While TV will be the #1 medium and pay the most, will the G5 conferences be able to monetize the digital rights?

As the trend continues up for digital TV and on demand videos, it is well known that TV and TV sports networks will not being paying any big money to any G5 conference.
In order to supplement the TV money, will all or just certain G5 conferences stand to gain more financial gain by owning their digital rights and streaming their games via their own digital network?

ESPN sees part of the future and want to get more traction for its ESPN3 platform. They pretty much have the MAC and Sunbelt wrapped up in total to show all football and basketball games on ESPN3 if not on any of the ESPN family TV networks.
It is probably why the MAC signed a long term deal for the money they are getting. Same for the Sun Belt.

After seeing the Sun Belt and MAC sign away with ESPN and waiting to see who CUSA is going to partner with on the digital end (their commish stated they are working with a couple partners), I think it depends on the conference.
The MAC and Sun Belt don't have the resources and therefore ESPN get their rights.
The MW and AAC have the resources and the MW decided to move full force in that direction and has a big head start where it is starting to make some financial gains. The AAC has the resources also, but has yet to really develop their digital network.
CUSA is in between, but we will know in a few weeks once the contract is signed how there digital rights and digital network is going to change.

The MW 4 years from now can probably be in a good position to negotiate the tier 1 games for TV but then own all other rights for the digital network and show second tier games on the MWDN. If the next 4 years the MWDN becomes more successful and profitable, it could be a way the MW to make their own secondary revenue stream.


Here is a summary for each G5 conference.

MAC:
All in with ESPN. Basically all football and basketball games (not shown on TV) either produced by ESPN, local TV or regional network will be on ESPN3.

TV Contract expires in 2027.

MAC Digital Network ran by Sidearm Sports. [Only a few select games from other sports are shown on the network]

Sun Belt: Same as the MAC.

TV Contract expires in 2020

Sun Belt Digital Network ran by Sidearm Sports. [Only a few select games from other sports are shown on the network]

American:
Under ESPN/CBSSN. However, the CBSSN contract is via a sub-license agreement with ESPN. All conference controlled games (men's basketball and football) will be televised (ESPN/2/U/News/CBSSN). ESPN3 plays a role.

TV contract expires in 2020

American Digital Network ran by Sidearm Sports. [Only a few select games from other sports are shown on the network]

Mountain West:
Under CBSSN/ESPN/Root Sports. ESPN holds rights to Boise St home games, CBSSN/ESPN split rights for football and basketball games. A few games are shown on ESPN3.

TV contract expires in 2020.

Mountain West Digital Network partners with Campus Insiders but MW runs its own network. Root Sports football and basketball games are shown on the MWDN outside of the Root Sports footprint only. Local TV games are also broadcasted on MWDN.
Every game in every sport not on CBSSN or ESPN family is shown on the MWDN. In addition to sports; press conferences, MW Daily update and other shows and events put together by schools are shown also.


CUSA:
TV undergoing negotiations.

CUSA Digital Network currently ran by CBS Interactive. [Has many games shown but must pay $9.95/month]
New partner for Digital Network??

I have to laugh at digital, it may be the wave of the future, but you do realize one is paying a fee just to access the internet, then another fee to access special programming like this?

By the time you add it up, it will be more expensive than cable.... business wins again.

(05-13-2016 11:21 AM)Topkat Wrote:  I have to laugh at digital, it may be the wave of the future, but you do realize one is paying a fee just to access the internet, then another fee to access special programming like this?

By the time you add it up, it will be more expensive than cable.... business wins again.

True, but then when wireless network becomes a more robust and cheaper option for internet, that competition could lower the rate anyway.
In any case, people are already pay for data on the cell phone plan, watching a football game on the tablet or phone.
However, the special programming doesn't have to cost anything. The MWDN is instance is free to watch all games.

One of the key things that will doom the "G5" programs going forward is that they lack a casual fan interest. Random fans will tune in to see a Ohio State-Maryland game. They may even select it on "ESPN 3" if they are waiting for another game or if they are bored.

Nobody is going to tune in to watch any of the MW, American, MAC, SBC, or CUSA games. They just don't. Nobody cares that "Midwestern City University" is playing "Podunk State College."

