Sunday Night With Coach Claeys - Starts This Sunday

Donate To GopherHole

DLguy said:
I dont buy the argument that this alienates people and only reaches out to one demographic. How many Gopher fans have Facebook? How many have FSN?When you turn on your tv, does it tell the average Gopher fan that there is a new coaches show to watch? Let's get real, Facebook reaches a much larger group than tv ever would. This is a step fortep forward, not backwards.
Click to expand...

+1

Thankfully there are still people on GH that are not stuck in the past.
 

Section2 said:
I often missed the weekly FSN show. I won't miss this. I really like the format, and I much prefer Gaardsy to Max.
Click to expand...

Same here. Streamed it to my TV with one click a few hours after it was over. No different than DVR. Awesome show!
 

Just watched & liked it. Liked the flow & rapid fire of it.

Don't know how difficult it would be on a Facebook Live show, but only suggestion is to show highlights while answering questions & stuff. Show Brandon Lingen highlights when talking about Brandon Lingen, not Tracy Claeys talking about Brandon Lingen. Only nitpick though. Good first show.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
He wanted a OL coach specifically and an OC with QB experience. I agree that he felt a drastic change was needed. He got his one guy in charge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Correct. Considering zebrowski is at hamline i think he made correct choice. Limey going to Just ol coach wouldve been strange dynamic

Sent from my LGLS665 using Tapatalk
 


A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
Larger and the group who they need for the future.

There's not much use in appealing the Paul Harvey crowd.
Click to expand...
at

Is that the rest of the story?:p

Not a Facebook guy, so I'd like a TV show, but I can live with uploads or links to show.
 



twinsfan21 said:
+1

Thankfully there are still people on GH that are not stuck in the past.
Click to expand...

That would also apply to the NCAA, NFL, MLB etc. If the networks leave the sports "business" all those leagues will have to get use to dealing without millions and millions of TV money. Something we've been told has been coming for years, but up to the contracts signed this year hasn't happened.

The people not "stuck in the past" all talk about getting the games anywhere and virtually free!

The first part is happening and that makes sense and is nothing but good. The second part?

Wonder why nobody has been able to explain why the leagues are gonna be happy and settle for "peanuts" to let their games be shown? Certainly they won't provide the games for free will they?

Maybe that explanation isn't quite so easy as just saying "get used to it". Just a thought.
 



Iceland12 said:
That would also apply to the NCAA, NFL, MLB etc. If the networks leave the sports "business" all those leagues will have to get use to dealing without millions and millions of TV money. Something we've been told has been coming for years, but up to the contracts signed this year hasn't happened.

The people not "stuck in the past" all talk about getting the games anywhere and virtually free!

The first part is happening and that makes sense and is nothing but good. The second part?

Nobody yet has been able to explain why the leagues are gonna be happy and settle for "peanuts" to let their games be used for content. Certainly they won't provide the games for free.

Wonder why that is? :cool:
Click to expand...

There just might be a little difference between major sports TV contracts and a seasonal Tracy Claeys show...
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
There just might be a little difference between major sports TV contracts and a seasonal Tracy Claeys show...
Click to expand...

Really? :D

Tell that to the posters who I was responding to.

Post #25: "Actually, yes it has. Games will likely not be on "TV" within 5 years. You will have to stream everything. Get on the curve or be thrown off it."

Post # 31 & 32:

"+1"

"Thankfully there are still people on GH that are not stuck in the past."
 

Iceland12 said:
Really? :D

Tell that to the posters who I was responding to.

"Actually, yes it has. Games will likely not be on "TV" within 5 years. You will have to stream everything. Get on the curve or be thrown off it."

"+1

Thankfully there are still people on GH that are not stuck in the past."
Click to expand...

I can't even figure out what you're saying...
 





Iceland12 said:
That would also apply to the NCAA, NFL, MLB etc. If the networks leave the sports "business" all those leagues will have to get use to dealing without millions and millions of TV money. Something we've been told has been coming for years, but up to the contracts signed this year hasn't happened.

