Non-Key Tweets | Page 797 | The Boneyard

Non-Key Tweets

Warchant owner's take....on future

I've noticed that a lot of national media types aren't well versed in what's happening with television revenue in college sports. Most are stuck in antiquated thinking that a couple massive cable providers are generating all the revenue. As such, they overvalue things like "Carriage Fees" and getting conference networks into in new states. The days of Comcast and Direct TV paying massive fees to carry a conference network or ESPNU are gone.

It's going to streaming so revenue will be generated by eyeballs (TV ratings and # of fans willing to purchase a subscription to watch their team). It has very little to do with getting in markets with large populations because of the number of TVs that might carry the network. And thinking because a conference and network already have a team in a state (Florida) that it doesn't need another is nonsense. The total number of viewers/subscribers to a streaming service isn't going to change just because it has two high profile teams in the same state (Texas & A&M in the SEC).
 
billybud said:
Warchant owner's take....on future

I've noticed that a lot of national media types aren't well versed in what's happening with television revenue in college sports. Most are stuck in antiquated thinking that a couple massive cable providers are generating all the revenue. As such, they overvalue things like "Carriage Fees" and getting conference networks into in new states. The days of Comcast and Direct TV paying massive fees to carry a conference network or ESPNU are gone.

It's going to streaming so revenue will be generated by eyeballs (TV ratings and # of fans willing to purchase a subscription to watch their team). It has very little to do with getting in markets with large populations because of the number of TVs that might carry the network. And thinking because a conference and network already have a team in a state (Florida) that it doesn't need another is nonsense. The total number of viewers/subscribers to a streaming service isn't going to change just because it has two high profile teams in the same state (Texas & A&M in the SEC).
Expand ...

Linear is dead, but when you get in the weeds about what is next, I don’t think anyone knows what will happen.

Conferences may become coops of individual schools selling subscriptions. Maybe conferences continue to subsidize their laggards. It is too early to tell. All that is known for sure is that linear bundling is dead.
 
billybud said:
Warchant owner's take....on future

I've noticed that a lot of national media types aren't well versed in what's happening with television revenue in college sports. Most are stuck in antiquated thinking that a couple massive cable providers are generating all the revenue. As such, they overvalue things like "Carriage Fees" and getting conference networks into in new states. The days of Comcast and Direct TV paying massive fees to carry a conference network or ESPNU are gone.

It's going to streaming so revenue will be generated by eyeballs (TV ratings and # of fans willing to purchase a subscription to watch their team). It has very little to do with getting in markets with large populations because of the number of TVs that might carry the network. And thinking because a conference and network already have a team in a state (Florida) that it doesn't need another is nonsense. The total number of viewers/subscribers to a streaming service isn't going to change just because it has two high profile teams in the same state (Texas & A&M in the SEC).
Expand ...
Then why in the heck is acc considering SMU if not to get into the Dallas market ?
 
billybud said:
Warchant owner's take....on future

I've noticed that a lot of national media types aren't well versed in what's happening with television revenue in college sports. Most are stuck in antiquated thinking that a couple massive cable providers are generating all the revenue. As such, they overvalue things like "Carriage Fees" and getting conference networks into in new states. The days of Comcast and Direct TV paying massive fees to carry a conference network or ESPNU are gone.

It's going to streaming so revenue will be generated by eyeballs (TV ratings and # of fans willing to purchase a subscription to watch their team). It has very little to do with getting in markets with large populations because of the number of TVs that might carry the network. And thinking because a conference and network already have a team in a state (Florida) that it doesn't need another is nonsense. The total number of viewers/subscribers to a streaming service isn't going to change just because it has two high profile teams in the same state (Texas & A&M in the SEC).
Expand ...
If this is true, then the recent expansions make absolutely no sense.

A lot of schools with small fanbases were added.

Heck, the ACC is looking at SMU.

That's all about the market and the state. SMU has a very small following.
 
.-.
upstater said:
If this is true, then the recent expansions make absolutely no sense.

A lot of schools with small fanbases were added.

Heck, the ACC is looking at SMU.

That's all about the market and the state. SMU has a very small following.
Expand ...
Has the ACC done a good job with expansion? No. And, they are short sighted. Could SMU bring some additional revenue in the short term from being in a large TV market? Yes. Is SMU a smart move for the future? No, as they have a small fan base.
 
UConnJim said:
Has the ACC done a good job with expansion? No. And, they are short sighted. Could SMU bring some additional revenue in the short term from being in a large TV market? Yes. Is SMU a smart move for the future? No, as they have a small fan base.
Expand ...
You can't kick a team out of your conference.

And for what are you adding them? A few million.

It's insane that even 7 schools would be in favor of this
 
That sportskeedia site is really weird. It often has the latest happenings but scrapped from the internet and it always reads like it was written by Chat GPT. It seems like whoever owns it is using AI to create and push content to the top for clickbait stuff which is a smart way to get traffic for ad revenue money grab ... but super sketchy on substance.
 
upstater said:
If this is true, then the recent expansions make absolutely no sense.

A lot of schools with small fanbases were added.

Heck, the ACC is looking at SMU.

That's all about the market and the state. SMU has a very small following.
Expand ...
Until the cable bundle dies then that's not a bad bet. In the future I think we see more conferences bundle all of their rights TV/multi media etc to maximize value. I also think we see tiered distribution similar to the CFP, the schools that bring the most value will get the highest guaranteed money with some set aside for performance based bonuses
 
.-.
This is Kansas St. This is the most excitement anyone has had in Manhattan since last spring when the same thing happened:

 
So, if the ACC stakes a claim in big 12 territory by inviting SMU, does the big 12 reciprocate by inviting Connecticut and USF?
 
.-.
CL82 said:
So, if the ACC stakes a claim in big 12 territory by inviting SMU, does the big 12 reciprocate by inviting Connecticut and USF?
Expand ...
Maybe if USF was still good at football. They're struggling in all sports right now. I get that they have a lot of students and are in Florida but meh.
 
NowInStorrs said:
Maybe if USF was still good at football. They're struggling in all sports right now. I get that they have a lot of students and are in Florida but meh.
Expand ...
Maybe they just need to be in a Power conference and things will turn around
 
CL82 said:
So, if the ACC stakes a claim in big 12 territory by inviting SMU, does the big 12 reciprocate by inviting Connecticut and USF?
Expand ...
Maybe they will get their heads out of their anuses and do what I suggested weeks ago, Stanford, Cal and UConn. Frank the Tank casually dropping that swing vote North Carolina wants to focus on basketball. SMU does nothing for them.
 
HuskyHawk said:
Maybe they will get their heads out of their anuses and do what I suggested weeks ago, Stanford, Cal and UConn. Frank the Tank casually dropping that swing vote North Carolina wants to focus on basketball. SMU does nothing for them.
Expand ...
I think people are misinterpreting the basketball thing. They want to pay people for outstanding bb performance out of the tv money SMU will forego. Not just reward FB success.
 
CL82 said:
So, if the ACC stakes a claim in big 12 territory by inviting SMU, does the big 12 reciprocate by inviting Connecticut and USF?
Expand ...

Fail Charlie Brown GIF by Peanuts
 
.-.
WestCoastHusky said:
B12 will only expand again if Fox and ESPN step up and say they will pay for the expansion.

It is simple as that.
Expand ...

There is literally nothing simple about the next 5 to 10 years of college sports or higher education. Anything can happen. After that, things will probably settle down though.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,085
Messages
4,552,513
Members
10,435
Latest member
DukeBlue


Top Bottom