In other words, "Will digital rights play a bigger role for G5 Conferences?" I seriously doubt it. As the big, general sports networks decline in favor of "ala carte" and selective watching options, so too will the G5 conferences.

Debbie downer

(05-13-2016 10:54 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  While TV will be the #1 medium and pay the most, will the G5 conferences be able to monetize the digital rights?

As the trend continues up for digital TV and on demand videos, it is well known that TV and TV sports networks will not being paying any big money to any G5 conference.
In order to supplement the TV money, will all or just certain G5 conferences stand to gain more financial gain by owning their digital rights and streaming their games via their own digital network?

ESPN sees part of the future and want to get more traction for its ESPN3 platform. They pretty much have the MAC and Sunbelt wrapped up in total to show all football and basketball games on ESPN3 if not on any of the ESPN family TV networks.
It is probably why the MAC signed a long term deal for the money they are getting. Same for the Sun Belt.

After seeing the Sun Belt and MAC sign away with ESPN and waiting to see who CUSA is going to partner with on the digital end (their commish stated they are working with a couple partners), I think it depends on the conference.
The MAC and Sun Belt don't have the resources and therefore ESPN get their rights.
The MW and AAC have the resources and the MW decided to move full force in that direction and has a big head start where it is starting to make some financial gains. The AAC has the resources also, but has yet to really develop their digital network.
CUSA is in between, but we will know in a few weeks once the contract is signed how there digital rights and digital network is going to change.

The MW 4 years from now can probably be in a good position to negotiate the tier 1 games for TV but then own all other rights for the digital network and show second tier games on the MWDN. If the next 4 years the MWDN becomes more successful and profitable, it could be a way the MW to make their own secondary revenue stream.


Here is a summary for each G5 conference.

MAC:
All in with ESPN. Basically all football and basketball games (not shown on TV) either produced by ESPN, local TV or regional network will be on ESPN3.

TV Contract expires in 2027.

MAC Digital Network ran by Sidearm Sports. [Only a few select games from other sports are shown on the network]

Sun Belt: Same as the MAC.

TV Contract expires in 2020

Sun Belt Digital Network ran by Sidearm Sports. [Only a few select games from other sports are shown on the network]

American:
Under ESPN/CBSSN. However, the CBSSN contract is via a sub-license agreement with ESPN. All conference controlled games (men's basketball and football) will be televised (ESPN/2/U/News/CBSSN). ESPN3 plays a role.

TV contract expires in 2020

American Digital Network ran by Sidearm Sports. [Only a few select games from other sports are shown on the network]

Mountain West:
Under CBSSN/ESPN/Root Sports. ESPN holds rights to Boise St home games, CBSSN/ESPN split rights for football and basketball games. A few games are shown on ESPN3.

TV contract expires in 2020.

Mountain West Digital Network partners with Campus Insiders but MW runs its own network. Root Sports football and basketball games are shown on the MWDN outside of the Root Sports footprint only. Local TV games are also broadcasted on MWDN.
Every game in every sport not on CBSSN or ESPN family is shown on the MWDN. In addition to sports; press conferences, MW Daily update and other shows and events put together by schools are shown also.


CUSA:
TV undergoing negotiations.

CUSA Digital Network currently ran by CBS Interactive. [Has many games shown but must pay $9.95/month]
New partner for Digital Network??

I think a lot of changes are coming. I also think many of the changes will actually be good for G5 schools. The current method of valuation vastly undervalues the rights of G5 schools. The AAC gets about 50-75% of the ratings of P5 schools---yet the highest paid G5 conference are paid 10% of the value of a P5 conference. In fact, most G5's don't even get 10% of P5 value. There is a disconnect there that doesn't make sense and its just an issue with the way the current system monetizes sports rights. I think changes are coming that will be what fracking was to the oil industry---fields that used to be difficult to extract enough oil to make money from were suddenly gold mines.

I think digital rights are going to be negotiated separately from broadcast rights from here on. I suspect that many future contracts in the cord cutting era will not have guaranteed contract amounts. The amounts will "float" and will be based on the total number of minutes viewed by end users. Cable boxes know how many people are watching at any given time---web sites know how many people are watching their streams. That number can be used to drive the value of tv rights.

