Seems like consumers would switch from FiOS to a provider that didn't charge that way, if it winds up costing them more via the pay-as-you-go method.
(03-19-2013 05:40 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ]Seems like consumers would switch from FiOS to a provider that didn't charge that way, if it winds up costing them more via the pay-as-you-go method.
This is about Verizon paying for television channels by consumer usage. This doesn't mean users will pay by the hour. They could possibly see savings but I doubt that.
This is actually interesting. If this gained a lot of ground, you might see realignment focused on getting teams people actually want to watch instead of arbitrary markets.
Isn't this more or less what Verizon does with their mobile platforms?
Would that be a problem?? It may actually increase attendance for a lot of schools. Don't get me wrong, ESPN is on my tv so much that I still see the 'bottom line' when I switch to other channels... But, eventually we could get to the point where the majority of people just stay home to watch.
(03-19-2013 07:29 PM)MSUBear42 Wrote: [ -> ]Would that be a problem?? It may actually increase attendance for a lot of schools. Don't get me wrong, ESPN is on my tv so much that I still see the 'bottom line' when I switch to other channels... But, eventually we could get to the point where the majority of people just stay home to watch.
Attendance is way up at the majority of NCAA d-1 schools over the past few years, and there's been an even bigger boost in the last decade. The only schools that are "struggling" and pulling the mean slightly down are the 15 schools that have jumped up from D-1AA in the last 13 years.
(03-19-2013 05:54 PM)Tiguar Wrote: [ -> ]This is actually interesting. If this gained a lot of ground, you might see realignment focused on getting teams people actually want to watch instead of arbitrary markets.
I agree 100%.
This is why the conference network model is doomed. Sure, plenty of people will watch Michigan & Ohio State when they are on the BTN, but no one wants to watch Illinois, Purdue or Indiana football. These conference networks, where elite programs have to essentially subsidize crap programs, are dinosaurs. The future is individual school networks like the LHN.
(03-21-2013 06:37 AM)Big 12 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2013 05:54 PM)Tiguar Wrote: [ -> ]This is actually interesting. If this gained a lot of ground, you might see realignment focused on getting teams people actually want to watch instead of arbitrary markets.
I agree 100%.
This is why the conference network model is doomed. Sure, plenty of people will watch Michigan & Ohio State when they are on the BTN, but no one wants to watch Illinois, Purdue or Indiana football. These conference networks, where elite programs have to essentially subsidize crap programs, are dinosaurs. The future is individual school networks like the LHN.
And if this were to happen, it would end the whole concept of college sports as we know it. Of course, IMO, this would be the point in time when the whole not-for-profit question is resolved as teams in these hypothetical conferences would likely be taxed as for-profit entities.
(03-21-2013 07:04 AM)Eagle78 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2013 06:37 AM)Big 12 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2013 05:54 PM)Tiguar Wrote: [ -> ]This is actually interesting. If this gained a lot of ground, you might see realignment focused on getting teams people actually want to watch instead of arbitrary markets.
I agree 100%.
This is why the conference network model is doomed. Sure, plenty of people will watch Michigan & Ohio State when they are on the BTN, but no one wants to watch Illinois, Purdue or Indiana football. These conference networks, where elite programs have to essentially subsidize crap programs, are dinosaurs. The future is individual school networks like the LHN.
And if this were to happen, it would end the whole concept of college sports as we know it. Of course, IMO, this would be the point in time when the whole not-for-profit question is resolved as teams in these hypothetical conferences would likely be taxed as for-profit entities.
Remember, Texas doesn't own the LHN. It is a 100% owned & operated ESPN network. This is essential to the model.
(03-21-2013 06:14 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ]Attendance is way up at the majority of NCAA d-1 schools over the past few years, and there's been an even bigger boost in the last decade. The only schools that are "struggling" and pulling the mean slightly down are the 15 schools that have jumped up from D-1AA in the last 13 years.
No it isn't
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--ford...ekend.html
There was exactly one announced capacity crowd in eight Southeastern Conference home openers. Before the Labor Day Georgia Tech-Virginia Tech game, six out of seven Atlantic Coast Conference schools had smaller crowds than their openers last year – some of them much smaller. Attendance was down at six out of eight Big 12 home openers from 2011. Five out of eight Pac-12 schools had smaller crowds as well, and Oregon's 13-year sellout streak was in jeopardy until game day.
http://www.rantsports.com/ncaa-football/...in-review/
For the second straight season, overall attendance at College Football Games dropped coming in at an average of 45,274 per game in 2012.
