Big XII Expansion

[golfnut69]

Well, here's a new twist in this expansion today. All speculation like all of this, but rumor is Nebraska wants to go back to the B12.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/ ... ar-BBx2U0W

I am not sure what Nebraska really brings...on Football Saturdays the stadium in Lincoln becomes the third largest city in the state..after football Saturday's you are stuck being Nebraska...and since the "county ride walk on program" was dismantled by the NCAA they have not been a serious contender in any conference

They are #12 in the country . That's serious.

They won't be for much longer !!!!...ND was number 10...OU number 3....what was Stanford 5 ?....FSU....LSU....TCU....they were "all serious"...or were they ?

Except they didn't start out there. They have moved up while others moved down. Also, lots of season left for others to move back up.

The problem most of them have is they play no one who is ranked or ranked higher then themselves, especially in OU, TCU, FSU and Stanfords case..LSU gets Ole Miss and Bama...that may help their cause, the rest are dead to me

[HoustonWave]

Latest is OU out w/ Nebraska coming back :

http://larrybrownsports.com/college-foo ... -12/326385

There's a lot of holes in this story. First, of all the Big XII schools, it was Nebraska that had the biggest problem with UT's hegemony. Two, UT has been consistently against Cincy, and frankly wishes WVU had never joined the conference. Thirdly, UT has always wrestled with the northern Big XII schools--why would they now align with UT. Lastly, would Nebraska really leave the B1G to join the chaotic situation evolving from the Big XII? Frankly, if you substitute OU for UT in this story, it becomes a lot more believable. What I don't doubt is that the consequences of UT/OU gridlock, and the lack of expansion, will doom the Big XII long before 2024/2025. TV contracts won't hold this chaotic crowd together, and the outcomes from the Big XII implosion could be pretty wild.

[HoustonWave]

This makes a lot of sense, and is probably where our P5 opportunity will come from. Basically, the 7 B12 schools NOT named UT/OU make a deal with networks. They free up OU/UT/KU to make their own deals with other conferences now, in exchange for guaranteed P5 access, bowl tie-ins, etc, for an extra decade. At that point, they'll only have 7 schools at most, so they will need to expand. NOTE: OU Contacts is the person who is providing the info to Flugaur.

Blue/bolded is my own emphasis.


Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire Oct 5
OU-Contact
No B12 Implosion will occur by the way of 1 or more schools challenging the B12 GOR in court.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire Oct 5
OU-Contact
From the perception of OU there will be no course available to have 8 B12 schools taken by other P5 Conferences to dissolve B12.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire Oct 5
OU Contact
We are about 24 months away from schools such as Kansas State, Iowa State among others, wanting to make secruity deal w networks

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire Oct 5
OU Contacts
Most of B12 schools will want negotiations to take place in 2018/19 w Networks/P5 to secure B12 P5 status well after 2024/25.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire Oct 5
OU Contacts
West Virginia can't afford to gamble on 2024/25 outcome of a non controlled B12 implosion. Many others can't as well.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire Oct 5
OU Contacts
Only bargaining chip many B12 schls have in negotiating GOR/Network Deal/P5 Status ext is to release current GOR in 2018/19.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 24h24 hours ago
OU Contacts
At some point in next 24 months relief will be given to all of B12 schools in 1 of 2 ways.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 24h24 hours ago
1) Schls will be able to talk directly and start negotiations on Conf Realignment
2) Schls who remain in B12 get GOR/NET & P5 ect thur 2035

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 24h24 hours ago
OU Contacts
Because of who we have talked with its our belief other Schls including UT share OU's same perception of future..24 months.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 24h24 hours ago
OU Contacts
We don't believe the mechanics of the "relief plan" will truly up and going for another 24 months.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 24h24 hours ago
OU Contacts
PAC, Big 10, SEC & ACC have zero interest in poaching 8 B12 Schls to dissolve Conf.
Value is not consistent enough thur the 8