I think future content will be fully ala carte and will metered and billed by the minute watched. You will be able to avoid that billing method by subscribing to channels. A set of eyeballs watching one minute of the Alabama game would be no more valuable than a set of eyes watching a minute of the UAB game---so the rate per minute will likely be very uniform. The G5 schools with loyal fanbases will likely do quite well under such a model.

My guess is eventually, the conferences will hold back most digital rights and offer most of their content through their own digital networks for a subscription or for a set per minute rate. Conferences will sell a select group of tier 1 and tier 2 games to cable and TV networks for exposure purposes. This will increase their value because the supply available to the cable/OTA networks will drop drastically.

(05-13-2016 11:44 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 11:21 AM)Topkat Wrote:  I have to laugh at digital, it may be the wave of the future, but you do realize one is paying a fee just to access the internet, then another fee to access special programming like this?

By the time you add it up, it will be more expensive than cable.... business wins again.

True, but then when wireless network becomes a more robust and cheaper option for internet, that competition could lower the rate anyway.
In any case, people are already pay for data on the cell phone plan, watching a football game on the tablet or phone.
However, the special programming doesn't have to cost anything. The MWDN is instance is free to watch all games.

My guess is totally wireless will not mean cheaper. The companies that will provide it have learned lessons from their "wired" provider past.

I would guess most people watching a game on their phone try and piggy back off a router close by so it doesn't affect their true wireless data usage.

Anything free comes down to # of viewers as to how much money is involved.

Being the best games are already on espn, fox1 (Tier 1), there is little to no audience left for streaming games of .500 or below g5 teams (see ratings for those games on espn2 and espnnews).

(05-13-2016 12:11 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 11:44 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 11:21 AM)Topkat Wrote:  I have to laugh at digital, it may be the wave of the future, but you do realize one is paying a fee just to access the internet, then another fee to access special programming like this?

By the time you add it up, it will be more expensive than cable.... business wins again.

True, but then when wireless network becomes a more robust and cheaper option for internet, that competition could lower the rate anyway.
In any case, people are already pay for data on the cell phone plan, watching a football game on the tablet or phone.
However, the special programming doesn't have to cost anything. The MWDN is instance is free to watch all games.

My guess is totally wireless will not mean cheaper. The companies that will provide it have learned lessons from their "wired" provider past.

I would guess most people watching a game on their phone try and piggy back off a router close by so it doesn't affect their true wireless data usage.

Anything free comes down to # of viewers as to how much money is involved.

Being the best games are already on espn, fox1 (Tier 1), there is little to no audience left for streaming games of .500 or below g5 teams (see ratings for those games on espn2 and espnnews).

You assume regular cable costs won't rise also. FWIW, T-mobile offers unlimited data. That essentially eliminates the need for home "wired" internet.

I think digital rights are going to play a bigger role, period. G5, P5, or otherwise.

(05-13-2016 12:52 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 12:11 PM)Topkat Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 11:44 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 11:21 AM)Topkat Wrote:  I have to laugh at digital, it may be the wave of the future, but you do realize one is paying a fee just to access the internet, then another fee to access special programming like this?

By the time you add it up, it will be more expensive than cable.... business wins again.

True, but then when wireless network becomes a more robust and cheaper option for internet, that competition could lower the rate anyway.
In any case, people are already pay for data on the cell phone plan, watching a football game on the tablet or phone.
However, the special programming doesn't have to cost anything. The MWDN is instance is free to watch all games.

My guess is totally wireless will not mean cheaper. The companies that will provide it have learned lessons from their "wired" provider past.

I would guess most people watching a game on their phone try and piggy back off a router close by so it doesn't affect their true wireless data usage.

Anything free comes down to # of viewers as to how much money is involved.

Being the best games are already on espn, fox1 (Tier 1), there is little to no audience left for streaming games of .500 or below g5 teams (see ratings for those games on espn2 and espnnews).

You assume regular cable costs won't rise also. FWIW, T-mobile offers unlimited data. That essentially eliminates the need for home "wired" internet.

