Conference USA reaches landmark deal with ESPN

[Cerebus]

41 minutes ago, TIgreen01 said:

How is this streaming better than any other streaming service?  

For one they are agreeing to host and stream ANYTHING the schools send.  Womens VB?  The golf team? Sure as long as we spend the money to produce it.  Second did you try any of the CUSA streaming?  It was bad.

No details out yet.  But I bet this is just like the MAC deal.   You send us HD and we'll stream HD.  At that point the video quality Tigreen will see in his house will have everything to do with what kind of wireless network TIgreen has in his house, and your internet connection of course.

At lot of people who complain about streaming quality have a bad wifi performance.  

 

ETA:  The "we stream anything you send us as long as it meets our requirements" is also how the AAC deal works and how the MWC deal will work.  

Edited May 25, 2016 by Cerebus

[gangrene]

[TIgreen01]

1 hour ago, Cerebus said:

For one they are agreeing to host and stream ANYTHING the schools send.  Womens VB?  The golf team? Sure as long as we spend the money to produce it.  Second did you try any of the CUSA streaming?  It was bad.

No details out yet.  But I bet this is just like the MAC deal.   You send us HD and we'll stream HD.  At that point the video quality Tigreen will see in his house will have everything to do with what kind of wireless network TIgreen has in his house, and your internet connection of course.

At lot of people who complain about streaming quality have a bad wifi performance.  

 

ETA:  The "we stream anything you send us as long as it meets our requirements" is also how the AAC deal works and how the MWC deal will work.  

Ok, well that is better since it potentially adds more content.  As far as CUSA streaming---do you mean directly from CUSA itself, or streaming a CUSA game being broadcast/streamed by Fox/CBS/American.  I get the internet bandwidth argument, as I'm an IT guy by trade.  Lots of factors in getting good solid throughput to help keep video/audio quality up.  That said, impo some of these content distributors do better than others (HBO has the best streaming service I've seen), but in general most streaming apps do not deliver the same quality as cable tv or over the air will get you.  Maybe that's changing, and I'm behind the times---I haven't cut the cord and I'm still hanging on to my Uverse package mainly because I haven't been able to match the quality or quantity of options when streaming sports vs Uverse TV.

I think when ESPN finally starts providing cord cutters with a monthly subscription based package to purchase you'll see the quality in their services jump dramatically---ala HBO and some of the movie channels.  Until then, it's better for them if you stay on cable anyways...

Edited May 25, 2016 by TIgreen01

[UNTLifer]

Still looking for the "landmark" part of this deal.

[greenminer]

5 hours ago, DallasGreen said:

Yeah this only costs the athletic department $700K that it did not have to keep people from coming to games. But let's shed a few tears for our " special " students who unlike their peers in CUSA get a free ride for half the fee paid by other " normal" students.

You need therapy or something. Nothing but sadface on my end after glossing over your activity.

 

[Army of Dad]

8 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

Still looking for the "landmark" part of this deal.

an event, discovery, or change marking an important stage or turning point in something

Doesn't have to be positive, just important...

[EagleMBA]

Landmark...rhymes with

They are both a joke!

[Side Show Joe]

I hate espn3. I hate watching live streaming sports. I'm old, and like watching sports on my big TV, not a phone or some other smart device. I think it's bush league.

In my opinion if this deal goes through then the conference's media deal is not really any better then the Sun Belt, and we need to get busy working our way into a better conference. C-USA needs new leadership too. In my opinion this is terrible news.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Side Show Joe

[All About UNT]

40 minutes ago, Side Show Joe said:

I hate espn3. I hate watching live streaming sports. I'm old, and like watching sports on my big TV, not a phone or some other smart device. I think it's bush league.

In my opinion if this deal goes through then the conference's media deal is not really any better then the Sun Belt, and we need to get busy working our way into a better conference. C-USA needs new leadership too. In my opinion this is terrible news.

You should buy a Chromecast or something similar and project whatever is on your Computer to your "big TV".... it really is simple and will make you feel loads better about the upcoming  "broadcasts"

[Graham]

This is great news. I'd much rather see us ink a deal with a streaming ESPN platform than a random cable sports network that only reaches a handful of people 

[Ben Gooding]

Within 5 years this will be reality across the board, "G5" and "P5". It's good to get ahead in something. Now, if this is not reality soon then this is a bad move. I think it affords universities (North Texas) to take advantage of this and throw massive watching parties (in the event we ever get good) on campus. It allows local bars and restaurants to stream all games on TV no matter what. It's a win-win if this is the turn of, or the end of television. Way, way, way, way more people need to cut the cord and make television companies eat all that money they are handing out to conferences. 