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 24h24 hours ago
OU Contact
Expect "Relief Plan" negotiations to start in approx 24 months with all Schls not named KU-OU-UT approaching NET/media partners.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 24h24 hours ago
OU Contacts
From Networks view "Relief Plan" will be acceptable. To extend deal (w minimal bump) with schls remaining thur 2035..ok.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 24h24 hours ago
OU Contacts
Regardless of final outcome in current EXP B12 talks, the current B12 GOR will not be extended.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 24h24 hours ago
OU Contacts
B12 Schls who do not have belief that they will be a part of another P5 Conf expansion plan in 2024 will need to secure future.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 24h24 hours ago
OU Contact
Next round of Conf Realignment begins when "B12 Relief Plan" negotiations start in what we believe is around another 24 months.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 24h24 hours ago
Me:
This is different. OU Contacts have always stated there will be no reshuffling of B12 until 2025 because of GOR..which is real.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 24h24 hours ago
Me: But they've heard enough info in last 10 days for them to put out this info to our BTM.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 23h23 hours ago
We have received lots of great comments since our OU Contacts relayed to us the "B12 Relief Plan" OU believes will occur in 24 months

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 23h23 hours ago
However...we need to clear something up.
The number of B12 schls looking for secruity in plan will probably be less than 7.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 23h23 hours ago
The major point = there are no pathway (according to OU Contacts) for 8 B12 Schls to find new P5 homes.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 21h21 hours ago
Now imagine it being 2019..pressure will grow on ISU/WVU/KSU..etc..to cut a deal with networks for lasting security

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 21h21 hours ago
And the one chip to play for ISU/WVU..etc..to gain long term secruity is to release all B12 from current GOR.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 21h21 hours ago
Once the GOR is finished in 24/25...there is no more chip to play for "left overs" of Big 12.
Watch for "Relief Plan" approx 24 months

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 20h20 hours ago
Imagine big time WVU boosters/donors being asked to make $ available for new WVU investments in 2021 without P5 assurances past 2024...

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 20h20 hours ago
The perception of B12 not being stable now in 2016 (even with GOR) is having negative effects on individual Schls and of course Conference

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 20h20 hours ago
Now imagine the effect of a unstable B12 conference to these Schls who have no "2025 lifeboat"...in and about 2021-22..
..imagine.
Ugly.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 20h20 hours ago
The closer we get to 2024 the less leverage your ISU/KSU/WVU will have in getting the best "Relief Plan" results as possible.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 20h20 hours ago
And because of all this....it's why OU Contacts have reasons to believe "Relief Plan" truly gets going in about months from now.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 20h20 hours ago
The "Relief Plan" is a win-win for those Schls who leave B12 (quicker buy-in to new Conf)..and for those who stay(secruity beyond 2025)

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 20h20 hours ago
OU & UT

1 or both will leave B12 by 2025

WVU/ISU..etc have 2 choices.
1) Get something in return of 1 or both leaving early
2) Get nada

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 20h20 hours ago
The ignition to next RD of realignment will be the B12 5-6-7 Schls who won't have landing spot outside of B12 beyond 2024.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 20h20 hours ago
These schools will act in accordance to their best long term interest & will secure it by playing their chip.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 20h20 hours ago
..And their chip is in 2-3 years to release current members from current B12 GOR.
BOA
Best Outcome Available.


Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 19h19 hours ago
They get to maintain P5 status well beyond 2025...better future payout without deal...tie in to bowl gms..etc.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire 18h18 hours ago
Why did ESPN decided to invest in ACCN
Vs
Why ESPN & FOX took pass on B12N?
Answer will lead you to the "why's" in OU + "few" leaving B12

The main two points coming from this string of observations is (1) the Big XII will morph long before 2024/2025, and (2) other than UT, OU and maybe KU, the other Big XII schools won't be getting P5 invites. Frankly, I don't see how the Big XII little seven can even get a "rescue plan" without OU or UT being part of it. If the little seven can get playoff access and a TV contract with ESPN/Fox, then there is little doubt that either or both of OU and UT could form conferences and get the same concessions. No doubt this all is pretty good news for Tulane. Two year until the shake up is just about what we need for Dannen and Fritz to get us near the top of the list.