I think you are also assuming current phone rates won't rise and plans won't change. Don't forget the added cost of special programming to watch on the internet (Hulu, NetFlix, see the CUSA digital package above), more is getting added all the time. Fees for those services will keep rising, my guess is as fast or faster than cable, especially when they start producing original content.

You can Google "is it really unlimited data" as well as I can.

It would be a mistake to think that just because you don't have to pay to build out a physical network of wires, that there aren't substantial costs that act as barriers to entry for providing wireless data.

A much better plan would be to get laws changed so that municipalities and counties can offer internet service on fiber optic lines to each home, at a reasonable price. Data service will be, and practically already is, as essential to a home as electricity service, gas service, water service and sewer service.

Current business lobbies have it rigged so that only business can provide internet, though. And they're going to fight a bitter, bitter battle to make sure it stays that way.

(05-13-2016 01:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  It would be a mistake to think that just because you don't have to pay to build out a physical network of wires, that there aren't substantial costs that act as barriers to entry for providing wireless data.

A much better plan would be to get laws changed so that municipalities and counties can offer internet service on fiber optic lines to each home, at a reasonable price. Data service will be, and practically already is, as essential to a home as electricity service, gas service, water service and sewer service.

Current business lobbies have it rigged so that only business can provide internet, though. And they're going to fight a bitter, bitter battle to make sure it stays that way.

I don't think the laws need to be change for that, the city and towns can own it but have someone else manage it.
Ting is working with several municipalities to build out a fiber network and have the city own the fiber network and have Ting service it. The city would set the rates.
https://ting.com/internet

(05-13-2016 12:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think a lot of changes are coming. I also think many of the changes will actually be good for G5 schools. The current method of valuation vastly undervalues the rights of G5 schools. The AAC gets about 50-75% of the ratings of P5 schools---yet the highest paid G5 conference are paid 10% of the value of a P5 conference. In fact, most G5's don't even get 10% of P5 value. There is a disconnect there that doesn't make sense and its just an issue with the way the current system monetizes sports rights. I think changes are coming that will be what fracking was to the oil industry---fields that used to be difficult to extract enough oil to make money from were suddenly gold mines.

I think digital rights are going to be negotiated separately from broadcast rights from here on. I suspect that many future contracts in the cord cutting era will not have guaranteed contract amounts. The amounts will "float" and will be based on the total number of minutes viewed by end users. Cable boxes know how many people are watching at any given time---web sites know how many people are watching their streams. That number can be used to drive the value of tv rights.

I think future content will be fully ala carte and will metered and billed by the minute watched. You will be able to avoid that billing method by subscribing to channels. A set of eyeballs watching one minute of the Alabama game would be no more valuable than a set of eyes watching a minute of the UAB game---so the rate per minute will likely be very uniform. The G5 schools with loyal fanbases will likely do quite well under such a model.

My guess is eventually, the conferences will hold back most digital rights and offer most of their content through their own digital networks for a subscription or for a set per minute rate. Conferences will sell a select group of tier 1 and tier 2 games to cable and TV networks for exposure purposes. This will increase their value because the supply available to the cable/OTA networks will drop drastically.

I tend to agree with you. It could eventually be a way for the G5 conference to even out some monetary disparity. With digital networks, a conference can be paid by the number of views. It doesn't necessary have measured like regular TV because when a person 'clicks' on the game, and ad can be ran before showing the game. Regular TV you can flip to the game and watch a little without seeing any ads.
Also, one thing that I have noticed is that by keeping the game archived, there is additional value also because people who want to watch the game again or a portions of it, would get the pre-roll ad before seeing the event.

The MWDN is a test case for the G5 conference. They spent a little over $1 million up front to give the cameras and equipment to the schools to broadcast every school event. After few a years of experience and working out the issues with platforms and getting apps developed, it is starting to make some financial headway and now are starting to work with more advertisers.
Mr. Tripp (Assoc Commish for MW Network) has been quite available to answer my emails regarding the MWN. So I'm hoping in the next few months I'll ask him again how the progress is going.

If the model truly reflects payments based on views (be it online or conventional cable/sat) then what is important in assembling a G5 conference is different.

