Non-Key Tweets

[nelsonmuntz]

I agree with what you said about committing to sports and not pre-empting other programming. That made ESPN unique, along with SportsCenter, which was the only place to really get sports news.

I don't think they are in danger of irrelevance though. Cable isn't dead yet and won't be a long time, even if it is diminished. The main difference between the streaming services and cable is in how they are monetized. Subscription vs advertising. The value in live sports is that it still has advertising value. Serial TV shows have lost much of that value with the advent of DVR, so a subscription streaming service was a better way to monetize that content. It's still shifting that way. But sports remains the thing people watch live, so is better suited to the advertising model than the subscription model.

It's all in motion of course, but Apple is unlikely to make a huge splash on college sports. Reports are the MLS deal isn't really working for them, although Messi may change that. Streaming services only have a toe in the water on sports, but the early results are that they don't drive more subscribers. If they stream sports, it will be with advertising, but Apple/Amazon don't know how to do that well. This is why I think we may see a shift to PPV on streaming services. So if Apple or Amazon picks up a conference, you aren't likely to get that content free with a normal subscription.

The cable model was really about forcing people who didn't use ESPN to pay for ESPN, or ESPN would pull itself off the cable system. There were dozens of public spats between ESPN and cable providers over pricing, and ESPN won every time, because it was basically a sports monopoly. This ability to force every single cable subscriber to pay ESPN's carriage fee was a massive revenue producer for ESPN, and made it difficult for anyone to compete with it. Fox had the financial muscle to get a foothold with a few conferences, and no one else could compete at all. Those days are over. Everything is going to be a la carte soon.

The streamers all have the same problem. Original content is insanely expensive, and the audience response is uncertain. For example, Apple's The Morning Show costs $15 million an episode to produce. That is $150 million a season, for 10 hours of content, that a user can just wait until they have all been released, sign up, binge watch them all, and then cancel Apple until the next season comes out in 18 months. Apple needs enough new content to keep subscribers from cancelling.

Max, ParamountPlus, Peacock and Hulu/Disney have huge libraries, but Apple does not, and Netflix has a lot of junk in theirs. The libraries may keep subscribers on for a while, but all of them need to produce new content, and that is expensive, and can be gamed by subscribers. Sports can not be gamed. It needs to be watched when it is played, and the streamer can advertise during it and viewers won't switch or turn it off.

What evidence do I have? ESPN just paid a boatload for the Big 12 and SEC. Either you have to assume that ESPN is stupid, or that they are going to make a return on that massive investment, even in a streaming world. In a fragmented streaming market with few barriers to entry beyond money (which all of the streamers already have), if those leagues are worth that much to ESPN, then other content must be worth a lot to someone else too.

 

[businesslawyer]

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Am I the only boneyarder who spit out what they were drinking onto their computer screen when they read this?

 

[Nostical]

The main difference between the streaming services and cable is in how they are monetized. Subscription vs advertising.

Beginning last year, Netflix moved to an alternative (and cheaper) advertising model--in addition to a straight subscription. The success of that effort has already propelled its stock in one year from $169 to $423. If the Netflix subscribers (which can no longer share passwords--but have not bolted--adding even more revenue to Netflix) continue to embrace the advertising model, it could well pluck more of the advertising spending away from cable and further into streaming. If Netflix continues at this pace, other subscription services will likely adapt as well, taking even more advertising dollars away from cable.
Having said that, please get us into the BIG XII now and we can worry about it later!

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Am I the only boneyarder who spit out what they were drinking onto their computer screen when they read this?

Hopefully it wasn't a premium Scotch!!!

 

[HuskyHawk]

Hopefully it wasn't a premium Scotch!!!

This reminds me of something absurd I saw at a rooftop bar last week. They had three levels of drinks. Premium, Super Premium and Ultra Premium. So "Premium" is the bottom shelf stuff. Meanwhile, looking at the bottles, nothing they had was even what a normal person would call "premium".

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

This reminds me of something absurd I saw at a rooftop bar last week. They had three levels of drinks. Premium, Super Premium and Ultra Premium. So "Premium" is the bottom shelf stuff. Meanwhile, looking at the bottles, nothing they had was even what a normal person would call "premium".

So much for truth in "advertising". Pretty silly approach by that establishment - I think it shows what they think of the customers. SMH.

 

[businesslawyer]

Hopefully it wasn't a premium Scotch!!!

At 1:41 on a work day? I don't think so.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

At 1:41 on a work day? I don't think so.

I'll wager there are some in your profession who would. Mine as well

 

[Chin Diesel]

This reminds me of something absurd I saw at a rooftop bar last week. They had three levels of drinks. Premium, Super Premium and Ultra Premium. So "Premium" is the bottom shelf stuff. Meanwhile, looking at the bottles, nothing they had was even what a normal person would call "premium".