[Aberzombie1892]

Wait, yet you are free to make comparisons between games on two different networks, one of which has a massively larger market penetration. FS1 remains a desert.

Yes - it seems that way.

Once again you are trying to retrofit arguments to your existing beliefs. I just cited last weeks AAC matchup (Houston vs UConn) going head to head against a B12 matchup (Kansas vs TT) and the AAC matchup had 3X the viewers. It's legitimately disingenuous to compare games from 2 different nights, time slots, etc. You fail to mention that the USF v UC game was competing against Clemson vs Louisville, which was one of the most watched college football games ever, not to mention some other big name programs playing during that time slot.

Aresco isn't going to go into any negotiations with AP top 25 or emotional arguments. The ratings make clear that Big 12 without UT/OU isn't worth much if any more than the AAC.

MBA is right. It sounds like you are using an argument to make one point, but then you are using the reverse of that argument to make another point. Basically, it reads like you are saying that the AAC will get a better contract because it had high viewership for the Thursday ranked Houston versus UConn when there was a Big 12 game on, but then you are saying that the very low Saturday Cincinnati versus USF game viewership should be excused because there was an ACC game on. Is that right? Of course, that doesn't take into account that the Texas Tech/Kansas game was on FS1 and not a major network while the Houston/UConn game was on "regular" ESPN. The USF and Cincinnati game was on ESPNU, but the alumni and fanbases of those two programs should have drawn more than 144K by themselves.

[jonathanjoseph]

Right. But the point I'm making is that whatever deal the "watered down P5" would be entitled to would be the bargaining chip for Aresco and the AAC. Right now, ratings and on-field success are both in the favor of the AAC vs the Big 12 minus OU/UT/KU.

I see the argument that you're making, but it seems unlikely the AAC would warrant as much tv money as even the existing Big 12 minus OU and UT. The best example of the AACs tv issues is the USF v. Cincinnati game. It was probably one of the biggest AAC conference games this season that doesn't include Houston - likely the biggest game in the AAC East overall - and it only had 144K viewers(!). Granted the was on ESPNU, but viewership like that is not going to get more AAC games shown on "regular" ESPN, ABC, CBS, or FS1. Given that the Kansas/Texas Tech game drew 513K on FS1, it likely would have still significantly outdrawn 144K on ESPNU - and that game isn't even interesting for people that aren't fan bases of either team unless they just want to watch TTUs QB in action.

Once again you are trying to retrofit arguments to your existing beliefs. I just cited last weeks AAC matchup (Houston vs UConn) going head to head against a B12 matchup (Kansas vs TT) and the AAC matchup had 3X the viewers. It's legitimately disingenuous to compare games from 2 different nights, time slots, etc. You fail to mention that the USF v UC game was competing against Clemson vs Louisville, which was one of the most watched college football games ever, not to mention some other big name programs playing during that time slot.

Aresco isn't going to go into any negotiations with AP top 25 or emotional arguments. The ratings make clear that Big 12 without UT/OU isn't worth much if any more than the AAC.

Wait, yet you are free to make comparisons between games on two different networks, one of which has a massively larger market penetration. FS1 remains a desert.

Subscribers as of June '16:
ESPN: 89M
FS1: 83M

83M is a pretty big desert, and in no way explains a 3X difference in viewers.

[jonathanjoseph]

The main two points coming from this string of observations is (1) the Big XII will morph long before 2024/2025, and (2) other than UT, OU and maybe KU, the other Big XII schools won't be getting P5 invites. Frankly, I don't see how the Big XII little seven can even get a "rescue plan" without OU or UT being part of it. If the little seven can get playoff access and a TV contract with ESPN/Fox, then there is little doubt that either or both of OU and UT could form conferences and get the same concessions. No doubt this all is pretty good news for Tulane. Two year until the shake up is just about what we need for Dannen and Fritz to get us near the top of the list.

Agree with most all of this, but it's not clear how deep the hole is that Dannen/Fritz are trying to dig out of. Also, I'm very nervous about keeping Fritz in the fold. Given that anyone going after him would be able to offer better facilities it's hard to feel comfortable.