Also it could trigger a change in current thinking. Right now we tend to see in non-conference contracts blanket statements that TV rights belong to the home team but that is merely a convention used by the schools to keep things simple. The TV rights holder is enjoying not just the value of the home team but the visitor as well. In the days of the NCAA holding the rights and selling them, television paid a fee to both participants. Indirectly that is how it works with the bowls.

A pay per viewer model can change not just who is valuable it can lead to changes in distribution models within conferences to reflect larger shares to schools delivering viewers. It can also mean the conference becomes obsolete as an economic force.

There is no longer a need to bundle the TV rights, each school signs up and collects a stream of payments. I give you 50% of the net payment when you come to my stadium and you do the same for me when I travel to your stadium.

(05-13-2016 12:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think a lot of changes are coming. I also think many of the changes will actually be good for G5 schools. The current method of valuation vastly undervalues the rights of G5 schools. The AAC gets about 50-75% of the ratings of P5 schools---yet the highest paid G5 conference are paid 10% of the value of a P5 conference. In fact, most G5's don't even get 10% of P5 value. There is a disconnect there that doesn't make sense and its just an issue with the way the current system monetizes sports rights. I think changes are coming that will be what fracking was to the oil industry---fields that used to be difficult to extract enough oil to make money from were suddenly gold mines.

I think digital rights are going to be negotiated separately from broadcast rights from here on. I suspect that many future contracts in the cord cutting era will not have guaranteed contract amounts. The amounts will "float" and will be based on the total number of minutes viewed by end users. Cable boxes know how many people are watching at any given time---web sites know how many people are watching their streams. That number can be used to drive the value of tv rights.

I think future content will be fully ala carte and will metered and billed by the minute watched. You will be able to avoid that billing method by subscribing to channels. A set of eyeballs watching one minute of the Alabama game would be no more valuable than a set of eyes watching a minute of the UAB game---so the rate per minute will likely be very uniform. The G5 schools with loyal fanbases will likely do quite well under such a model.

My guess is eventually, the conferences will hold back most digital rights and offer most of their content through their own digital networks for a subscription or for a set per minute rate. Conferences will sell a select group of tier 1 and tier 2 games to cable and TV networks for exposure purposes. This will increase their value because the supply available to the cable/OTA networks will drop drastically.

That's a good vision for the future. Right now the only purpose $$$ has for the G5 within a TV deal is to ensure stability of their lineups. it's not enough to float a nationally competitive budget.

If its a pure eyeball count, what does it do to some of the P5 programs that don't attract any eyeballs? Are P5 conferences going to take a more corporate approach about membership and cut a school like Washington State or Wake Forest that nobody cares about? Lead to formations of new conferences?

Eyeballs Conference:

West: OU, OSU, Texas, TCU, Baylor
East: Miami, FSU, Georgia Tech, Clemson, UNC

Two divisions of 5 for a championship game and a 7 game conference schedule for maximum flexibility in non-conference scheduling.

New B12:

West: Kansas, K-State, Iowa State, NIU, Memphis
East: Cincinnati, WVU, Temple, UConn, USF

10 team conferences could make a comeback, IMO.

arkst (post #14), we will just have to agree to disagree -- but I'm pretty confident that this whole "go it alone" sentiment when it comes to television and rights, etc. is going away. It might appeal to people whose subscribe to ideologies steeped in individualism instead of collectivism, but at the heart of practical economics is the fact that some non-zero level of collectivism enables grander achievements and thus grander rewards.

(05-13-2016 11:49 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  One of the key things that will doom the "G5" programs going forward is that they lack a casual fan interest. Random fans will tune in to see a Ohio State-Maryland game. They may even select it on "ESPN 3" if they are waiting for another game or if they are bored.

But they have more potential audience among those with some connection with the school than has been able to be tapped under either the broadcast or the cable television model, because of the opportunity cost of dedicating a channel to one team

(05-15-2016 10:59 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 12:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think a lot of changes are coming. I also think many of the changes will actually be good for G5 schools. The current method of valuation vastly undervalues the rights of G5 schools. The AAC gets about 50-75% of the ratings of P5 schools---yet the highest paid G5 conference are paid 10% of the value of a P5 conference. In fact, most G5's don't even get 10% of P5 value. There is a disconnect there that doesn't make sense and its just an issue with the way the current system monetizes sports rights. I think changes are coming that will be what fracking was to the oil industry---fields that used to be difficult to extract enough oil to make money from were suddenly gold mines.

