Non-Key Tweets

[huskidork]

0 hope we join the big 12, it'd be cool if we magically did but doubt, I think they really want Stanford, likely won't get them and finish expanding till the ACC collapses

 

[Khal Drogo]

0 hope we join the big 12, it'd be cool if we magically did but doubt, I think they really want Stanford, likely won't get them and finish expanding till the ACC collapses

We want a home before the ACC collapses. Once ACC collapses there will be a lot of teams looking for new homes.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Stanford is flirting with the big 10, not XII. No way we get an invite to 10

Stanford is doing more than flirting. It's standing stark naked outside the B!G's window begging. They already tried flirting.

 

[UConnKev]

https://x.com/mhver3/status/1691411491210039298?s=46&t=GxyKHfOVOezGhGiqOa-D1w

 

[Rufus]

Stanford and Cal are everything the B1G Presidents would want in new additions. They just aren't what Fox/NBC/CBS want in new additions.

Wildcard: With the additions of Oregon and Washington, the discussion of going to a 10-game conference schedule, and the possibility of adding Stanford or maybe even Cal, the B1G will have more inventory to sell to a 4th media partner. With 4 (or more) west coast teams, that could include a late-night bundle of games as well. Maybe adding Stanford (and possibly Cal) will be tied to what the 4th media partner is willing to pay.

 

[hoopsfan22]

Stanford and Cal are everything the B1G Presidents would want in new additions. They just aren't what Fox/NBC/CBS want in new additions.

Wildcard: With the additions of Oregon and Washington, the discussion of going to a 10-game conference schedule, and the possibility of adding Stanford or maybe even Cal, the B1G will have more inventory to sell to a 4th media partner. With 4 (or more) west coast teams, that could include a late-night bundle of games as well. Maybe adding Stanford (and possibly Cal) will be tied to what the 4th media partner is willing to pay.

B1G wants to sell that 4th time slot to ESPN, and ESPN should jump on it. The B1G has enough big names now that all 4 time slots can have entertaining matchups.

 

[Forte]

 

[UConnJim]

B1G wants to sell that 4th time slot to ESPN, and ESPN should jump on it. The B1G has enough big names now that all 4 time slots can have entertaining matchups.

ESPN has a lot of college football content that can air at 8 PM or later. They have part of the Big 12 that includes Central time schools, 2 Mountain time schools and 2 Pacific time schools (Arizona doesn't do daylight savings time). They also have AAC games with Central time schools, CUSA with 2 Mountain time and Central time schools, SBC with Central time schools.

 

[Rufus]

ESPN has a lot of college football content that can air at 8 PM or later. They have part of the Big 12 that includes Central time schools, 2 Mountain time schools and 2 Pacific time schools (Arizona doesn't do daylight savings time). They also have AAC games with Central time schools, CUSA with 2 Mountain time and Central time schools, SBC with Central time schools.

True, but do the teams ESPN currently have access to out west move the needle in terms of viewership numbers? There are only 4 Pacific Time Zone schools that can move the needle in terms of television ratings, and they are now all in the B1G.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Does anyone give a spit about the prime time lineup on NBC or CBS or ABC is now? I couldn't even tell you what shows are on it. So why are people still debating time slots on ESPN like it is 2010?

 

[phillionaire]

Does anyone give a spit about the prime time lineup on NBC or CBS or ABC is now? I couldn't even tell you what shows are on it. So why are people still debating time slots on ESPN like it is 2010?

Those shows still pull in massive ratings. You're just not the target demo.

 

[superjohn]

Those shows still pull in massive ratings. You're just not the target demo.

What are the shows? I just saw that CBS airs MTV's The Challenge on primetime.

The networks seem to be dying just like ESPN is dying.

 

[phillionaire]

What are the shows? I just saw that CBS airs MTV's The Challenge on primetime.

The networks seem to be dying just like ESPN is dying.

Survivor, Ghosts, CSI Vegas, Young Sheldon, Abbott Elementary, Blue Bloods, all those assorted Fire/EMS/Cop shows. I don't watch them but they pull in viewers. It's also summer and there's the ongoing strike, so that might be why The Challenge is on primetime.

 

[Chuck]

Does anyone give a spit about the prime time lineup on NBC or CBS or ABC is now? I couldn't even tell you what shows are on it. So why are people still debating time slots on ESPN like it is 2010?

I'm in your camp with cutting the cord and rarely watching anything on network tv. BUT, I still have a tie to "linear-like" content in that I subscribe to YouTubeTV. I do still surf for my sports unless I 100% know what I'm looking to put on. For example, I'm a Yankees fan, but I lost YES when cutting the cord. I pretty much got over it, but the Yankees are on Amazon Prime periodically. Because I don't track when they're on, and don't "surf" Amazon, I've only watched a couple games over the past two years. If those were on YouTubeTV I would've noticed and watched.

