Streaming College Sports

[upstater]

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

You accuse me of having difficulty, and you're the one comparing Fox to Apple as though lesser exposure on one or the other is the same thing.

I mean, Im argung with kids here.

Beyond bizarre.

 

[king conn]

You accuse me of having difficulty, and you're the one comparing Fox to Apple as though lesser exposure on one or the other is the same thing.

I mean, Im argung with kids here.

Beyond bizarre.

I know I ve said this before, but if it is actually true you work in education that explains a lot of the problems out there today

 

[upstater]

I know I ve said this before, but if it is actually true you work in education that explains a lot of the problems out there today

LOL... it is true I am responsible.

But for your sake, I'd recommend less network news about the "problems" caused by teachers.

Next time, I'll try to be more sensitive when I dismiss Apple's reach relative to Fox.

 

[king conn]

LOL... it is true I am responsible.

But for your sake, I'd recommend less network news about the "problems" caused by teachers.

Next time, I'll try to be more sensitive when I dismiss Apple's reach relative to Fox.

Ok. But that wasn't the comparison I was making though.

I thought it was obvious so I will spell it out

The question wasn't if fs2 is better exposure than Apple. Its obvious that it is.

The question is, if the small exposure on fs2 is worth 11 million dollars less a year to a hypothetical offer from Apple of 15 million.

Again, this is a what if.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I can not remember the last time a sector seemed to so deliberately sabotage their own product. The schools think their teams are the product, when actually the games are the product. This not so subtle difference is important. The conferences spent decades building interest is specific schedules, and have blown that up in a year. There is literally no one that gives two spits about Minnesota vs. Oregon beyond hardcore fans of those schools.

Yet in just a few years, those same conferences are going to have to convince fans to sign up for subscriptions because the big guarantees from networks will be a memory.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Amie Just: Trev Alberts talks realignment ‘angst,’ says more shifting is coming

Nineteen minutes into a two-hour interview with the Journal Star’s Amie Just, Trev Alberts stated the obvious: “I’m a little passionate about this.”

journalstar.com

Trev Alberts agrees.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

There has been a debate about whether YouTubeTV and Hulu Live will simply replace the cable companies with bundled packages that would be a lifeline to ESPN and Fox, if likely at a lower revenue level.

First time off, the aggregators are only picking up about 70% of cord cutters, not all of them bundle (Sling is a la carte) and some of the content providers are end-running the aggregators altogether. Frontier is pushing Sunday Ticket really hard DTC.

 

[pepband99]

There has been a debate about whether YouTubeTV and Hulu Live will simply replace the cable companies with bundled packages that would be a lifeline to ESPN and Fox, if likely at a lower revenue level.

First time off, the aggregators are only picking up about 70% of cord cutters, not all of them bundle (Sling is a la carte) and some of the content providers are end-running the aggregators altogether. Frontier is pushing Sunday Ticket really hard DTC.

Frontier is in bed with YTTV, so I don’t think it’s the end around you think it is.

All of this is only delaying ESPN and company going over the top it will happen and probably not that far from now

 

[hoopsfan22]

Who cares? As long as we can watch the games. Does it really matter if the games are on streaming or cable? The streaming price will be whatever it needs to be to replace lost revenue under the old way they made money just as they've been jacking up the price of internet service for years as people cut the cord and they started losing money on cable. All that happens is revenue shifts from one column on the spreadsheet to another.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Frontier is in bed with YTTV, so I don’t think it’s the end around you think it is.

All of this is only delaying ESPN and company going over the top it will happen and probably not that far from now

It matters a lot. ESPN’s competitive advantage for the last 20 years has been the bundled pricing, where non-sports watchers are paying ESPN $9 per month, which ESPN, and to a lesser extent Fox with there carriage fee, have used to create a duopoly. ESPN going OTT makes them just another subscription service looking for subscribers.

 

[UConnJim]

Who cares? As long as we can watch the games. Does it really matter if the games are on streaming or cable? The streaming price will be whatever it needs to be to replace lost revenue under the old way they made money just as they've been jacking up the price of internet service for years as people cut the cord and they started losing money on cable. All that happens is revenue shifts from one column on the spreadsheet to another.

Yes, it does matter. Every current cable subscriber is paying $120/year for ESPN channels even if they watch them or not. Let's say ESPN got 25% of them to directly pay for the ESPN channels. The price would have to be about $500/year to be revenue neutral. Are you paying that?

 

[hoopsfan22]

Yes, it does matter. Every current cable subscriber is paying $120/year for ESPN channels even if they watch them or not. Let's say ESPN got 25% of them to directly pay for the ESPN channels. The price would have to be about $500/year to be revenue neutral. Are you paying that?

NESN charges $30/month for just Red Sox and Bruins games, so if ESPN is charging $40/month for all of the ESPN channels that seems like a bargain compared to NESN 360.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

NESN charges $30/month for just Red Sox and Bruins games, so if ESPN is charging $40/month for all of the ESPN channels that seems like a bargain compared to NESN 360.