[jonathanjoseph]

MBA is right. It sounds like you are using an argument to make one point, but then you are using the reverse of that argument to make another point. Basically, it reads like you are saying that the AAC will get a better contract because it had high viewership for the Thursday ranked Houston versus UConn when there was a Big 12 game on, but then you are saying that the very low Saturday Cincinnati versus USF game viewership should be excused because there was an ACC game on. Is that right? Of course, that doesn't take into account that the Texas Tech/Kansas game was on FS1 and not a major network while the Houston/UConn game was on "regular" ESPN. The USF and Cincinnati game was on ESPNU, but the alumni and fanbases of those two programs should have drawn more than 144K by themselves.

No. That's not even a remotely correct interpretation of what I said and I'm not going to engage in this.

Let me add yet another data point to reinforce the stupidity of your point.

Subscribers as of June '16:

ESPN: 89M
FS1: 83M
ESPNU: 70M

You aren't really credible when you talk about a network in 83M homes not being a "major network".

[ajcalhoun]

Subscribers as of June '16:

ESPN: 89M
FS1: 83M
ESPNU: 70M

You aren't really credible when you talk about a network in 83M homes not being a "major network".

FS1 has nowhere near the brand recognition that the ESPN networks do. I wouldn't be surprised if more than half that 83M didn't even know they had FS1.

[golfnut69]

Subscribers as of June '16:

ESPN: 89M
FS1: 83M
ESPNU: 70M

You aren't really credible when you talk about a network in 83M homes not being a "major network".

FS1 has nowhere near the brand recognition that the ESPN networks do. I wouldn't be surprised if more than half that 83M didn't even know they had FS1.

then let the word go forth..."YOU HAVE FS-1" !!!!!

[lurker123]

You're trying to nail jello. I would recommend a cordless auto hammer for best results.

[golfnut69]

and FSN also !!!!!

[jonathanjoseph]

Subscribers as of June '16:

ESPN: 89M
FS1: 83M
ESPNU: 70M

You aren't really credible when you talk about a network in 83M homes not being a "major network".

FS1 has nowhere near the brand recognition that the ESPN networks do. I wouldn't be surprised if more than half that 83M didn't even know they had FS1.

This is really splitting hairs here. There were 2 college football games on that night. The idea that the college football viewing audience was both unaware of FS1 and also didn't even know they were paying for it (it's frequently in a premium paid tier) is pretty thin.

[Aberzombie1892]

MBA is right. It sounds like you are using an argument to make one point, but then you are using the reverse of that argument to make another point. Basically, it reads like you are saying that the AAC will get a better contract because it had high viewership for the Thursday ranked Houston versus UConn when there was a Big 12 game on, but then you are saying that the very low Saturday Cincinnati versus USF game viewership should be excused because there was an ACC game on. Is that right? Of course, that doesn't take into account that the Texas Tech/Kansas game was on FS1 and not a major network while the Houston/UConn game was on "regular" ESPN. The USF and Cincinnati game was on ESPNU, but the alumni and fanbases of those two programs should have drawn more than 144K by themselves.

No. That's not even a remotely correct interpretation of what I said and I'm not going to engage in this.

Let me add yet another data point to reinforce the stupidity of your point.

Subscribers as of June '16:

ESPN: 89M
FS1: 83M
ESPNU: 70M

You aren't really credible when you talk about a network in 83M homes not being a "major network".

You're sidestepping the point. How is the Houston versus UConn game on ESPN getting more viewers than Texas Tech versus Kansas something that will get the AAC a better deal while the Cincinnati versus USF game is something to make excuses for and wouldn't affect the AAcs deal? ESPNU is in 74.9M homes and a game between what are likely the two best teams in the AAC East had less than 150k viewers. That's embrassing, and, given that Texas Tech versus Kansas had around 670k viewers while playing against a top 10 Houston, and, given a major AAC conference match up had almost no viewers, the circumstances provides evidence that the non-OU/TX Big 12 members are very likely to be much more valuable than the AAC.