I think an important step in streaming will come from the devices we use to stream. There will be a list of favorites that will track like "channels" that will show all live content that is on. I'd say it should only show what you subscribe to, but you know it will show everything to try to get you to subscribe. If I go to my Firestick/Roku and look at "sports" and it shows everything being broadcast live at that moment, that would be a killer blow to cable tv.

 

[Dooooooomed]

What are the shows? I just saw that CBS airs MTV's The Challenge on primetime.

The networks seem to be dying just like ESPN is dying.

Reality show fans are loyal. I've been watching the Challenge since it was Real World/Road Rules. The move to CBS was likely due to them now featuring past contestants from the Survivor/Big Brother/Amazing Race, which in turn is increasing viewership.

 

[noeynox]

 

[noeynox]

Would the Big East be interested?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I'm in your camp with cutting the cord and rarely watching anything on network tv. BUT, I still have a tie to "linear-like" content in that I subscribe to YouTubeTV. I do still surf for my sports unless I 100% know what I'm looking to put on. For example, I'm a Yankees fan, but I lost YES when cutting the cord. I pretty much got over it, but the Yankees are on Amazon Prime periodically. Because I don't track when they're on, and don't "surf" Amazon, I've only watched a couple games over the past two years. If those were on YouTubeTV I would've noticed and watched.

I think an important step in streaming will come from the devices we use to stream. There will be a list of favorites that will track like "channels" that will show all live content that is on. I'd say it should only show what you subscribe to, but you know it will show everything to try to get you to subscribe. If I go to my Firestick/Roku and look at "sports" and it shows everything being broadcast live at that moment, that would be a killer blow to cable tv.

I want to clarify. I think the Big 3 Networks, Peacock/NBC, Paramount+/CBS and Hulu/Disney/ABC, are going to do fine and may even thrive with a lower topline but also lower cost base if they work out the kinks. I think they even have a viable advertiser model in there somewhere with some tweaking. I just think the days of having people wait for 9 pm EST for their favorite show are pretty much over.

That last point has HUGE implications for college sports. The entire ESPN and Fox bundled cable business model for college football is about maximizing casual viewers for the key times like 3:30 pm EST and 8 pm EST on Saturday. Putting those games on ESPN, ABC or Fox, or CBS for that matter, was a huge advantage in driving viewers, and so the schools that were the easiest to market to casual viewers got the most promotion and the best time slots. But if you put every game into a jump ball for viewers where there is no longer a premium time slot on the "main" channel, and the ratings are going to turn out very differently than they did before.

I keep pointing back to what happened to TV. There are still big TV hits on Netflix, Hulu and MAX, among the other channels. But the viewership has fragmented dramatically because now on streaming people aren't being forced to watch something they don't really want to watch. I find Bridgerton unwatchable, and started fast forwarding for the skin scenes after about 10 minutes because I couldn't take it anymore. But there are a lot of female focused shows like Bridgerton or Emily in Paris that could have never gotten on the air 10 years ago that are incredibly successful on streaming. Niche wins in streaming.

Think about the same thing happening to college football or basketball now. Basketball is more used to being in that spot because every game has always been competing against a lot of other games, but the top football games have always been showcased, which helped drive their ratings, and those days are over. This is why I think women's basketball is about to hit a golden era. Could a woman's team consistently generate 1 million plus viewers in a key time slot on ESPN or ABC? No chance. But can a women's team generate a very loyal following that will subscribe and consistently watch the games because they care? Absolutely.

 

[ninety-nine]

I'm in your camp with cutting the cord and rarely watching anything on network tv. BUT, I still have a tie to "linear-like" content in that I subscribe to YouTubeTV. I do still surf for my sports unless I 100% know what I'm looking to put on. For example, I'm a Yankees fan, but I lost YES when cutting the cord. I pretty much got over it, but the Yankees are on Amazon Prime periodically. Because I don't track when they're on, and don't "surf" Amazon, I've only watched a couple games over the past two years. If those were on YouTubeTV I would've noticed and watched.

I think an important step in streaming will come from the devices we use to stream. There will be a list of favorites that will track like "channels" that will show all live content that is on. I'd say it should only show what you subscribe to, but you know it will show everything to try to get you to subscribe. If I go to my Firestick/Roku and look at "sports" and it shows everything being broadcast live at that moment, that would be a killer blow to cable tv.

Actually, the Yankees are occasionally on YouTubeTV. Some games (like tonight's TBS telecast of Yankees-Braves) get blacked out in CT/NY/NJ because they're simultaneously telecast on YES, but the ones that are on ESPN (not ESPN Plus) or FOX will sneak through because they're usually exclusive. Apple TV as well, if you have that.

You can also sign up for digital access to YES in Connecticut now, from what I can tell. I think it's new for this season. The YES website says it's available in Connecticut. I was going to test it out, but it looks like the Yanks are fading fast, and I don't want to spend $25 for a month of mediocrity. I wonder if that model will start to become normative, though; look at NFL Sunday Ticket moving to YouTubeTV (a big reason why I signed up for it and cancelled the family Frontier cable package). It feels like new vistas may open up for college sports too, and there might be a window where not being tied to a power conference TV contract gives UConn enough flexibility to get in on the ground floor of something creative.

