Streaming College Sports

[UConnJim]

I think this is interesting - no major properties up for renewal means relative.. stability?

The bankruptcy of Bally Sports (RSNs) could hit individual teams hard as many could get cuts in rights fees and this will impact MLB, NBA, and NHL teams. All RSNs are under pressure due to cable cord cutting. This instability needs to be solved and my guess it will lead to some sort of streaming solution in the long term.

 

[UConnJim]

The final nail in the cable coffin will be when the combination of improved wireless networks and video compression makes it possible to better stream video in the home by wireless.

Anyone whose argument about realignment is predicated on the survival of cable has no idea what they are talking about.

It's unclear right now if wireless internet is a widespread threat to cable internet as there are many technological issues. I'm not saying wireless internet will not be a threat in the long term, but I don't think it's a factor in the next 5 to 7 years. And, if sports are streamed they will be coming to your home by cable or wireless so it doesn't really matter how the network is streamed to your house.

 

[RioDog]

Ha! scanned this quickly and thought it said "Steaming college sports"- referring to the Diaco/RE 2.0 years...

 

[pepband99]

It's unclear right now if wireless internet is a widespread threat to cable internet as there are many technological issues. I'm not saying wireless internet will not be a threat in the long term, but I don't think it's a factor in the next 5 to 7 years. And, if sports are streamed they will be coming to your home by cable or wireless so it doesn't really matter how the network is streamed to your house.

Not just wireless internet.

There are looks going on right now for 5g-based wireless video distribution. In theory, this could literally cord cut completely, and possibly even allow for national distribution.

 

[UConnJim]

Not just wireless internet.

There are looks going on right now for 5g-based wireless video distribution. In theory, this could literally cord cut completely, and possibly even allow for national distribution.

Yes, there are some offerings of 5G wifi, but there are technological challenges to make it available for widespread use. One of the biggest issues is the unstable speeds with 5G wifi. I'm sure it will get better over time and it is currently cheaper, but 5G wifi is not a great alternative for somebody who wants reliable wifi in the home today. And 5G wifi is only available in some metro areas today.

 

[pepband99]

Yes, there are some offerings of 5G wifi, but there are technological challenges to make it available for widespread use. One of the biggest issues is the unstable speeds with 5G wifi. I'm sure it will get better over time and it is currently cheaper, but 5G wifi is not a great alternative for somebody who wants reliable wifi in the home today. And 5G wifi is only available in some metro areas today.

You missed my whole point. I’m talking about, essentially, “cable tv” being broadcast on dedicated 5g signal. No internet.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Yes, there are some offerings of 5G wifi, but there are technological challenges to make it available for widespread use. One of the biggest issues is the unstable speeds with 5G wifi. I'm sure it will get better over time and it is currently cheaper, but 5G wifi is not a great alternative for somebody who wants reliable wifi in the home today. And 5G wifi is only available in some metro areas today.

You missed my whole point. I’m talking about, essentially, “cable tv” being broadcast on dedicated 5g signal. No internet.

You are both making good points, but I think the bigger point is that we are 5 or maybe 10 years away from those wires in the ground becoming a lot less valuable. It is not 50 years away. The Big 10's and SEC's competitive advantage is based primarily on having done really well in a world where cable is king, and now the king is dead.

 

[dayooper]

You are both making good points, but I think the bigger point is that we are 5 or maybe 10 years away from those wires in the ground becoming a lot less valuable. It is not 50 years away. The Big 10's and SEC's competitive advantage is based primarily on having done really well in a world where cable is king, and now the king is dead.

This is inherently a wrong take. The reason the SEC and the Big10’s competitive advantage (as far as the contracts go) is that people watch them more than any other conference. That’s plain and simple. This was posted earlier but here’s a link to the most watched programs and games of 2022.



7 of the top 10 and 16 of the top 25 most watched football programs came from the Big10 (2 of the top 3) and SEC. All 4 of the schools asked to join the 2 conferences are also in the top 25 (UCLA is #25). Going in further, only 1 program that isn’t moving to a P2 conference (Texas at #8) or isn’t a traditional religious institution (Notre Dame at #6) is on the top 10 and that’s Clemson at #10.

If you look at how well each conference did on their broadcasts, there are 45 games that had over 4 million viewers. All but 10 of them had at least 1 team from the Big10 and SEC. Going even further, the top 10 all had at least 1 team and the top 25 had only 4 games not have a team from those 2 conference. Here they are:

• #11 - Army @ Navy
• #13 - Notre Dame @ Southern Cal
• #23 - TCU @ Texas
• #24 - NC ST @Clemson

Notice that 2 of those schools are now moving to those conferences. In fact, the Big10 will gain control every other year of one of those games!

Out the remaining 6 games, only 4 did not involve one of the schools that’s not moving to the Big10 or SEC.

Going even further down the rabbit hole, out of the top 5 games (all over 10 million viewers) only 2 teams were not in the P2 and 1 of them is Texas (the other is ND). The consolidation of power will continue to matter if there’s streaming. While not every school in either the Big10 or SEC draws huge viewership, they have enough big dogs to keep people watching (and purchasing streaming subscriptions to watch).