That number is at its lowest mark since 2003 and has declined 3% since peaking in 2008 at 46,739.
56% of FBS Programs reported some sort of decline in attendance
http://www.macon.com/2013/02/12/2353780/...udent.html
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-...mpty-seats
(03-21-2013 06:37 AM)Big 12 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2013 05:54 PM)Tiguar Wrote: [ -> ]This is actually interesting. If this gained a lot of ground, you might see realignment focused on getting teams people actually want to watch instead of arbitrary markets.
I agree 100%.
This is why the conference network model is doomed. Sure, plenty of people will watch Michigan & Ohio State when they are on the BTN, but no one wants to watch Illinois, Purdue or Indiana football. These conference networks, where elite programs have to essentially subsidize crap programs, are dinosaurs. The future is individual school networks like the LHN.
I would disagree with the broad stroke against conference networks. Even schools like Illinois, Purdue and Indiana have very large fan bases (even if they are more basketball-oriented than football-oriented). All of the Big Ten schools do. One of the biggest misconceptions in conference realignment is that the BTN just magically gets basic carriage wherever they're located and they're getting a disproportionate windfall. The entire reason why they have the leverage to get basic carriage in the first place is because they *do* have the fan bases that watch and will pay money to make sure that they are with a provider that carries that specific channel. If you don't have that leverage (see the Mtn. Network and even the Pac-12 Network right now), then sure, the model doesn't work. I'm someone that thought that Texas was probably the one school in the country where an individual network would work, yet you can see that it doesn't have that leverage on its own, either. So, it's not the Big Tens or SECs of the world that are most at risk. Note that they are two of the conferences with the most robust existing digital online platforms, too, so even if the basic cable model ends up dying (which is something that I think is vastly overstated), they are in position to capture their fans. Those two leagues have the largest fan bases, so they're the ones that are still in best position to transition to more of a PPV market.
The leagues that are really at risk are the ones that are simply getting paid in order to provide content in and of itself to third party channels. Deals like the one that the Big East (Catholic 7 version) signed with Fox or that the Big East football schools signed with ESPN are the ones that would get absolutely crushed if basic cable went away. If you're a fan of a popular school or conference, then it's not as dangerous because they have the large number of fans to support a PPV model (even if it's not as lucrative as basic cable). If you're a fan of a small school or conference, though, then you'll never get national exposure again if basic cable goes away.
(03-21-2013 08:26 AM)Big 12 Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.footballfoundation.org/News/N...obust.aspx
Those stats are twisted to make it look good for FBS...what people think of when you read the main part of this article. You have to read the fine print which has the FCS, DII and DIII attendance state all added in there. With more and more football teams of course the total is going to be higher.
The point is that the AVERAGE FBS attendance has gown down for most of the teams. Yes some have grown but most have not.
Great idea. Maybe this will get more fathers off their ass and into the backyard playing catch with their kids.
(03-21-2013 09:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (03-21-2013 06:37 AM)Big 12 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2013 05:54 PM)Tiguar Wrote: [ -> ]This is actually interesting. If this gained a lot of ground, you might see realignment focused on getting teams people actually want to watch instead of arbitrary markets.
I agree 100%.
This is why the conference network model is doomed. Sure, plenty of people will watch Michigan & Ohio State when they are on the BTN, but no one wants to watch Illinois, Purdue or Indiana football. These conference networks, where elite programs have to essentially subsidize crap programs, are dinosaurs. The future is individual school networks like the LHN.
I would disagree with the broad stroke against conference networks. Even schools like Illinois, Purdue and Indiana have very large fan bases (even if they are more basketball-oriented than football-oriented). All of the Big Ten schools do. One of the biggest misconceptions in conference realignment is that the BTN just magically gets basic carriage wherever they're located and they're getting a disproportionate windfall. The entire reason why they have the leverage to get basic carriage in the first place is because they *do* have the fan bases that watch and will pay money to make sure that they are with a provider that carries that specific channel. If you don't have that leverage (see the Mtn. Network and even the Pac-12 Network right now), then sure, the model doesn't work. I'm someone that thought that Texas was probably the one school in the country where an individual network would work, yet you can see that it doesn't have that leverage on its own, either. So, it's not the Big Tens or SECs of the world that are most at risk. Note that they are two of the conferences with the most robust existing digital online platforms, too, so even if the basic cable model ends up dying (which is something that I think is vastly overstated), they are in position to capture their fans. Those two leagues have the largest fan bases, so they're the ones that are still in best position to transition to more of a PPV market.
