Streaming College Sports

[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.

 

[LBird33]

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.

ESPNs arrogance caught up with them.

 

[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.

 

[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.