I think digital rights are going to be negotiated separately from broadcast rights from here on. I suspect that many future contracts in the cord cutting era will not have guaranteed contract amounts. The amounts will "float" and will be based on the total number of minutes viewed by end users. Cable boxes know how many people are watching at any given time---web sites know how many people are watching their streams. That number can be used to drive the value of tv rights.

I think future content will be fully ala carte and will metered and billed by the minute watched. You will be able to avoid that billing method by subscribing to channels. A set of eyeballs watching one minute of the Alabama game would be no more valuable than a set of eyes watching a minute of the UAB game---so the rate per minute will likely be very uniform. The G5 schools with loyal fanbases will likely do quite well under such a model.

My guess is eventually, the conferences will hold back most digital rights and offer most of their content through their own digital networks for a subscription or for a set per minute rate. Conferences will sell a select group of tier 1 and tier 2 games to cable and TV networks for exposure purposes. This will increase their value because the supply available to the cable/OTA networks will drop drastically.

That's a good vision for the future. Right now the only purpose $$$ has for the G5 within a TV deal is to ensure stability of their lineups. it's not enough to float a nationally competitive budget.

If its a pure eyeball count, what does it do to some of the P5 programs that don't attract any eyeballs? Are P5 conferences going to take a more corporate approach about membership and cut a school like Washington State or Wake Forest that nobody cares about? Lead to formations of new conferences?

Eyeballs Conference:

West: OU, OSU, Texas, TCU, Baylor
East: Miami, FSU, Georgia Tech, Clemson, UNC

Two divisions of 5 for a championship game and a 7 game conference schedule for maximum flexibility in non-conference scheduling.

New B12:

West: Kansas, K-State, Iowa State, NIU, Memphis
East: Cincinnati, WVU, Temple, UConn, USF

10 team conferences could make a comeback, IMO.

Miami should not be on the list. They have been going downhill lately with fan support. The eyeball tests show that they have pretty much empty seats. You could tell they cooked the books to make them look they had fans showing up to the games. Even their ratings went down. The set backs was all the violations and scandals for a long time. They are one of those schools that are repeat defenders, and the NCAA are too chicken to give them the death penalty.

(05-13-2016 01:08 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I think digital rights are going to play a bigger role, period. G5, P5, or otherwise.

Agreed. This isn't just about the G5. The new Big Ten contract will likely address digital rights quite heavily. The NFL continues to deal with more digital rights with every passing season. MLB has built up such a strong digital streaming platform that their own digital company (MLBAM) sells services to provide the digital infrastructure for third parties, such as HBO and ESPN.

That being said, the multi-billion question that the very smartest people in Silicon Valley still haven't figured out is how to truly monetize digital rights... and believe me, they have teams and teams of geniuses working 24/7 on trying to figure this out.

Think about this: Google (the most profitable ad-seller on the Internet BY FAR) has now owned YouTube (the most widely used video platform on the Internet BY FAR) for a decade AND IT STILL DOESN'T MAKE A PROFIT. The average run-of-the-mill basic cable TV channel (much less a monster like ESPN or TNT) is extremely profitable per viewer, whereas even 1 billion users per day for YouTube doesn't generate a profit and Netflix still generates a much higher profit margin on its old school DVD-by-mail business than its 70 million streaming viewers.

Here's the point: there is no magic financial panacea with digital rights for smaller players. The only conferences that have a smidgen of a chance of making money off of getting people to pay $9.99 per month for digital packages are the ones that have had such huge audiences in the first place that they can scale up to make money. The emphasis is on scale up because a digital viewer is simply worth a fraction of what he/she was worth in old media. That is true comparing newspapers to online news sites, that is true comparing sales of CDs/records to digital music downloads, and that is true comparing cable TV revenue to video streaming. You have to generate many, many, many times more eyeballs to make the same amount of money that you would have made on old school newspapers, CDs and TV.