[Side Show Joe]

3 hours ago, All About UNT said:

You should buy a Chromecast or something similar and project whatever is on your Computer to your "big TV".... it really is simple and will make you feel loads better about the upcoming  "broadcasts"

It isn't the same.

Rice, UTEP, LA Tech, S. Miss, and UTSA are the only bright spots left in C-USA. Everything else about it now feels like the old Sun Belt.

[Aquila_Viridis]

This is a landmark deal. It put a mark on the land where our conference got shown the TV door.  

[VideoEagle]

This is where all of the G5 TV contracts are moving. First, huge percentages of TV are now connected. If not there is no reason not to spend the $35 on a Chromecast. I watch a lot of CBS shows this way and there is no difference noticeable difference in the picture quality IF you have a a decent internet connection and later than 2014 wifi. I don't pay for all access, just the free CBS online is great. 

Secondly, we can put programs up that NEVER would get coverage before. Girls softball has a small but loyal audience that really would watch if it was available. They key is publicizing where to watch - something I hope the new AD pays attention to! 

Third, there are still going to be G5 games on ESPN, ESPN2, Fox1 & 2, CBS College, NBC, et al. It's basic math - they need programming and without G5 teams there simply are not enough games to fill the times. What will not happen anymore is big rights contracts to pay schools for the programming. Traditional cable is going the route of yellow pages, pagers, land lines and printed newspapers. With it are going the big rights fees. All of the conferences will eventually feel the pinch. If you want more media money, schools are going to have to create it for themselves. 

Lastly, technology is making this far more practical. One of the big stories at the NAB trade show this year is IP TV production. Did you know the the Pac12 Network uses control rooms for their sports based in the Bay Area. They don't always use old fashioned remote trucks and satellites anymore - the cameras are connected via Internet protocol back to the control rooms wth the switchers, sound mixers, character generators, replay equipment in one place. It's a LOT cheaper in both equipment and personal required. The "remote trucks" just transport the cameras and microphones, not all the other equipment. There was even a demo of two overlapping 4K cameras pointed at a field just locked off. A total of four people severed as the full tech crew for the equivalent of an eight camera shoot. The pictures were pulled by just selecting portions of the two 4K camera feeds - grabbing a subset of the pixels and dissolving or cutting between different portions of the same feed. 

Welcome to the real 21st century. 

[oldguystudent]

So we still get Mr. Redshirt man interrupting the games, but with YouTube quality production? For $500K less?  Yay!

Edit:  I fully realize and acknowledge that this isn't a matter to blame UNT or any of its staff.  It's the landscape of television and college football.

Edited May 26, 2016 by oldguystudent

[untjim1995]

I feel bad for a lot of you because I think that CUSA membership was thought by so many to be a huge step forward for our AD. In reality, while still being a step up from the old SBC, the appeal of this league's teams is very low across the country. Sure, if teams like La Tech, USM, or Marshall are really good in football, they will get some mention and a few TV games, but the rest of the conference is just looked at as a bunch of start-ups that got moved up because of the TV markets they represent. Other than three mentioned above, as well as Rice, college football fans look at the rest of the league and see a lot of directional schools and city schools that nobody has ever really followed: North Texas, Texas-El Paso, Texas-San Antonio, Alabama-Birmingham, Middle Tennessee, Western Kentucky, Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Charlotte, and Old Dominion. Networks aren't spending a lot on names like this, unless it is in alternative ways--and that is what we have now seen happen to CUSA, a league that so many on here thought would be a perfect solution to us back when we were in the SBC, but never realizing that schools like UH, SMU, Tulsa, Memphis, ECU, UCF, USF, and Tulane were never going to stay in the conference if they could move up. Now that we are in SBC 2.0, there just isn't much we can do to make this collection look much better to the major networks in this challenging times.

[Arkstfan]

I like ESPN3. It's the silver standard in sports streaming (MLB.TV is the gold standard and they provide streaming tech to WWE and a variety of other services).

I use E3 a great deal (heck I stream a lot of sports, I subscribe to the MLS, NHL, and MLB packages) and E3 is a great tool. I sat in the stands bored and cold as AState pounded TXST in football and watched part of Georgia State humiliating Georgia Southern after hearing GaSo fans ridicule AState for not putting away GaSt early). I've watched women's volleyball, men's and women's basketball and baseball.