The people not "stuck in the past" all talk about getting the games anywhere and virtually free!

The first part is happening and that makes sense and is nothing but good. The second part?

Wonder why nobody has been able to explain why the leagues are gonna be happy and settle for "peanuts" to let their games be shown? Certainly they won't provide the games for free will they?

Maybe that explanation isn't quite so easy as just saying "get used to it". Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Who said free? Cable tv costs often times $150 - $200 per month. A la carte type internet tv offerings could be a fraction of that and still retain all the revenue for sports, I'd pay $10 a month for BTN. And of course, the bulk of the revenue comes from advertising, could "give it away" for "free" and still have lots of revenue.
 

Section2 said:
Who said free? Cable tv costs often times $150 - $200 per month. A la carte type internet tv offerings could be a fraction of that and still retain all the revenue for sports, I'd pay $10 a month for BTN. And of course, the bulk of the revenue comes from advertising, could "give it away" for "free" and still have lots of revenue.
Click to expand...

$150 - $200 per month which now includes advertising vs. $10 per month with that same advertising and "still have lots of revenue", "and still retain all the revenue for sports."

:rolleyes:
 

And if anybody could read and not assume the age of people...

Never said Facebook was bad, not necessary, or not great. Just that it is only one piece of the the publicity puzzle. It can't be your end all. Twitter has a larger, more active male demographic than Facebook. Instagram and snapchat are certainly "hotter" than Facebook. Not knocking Facebook!!!!

Ignoring TV is my disagreement. (If we are? I don't know there isn't a show) If TV is an older demographic...stats say people watch TV 5-6 hours a day... some among that demographic buys suites and makes the donations to buy season tickets. I just don't understand the either or argument...why are some of you guys set on one choice? Limiting it to one source?

The show on Facebook is great!!!!!!!!!!!!! as I said originally
 

The money will absolutely keep coming in for the Big Ten. It has live premium content that is in high demand.

There is NO WAY that Big Ten football games won't be on a TV channel in five years. FOX and ESPN/ABC has a contract that runs for six years (2017-2022). There will another monster TV deal that gets struck when that one ends, too.

In addition, there could be a huge streaming rights contract to go along with it by 2023.

Netflix paid $118 million to carry "Friends" reruns that anyone can get for free on TBS almost all day long. But, TBS pays huge money for the episodes, too. HULU paid $180 million to carry "Seinfeld" reruns. And, a TV channel pays big $$$, too.

Netflix, HULU, ESPN Mobile, or maybe something that hasn't even been invented yet will 100% pay HUGE money for streaming rights to Big Ten events.

Jim Delany intentionally kept the new TV deal "short" at 6 years, knowing another hefty payday is on the way in 2023.
 

Iceland12 said:
$150 - $200 per month which now includes advertising vs. $10 per month with that same advertising and "still have lots of revenue", "and still retain all the revenue for sports."
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

$10 per month for a single channel. $150 - $200 per month of paying for a bunch of channels whether you want them or not, movie channels, etc. Sports programming and live programming get better ad revenue than other types of programs because people watch it live and not on DVR. Other channels rely more heavily on subscriber fees.
 

Section2 said:
$10 per month for a single channel. $150 - $200 per month of paying for a bunch of channels whether you want them or not, movie channels, etc. Sports programming and live programming get better ad revenue than other types of programs because people watch it live and not on DVR. Other channels rely more heavily on subscriber fees.
Click to expand...

You can buy single channels?
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
You can buy single channels?
Click to expand...

Not currently. I looked it up, BTN charges $1 per month for subscribers in the conference foothold. I think the point being made is that with netflix, and amazon and apple, tv is being consumed differently. It's possible to likely that it will shift to more internet based programming. It's not that sports won't be "on tv" they will, you'll just consume it differently. How much cost? Difficult to say, but sports aren't going anywhere, just how you consume it might.
 

Yeah, you were wrong. Again, great for the subscriber, unacceptable for the leagues or the major providers.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom