifting to very local distribution. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/05/disney-fox-deal-to-include-rsns-cement-local-sports-tv-control.html

Do me a favor. TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF. I got goosebumps when your wrote that. I know you know all the bit but anyone else reading. Follow the diabetes guidelines like you saw them brought down from the mountain from God himself. One of my fraternity brothers never took it seriously. One weekend his girlfriend went to visit her parents and couldn't get in touch with him and dashed back and he was in their house in a diabetic coma and died a few days later. A young man who once worked for me didn't take it seriously blacked out more than once. It was just tremendous fortune that the last time he blacked out he didn't kill the two people in the car he crossed the center line and hit and didn't kill his three year old daughter but she will likely have no real memories of her father. Please if you have diabetes or know someone with diabetes, take it seriously. Best of luck in your recovery and you have my prayers.

I posted relevant data to the conversation because local data ain't relevant to the big picture. I am friends with some people here. I drop in and visit and the only reason I came over in the first place was to make the post about looking at the box score of A-State and Troy and what may be inferred with UNT having an offense derived from the same coaching tree. When I logged in I saw I had been tagged in threads I had not participated in and responded.

ESPN doesn't sell local TV ads. Having a good local audience is a good thing if you are syndicating or talking about regional sports net like Fox SW. Last year had 1.6 million viewers in a crap time slot. That's good but obviously, Army played a role in that. UNLV - UNT drew 332k which is bad but there were a bunch of huge games starting within the half hour and it was a crap channel so again not terribly helpful. Nothing there that leaps out and makes me think UNT numbers were a factor. I think it comes down UNT's preference, the NOLA folks not wanting USM again after having them last year, and contract selection order.

Could be but if that is his perception it may well be the perception of the other selection committee members. The link doesn't disprove there is a pecking order but even if one does no exist de jure that doesn't mean it doesn't exist de facto in that given a choice between La. Tech and Tulane they probably take Tulane or UNT vs. SMU would take SMU or Houston vs. Rice would take Houston. Now if the choice was UConn or Temple vs UNT or Rice, I think we'd find out whether there is a pecking order by contract in a hurry :)

That's what a member of the I-Bowl selection committee told me. If you have something to the contrary let me know.

Have to say I'm surprised.

What Shreveport wants is irrelevant to CUSA until I-Bowl pays to be higher up the pecking order of CUSA teams.

No correction. I-Bowl has TWO back-ups. AAC has to be unable to fill the back-up position before CUSA can send a team.

Florida State is an also ran this year. They are not a top program on the field this year. Hell they don't even have a coach because Jimbo felt Aggieland was a better place to be. Yeah they are a great brand but let's not act like beating 2017 FSU in any away compares Florida State 2012-16. And people who are into football aren't going to be throwing big props the way of USM if they win.

Thing is I'm not sure that there were great options. HOD went Pac-12 vs. Big XII so a CUSA wasn't going to be on the table. Armed Forces MWC finally produced a team and Army was available so not on the table. Frisco was open on one side but its in a tiny stadium so no pressing need on their part to take UNT and it would have been a rematch. That pretty much left NOLA as the best available bowl and the only way around that to get to Shreveport would have been to shaft the NOLA who has stuck with CUSA and helped CUSA more than once in a sticky situation. I am sure Florida State is pleased because USM is a name familiar to the old line fans (Florida State had a losing record against USM until 1976).

Hell people on this board bitched about going to NOLA when it was as conference champ. I don't expect any difference now. By my count there are six former Sun Belt schools in bowls this year and four are facing Sun Belt teams.

Completely missed my point. Independence ain't your bowl partner until at least two other conferences come up short. They are at the tail end. NOLA is your partner

Yes they are an also ran. They went 3-5 in the ACC got rolled by a mediocre BC.