If ESPN is able to get $50 a month, then any sports league or conference would be crazy not to go direct to the consumer for $30 a month. ESPN loses all its leverage without control of the linear real estate. They are effectively going to be a production company and sports news channel, two services with very low barriers to entry.

 

[UConnJim]

NESN charges $30/month for just Red Sox and Bruins games, so if ESPN is charging $40/month for all of the ESPN channels that seems like a bargain compared to NESN 360.

Unfortunately, that is what they need to charge to try to remain close to revenue neutral due to cord cutting and I don't think it has been successful.. People are speculating that the Red Sox have been cutting payroll in front of the reality that revenues from NESN have peaked and will decline going forward. (Remember the Bally Sports RSNs going bankrupt?)

And, NESN does not carry all of the Red Sox games as some games are on FOX/TBS/ESPN/Apple TV+ so you would need access to those services to watch all of the games.

 

[hoopsfan22]

Unfortunately, that is what they need to charge to try to remain close to revenue neutral due to cord cutting and I don't think it has been successful.. People are speculating that the Red Sox have been cutting payroll in front of the reality that revenues from NESN have peaked and will decline going forward. (Remember the Bally Sports RSNs going bankrupt?)

And, NESN does not carry all of the Red Sox games as some games are on FOX/TBS/ESPN/Apple TV+ so you would need access to those services to watch all of the games.

The Red Sox are cutting payroll because they want to reset the luxury tax penalty plus FSG (a.k.a. John Henry) is overextended and took his profits from the Red Sox to go buy other teams. What you say about NESN 360 is true that they don't carry all of the games, but this is par for the course in sports in general. For example, to watch last weekend's 3-game Red Sox-Yankees series you had to have Apple TV+, Prime Video, and NESN/YES/MLB on cable, and depending on how close you live to Yankee Stadium where the games were played determined which service was gonna work for which games. It's a mess - cable and streaming - and there's no end in sight to this ridiculous setup.

Spreading the content across multiple networks and platforms is how they are squeezing every last drop of blood from the stone. The B1G is taking a page out of MLB's playbook with its latest TV contract as it has also discovered that selling the parts is worth more than the whole. In the end if people don't want to pay for sports because they have better ways to spend their time, then they're not going to, and it will just die as a form of entertainment. Maybe then schools can get back to being just schools.

 

[noeynox]

Here is a good article.

TV giants clash over NBA, NHL, MLB games as local rights go up for grabs

Rights to local NBA, NHL and MLB games may be on the market as the Diamond Sports' bankruptcy progresses. Broadcast station groups want those rights.

www.cnbc.com

That dynamic has led distributors, which have also shown interest in short-term deals to carry games, to express concern to the leagues about more games going to local broadcast stations being provided free to viewers with a TV antenna and no paid package, the people said. They fear local sports moving to broadcasting could further accelerate cord-cutting.

 

[noeynox]

Makes me think, is UConn for once trying to get out in front of things with their recent deal with WFSB? Could they laying the groundwork for playing FB games on local TV while providing a pay option via UConn+ to out of market customers?

 

[metsfan2323]

Makes me think, is UConn for once trying to get out in front of things with their recent deal with WFSB? Could they laying the groundwork for playing FB games on local TV while providing a pay option via UConn+ to out of market customers?

How do our opponents televise the game to their fans?

 

[noeynox]

How do our opponents televise the game to their fans?

Pay a 1 day sub? I don't know.

 

[pepband99]

Makes me think, is UConn for once trying to get out in front of things with their recent deal with WFSB? Could they laying the groundwork for playing FB games on local TV while providing a pay option via UConn+ to out of market customers?

0% chance. WFSB can afford peanuts.

 

[noeynox]

0% chance. WFSB can afford peanuts.

If you read the article things are headed toward OTA options. The bundle is dying and fast.

 

[metsfan2323]

Pay a 1 day sub? I don't know.

That's the problem though. We already have a hard time scheduling; we won't get any good opponents without free national television. That's why CBS can get away with paying us almost nothing for these games. Even more important than the so-called exposure, is the ability to find willing opponents. As a desperate independent the ability to schedule supersedes everything, without it we die.

Being "independent" makes us a cheap whore.

 

[noeynox]

That's the problem though. We already have a hard time scheduling; we won't get any good opponents without free national television. That's why CBS can get away with paying us almost nothing for these games. Even more important than the so-called exposure, is the ability to find willing opponents. As a desperate independent the ability to schedule supersedes everything, without it we die.

Being "independent" makes us a cheap whore.

Definitely hear you, but things are definitely changing. We will see how it shakes out.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Makes me think, is UConn for once trying to get out in front of things with their recent deal with WFSB? Could they laying the groundwork for playing FB games on local TV while providing a pay option via UConn+ to out of market customers?

Doesn't CBS Sports hold the rights to televise our football games?