Look at the music industry that I referred to above. It used to be that there was a good-sized class of musicians beyond the superstars that could make a comfortable living under the old music distribution model of physical CD and record sales. When digital downloads began to take hold, there were many that thought, "This is great for those niche musicians! Now they don't need to go through the hassle of record companies and just sell direct to their fans! They can compete better with the star musicians!"

What happened was exactly the opposite: the ONLY musicians making any real money off of digital downloads and streaming these days are the mega-mega-mega superstars. Music has become such a commodity that it takes Taylor Swift/Beyonce-level stardom to make a profit on recorded music... and even then, those superstars still make much more money on live concerts by comparison. It used to be that musicians would play concerts in order to promote their new album. Now, their new album is released in order to promote their new concert tour. For non-star musicians, live concerts have basically become their sole source of income.

Digital streaming has actually CONSOLIDATED power even further in the music industry. The same thing has happened in the news industry: the Wall Street Journal and New York Times have survived, but the ones below them (even former giants like the Chicago Tribune and L.A. Times) have struggled mightily.

So, be careful for what you wish for, G5 fans. The history of the Internet has shown that you actually need to be even MORE popular than ever in order to really make money on a digital platform. The P5 conferences are like Taylor Swift and Beyonce: they're going to make money in any platform. I fear that the G5 conferences might be like those next tier musicians: they were much better off in a world where they were getting a steady third party record deal (AKA a steady contract with ESPN) than in a world where they're competing with millions of other options in a direct-to-consumer digital model.

(05-15-2016 11:33 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  arkst (post #14), we will just have to agree to disagree -- but I'm pretty confident that this whole "go it alone" sentiment when it comes to television and rights, etc. is going away. It might appeal to people whose subscribe to ideologies steeped in individualism instead of collectivism, but at the heart of practical economics is the fact that some non-zero level of collectivism enables grander achievements and thus grander rewards.

If you have a pay per viewer model where schools are paid like most web site operators, based on how many come in and view your content 60 days after it happens, there is no value in collectivism.

In the old models (markets, people meters, carriage fees) collectivism had value because the data about the consumer was less known. In the old market model we made guesses about viewership based on a small sample of diaries and then extrapolated to determine overall value, we did the same with the people meters but relied less on people remembering what they watched. Carriage fee is/was still a best guess of what fan bases are going to shape behavior based on programming lineup and how large their impact will be. Obviously the data has improved over the years but still a lot of guessing.

But in the online environment, in short order we can gather a pretty good amount of data over a few years to understand the impact on online viewership of each school at home and away and the value of their opponents.

If payment is based on what the viewership was rather than projections of future viewing and guesstimates of an overall value of a bundle there is no need at all for the bundle nor the collective gathering of rights fees.

We have operated in an environment where the TV distributor locks a price in for five to twelve years prospectively.

If the G5 rights go down the logical path for online viewing, TV will not pay prospectively but rather will pay based on actual viewers a set number of days after distribution.

It is the difference between a retailer buying a railcar of your widgets and looking to mark them up and resell them, sending you a check for the widgets within the time agreed and the seller worrying about what to do if the product is moving better or worse than projected versus you delivering a rail car of widgets and you only getting paid as each widget is sold and time elapses to insure it isn't returned.

I don't expect a rise of independence coming along because conferences have other value. They compile stats, issue releases, do marketing, give out player and coach awards, provide a good framework for scheduling and the assignment of game officials, they run and manage championship events. The conference as seller of television rights just is a decreasing value added product for the G5 conference.

If you go to a primary online model it isn't much different for ESPN to initiate 12 wire transfers vs one each month. If school X does 25% better in viewership than the conference median and school Y does 25% below the median it is no problem to sort it out.

Historically share and share alike is pretty novel in the college conferences. Revenue formulas have historically taken into account the value of actual TV appearances and post-season appearances giving more to those generating more for the league.

That evil pro-Texas revenue sharing model of the Big XII that Nebraska and TAMU hated? It was the model that the Big 8 had operated under, it was the model the SEC had operated under until the revenue went crazy.

The only thing that will preserve collectivism in the G5 (which does NOT exist in the MWC thank you very much) will be if the dollars from member to member aren't worth fighting over. If the dollar difference between NIU and EMU isn't enough for NIU to fight over, then collectivism remains in place.