Now I usually watch on my iPad while I'm doing something else but with Apple TV I can watch on my TV. The only complaint I have is the lag and even MLB.TV has that (sucks getting a push alert that the guy who just stepped in the batters box on my TV has hit a home run).

That is why cable/satellite won't die. Lag matters in sports.

But what I find interesting is there are two ways to get TV to your house. Way one, the wire or the satellite sends EVERYTHING. A box sorts it out as to what you are permitted to see and it tunes the channel you want. Way two, the box tells a server someplace what to send to you. That's what UVerse and Fios do and it's what Apple TV and Roku do.

Cord cutting is overblown, greatly overblown. Sure there are people who limit themselves to an over-the-air signal and what they can get free but the rest are still paying to view. Netflix is a bundler, they buy the rights to lots of stuff and you pay to watch it. SlingTV's product is just another cable/sat provider they just let someone else pay for the cost of the infrastructure to get the signal to your house. The majority will always prefer a bundler who will give them x number of networks.

The bad news for sports fans is sports fans are a small group. Go look at the best ever ratings for ESPN content. There are millions and millions who have ESPN today who would happily sign up with a bundler who doesn't include ESPN and because of that the cost is going to rise for those of us who do watch sports.

 

Here is the thing that baffles me about the new CUSA deal.

The length.

CUSA left money on the table with it being a short deal and left money on the table not having more weeknight action (at least this year, who knows what next year includes).

Eight years is typically the shortest deal you see.

Is the thinking get some games on ESPN and negotiate from a better position if that delivers better ratings than the generally awful FS1 ratings?

Is the thinking that the numbers will be better with someone else negotiating?

Is it just a case of there was no consensus so go short and hope the mood improves to sign a new deal next year?

Are there schools thinking they are headed AAC fighting for short and cheap since departure penalties are tied to decreases in TV rights?

Is there a divorce movement floating out there kicking the can down the road until continuity is met?

Two years is shockingly short for a TV deal.

[meanrob]

Agree with everything but cord cutting is not overblown.  

[Cerebus]

10 hours ago, Arkstfan said:

Cord cutting is overblown, greatly overblown. 

People will continue to pay for content.   It's just less and less of them will continue to pay to the big cable companies.  What everyone wanted was À la carte, cable companies and the mouse (and others) refused to do it.  People are going to get it anyway.   You can now buy HBO as streaming only, no need to pay for 100 other channels you don't watch to see game of thrones.  More and more people will do that, and more and more content creators also.

As you mentioned this is bad for sports viewers because we get greatly underwritten by the non watching majority.

 

10 hours ago, Arkstfan said:

Here is the thing that baffles me about the new CUSA deal.

The length.

I think they are gambling that the content market is going to change very, very fast.  No need to be locked into a long term deal when the fundamental distribution model is changing underneath.  Maybe in two years bundlers are in a bidding war, or there is a new player or technology that works much better.   As someone who makes a living in IT, two years in IT is like 10 years in most other professions.  

[Arkstfan]

2 hours ago, Cerebus said:

People will continue to pay for content.   It's just less and less of them will continue to pay to the big cable companies.  What everyone wanted was À la carte, cable companies and the mouse (and others) refused to do it.  People are going to get it anyway.   You can now buy HBO as streaming only, no need to pay for 100 other channels you don't watch to see game of thrones.  More and more people will do that, and more and more content creators also.

As you mentioned this is bad for sports viewers because we get greatly underwritten by the non watching majority.

 

I think they are gambling that the content market is going to change very, very fast.  No need to be locked into a long term deal when the fundamental distribution model is changing underneath.  Maybe in two years bundlers are in a bidding war, or there is a new player or technology that works much better.   As someone who makes a living in IT, two years in IT is like 10 years in most other professions.  

 

I don't have a crystal ball, I thought it was likely that Fox would try to engage ESPN in competition at FS2 and online making CUSA potentially more valuable.

But I really think next thing down the pike is the only money guaranteed money we see will come from moving games to weird days and times and the Saturday games we will pay production hand it over to one or more distributors who will pay based on viewership and/or the value of the inserted ads. Some point in November an EFT will hit the bank account for the games played in September. That's how huge swathes of internet content are paid for and how artists are paid for music on streaming services. Just seems likely that something similar comes to sports.