[jonathanjoseph]

You're sidestepping the point. How is the Houston versus UConn game on ESPN getting more viewers than Texas Tech versus Kansas something that will get the AAC a better deal while the Cincinnati versus USF game is something to make excuses for and wouldn't affect the AAcs deal? ESPNU is in 74.9M homes and a game between what are likely the two best teams in the AAC East had less than 150k viewers. That's embrassing, and, given that Texas Tech versus Kansas had around 670k viewers while playing against a top 10 Houston, and, given a major AAC conference match up had almost no viewers, the circumstances provides evidence that the non-OU/TX Big 12 members are very likely to be much more valuable than the AAC.

I'm not sidestepping any point. The issues are apples and oranges. One is a direct comparison between an AAC broadcast and a B12 broadcast during the same time slot on relatively similarly distributed networks. It's (mostly) an apples to apples comparison.

1) Given the choice between an AAC and a B12 game, 3X more people chose the AAC game.

2) Viewership of the other game is impacted by there being 5 other concurrent viewing options including one of the most watched games ever.

No one is suggesting it's a good data point for the conference. But neither is it at all relevant as the first. Not all data points are of equal value.

[Ruski]

Just for shits and gigs. Big12 minus Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas (obvious P5) would be Baylor, West Virgina, Texas Tech, TCU, OSU, Kstate, and Iowa State. Add that to AAC and Army (football only):

West:
- Baylor
- Texas Tech
- TCU
- OSU
- Kstate
- Iowa State
- Tulsa
- Houston
- SMU
- Tulane


East:
- Uconn
- Navy
- Temple
- Cincinnati
- ECU
- Memphis
- USF
- UCF
- West Virginia
- Army

Not that it really matters but that looks pretty good to me. Basketball would be amazing. Would be easy to reload that conference too or even push into 4 regional pods. And it would truly deserve the American title.

[mbawavefan12]

Right. But the point I'm making is that whatever deal the "watered down P5" would be entitled to would be the bargaining chip for Aresco and the AAC. Right now, ratings and on-field success are both in the favor of the AAC vs the Big 12 minus OU/UT/KU.

I see the argument that you're making, but it seems unlikely the AAC would warrant as much tv money as even the existing Big 12 minus OU and UT. The best example of the AACs tv issues is the USF v. Cincinnati game. It was probably one of the biggest AAC conference games this season that doesn't include Houston - likely the biggest game in the AAC East overall - and it only had 144K viewers(!). Granted the was on ESPNU, but viewership like that is not going to get more AAC games shown on "regular" ESPN, ABC, CBS, or FS1. Given that the Kansas/Texas Tech game drew 513K on FS1, it likely would have still significantly outdrawn 144K on ESPNU - and that game isn't even interesting for people that aren't fan bases of either team unless they just want to watch TTUs QB in action.

Once again you are trying to retrofit arguments to your existing beliefs. I just cited last weeks AAC matchup (Houston vs UConn) going head to head against a B12 matchup (Kansas vs TT) and the AAC matchup had 3X the viewers. It's legitimately disingenuous to compare games from 2 different nights, time slots, etc. You fail to mention that the USF v UC game was competing against Clemson vs Louisville, which was one of the most watched college football games ever, not to mention some other big name programs playing during that time slot.

Aresco isn't going to go into any negotiations with AP top 25 or emotional arguments. The ratings make clear that Big 12 without UT/OU isn't worth much if any more than the AAC.

Wait, yet you are free to make comparisons between games on two different networks, one of which has a massively larger market penetration. FS1 remains a desert.

Subscribers as of June '16:
ESPN: 89M
FS1: 83M

83M is a pretty big desert, and in no way explains a 3X difference in viewers.

You really are too much. I am a huge sports fan and need to use the guide feature to find FS1. It was a compelling match up with Houston being the David vs the Goliath's. Add that to the fact that FS1 still has very little penetration (gigity) then you get the ratings difference. Big East Bball ratings on FS1 were horrific and less than the AAC (tmk) despite the fact that they were the #3 conference in the country.

