Non-Key Tweets | Page 957 | The Boneyard

Non-Key Tweets

Joined
Nov 20, 2021
Messages
881
Reaction Score
3,396
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
 

Urcea

Rent Enjoyer
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
519
Reaction Score
2,400

Makes perfect sense if it’s football only with Gonzaga joining for olympics, and then throw this conference some preferential OOC scheduling opportunities in basketball.
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
765
Reaction Score
1,184
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

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.
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,230
Reaction Score
33,130
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.

That timeline is completely wrong.
 
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
765
Reaction Score
1,184
That timeline is completely wrong.
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.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
2,812
Reaction Score
9,058
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.
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.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,564
Reaction Score
8,039
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

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:
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
8,564
Reaction Score
8,039
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).
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,230
Reaction Score
33,130
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).

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.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2018
Messages
6,257
Reaction Score
21,362
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).
Then why in the heck is acc considering SMU if not to get into the Dallas market ?
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
29,352
Reaction Score
46,686
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).
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.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
5,043
Reaction Score
19,908
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.
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.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
29,352
Reaction Score
46,686
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.
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
 

Online statistics

Members online
354
Guests online
2,254
Total visitors
2,608

Forum statistics

Threads
157,330
Messages
4,094,446
Members
9,985
Latest member
stanfordnyc


Top Bottom