Streaming College Sports

[nelsonmuntz]

ESPN was on every cable box in the country, and had a critical mass of sports programming to give it good positioning on those boxes, often with multiple spots in the first 50 channels. That real estate in the cable channel directory was really valuable, 20 years ago. In a streaming world where every content provider can go direct to consumer, that real estate is virtually worthless. It is no easier or harder to find ESPN than it is to find any other content provider.

It is not just the channel, but the broadcast times, that gave ESPN a massive advantage over other channels. ESPN's willingness to commit blocks of time to sports programming gave it an advantage over say CBS or Fox or NBC, who would have to preempt something else to broadcast a game. That is not the case anymore. ParamountPlus (aka CBS) or Apple or even MAX can broadcast a game to any user that wants to watch it. This has simultaneously made the content more valuable to every streaming service, and less valuable to ESPN, because ESPN has lost one of the things that gave it a monopoly position. The non-SEC, non-Big 10 leagues are no longer competing with each other to get whatever broadcast slots are left on ESPN.

ESPN has had a monopoly on much of sports programming, particularly for college sports. Those days are over. Any conference can easily access their fans directly or with any broadcast partner. The technology is fairly basic now, the production costs are manageable, and sports programming is valuable to lots of potential buyers.

This has been one of my biggest arguments against the panic worrying of a massive concentration of market power by 2 or 3 conferences. Other than restricting access to scheduling their members, it is really difficult for the P2 to enforce their market power on other leagues.

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.

I made these two posts a week ago in Non-Key Tweets, and there was a bit of discussion about them, but then someone post the latest Swaim nonsense and the thread went a different direction. Basically, UConn's next move is a bet on streaming vs. broadcast. The Big 12 is a ragtag band of formerly major programs that want to be major again, and they have a really nice broadcast contract with ESPN and Fox, and certainly nice relative to what one would expect them to have given the league's composition. How will that translate to a streaming world?

The entire entertainment revenue model has changed dramatically in the last decade. Do people really think this massive shift is not going to impact sports? All these media contracts are predicated on a network broadcast model, not a streaming model. Those two things are radically different.

Broadcast was about finding the best matchup for the 3:30 pm slot on ABC or CBS, or the 7:30 slot on ESPN. Which teams would draw the most casual fans? A good place to start is with the teams that were traditionally good (Michigan, Ohio State, Georgia, Alabama, USC, Texas, Notre Dame, etc.). ESPN would pay up for those teams to lock in the big games, and because ESPN has the best channel real estate on the cable networks, they were able to box out the other networks. Once ESPN had a critical mass of content, then they effectively had a monopoly, and they could force every cable subscriber, whether they were a sports fan or not, to pay them. THAT was how ESPN became so powerful in sports broadcasting. Those days are over.

ESPN now has to draw subscribers directly to their service, and ESPN is no easier or more difficult to find than any other streaming service. And if I want to watch a Big East game or a MWC game or whatever, I can probably find it online just as easily as I can find an SEC game. This makes the Big East and MWC games more valuable, but also makes the SEC games less valuable. Fans do not need to accept what CBS or ESPN chooses to broadcast. They can watch exactly what they want, when they want. This should have the effect of balancing out a revenue gap that has always defied explanation. Why is a football game between Minnesota and Michigan State worth 40x a football game between Utah State and New Mexico? That revenue disparity exists because the Big 10 negotiates as a block and the MWC negotiates as a block, and because the Big 10 has more programs that can fill a prime slot, the Big 10 gets paid 40x what the MWC gets paid, even though the difference in viewers will probably not be 40x between every Big 10 program and every MWC program.

What does it mean for UConn? Let's see what the Pac 12 gets. It will probably be the first truly bridge contract to the streaming era of sports broadcasting.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Thoughts on the Portal, NIL and expanded CFP world

The transfer thread was turning into a discussion of how the transfer portal and NIL were going to impact college football. I think that is a very interesting discussion. Here are a few things I think are going to happen: 1) All of these things will feed off each other. Expanded access to...

the-boneyard.com

I am not going to repeat what I wrote in that thread other than this:

San Diego State and Florida Atlantic are in the Final Four. A middle of the pack ACC team is the only P5 school in the Final Four, and UConn is back in the Final Four, after many on this board were against the move to the Big East.

