Is there any hope of getting away from Charter?

[billiken_roy]

see willie and sluer's messages above. $20k x 20 games = $400,000 that apparently slu has to do the legwork on selling the ads. and then, figure in the factor that the blues will receive the preferred times and dates just like savvis that we either have to schedule around or just accept we cant be on tv for those games. so that will affect the games we are able to schedule.

it boils down to again, until we are an "attraction" that the casual fans want to see, it just aint gonna happen.

i would love to see us on great stations all the time that wouldnt require st louis cable, but this is one that isnt the slu administration's fault considering current situation.

again, at this time the best compromise is that charter makes the games that they do televise available for streaming over the internet.

[AGB91]

Has anyone considered Charter as a candidate for the naming rights for our new arena. That I'm sure would make everyone happy. We could get some of that Paul Allen money.

[kevinfootes]

It seems like too many SLU people are content with being mediocre. SLU announces grand ideas but then gets very sloppy with the basics. Yes the CUSA deal did suck, but SLU seems content with airing their games on an outlet that reaches no one outside of StL and a dwindling number inside the area. Heck, if Humphries doesn't even have Charter that tells you something.

In my experience of following SLU sports and being a graduate (2 times), SLU has always done a half-arsed job of marketing both the university and its sports teams. For example, SLU always did a lousy job of on campus recruiting of its upcoming graduates. Hopefully that's improved.

By the way, the Blues switch between Fox Sports and KPLR. On the weekends there shouldn't be a conflict. One should be open.

[billiken_roy]

they switch because during the week, channel 11 is committed to the wb lineup. so if fox has the blues during the week, then why would channel 11 want the billikens before the wb?

hey i aint saying it wouldnt be grand to be on a better channel, but right now no one is bidding to take the billikens, we have to pay them to take the billikens. until we win, i just dont see where you are going to get better coverage than charter. the best case scenario is weekend games only on fox. personally, i would rather have 25 games on tv than 6 or 7.

[BLIKNS]

For anyone outside the city,6 or 7 would be a blessing.If we want to be considered a national team,with big ambitions,well I`ll steal a line from Saliva (You`re talking local scene I`m talking nation)Fox-Midwest,CSTV,and ESPNU.

[tseugnekillib]

Make the product worthy and better print, radio and TV coverage will be there.

It seems some folks would rather have FOX than Tyler Hansbrough, and would rather have Fox than a new on-campus arena. Now that's stupid!

It goes in this order.....new on-campus arena, better recruits, more non-conference wins, more conference wins, more NCAA wins, better TV, print and radio coverage.

[kwyjibo]

Do you really believe that "on-campus" arenas are such a big draw for recruits? I think there are a whole lot of factors that help make up a recruits mind about where to go (WINNING, the school, community, coach, other players, academic opportunities, perceived career paths, etc.) and the above would all seem to rank higher than arenas. Recruits are all different too and an effective "low-cost" strategy seems to be simply have a good coach.

You may be right about TV but I think playing on TV (particularly ESPN) is a bigger factor than "arenas". I think previous ADs had to do some hustling put they always seemed to manage to get a game or two on ESPN's schedule. This year (probably for a variety of reasons) we were not part of ESPN/ESPN2's regular programming at all. I cannot say anything about the relative merits of the St Louis media market (and if your comment was simply that FS-Midwest is no big deal you may be right). However, the focus on arenas is puzzling when there was little general grumbling about not being on ESPN when I brought it up. Remember this was a year of greatly expanded ESPN coverage.

I think we are all in agreement that a new arena will likely be "exciting"; that it will create a buzz, bring out fans, and likely create more energy. Though, I think I may be in the minority in pointing that this "excitement", which is very real, does not actually bring any additional victories. I also think this "excitement" will help recruiting for a while after the building opens. This benefit will sadly fade in the fickle hearts of students and boosters.

I think there is also a small benefit from a having a slightly newer facility than Kielvis but I think that ignores that playing at Kielvis is already a pretty big draw in itself. It is an impressive facility to the average high school student. It is possible we will build a less impressive physical structure (in the minds of some recruits) "on-campus". So, I don't see much extra advantage there either.

If the new facility includes a new practice facility, then I think that would be the largest recruiting benefit. But that may not happen which indirectly proves my point that "new arenas" are not really about recruiting. They are about spending $90+M.

In fact I would argue that if you took a "wholisitic approach to the question" it is possible in some scenarios (like UMass!) for a new arena (particularly one that lost operating money, cost significant university capital, created little benefit over the existing facility, or took money away from other fundraising efforts) to actual hurt recruiting. I do expect net positive benefits for recruiting from a "new arena" (after all, I think move from old Kiel to Kielvis was a benefit) it is just that they are small.