[DfromCT]

MBA is right. It sounds like you are using an argument to make one point, but then you are using the reverse of that argument to make another point. Basically, it reads like you are saying that the AAC will get a better contract because it had high viewership for the Thursday ranked Houston versus UConn when there was a Big 12 game on, but then you are saying that the very low Saturday Cincinnati versus USF game viewership should be excused because there was an ACC game on. Is that right? Of course, that doesn't take into account that the Texas Tech/Kansas game was on FS1 and not a major network while the Houston/UConn game was on "regular" ESPN. The USF and Cincinnati game was on ESPNU, but the alumni and fanbases of those two programs should have drawn more than 144K by themselves.

No. That's not even a remotely correct interpretation of what I said and I'm not going to engage in this.

Let me add yet another data point to reinforce the stupidity of your point.

Subscribers as of June '16:

ESPN: 89M
FS1: 83M
ESPNU: 70M

You aren't really credible when you talk about a network in 83M homes not being a "major network".

There's a HUGE difference between subscribers vs. viewers. HUGE!

ESPN is on in over 90% of most bars. It's the default favorite station. FS1 is put on by request only. Of those 83m "subscribers" for FS1, I would bet more than half of them couldn't tell you whether or not they have FS1. Heck, I worked for the cable company (as recently as July) that is my local provider, and I cannot tell you if FS1 is included in my package. Overall viewership of ESPN dwarfs FS1. It's not even close, ESPN ratings overall make FS1 look like a private network.

[ajcalhoun]

I am a huge sports fan and need to use the guide feature to find FS1.

This.

I know exactly where to find my ESPN and ESPN2; channels 35 and 36 on Cox (1035 and 1036 for HD) where they've always been. I would bet my life and the lives of all I love on their location.


FS1 is either 71,72, or 73. I don't know exactly where; somewhere in the low 70's where Speed used to be.

[jonathanjoseph]

You really are too much. I am a huge sports fan and need to use the guide feature to find FS1. It was a compelling match up with Houston being the David vs the Goliath's. Add that to the fact that FS1 still has very little penetration (gigity) then you get the ratings difference. Big East Bball ratings on FS1 were horrific and less than the AAC (tmk) despite the fact that they were the #3 conference in the country.

Good gravy. People argue just to argue. You are literally making up arguments. Where a channel is placed in the "channel guide" is different for every provider. For example, I have Sling and there are no channel numbers. In fact, FS1 (and FS2) come right next to NBC (network) and well before the ESPN channels. You are confusing your own experiences with data representative of 80M+ people.

Also, it's factually incorrect to continue asserting that FS1 does not have distribution when it very factually does. You are arguing emotion over facts and data.

[DfromCT]

Good gravy. People argue just to argue. You are literally making up arguments. Where a channel is placed in the "channel guide" is different for every provider. For example, I have Sling and there are no channel numbers. In fact, FS1 (and FS2) come right next to NBC (network) and well before the ESPN channels. You are confusing your own experiences with data representative of 80M+ people.

Also, it's factually incorrect to continue asserting that FS1 does not have distribution when it very factually does. You are arguing emotion over facts and data.

Please don't argue that FS1 has the same overall viewership as ESPN. It's not even close. And, BTW, as part of it's branding, ESPN is on channel 36 (with the deuce on 35) on most cable systems. Not all, but most.

[jonathanjoseph]

MBA is right. It sounds like you are using an argument to make one point, but then you are using the reverse of that argument to make another point. Basically, it reads like you are saying that the AAC will get a better contract because it had high viewership for the Thursday ranked Houston versus UConn when there was a Big 12 game on, but then you are saying that the very low Saturday Cincinnati versus USF game viewership should be excused because there was an ACC game on. Is that right? Of course, that doesn't take into account that the Texas Tech/Kansas game was on FS1 and not a major network while the Houston/UConn game was on "regular" ESPN. The USF and Cincinnati game was on ESPNU, but the alumni and fanbases of those two programs should have drawn more than 144K by themselves.

No. That's not even a remotely correct interpretation of what I said and I'm not going to engage in this.

Let me add yet another data point to reinforce the stupidity of your point.