The NIL and Transfer Portal have changed EVERYTHING in college athletics. Most of the decision makers appreciate that, although it is hard to see where this will end up and I think some of the decision makers are making bad decisions (see UCLA and USC to the Big 10). All we know for sure is that the status quo is over.

Basketball needs fewer players, so it transformed quicker than football did, but change is coming to football too. I think we are going to see some shocker programs in the CFP Final Four within 2-3 years.

The NIL and Transfer Portal are related to these recent conference moves by Texas/Oklahoma and USC/UCLA. The SEC and Big 10 are trying to buy permanent market power before it is too late. UT and Oklahoma were invited with a few weeks of the Alston case being decided 9-0 by the most fractured Supreme Court in American history. USC and UCLA were invited less than a year later.

What the Big 10 and SEC realized with Alston, which I am sure both conferences saw coming before the ruling, was that NIL and the Transfer Portal were going to blow apart the monopoly the major programs had on top talent. It effectively took a year to turn San Diego State and Florida Atlantic into Final Four teams. Football will be slower to adjust because the teams are bigger, but a change in the hierarchy of that sport is coming too unless the power conferences do something now.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the "P2" looked at the changing streaming world, and realized that if viewers were truly a tossup and not spoon fed major conferences by ESPN, they could have a problem there too. Basically, the Big 10 and SEC had to make a power play now to preserve their position, because it could be too late in 5 or even 3 years.

I will acknowledge that the Big 12 does seem well positioned in an NIL/Transfer Portal world with lots of city schools that should be able to compete against anyone for talent.

 

[Marbles90]

Quite a bit to unpack in your posts. I think there are two points on the ESPN subject which may or may not impact what you posted above (I am sure you have considered both points):

1) While it is true any streaming service can stream games, ESPN is still the premier sports streaming service and that is going to mean something in the sports streaming world. For example, even if my team's games are streaming on another service, I probably will still subscribe to ESPN because they will have the most sports. I currently do not subscribe to AppleTV or Max and would not add them for say the PAC12 but I will add ESPN and watch a PAC12 game if I was bored on a Saturday night.

2) We are still a long way away from everything going streaming and many many people are still using other TV forms like cable, fiber optics or satellite to get TV in their houses. But even if it is true that EVERYTHING will be streaming eventually, I think we will still have live tv content streaming providers like YouTubeTV, Hulu, etc. that will include ESPN in their package - thus putting ESPN right back to negotiating like they did with cable providers. It will most likely not be to the extent they had with their monopoly, but I would think it still puts them in a better position than the stand alone providers.

 

[TheDrifter75]

I made these two posts a week ago in Non-Key Tweets, and there was a bit of discussion about them, but then someone post the latest nonsense and the thread went a different direction.

It went a different direction and no one came back to what you said because no one cared about your essay. It's ok, happens to all of us.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

It went a different direction and no one came back to what you said because no one cared about your essay. It's ok, happens to all of us.

It takes a special kind of poster to post how much they don't care about a topic in a thread on that topic.

Also, I get that it is out of your control, but you automatically lose the argument if @CTMike likes your post.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Quite a bit to unpack in your posts. I think there are two points on the ESPN subject which may or may not impact what you posted above (I am sure you have considered both points):

1) While it is true any streaming service can stream games, ESPN is still the premier sports streaming service and that is going to mean something in the sports streaming world. For example, even if my team's games are streaming on another service, I probably will still subscribe to ESPN because they will have the most sports. I currently do not subscribe to AppleTV or Max and would not add them for say the PAC12 but I will add ESPN and watch a PAC12 game if I was bored on a Saturday night.

2) We are still a long way away from everything going streaming and many many people are still using other TV forms like cable, fiber optics or satellite to get TV in their houses. But even if it is true that EVERYTHING will be streaming eventually, I think we will still have live tv content streaming providers like YouTubeTV, Hulu, etc. that will include ESPN in their package - thus putting ESPN right back to negotiating like they did with cable providers. It will most likely not be to the extent they had with their monopoly, but I would think it still puts them in a better position than the stand alone providers.

I think the resellers like cable or Hulu or YouTubeTV are going to have a tough time in the future.

I don't think ESPN will go away. They are still pretty good at broadcasting sports and they produce a lot of original sports content that people will pay them for. But the days of ESPN getting millions of people who didn't want to watch ESPN to pay ESPN as part of the basic cable package are coming to an end. And I don't even know how to calculate how much revenue that is for ESPN that is going away. And when it goes, it will change what content ESPN buys and how much it is willing to pay for it. This is why I think the gap will close between the haves and have nots at colleges, unless the "haves" do something now.