The leagues that are really at risk are the ones that are simply getting paid in order to provide content in and of itself to third party channels. Deals like the one that the Big East (Catholic 7 version) signed with Fox or that the Big East football schools signed with ESPN are the ones that would get absolutely crushed if basic cable went away. If you're a fan of a popular school or conference, then it's not as dangerous because they have the large number of fans to support a PPV model (even if it's not as lucrative as basic cable). If you're a fan of a small school or conference, though, then you'll never get national exposure again if basic cable goes away.
Do Illinois, Indiana & Purdue have large fanbases, sure. Would they buy up the BTN if it were a la carte distribution at the same rate as Michigan & Ohio State fans? I don't think so. Take Maryland for instance....the BTN will get a higher rate from all providers around the DC area because of Maryland's move BUT, it it were a la carte, and we found out how many Maryland fans really value Terps football, it would be a disappointment to the BTN.
As for the LHN, ESPN has been trying to shove an abnormally high price point down the providers throats for it. It will soon find a sensible level, probably before the next season starts. As for Texas being the only school that could sustain its own network, I disagree. UF and FSU could easily have & sustain their own networks. UF is locked into the SEC but FSU controls their own destiny if they choose to leave the ACC.
(03-21-2013 10:34 AM)Big 12 Wrote: [ -> ]Do Illinois, Indiana & Purdue have large fanbases, sure. Would they buy up the BTN if it were a la carte distribution at the same rate as Michigan & Ohio State fans? I don't think so. Take Maryland for instance....the BTN will get a higher rate from all providers around the DC area because of Maryland's move BUT, it it were a la carte, and we found out how many Maryland fans really value Terps football, it would be a disappointment to the BTN.
As for the LHN, ESPN has been trying to shove an abnormally high price point down the providers throats for it. It will soon find a sensible level, probably before the next season starts. As for Texas being the only school that could sustain its own network, I disagree. UF and FSU could easily have & sustain their own networks. UF is locked into the SEC but FSU controls their own destiny if they choose to leave the ACC.
You seem to be looking at a football-centric model of first tier sports rights. When it comes to second and third tier sports rights (what's generally on conference networks), basketball actually becomes critically important. It isn't football that's delivering the state of Indiana for the BTN - it's basketball. The highest prime time ratings in the history of the BTN were over the past couple of months during the basketball season. When the BTN had its carriage disputes with Comcast when it was first launched, what really pushed people over the edge was basketball season even more than football season. For football, there are alternative ways to deal with not having BTN because of the fact that it's a once a week event and the majority of Big Ten games are still on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2. In contrast, if you are a Big Ten basketball fan, you CANNOT survive without BTN. It's impossible. Think of an out-of-town Boston sports fan living in LA. You can figure out reasonably attainable ways to watch the Patriots (such as finding the right bar) without taking the plunge for Sunday Ticket. However, you're not going to be able to watch the Red Sox/Celtics/Bruins without buying the MLB/NBA/NHL packages. Any single Patriots game is worth much more than any single Red Sox game, but it's also much harder to find an alternative way to watch the Red Sox compared to the Patriots if you don't buy an MLB package. It's the same calculation between Big Ten football and basketball.
Now, if you're telling me that we're going to a true PPV model where you have to buy every single football or basketball game individually, then I'd give more credence to what you're saying. In an a la carte model where you're buying a channel for a month/year/etc., though, you're underestimating the impact of having the night-in and night-out basketball content (especially in places like Indiana, where they legitimately draw football-level TV ratings for basketball games). The Longhorn Network, for instance, can't support itself on a couple of third tier football games per year. Horns fans can figure out ways to watch those games (and it doesn't help that they're typically low quality games). If the LHN had the Texas basketball games that are being syndicated via the "Big 12 Network" (via ESPN Regional) instead of just third tier non-conference hoops games, though, then that becomes a much more compelling case for either basic cable carriage or a la carte purchases.
(Note that Maryland is not a risk whatsoever for the Big Ten from a TV perspective. That's why the conference was willing to provide great financial concessions to them. It's another case where basketball is just as important as football with respect to the BTN. They can deliver the DC market (to the extent that there are enough fans there to demand basic carriage) and would still provide value in an a la carte world. From a TV viewpoint, they are an extremely valuable piece despite the recent football ineptitude. Rutgers, on the other hand, is definitely a risk. The Big Ten is banking much more on the value of bringing Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State into town than it is on Rutgers' inherent value in that market, which means that Rutgers is a much riskier play if the basic cable model goes away.)