The alleged Mtn deal has a very "so what"

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

exposure, exposure, exposure.

When you are the only football game on TV, you get exposure (i.e. Thursday night ESPN games back in the day).

More college football fans today are familiar with Boise St., than they are BYU.

Thursday night ESPN games = exposure? No one watched that on the East Coast. The games started at 9 or 10PM and ended around 1AM.

No one EVER said to me the next day "Hey, I watched that BYU game last night. Pretty exciting."

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Thousands of people will be thrilled and happy over this deal. The same thousands will watch the channel.

The Mtn is so small-potatoes, that it is really hard to fathom. Almost NO ONE will watch it, assuming it is on the sports package tier. This is basically ESPN game plan, except slightly cheaper.

Did you ever explain what the benefits of exposure are? If the games are ubiquitously available to those interested and the universities are gaining more $$$, where is the harm? How is BYU hurt by this deal? Do you think it is going to effect recruiting, ability to get ranked etc? I think if there is a big game in the MWC, BYU versus Utah with both relatively highly ranked, the same college football fans who would have watched it on ESPN2 will find it on the mtn. With the amount of college football games available today, folks don't just tune into ESPN and sit there and watch the game. They go to the tens of regional fox sports, other regional channells or the ESPN gameplan package and pick and choose the games they want to watch. Further, with so many teams offering their games streaming over the internet your point is becoming more and more moot year by year. The mtn is the future, as long as it has ubiquitous deployment which sattellite will offer. The future is folks watching only the games they really want to.

I think as you get older you are coming to a clearer and clearer understanding of where BYU stands in the college football landscape. Instead of thinking, holy shit I was a Greg Wrubbell and Dick Harmonizing homer for so long when I thought we mattered, you seek to convince yourself and others that recent trends are the cause of where BYU sits. If BYU is interesting enough, like I think they were the past two years, those college football fans interested will find them on the mtn. It won't be very many in most years, and that same few are the only few who would care if they were on ESPN2 at 8:00 pm mtn time.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It's funny that we complained about bad start times and games on Thursdays. Now we still have bad start times and games on Thursdays. Except they are on channels no one sees.

I've never complained about Thursday games. I quite enjoy them. And I don't know what start times you were unhappy about from last year, 'cause I didn't have many complaints.

Oh, there WAS that TCU game...wasn't it two years ago? It started earlier than it should have. Well, I guess you've always got that ONE start time to complain about.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Spaz

Exactly. And this deal makes the games available for people to watch. Far more so, IMO, than would have been so on ESPN.

Will there be competition? Absolutely - it's unavoidable these days. But the fact that it's AVAILABLE is going to go a LONG ways. There'll be people flipping channels who stumble upon the Mtn, and decide to watch awhile.

The only thing I care about is that its available. I will be switching to Direct Tv once I have verified the mtn is actually broadcasting

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Spaz

Exactly. And this deal makes the games available for people to watch. Far more so, IMO, than would have been so on ESPN.

Will there be competition? Absolutely - it's unavoidable these days. But the fact that it's AVAILABLE is going to go a LONG ways. There'll be people flipping channels who stumble upon the Mtn, and decide to watch awhile.

ARE YOU NUTS???? SPORTS TIER ON DIRECTV = SAME EXPOSURE AS ESPN????

Now I am know you are either 1) a dumbass or 2) trolling.

Sports tiers are limited and expensive. Only 4% of households currently have what is considered to be a sports tier package, and such packages are not available in all markets. One reason some cable companies want to carry the network on a sports tier is to drive more subscribers to these higher-margin packages. Comcast, for example, would receive an estimated $280 per year from a customer who is not already a digital subscriber and an estimated $138 per year if that customer already pays for digital service, which is required to get a sports tier. We want to work with all of our carriers to help their businesses, but we believe the core Big Ten Network service must be available on expanded basic television to reach the largest number of people possible. DIRECTV, DISH Network, Insight, WOW and RCN, and about 160 other cable companies already added the network to their expanded basic level of service without a simultaneous price increase to consumers.

http://www.gophersports.com/download...DB_OEM_ID=8400

Assuming a 5% sports tier rate, and 14 million directv subscribers, that means that this deal added a potential 700,000 viewers. Of course only a miniscule number of those sports tier viewers will ever tune in to the MTN. But who's counting, right?

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

The only thing I care about is that its available. I will be switching to Direct Tv once I have verified the mtn is actually broadcasting

As will I. Although I actually already get the Mtn. My cable company (local deal) doesn't get CSTV or Versus, though, and it's rather unreliable. I already would have switched if they didn't have the Mtn...

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Thousands of people will be thrilled and happy over this deal. The same thousands will watch the channel.

The Mtn is so small-potatoes, that it is really hard to fathom. Almost NO ONE will watch it, assuming it is on the sports package tier. This is basically ESPN game plan, except slightly cheaper.

The point isn't and never has been the "no one will watch it" mantra.

The main sticking point has always been ACCESS & AVAILABILITY to have the channel to begin with.

From there bitch and moan and change your argument conveniently as you will in terms of the "no one will watch it" anyway mantra.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Now I am know you are either 1) a dumbass or 2) trolling.

I sez he is dumbass. Now I am know u r 2.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

ARE YOU NUTS???? SPORTS TIER ON DIRECTV = SAME EXPOSURE AS ESPN????

Now I am know you are either 1) a dumbass or 2) trolling.



http://www.gophersports.com/download...DB_OEM_ID=8400

Assuming a 5% sports tier rate, and 14 million directv subscribers, that means that this deal added a potential 700,000 viewers. Of course only a miniscule number of those sports tier viewers will ever tune in to the MTN. But who's counting, right?

I'm not hardly either. Granting the fact that I'm ill-informed as to the specifics of when & where the games would have been available on the ESPN deal...and particularly the specifics with ESPN Gameplan...


-for the average BYU fan in, say, Tennessee, the ESPN deal would have broadcast how many home games nationwide in either ESPN or ESPN2? My guess is not all of them.

-Now, for that Tennessee fan, with the Mtn (according to the info widely understood about the deal), all he has to do is have DirecTV and pick up the Sports Package (at $12/month), and he's got EVERY BYU home game, AND EVERY MWC game. Meaning he might miss 2 games a year.


I'd be surprised if ESPN would have made all but 2 games available to the poor sap in Tenn.

[Spaz]

Note - I think a VERY good 'next step' for the MWC & the Mtn, after it's on both satellite networks, is a regional distribution package with either KSL or KJZZ. With it on satellite, plus regional distribution, it will be in every way equal with or superior to the rejected ESPN deal.