 

[hoopsfan22]

The haves don't have to do anything. They will always have leverage simply because of who they are. They have intrinsic value unlike most of the slop in D-I who are throw-ins and/or lucky to be grandfathered in to the old way of doing business. A school like UConn let alone one like SDSU isn't closing the gap on the Ohio States and Alabamas of the world in this lifetime or next.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The TV and movie industry is a good roadmap to what will happen to sports broadcasting. Look at the ratings of the Top 30 shows 30 or even 10 years ago, and look at them today. When the filter of the network executives was removed by expanding the number of cable channels, and then streaming, the industry fragmented rapidly. There are probably 8 or 9 different networks that will have a show among the top 20 most popular shows this year. Programming went niche. What is the corollary with college sports? Everyone watching what they want to watch, not what they have to watch.

What did the new streaming world mean for the producers and the actors? There will never be another Friends, a show that generates so much money that it creates generational wealth for its stars. But there are a lot of good shows getting a lot of actors paid well.

 

[uconnyankee]

Here’s the thing…. Are you writing this because you’re an industry insider, or are you simply spitballing like everyone else, but just need more words to get your point across.

If it’s the latter, that’s a lot of energy spent on pure speculation. Although I admire the authoritative tone.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Here’s the thing…. Are you writing this because you’re an industry insider, or are you simply spitballing like everyone else, but just need more words to get your point across.

If it’s the latter, that’s a lot of energy spent on pure speculation. Although I admire the authoritative tone.

If the topic makes you angry, just skip it.

 

[UConnJim]

Interesting topic. I have seen some investment presentations on the subject and Disney/ESPN is one of the top streamers and the clear leader in the clubhouse when it comes to sports streaming. The key question for Disney/ESPN is can they attract enough subscribers/price high enough to offset the captive cable subscriber losses. We will see, but I'm skeptical. But, must watch teams/games will become very valuable to the streamers as that will drive subscribers and pricing.

I have always said that the streaming world is a positive for UConn sports. Why? UConn athletics are undervalued, in my opinion, from a media value standpoint. Heck UConn women's basketball is worth more than BC athletics media value as UConn's women's basketball draws the fans. What currently props up BC's value is football games against Notre Dame, Clemson, Florida St.,... not the size of BC's fanbase.

 

[ScottVib]

Ultimately UConn needs to prove that it's fanbase is large enough and passionate enough to drive enough subscribers to a streaming entity. The fact that we cited concerns that the women's (and to a lesser extent mens) basketball exposure as it relates to streaming as some of the motivation behind the AAC departure doesn't help things. For example Herbst said the following:

“Our fan base is of course sophisticated in the ways of digital media. But exposure on ‘linear’ (traditional, cable) television is vitally important to us because many Husky fans gather to watch UConn basketball as a social event — when traveling, in restaurants or bars, or in the living room with family and friends. Right now, wherever I am, I can tune in easily and see our student-athletes in action. We do not want our amazing Husky fan lifestyle disrupted. Period.

Benedict added:

However based on UConn’s understanding of the deal, there are certain exclusive components which we believe are not in the best interest of our fan base or representative of maintaining and building our brand.

Essentially the President of the university is saying the fans of a valuable property to a streaming provider are reticent to change from linear to streaming. While Benedict also was making it clear that he valued the linear exposure above streaming as streaming wasn't in our (the fans) best interest. The concerns were enough to be discussed about as a reason to pivot from the AAC to the Big East; which while clearly being the right move to make... also could be a hindrance in a future where even P5 leagues will rely significantly on streaming.

There's an argument to be made that had UConn fans bought up ESPN+ subs like crazy to see women's basketball, football, November/December men's hoops, baseball, etc then it may actually have been more attractive to networks now as they eye a model where streaming is an ever growing proportion of their revenue streams.

 

[uconnyankee]

Meh…. It was pretty clear UConn fans were expected to foot the bill and drive up ESPN revenues while not getting anything in return.

