Non-Key Tweets | Page 956 | The Boneyard

Non-Key Tweets

JeepCSC said:
Colorado left before the Apple offer was announced and they did it largely because they no longer trusted the PAC leadership (with good reason). The networks only stepped in after the fatal blows were made.
Expand ...

That timeline is completely wrong.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
That timeline is completely wrong.
Expand ...
Colorado announced they were leaving July 27th. The Apple deal was announced August 2nd.

Most of the other body blows to the Pac (the conference network albatross, failing to expand again and again, massively overestimating their value when negotiating with ESPN) all predate the Apple offer by months if not years. Oregon/Washington to the BIG was the culmination of the Pac destruction, not the opening salvo.
 
Fairfield_1st said:
I mostly agree with that, but for the PAC schools they're paying them more in other conferences than they were in the PAC. If the idea is better matchups and they'll recoup it, then why doesn't the same logic apply to UConn? Why are we the only ones they want on the cheap?
I do mostly believe the media is pulling the strings, but that part confounds me.
Expand ...
Fox move was to block Apple from getting all the PAC properties. Fox paid some extra to keep a competitor from getting some key content for their streaming service. For UConn, it was more of moving one Fox property to another.
 
Beachview said:
Im beginning to believe it’s because espn and fox don’t want a streaming service getting into college football..that’s why they broke up the pac 12 .. i think espn wants the acc to take stanford and cal… but some of the Acc schools are pushing back because the travel would be awful and the schools don’t bring value
Expand ...

With the new CFP payouts...there was a $100 million incentive for the PAC 12 to die.

The SEC and B1G will control the direction of the CFP revenue distribution at Wednesday's CFP meeting...the fewer Autonomous 5 conferences left, the more money for their teams.

I do believe that Fox and ESPN are behind a movement for a breakaway division of two major conferences that concentrate football brands.

The playoff monies should be huge and there will be the sharks that gobble the main share and the small fish that hang around snapping at scraps.

I also wonder if the ACC is under pressure to conform to the wishes of the network...what happened to the PAC 12 is a stark reminder of the ability of the gods of football to smite the arrogant.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 

Online statistics

Members online
304
Guests online
2,885
Total visitors
3,189
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,251
Messages
4,388,873
Members
10,196
Latest member
HockeyMikeD


.
..
Top Bottom