 

[nelsonmuntz]

This is inherently a wrong take. The reason the SEC and the Big10’s competitive advantage (as far as the contracts go) is that people watch them more than any other conference. That’s plain and simple. This was posted earlier but here’s a link to the most watched programs and games of 2022.



7 of the top 10 and 16 of the top 25 most watched football programs came from the Big10 (2 of the top 3) and SEC. All 4 of the schools asked to join the 2 conferences are also in the top 25 (UCLA is #25). Going in further, only 1 program that isn’t moving to a P2 conference (Texas at #8) or isn’t a traditional religious institution (Notre Dame at #6) is on the top 10 and that’s Clemson at #10.

If you look at how well each conference did on their broadcasts, there are 45 games that had over 4 million viewers. All but 10 of them had at least 1 team from the Big10 and SEC. Going even further, the top 10 all had at least 1 team and the top 25 had only 4 games not have a team from those 2 conference. Here they are:

• #11 - Army @ Navy
• #13 - Notre Dame @ Southern Cal
• #23 - TCU @ Texas
• #24 - NC ST @Clemson

Notice that 2 of those schools are now moving to those conferences. In fact, the Big10 will gain control every other year of one of those games!

Out the remaining 6 games, only 4 did not involve one of the schools that’s not moving to the Big10 or SEC.

Going even further down the rabbit hole, out of the top 5 games (all over 10 million viewers) only 2 teams were not in the P2 and 1 of them is Texas (the other is ND). The consolidation of power will continue to matter if there’s streaming. While not every school in either the Big10 or SEC draws huge viewership, they have enough big dogs to keep people watching (and purchasing streaming subscriptions to watch).

Why would the Big 10 and SEC add teams if they were already so dominant in viewership? By their actions, those two leagues are sending the message that they have concerns about their own future.

The Big 10 is like the CBS of college sports. It is a tired product targeting old people in flyover country that is living off past glory because most of its recent content sucks. The Big 10 saw the writing on the wall with streaming, NIL and the Transfer Portal, and made a move now because in 5 years UCLA and USC would not leave for the Big 10.

 

[dayooper]

Why would the Big 10 and SEC add teams if they were already so dominant in viewership? By their actions, those two leagues are sending the message that they have concerns about their own future.

The Big 10 is like the CBS of college sports. It is a tired product targeting old people in flyover country that is living off past glory because most of its recent content sucks. The Big 10 saw the writing on the wall with streaming, NIL and the Transfer Portal, and made a move now because in 5 years UCLA and USC would not leave for the Big 10.

You know, you are right. Companies, organizations and individuals that are on top never make moves to increase their influence and cash flow. It’s always the companies that sit on their laurels and believe in their own invincibility that never fail. GM and Ford in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s is perfect example. They designed and made some of the worst cars ever known. The Pinto? The Citation? Taking an economy car, slapping luxury car branding and selling it at a 50% up charge because of the brand? Works every time. Great strategy that allowed those auto companies to thrive.

 

[NE Football]

Because he knows that for the Big 12, access to the New York market by adding UConn will give him leverage. Not only in NY, but also in New England. UConn is very popular all across New England.

Yormark also understands the the current NCAA media deal with CBS is incredibly undervalued. That next contract will be huge and will most likely be spread out to different companies. I don't think it will be exclusively CBS, they'll probably get more high profile games.

UConn makes all the sense in the world if your goal is to go after untapped media markets. They already established in the geographic footprint they're already in.

Adding both BC and Syracuse never expanded regional interest for the ACC. When Maryland left, nobody in New England or Metro NY really cared about the ACC.

We’re not in the NYC market and we’re not popular throughout New England. If Yormark is considering Gonzaga, he might be interested in St. John’s if Pitino wins big. That gets the B12 the NYC market without the baggage of our football program.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

We’re not in the NYC market and we’re not popular throughout New England. If Yormark is considering Gonzaga, he might be interested in St. John’s if Pitino wins big. That gets the B12 the NYC market without the baggage of our football program.

Don’t use “we”, Beagle.

 

[huskymedic]

We’re not in the NYC market

Since you continue to post this in multiple thread > Fairfield County is unequivocally included in the NYC DMA.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I believe that a meaningful portion of the NFL's, NBA's, MLB's and NHL's content will be streamed directly by those organizations or their teams within 10 years. If you are ESPN, that is an existential threat (one of several).

ESPN held talks with NBA, NFL and MLB in search for strategic partner, sources say

ESPN has held early talks with the NBA, NFL and MLB as potential strategic partners, sources said.

www.cnbc.com

It looks like Disney agrees with my position. They are trying to lock in the major sports leagues by making them owners of ESPN. It is kind of desperate, but at least worth a try.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I can't post in the "Key Tweets" thread, but there is an interesting discussion about partial revenue shares brewing which I don't want to get lost in that thread.