Moving to Big East was the right move at the time.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Ultimately UConn needs to prove that it's fanbase is large enough and passionate enough to drive enough subscribers to a streaming entity. The fact that we cited concerns that the women's (and to a lesser extent mens) basketball exposure as it relates to streaming as some of the motivation behind the AAC departure doesn't help things. For example Herbst said the following:

“Our fan base is of course sophisticated in the ways of digital media. But exposure on ‘linear’ (traditional, cable) television is vitally important to us because many Husky fans gather to watch UConn basketball as a social event — when traveling, in restaurants or bars, or in the living room with family and friends. Right now, wherever I am, I can tune in easily and see our student-athletes in action. We do not want our amazing Husky fan lifestyle disrupted. Period.

Benedict added:

However based on UConn’s understanding of the deal, there are certain exclusive components which we believe are not in the best interest of our fan base or representative of maintaining and building our brand.

Essentially the President of the university is saying the fans of a valuable property to a streaming provider are reticent to change from linear to streaming. While Benedict also was making it clear that he valued the linear exposure above streaming as streaming wasn't in our (the fans) best interest. The concerns were enough to be discussed about as a reason to pivot from the AAC to the Big East; which while clearly being the right move to make... also could be a hindrance in a future where even P5 leagues will rely significantly on streaming.

There's an argument to be made that had UConn fans bought up ESPN+ subs like crazy to see women's basketball, football, November/December men's hoops, baseball, etc then it may actually have been more attractive to networks now as they eye a model where streaming is an ever growing proportion of their revenue streams.

A lot has changed in the last 3-4 years since Benedict gave that interview.

Lastest Cord Cutting Statistics, Facts and Trends [2024 edition]

Cord-cutting (ditching traditional cable and satellite TV) is exploding. We take a detailed look at the top cord cutting statistics.

www.comparitech.com

Cord-cutting is responsible for leading cable TV providers losing millions of customers they can’t seem to win back. In fact, traditional pay-TV providers lost around 6 million pay-TV subscribers each year from 2019 to 2022. This trend seems set to continue, with 2.3 million customers leaving in the first quarter of 2023 alone.

Who wants to bet on that market? Cable is just going to be a high speed internet service in 10 years unless it radically changes its business model. The thing is, the Live TV services (I call them resellers) are not picking up all those cord cutters. A lot of the cord cutters are going to straight on-demand.

I think the Big 10 deal signed last year is going to be the last traditional, linear contract.

Big Ten completes $7B deal with Fox, CBS, NBC

The Big Ten has completed a new seven-year media rights agreement with Fox, CBS and NBC that is set to bring in more than $7 billion to one of the nation's most powerful athletic conferences.

www.espn.com

I also think the broadcasters are going to get absolutely slaughtered on it. Why would anyone pay this much for a single conference when there is lots of competitive content that is much cheaper?

 

[Chuck]

Who wants to bet on that market? Cable is just going to be a high speed internet service in 10 years unless it radically changes its business model. The thing is, the Live TV services (I call them resellers) are not picking up all those cord cutters. A lot of the cord cutters are going to straight on-demand.

I agree. I'd get rid of YouTubeTV if I could, but at my age I'm just too attached to having a lot of channels. I think this the specialization is bad for our country on the whole since it's going to lead to people picking the stuff they gravitate to (agree with). I know that cable companies aren't altruistic, but there is something to be said about a person (especially teens) being able to surf through stuff they wouldn't otherwise know to watch and maybe stop and learn about an opposing voice. This is especially true of news programming (if any really still exists). To be clear though, my kids almost never use YouTubeTV unless they're watching with my wife and me.

But that has nothing to do with sports. I'm interested in where streaming goes with sports. I think that normal people will pay for two different types of providers that carry sports: i) providers that have a large and diverse amount of programming (sports or otherwise) that make that channel worthwhile. This would be the Apples, Netflix, etc. ii) specialized providers that may only carry a conference or team.

With the first type, it's going to be an arms race. I subscribe to a bunch of providers. I don't have Paramount +. It bothers me that I can't get certain US soccer games, but not enough to subscribe. I've decided to draw a line. They need to show me more. Many of the providers seem to have one good show at a time, which I'm sure is deliberate to keep you from cancelling until your favorites are back.

The second type, in my opinion, is going to struggle. I really like college basketball, I wouldn't pay a penny to get the ACC network if it was sold separately. In fact, I wouldn't pay much for a Big East network unless it got me every UConn game, and I'd rather pay very slightly less to get every UConn game and no other Big East content. Conferences or teams that set-up their own services will only sell to their biggest fans, which will also stop them from attracting new fans other than those otherwise attached to the teams (alums/locals).