[ACE]

Imagine that. One of Bernie's lackeys doesn't have his facts straight. Getting on Channel 11 is more difficult than ever due to the WB affiliation. That's why you see fewer Cardinals and Blues games on there than you did just 5 years ago.

[courtside]

Charter is NOT the answer. It is pretty embarrassing for a place like Humphrey's or wherever not to be able to get a SLU game on the tube because it is charter. It is also very very small potatoes.....for the out of towners... Not all SLU alums live in STL...and there is more out there than STL....hopefully those folks can see some games soon.

[kevinfootes]

It's amazing how a true miklasz flunkie legitmizes his position by acceping being mediocre. How pitiful.

[kevinfootes]

Where to begin...

when was it ever mentioned that recruiting and the new arena were on the same page as TV? The easy answer is never. What WAS mentioned is that good programs fix the thngs in their control first and then focus on big projects. Some people on this board think that spending $90 million on a new arena is money better spent than the potential $200- $400,000 for TV. Just a drop in the bucket. Most people can see see through stupid internet BS where somebody like you absolutely twists what's said. First of all, the Poplar Bluff kid was never coming to SLU...end of story. However, one thing that could have persuaded him might have been having the occasional game on TV. Oh wait, SLU fans like you don't seem to care about TV. It's okay if no games are on the air beyond the dwindling Charter customer base.

[kevinfootes]

Savvis isn't SLU's biggest problem. They've drawn well when they've had good teams.

[Basketbill]

I lived in the bay area when Stanford sucked, the best they could hope for was a close game against UCLA at home....Granted this was before the great TV expansion in college basketball. However their were local TV stations that would not cover Cardinal basketball, so they went with the local cable outlet for all their games, it sucked, the reception sucked, however fan based increased because during this period they became good.....it gave them leverage to pursue other avenues.

Slu needs to explore al opportunities, but with a 9-20 season behind us there will not be many doors opened based on our performance. Should this team progress as we hope, then looking for other avenues each year would be an excellent idea. I am hopeful that with the A-10, there is a better chance of getting in on some of the premier spots. Where we got espn plus and Louisvill-cinci got ESPN in CUSa's showcase game of the week, perhaps we will get Xavier-SLU, or Temple-SLU etc....as the A10's showcase game. But we have to win more games before we command a better local package.

[ACE]

>It's amazing how a true miklasz flunkie legitmizes his

>position by acceping being mediocre. How pitiful.

Hahaha! What? The Miklasz lackey is accusing others of being a Miklasz flunkie? This is priceless. Like Miklasz, you don't have your facts straight and when it's pointed out, you don't own up to it. You either attack the messenger or move the goalposts. You start in complaining about the Charter deal. When it is pointed out to you that there was a C-USA noncompete that prevented SLU from being on Fox, you then move on to your own personal melodrama with Charter. Who cares. In Miklasz-esque fashion, you offer up no viable solutions. Like a good little Bernie soldier, you just throw out his tired line about "accepting being mediocre." Well your boy Bernie accepts mediocrity by working at the Post-Dispatch. No one here is "accepting" the current tv deal, but understanding the C-USA restrictions, think they probably did the best they could. C-USA made a terrible deal for its league members. I have Charter, so personally it's fine with me. But for the good of the program, I would like to see us move to more regional and national exposure, whether it's Fox, ESPN Plus, or whatever. I understand the importance of games reaching beyond the St. Louis market for out of town alums and potential recruits. Now that we get out from under the crappy C-USA situation, hopefully the A-10 will allow SLU to pursue FoxSports. If there are no non-competes in place, I would think that an ideal arrangement would be to have a combination of Fox and Charter. The one good thing about Charter is that they seemingly always have available air time. We could push to get as many games on Fox Sports Midwest, and then if there's a conflict with the Blues or whatever for certain games, those games can go on Charter.

[billiken_roy]

that should end the discussion imo. you seemed to hit the right answer squarely on the nose.

[kwyjibo]

Given that I can see A-10 basketball on a variety of different channels (ESPN, Fox, and Comcast owned) I would not think there is any conference restriction on where games would be shown. The A-10 also has a CSTV presence.

Also, the A-10 game of the week deal (which is carried locally on many independent local TV but also on a few regional cable channels) seems far more egalitarian than anything C-USA ever did. While each team is not on an equal amount of times, even mediocre teams seem to be on 2-4 times. C-USA on ESPN and even their game of the week deal the previous year seems much more about getting Memphis, Cincy, or Louisville on 90% of the time.

[STLfan]

Couldn't they make two different deals? Make a contract with Fox sports for the weekend games and negotiate a deal with charter for the weekday games.

[kevinfootes]

I am fully aware that CUSA rules prohibited SLU from being on Fox. I never said otherwise. My post was about what SLU can do to get AWAY from Charter. The only time I even mentioned Fox was to say that both FoxNet and KPRL don't show the Blues at the same time. I am looking FORWARD here.