I think most of the leagues are on their last massive linear TV contract. I think that as the leagues transition to streaming, there will be a lot of revenue, although it will be more volatile, but it will be more of an "eat what you kill" model. It is easy to track on streaming which games are watched and which ones are not, and because it is streaming, there is no advantage of being on the main channel. It is just a jump ball for viewers, even within a conference. I expect that at least a portion of the revenues will be allocated based on viewership in the streaming model.

Between getting out of the Big East and a hypothetical earn-in to the Big 12, UConn would never get a full share of the current Big 12 contract, and the next linear contract will almost certainly be a lot less as more revenue comes from streaming. This is part of why I would like to get into the Big 12, but it is not the end of the world if it does not happen.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

ESPN is in a really tough spot right now. At least Fox has started making the transition to being a broadcast partner to its leagues rather than depending purely on carriage fees and linear ad revenue. ESPN has to make the transition to streaming subscriptions, fast. This means it has to pull a lot of content with it, but recognize that the revenue on the other side will be much less than what it is today. The next deals ESPN signs are probably going to be heavily incentive-based. I don't think ESPN has any choice.

As a couple of other posters have pointed out, that ACC contract looks bad now, but a steady linear revenue stream of that size could look pretty good in 2030. ESPN may be looking to amend that deal as badly as some of the ACC schools want to amend it.

 

[king conn]

It looks like Apple will be spurned in this attempt for college sports

What if they were desperate enough to offer the Big East something crazy along the lines of 15 million per year for the upcoming contract?

Before you say no go as far as exposure, we've been ignored for years by ESPN anyway with the FS 2 deal and plaqued by low ratings due to limited reach of FS. Might not be much difference. Sell the headline games to linear.

Just thinking ahead of rule#1 here.

 

[upstater]

We’re not in the NYC market and we’re not popular throughout New England. If Yormark is considering Gonzaga, he might be interested in St. John’s if Pitino wins big. That gets the B12 the NYC market without the baggage of our football program.

In Boston, the people would rather watch rodeo than BCU football; it's a proven fact.

Go ask the one Superfan who attends bball games

 

[upstater]

It looks like Apple will be spurned in this attempt for college sports

What if they were desperate enough to offer the Big East something crazy along the lines of 15 million per year for the upcoming contract?

Before you say no go as far as exposure, we've been ignored for years by ESPN anyway with the FS 2 deal and plaqued by low ratings due to limited reach of FS. Might not be much difference. Sell the headline games to linear.

Just thinking ahead of rule#1 here.

They only offered 19m for Pac12 football and basketball. So I doubt they'd do that.

But anyone who believes UConn bball is better featured in the Big East, and that the B12 would harm the program, should also believe that the BE would fall off the map if it went to Apple since few players want to play where they won't be seen.

 

[ZooCougar]

They only offered 19m for Pac12 football and basketball. So I doubt they'd do that.

But anyone who believes UConn bball is better featured in the Big East, and that the B12 would harm the program, should also believe that the BE would fall off the map if it went to Apple since few players want to play where they won't be seen.

The Apple Deal presented was $24.5M per school.

The biggest reservation everyone has is that it is all streaming.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The Apple Deal presented was $24.5M per school.

The biggest reservation everyone has is that it is all streaming.

So the PAC 12 is going to come apart because some dipstick Pres that watches Matlock reruns on USA Network takes less money from a linear deal as a junior member of the Big 10 because he thinks streaming is a fad.

 

[businesslawyer]

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.

Isn't it possible that it also means that, everything else being equal, 40 people would tune in to watch the Big Ten game for every 1 who watches the MWC game? That was a serious question. I don't doubt your overall premise that everything to date is priced based on the old, everyone has cable system and the world, including sports, at some point will be priced based on the switch to streaming. (AFter old folks like me go away.)

 

[king conn]

They only offered 19m for Pac12 football and basketball. So I doubt they'd do that.

But anyone who believes UConn bball is better featured in the Big East, and that the B12 would harm the program, should also believe that the BE would fall off the map if it went to Apple since few players want to play where they won't be seen.

This is why you have so many difficulties on this board

I didn't ask if you'd think they do that.

I asked what if!

And it has nothing to do with who believes what about the Big East or Big 12.

It says what if this were an option, obviously if we don't get an invite

And I jumped ahead of your exposure argument, but leave it to you to jump right in anyway.

I will repeat, we have very little exposure now for 4 million, except for some weekend fox games Apple could sell to them as well

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Isn't it possible that it also means that, everything else being equal, 40 people would tune in to watch the Big Ten game for every 1 who watches the MWC game? That was a serious question. I don't doubt your overall premise that everything to date is priced based on the old, everyone has cable system and the world, including sports, at some point will be priced based on the switch to streaming. (AFter old folks like me go away.)

I have answered this earlier in the thread. TV and movies have already gone through what sports is about to go through. Viewership fragmented dramatically. Maybe sports will go in the opposite direction and everyone will abandon rooting for their own school and become Michigan and Alabama fans. Anything is possible.