So, if you are a conference, I think you are walking a fine line. I think you are best off on a platform with a lot of other content than your own... but not so much that your content gets buried.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I agree. I'd get rid of YouTubeTV if I could, but at my age I'm just too attached to having a lot of channels. I think this the specialization is bad for our country on the whole since it's going to lead to people picking the stuff they gravitate to (agree with). I know that cable companies aren't altruistic, but there is something to be said about a person (especially teens) being able to surf through stuff they wouldn't otherwise know to watch and maybe stop and learn about an opposing voice. This is especially true of news programming (if any really still exists). To be clear though, my kids almost never use YouTubeTV unless they're watching with my wife and me.

But that has nothing to do with sports. I'm interested in where streaming goes with sports. I think that normal people will pay for two different types of providers that carry sports: i) providers that have a large and diverse amount of programming (sports or otherwise) that make that channel worthwhile. This would be the Apples, Netflix, etc. ii) specialized providers that may only carry a conference or team.

With the first type, it's going to be an arms race. I subscribe to a bunch of providers. I don't have Paramount +. It bothers me that I can't get certain US soccer games, but not enough to subscribe. I've decided to draw a line. They need to show me more. Many of the providers seem to have one good show at a time, which I'm sure is deliberate to keep you from cancelling until your favorites are back.

The second type, in my opinion, is going to struggle. I really like college basketball, I wouldn't pay a penny to get the ACC network if it was sold separately. In fact, I wouldn't pay much for a Big East network unless it got me every UConn game, and I'd rather pay very slightly less to get every UConn game and no other Big East content. Conferences or teams that set-up their own services will only sell to their biggest fans, which will also stop them from attracting new fans other than those otherwise attached to the teams (alums/locals).

So, if you are a conference, I think you are walking a fine line. I think you are best off on a platform with a lot of other content than your own... but not so much that your content gets buried.

I think you are right about where this will go, but I change my mind a lot on this.

Cutting the cord is effectively taking out a huge, very expensive middleman for every consumer. I have saved so much money by cancelling cable that I have ramped up my direct services like NBA League Pass. I saved about $160/month by cancelling cable, on a pure apples to apples basis, which wasn't actually apples-to-apples because I get so much more from a streaming service like MAX or Paramount+ than I did from HBO or Showtime on cable. Actually, every streaming service is a better experience than its cable counterpart, even ESPN.

And I think there is still room to go for cost-cutting in this supply chain. I am paying for the major networks twice because I have Hulu Live and also have Paramount+, Peacock and Hulu. If MSNBC moved to Peacock and CNN moved to MAX, even if it cost a bit more, I might cancel Hulu Live. That would be another $70/month.

Once you really cut out the middleman, that is more money for niche programming like a conference network.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I think a strong case could be made for smaller conferences in the streaming era, especially given the College Football Playoff selection process.

A conference would be best served by 10 or so teams playing an 8 game schedule with really strong matchups and rivalries with teams that play each other every year or so, rather than a 16 team hodgepodge that creates a lot of games no one cares about, between teams that play each other every 4th year.

 

[jostar1]

Meh…. It was pretty clear UConn fans were expected to foot the bill and drive up ESPN revenues while not getting anything in return.

Moving to Big East was the right move at the time.

I agree with this. It was right at the time.

However, I'm hoping that now, as part of a Big 12 invite, UConn's WBB will be looked at as an asset by ESPN and might factor into us getting pro-rata.

 

[UConnJim]

The cable bundle may not be completely on the outs as there is some innovation going on out there.

Many of you won't believe the deal our vacation home condo complex got for cable/internet from Spectrum. We are paying $83/month for:
500 Mbps speed no data caps
Modem/Router
125+ channels
3 premium channels HBO/Showtime/Cinemax
On Demand
2 DVRs cable boxes
Adds ons can be purchased direct like sports packages, other premium channels, higher internet speed,...
I think the price is locked in for 2 years with max price increases in the future of 5%.
You are on your own for wiring your house if you haven't already.

When the condo board announced the bulk deal, I thought the deal was too good to be true, but that is the deal. I am now paying a little extra for some sports channels.