Kinda like feeling good about seeing a boarding pass for an airline, seeing you are in Boarding Group 1, and then slowly realizing you may be the last group to board.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

So much for truth in "advertising". Pretty silly approach by that establishment - I think it shows what they think of the customers. SMH.

They're reaching for the same audience that fell for "this one goes to eleven".

 

[businesslawyer]

I'll wager there are some in your profession who would. Mine as well

I don't doubt that. But not me. If it were a tailgating day, however, ....

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

I'll wager there are some in your profession who would. Mine as well

Isn't this why desks have drawers?

 

[NEforceUConn]

I agree…between the ACC, the PAC, and the Big 12, the only conference where all its members seem fully committed to its survival is the Big12. In truth, that is probably because no current Big12 school is likely to garner interests from the BIG10 or SEC so they know it’s ride or die with the Big12.

Our time in the old Big East taught us what happens when some members aren’t committed long term to the league. Seems the current PAC and ACC have those issues and the Big12 doesn’t.

Amen brother, great point!

 

[ZooCougar]

Yeah because that's worked out so well for us in the past.

Good point

 

[Jimdish255]

I just want us in the Big12 scheduling every game opposite Rutgers. Not entirely serious, but I do wonder if success on the football field and our continued success in basketball is something is something that would impact the Big10 in any way concerning Northeast market share and media value. Sure it's a minor consideration given their brand identities are schools in other markets. But it seems like an opportunity was wasted once choosing Rutgers. If we do get a B12 offer would the Big10 take any notice?

 

[noeynox]

I just want us in the Big12 scheduling every game opposite Rutgers. Not entirely serious, but I do wonder if success on the football field and our continued success in basketball is something is something that would impact the Big10 in any way concerning Northeast market share and media value. Sure it's a minor consideration given their brand identities are schools in other markets. But it seems like an opportunity was wasted once choosing Rutgers. If we do get a B12 offer would the Big10 take any notice?

If we had success, sure, i would think so. We have seen with our BB we captivate the region. FB has never attained that level, but the closest juggernaut to here is Penn State. If we had a magical season in a P5 league everyone would notice. The transfer portal is real game changer in making something like that possible. You don't need 3 or 4 years to remake rosters anymore.

 

[HuskyHawk]

If we had success, sure, i would think so. We have seen with our BB we captivate the region. FB has never attained that level, but the closest juggernaut to here is Penn State. If we had a magical season in a P5 league everyone would notice. The transfer portal is real game changer in making something like that possible. You don't need 3 or 4 years to remake rosters anymore.

Even more so for football. The big programs used to hoard players and had enough talent on the bench to field a quality team. Most of those kids used to stick it out and hope they get their shot. Not so much anymore. Sitting on the bench at Bama, UGA or Ohio State doesn‘t have the appeal it once did. Most BB teams don‘t have talent that doesn’t play on the roster, but football has loads of it.

 

[CoastAtlantic]

SW AIM SHOW@GSw aim · 2h
The #Pac12 isn't going to add #SDSU or #SMU unless they lose teams, so the Aztecs and Mustangs better pray

SW AIM SHOW@GSw aim · 2h
Once again the #Pac12 will be a very high percentage of streaming and less than $20M (less than half of the #Big12 actual revenue) per team. The P12 is dead, either now or later!!

 

[AZHuskiePop]

Even more so for football. The big programs used to hoard players and had enough talent on the bench to field a quality team. Most of those kids used to stick it out and hope they get their shot. Not so much anymore. Sitting on the bench at Bama, UGA or Ohio State doesn‘t have the appeal it once did. Most BB teams don‘t have talent that doesn’t play on the roster, but football has loads of it.

Football use to be worse
The NCAA cut total allowable scholarships to 85 in 1973. Prior to that you could be an All Stater and 5th or 6th string at a top program. I worked for man years ago who son got a football scholarship to Ohio State but never got into a game in four years or probable even dressed for one .
There was no limit and some schools carried up yo 150 football scholarships
Title IX ended that practice

 

[TheDrifter75]

Football use to be worse
The NCAA cut total allowable scholarships to 85 in 1973. Prior to that you could be an All Stater and 5th or 6th string at a top program. I worked for man years ago who son got a football scholarship to Ohio State but never got into a game in four years or probable even dressed for one .
There was no limit and some schools carried up yo 150 football scholarships
Title IX ended that practice

Did the scholarship limit help??

 

[HuskyHawk]

Did the scholarship limit help??

Yes but they still carry non scholarship kids who could probably be on scholarship elsewhere.

 

[noeynox]

 

[dayooper]

Yes but they still carry non scholarship kids who could probably be on scholarship elsewhere.

But that’s their choice. Back before 1973, a kid signed a scholarship and he was stuck. At least now the walk-ons know they have an uphill battle to climb.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Thamel does not qualify as a "key" tweet.

 

[uconnyankee]

This adds nothing new in terms of what’s out there.