Subscribers as of June '16:

ESPN: 89M
FS1: 83M
ESPNU: 70M

You aren't really credible when you talk about a network in 83M homes not being a "major network".

There's a HUGE difference between subscribers vs. viewers. HUGE!

ESPN is on in over 90% of most bars. It's the default favorite station. FS1 is put on by request only. Of those 83m "subscribers" for FS1, I would bet more than half of them couldn't tell you whether or not they have FS1. Heck, I worked for the cable company (as recently as July) that is my local provider, and I cannot tell you if FS1 is included in my package. Overall viewership of ESPN dwarfs FS1. It's not even close, ESPN ratings overall make FS1 look like a private network.

We're just in silly season here. So I guess the multi-billion dollar cable tv industry is all built on guessing and the data is lying.

FS1 has carrier fees that are only behind ESPN and NFL Network. FS1 charges more than ESPN2, and 3X or 4X that of channels like ESPNU, MLB Network, CBS Sports or NBC Sports. Do you think they are cutting these deals with consumers not even knowing they have the channel much less watching it?

[jonathanjoseph]

Good gravy. People argue just to argue. You are literally making up arguments. Where a channel is placed in the "channel guide" is different for every provider. For example, I have Sling and there are no channel numbers. In fact, FS1 (and FS2) come right next to NBC (network) and well before the ESPN channels. You are confusing your own experiences with data representative of 80M+ people.

Also, it's factually incorrect to continue asserting that FS1 does not have distribution when it very factually does. You are arguing emotion over facts and data.

Please don't argue that FS1 has the same overall viewership as ESPN. It's not even close. And, BTW, as part of it's branding, ESPN is on channel 36 (with the deuce on 35) on most cable systems. Not all, but most.

I won't and I haven't, but thank you for proving my point that people are arguing just to argue.

As for your statement about branding having to do with channel numbers and "most cable systems", you are incorrect. For example, DirecTV is 206 and Sling TV doesn't have channel numbers. You're proving my point for me.

[DfromCT]

Good gravy. People argue just to argue. You are literally making up arguments. Where a channel is placed in the "channel guide" is different for every provider. For example, I have Sling and there are no channel numbers. In fact, FS1 (and FS2) come right next to NBC (network) and well before the ESPN channels. You are confusing your own experiences with data representative of 80M+ people.

Also, it's factually incorrect to continue asserting that FS1 does not have distribution when it very factually does. You are arguing emotion over facts and data.

Please don't argue that FS1 has the same overall viewership as ESPN. It's not even close. And, BTW, as part of it's branding, ESPN is on channel 36 (with the deuce on 35) on most cable systems. Not all, but most.

I won't and I haven't, but thank you for proving my point that people are arguing just to argue.

As for your statement about branding having to do with channel numbers and "most cable systems", you are incorrect. For example, DirecTV is 206 and Sling TV doesn't have channel numbers. You're proving my point for me.

Neither DirecTV nor Sling are cable providers; you're arguing a different point than the one I made. Two posters in this thread, both of which are sports fans, have stated that they cannot tell you if they have FS1 in their package. One of them worked for the cable company. Do you think we made this up? You better believe that a very high percentage of FS1 "Subscribers" don't know they have FS1. Very few don't know if they have ESPN.

[ajcalhoun]

jj, IDGAF what your numbers say, in the real world of sports fans in the year 2016 FS1 is the red-headed stepchild of sports networks. Sure, one day that may be change someday, but right now ESPN is to sports networks what Scotch is to adhesive tape.

Many years ago Ford used to advertise that the LTD rode quieter than a Mercedes Benz.

That didn't mean you could get laid just because you drove an LTD.

[ajcalhoun]

jj, IDGAF what your numbers say, in the real world of sports fans in the year 2016 FS1 is the red-headed stepchild of sports networks. Sure, that may be change someday, but right now ESPN is to sports networks what Scotch is to adhesive tape.

Many years ago Ford used to advertise that the LTD rode quieter than a Mercedes Benz.

That didn't mean you could get laid just because you drove an LTD.