I asked the provider how they could do the deal. They said we are getting a bulk rate, billing is semi annual in advance with one bill going to the association which is much cheaper for the provider (we get charged through our HOA fees), they won't wire your house so they avoid that cost, standardization of equipment and services, and they got all of the condo complex where before some had DISH, some didn't have cable/internet, and some were internet only. Approximately 88% of the complex had internet and 60% had cable previously. Some people wanted to opt out of the deal, but the deal was 100% of the complex or no deal and the board voted to add the expense to annual dues.

 

[billybud]

Streaming services aren't yet paying big bucks for college football (see Pac 12)...

A streaming smorgasbord will lead to boutique viewing, with smaller programs having an audience, but a limited audience and limited funding.

A limited number of folks will spend a Saturday afternoon watching Akron or Georgia Southern.

Nationwide, fans will still want to watch the marquee match ups.....samo, samo...Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Georgia, etc.

 

[billybud]

i guess that I am an anomaly in that I don't fret my TV costs...and yep, some would consider them high....

I have DTV (about half of which is streamed) cable internet...and streaming subscriptions to Prime, Netflix, Brit Box, Acorn, Masterpiece Theater. The only regular linear TV I watch is the news, weather, and the ABC-ESPN sports family, SECN, BTN, and ACCN.

I enjoy the 4k streams. and we entertain ourselves in the evening at the monthly cost of a meal and a bottle of wine at a decent restaurant.

 

[Seamus84]

IMO, It’s an interesting discussion because it speaks to the question between the value of a conference vs the value of individual teams.

Like the music industry, where you had to buy the entire album to get the two songs you really wanted, college sports media may adapt and focus more on specific games. If you were Michigan and Ohio State, would you turn down Amazon Prime if they offered $10mil each for your annual game? And then $25mil for the rest of the schedule and another $x for your men’s hoops games? It’s what made ND’s deal with NBC so ahead of its time (#Genius), and why the ACC is exploring tiered payouts (the death knell for a conference imo).

Not saying it’s going to happen, but I’d be surprised if some quant at some network isn’t looking at all angles.

 

[UConnJim]

IMO, It’s an interesting discussion because it speaks to the question between the value of a conference vs the value of individual teams.

Like the music industry, where you had to buy the entire album to get the two songs you really wanted, college sports media may adapt and focus more on specific games. If you were Michigan and Ohio State, would you turn down Amazon Prime if they offered $10mil each for your annual game? And then $25mil for the rest of the schedule and another $x for your men’s hoops games? It’s what made ND’s deal with NBC so ahead of its time (#Genius), and why the ACC is exploring tiered payouts (the death knell for a conference imo).

Not saying it’s going to happen, but I’d be surprised if some quant at some network isn’t looking at all angles.

It will happen. When newspapers went online, it starting providing newspaper management data on which articles were actually read. Newspapers have traditionally paid writers close to the same amount of money, but they have the data to determine if they wanted to pay writers different amounts based on clicks and time spent reading articles.

 

[billybud]

In the music industry as it exists now, Streaming is leaving the artists behind.

The music industry’s shift towards an on-demand streaming model has been heralded by many as a positive change. Streaming subscriptions are allowing music fans to listen to more music than ever before, and, in most cases, are more affordable than purchasing full albums (the average paid streaming service subscription costs about $10 per month, and many offer free, ad-supported versions of their service).

While music’s shift to streaming has relined the coffers of the music industry and increased accessibility for listeners, one key group has been left behind by the industry’s digital on-demand revolution: the musicians themselves.

For the upper echelon of artists, many of whom receive billions of streams, streaming can generate substantial income. For most artists, however, this is not the case. A recent study from the UK’s Intellectual Property Office found that just 0.4% of artists on streaming platforms earned enough from streaming to make a living. Even well-established artists with substantial followings can struggle. Last November, singer-songwriter Nadine Shah appeared before members of the UK House of Commons and revealed that she was struggling to pay rent despite having more than 100,000 monthly listeners on Spotify. Shah is not alone. Research shows that 82% of artists on streaming platforms earn less than $270 per year.

 

[Seamus84]

100%. The 80/20 rule will apply to college sports as well, so we have to make sure we’re one of the top 20% of programs.

Unfortunately, what I fear is inevitable is the elimination of many sports (or reduction to club status at best). Alabama is arguably the most profitable football program and yet the school chooses to offer fewer sports than UConn.

Enjoy it while it lasts.