Change Ad Consent
Do not sell my data
Reply to thread | The Boneyard
Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Chat
UConn Football Chat
UConn Men's Basketball
UConn Women's Basketball
Media
The Uconn Blog
Verbal Commits
This is UConn Country
Field of 68
CT Scoreboard Podcasts
A Dime Back
Sliders and Curveballs Podcast
Storrs Central
Men's Basketball
News
Roster
Schedule
Standings
Women's Basketball
News
Roster
Schedule
Standings
Football
News
Roster
Depth Chart
Schedule
Football Recruiting
Offers
Commits
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
UConn Athletics
Conference Realignment Board
Non-Key Tweets
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="FAIRTIDES, post: 1694518, member: 1108"] I may be about to out kick my coverage, but I don't believe the network/expansion candidate relationship and related analysis is based on increasing the fan bases of existing conference partners. It's based on the expansion candidates ability to add tangible value in the form of [COLOR=#ff4d4d]end-user connections to the network[/COLOR]; and, secondarily, other sources such as bowl appearances and NCAA credits. Can/does Uconn generate enough interest within it's well-to-do, number-twenty sized DMA, to generate end-user numbers that make it attractive to existing conference members. Will Uconn increase revenue opportunities or dilute the value of a conference? Relevant questions. Next, it is possible for a conference to increase or improve national interest if the candidate chosen, in a new region, has a significant national presence of its own. Because of conversations about ESPN and chord cutting, and its possible effects, "[I][COLOR=#ff4d4d]end-user connections to the network[/COLOR]" [/I]needs discussion. There are two truths: 1) no content provider (conference) is going to give the stuff away, regardless of technology/transport; 2) while the end-user interface(s) will constantly change, end-users, [B]especially sports fans[/B], will want and be willing to pay for content. So, it doesn't matter if the transport providers are using Dixie Cups-and-string, high frequency GHz transmission speed wireless or various protocols available to copper and/or fiber. If content providers are going to be paid, and transport providers are going to pay for content, then end-users are going to pay for transport, regardless of method, including streaming services. Kind of brings us back to the necessity of expansion candidates having comparatively large, well-to-do DMA's. In any event, the cable box count might drop, but impact on end-users paying for content will be negligible. Oh, and end-users that opt for seemingly less expensive services should purchase a reverse chastity belt. There's a man with a barbed, un-lubricated pole on his way to your home. [/QUOTE]
Verification
First name of men's bb coach
Post reply
Forums
UConn Athletics
Conference Realignment Board
Non-Key Tweets
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
Bottom