Therefore, you are entirely wrong. If you are any kind of man you will acknowledge that you're way off here. Prove that I made any post that in any way resembles the position that you attributed to me. It's funny that you get so uptight about Miklasz, but then set up a straw man and knock him down. You need to acknowledge that you were either wrong about what I posted or that you were being dishonest.

Moving FORWARD, what can SLU do to get a better TV deal? Or should we just accept it?

[kevinfootes]

Billiken R, please see my reply to ace below. I'm just shocked all of the SLU fans are so quick to beat up somebody who's just hoping to get the program better exposure. That's why I used the Miklasz reference. SLU needs to do a better job marketing the program, inlcuding winning more games. The TV deal is something they can control. Let's hope SLU gets at least some airtime beyond the Pete Parisi and Big Daddy show.

[billiken_roy]

when channel 11 doesnt show blues games, fox does. that would be during the week because channel 11 is obligated to show "the wb". so no games during the week at either outlet.

on weekends, channel 11 may show the blues so fox sports would be available for those games only providing that mizzou doesnt use them first.

again, it sounds to me, that dumping charter is a proposition that might result in a reduction of as much as 60-75% of the games that would get televised otherwise. at best, a combination of fox and charter would be good, assuming espn lets us use fox and that fox does indeed want us for weekend games. even then it has been said in this thread that fox wants slu to pay $20k per game to televise.

[kevinfootes]

SLU has done the combo before. More games need to be available to a wider audience.

[ACE]

>Billiken R, please see my reply to ace below. I'm just

>shocked all of the SLU fans are so quick to beat up somebody

>who's just hoping to get the program better exposure.

>That's why I used the Miklasz reference. SLU needs to do a

>better job marketing the program, inlcuding winning more

>games. The TV deal is something they can control. Let's

>hope SLU gets at least some airtime beyond the Pete Parisi

>and Big Daddy show.

Bernie's lackey is like a dumber version of Triangle and Too. Nobody is beating you up about wanting better exposure. We all want that. You're getting beat up for not knowing the facts. There are elements of the TV deal that are out of SLU's control, like the FoxSports restriction. So then what other viable options were available? Channel 11? They don't even show many Blues or Cardinal games since they became WB. If they had a few games on 11, I'm sure you'd make some crack about being on in between Dawson's Creek and a Martin rerun. As Roy pointed out, the one positive is that there are more games on the tube now than ever before (and we know, you got your feeling hurt dealing with Charter). I offered up an improvement on the tv situation if feasible under the A-10 agreement. All you've done is whined like a good little Bernie boy.

[kevinfootes]

First of all, you ignored my challenge in the previous reply because you have nothing to back it up. In Miklasz fashion you didn't read any of the posts. You assumed you knew what I was talking about and invented a false position to attack. Who is the "stupid" one? You won't address any of the facts.

Guess what....SLU is no longer in CUSA!!!!!

Let me repeat this beacuse I know you're slow...SLU is no longer in CUSA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The old contract doesn't matter any more. SLU can try to make a better deal now. THAT'S THE POINT!!!!!!!

SLU can make a better deal now. Let me repeat this again because I know you don't get it....SLU is no longer in CUSA!!!!!!!

Now you need to acknowledge that you're way off or just go back to being Mrs. Ace Miklasz, the officaial foot massager of Bernie.

I believe that Billiken Roy and I agreed that some kind of combo deal to get better exposure would really help SLU. You just keep saying "...CUSA won't allow it."

Please let us know if you require more clarification about SLU's status in CUSA.

[billiken_roy]

that said kevinfootes, it is a fact that the a-10 is also an espn league. they play the early saturday morning game during the season on espn. if cusa had that restriction, then one would assume that the a-10 has the same. someone said they have seen xaiver on fox, but i never have. i guess if they were the visiting team in a preseason game vs a regular fox tenant that might be possible. however, i again admit i dont know the particulars of the a-10 deal with espn either.

[ACE]

You started the thread by whining about what was done with the old regime and crying about the old deal made while we were in C-USA. Now, you're saying all you want to do is look forward?!?! When you were called out for not having your facts straight about the CUSA deal, you then moved on to quoting your hero Bernie. After that failed, you moved on to trying to win favor with BillikenRoy. That's not working either. I offered up a possible tv scenario that may work with the A10 (since Roy's approval suddenly means so much to you, you may want to refer to Roy's post titled "great answer ace"). Without knowing the particular restrictions with the A10, this is just speculation. We're still waiting for your plan. Since you apparently are so concerned about this issue I thought you'd have a plan by now. Or will you resort to lying again, like this little gem, "I believe that Billiken Roy and I agreed that some kind of combo deal to get better exposure would really help SLU. You just keep saying "...CUSA won't allow it."

Nobody is buying your nonsense, but it sure is entertaining watching you flail around.