 

[superjohn]

Waylon fast forwards TV shows for the skin scenes, I assumed he was older than 12.

 

[Samoo]

I want to clarify. I think the Big 3 Networks, Peacock/NBC, Paramount+/CBS and Hulu/Disney/ABC, are going to do fine and may even thrive with a lower topline but also lower cost base if they work out the kinks. I think they even have a viable advertiser model in there somewhere with some tweaking. I just think the days of having people wait for 9 pm EST for their favorite show are pretty much over.

That last point has HUGE implications for college sports. The entire ESPN and Fox bundled cable business model for college football is about maximizing casual viewers for the key times like 3:30 pm EST and 8 pm EST on Saturday. Putting those games on ESPN, ABC or Fox, or CBS for that matter, was a huge advantage in driving viewers, and so the schools that were the easiest to market to casual viewers got the most promotion and the best time slots. But if you put every game into a jump ball for viewers where there is no longer a premium time slot on the "main" channel, and the ratings are going to turn out very differently than they did before.

I keep pointing back to what happened to TV. There are still big TV hits on Netflix, Hulu and MAX, among the other channels. But the viewership has fragmented dramatically because now on streaming people aren't being forced to watch something they don't really want to watch. I find Bridgerton unwatchable, and started fast forwarding for the skin scenes after about 10 minutes because I couldn't take it anymore. But there are a lot of female focused shows like Bridgerton or Emily in Paris that could have never gotten on the air 10 years ago that are incredibly successful on streaming. Niche wins in streaming.

Think about the same thing happening to college football or basketball now. Basketball is more used to being in that spot because every game has always been competing against a lot of other games, but the top football games have always been showcased, which helped drive their ratings, and those days are over. This is why I think women's basketball is about to hit a golden era. Could a woman's team consistently generate 1 million plus viewers in a key time slot on ESPN or ABC? No chance. But can a women's team generate a very loyal following that will subscribe and consistently watch the games because they care? Absolutely.

There is a big difference between choosing when to watch a show that was made 3 months before and choosing to watch a live sporting event. I don't usually watch sports that aren't on live.

 

[noeynox]

There is a big difference between choosing when to watch a show that was made 3 months before and choosing to watch a live sporting event. I don't usually watch sports that aren't on live.

Yeah. I could only rewatch a UConn game i missed. Anything else, even the super bowl i can't do it.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

There is a big difference between choosing when to watch a show that was made 3 months before and choosing to watch a live sporting event. I don't usually watch sports that aren't on live.

That is not what I am saying at all.

Every aspect of cable TV college football broadcasting is designed to get you to watch each network's "big game(s)" of the week. They set up their entire schedule to clear the decks for the 3:30 and 8:00 pm kickoffs, and those are the games that are on the main channels. ESPN and Fox and CBS would schedule games at those times with a goal of maximizing viewership among casual viewers. Since viewers would have to dig around to find alternatives, most people would just watch whatever the game was on the main channel.

In a streaming world, there is no main channel. No game is harder or easier to find than any other game (for the most part), and people won't even know what channels they are watching when they are watching a game. Every game is going to be a jump ball for viewers, and that will likely spread out viewership quite a bit.

Basketball has been dealing with this for years. There are more games every weekend, and the games are more likely to compete directly for viewership. This is one of the reasons why individual basketball games' ratings are not as strong, but when you look at the sport collectively, it is not bad. Comparing the ratings for a single basketball game that is going up against 5 or 10 other major games to the 3:30 LSU/Alabama SEC game on CBS is like comparing apples and pumpkins. The Alabama/LSU game might get a lot more viewers, but it is one game for one time slot and the rest of the week is dead time. Basketball has a lot of games played throughout the week, for both genders. Football was the much stronger TV sport when networks were only looking to fill a handful of TV slots on a Saturday afternoon. Basketball is going to be very important when streaming services are going to try to get fans to subscribe and stay subscribed over the course of a year.

Football will not be driving the bus in a streaming world. It may still be the most important sport on the bus, but men's and even women's basketball will play a bigger role in driving viewers in the streaming world.

 

[Exit 4]

Survivor, Ghosts, CSI Vegas, Young Sheldon, Abbott Elementary, Blue Bloods, all those assorted Fire/EMS/Cop shows. I don't watch them but they pull in viewers. It's also summer and there's the ongoing strike, so that might be why The Challenge is on primetime.

NFL is in trouble- who is writing the script?!?!

 

[greenday61892]

What are the shows? I just saw that CBS airs MTV's The Challenge on primetime.

The networks seem to be dying just like ESPN is dying.

It's not specifically MTV's The Challenge, it's its own spin-off explicitly with CBS reality show alumni. The networks may be dying but that in particular is not a sign.