(01-22-2023 06:34 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(01-17-2023 05:51 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  He lost me at to give fans access to all games over one streaming option. I guess he doesn’t get this after all. The fans aren’t the customers; they’re the goods. And the B1G just made a fat load of money by being able to distribute those goods to a bunch of different television providers who are each going to take their own chunk out of those fans’ wallets.

No, I understand why they're doing it. I legitimately don't think it's good business over a *long* period of time, because big-time college sports faces long-term demographic challenges, especially a league that depends on non-rich people in the Rust Belt as an important. Paying for streaming credits to fans who actually buy tickets (or heck, season ticket programs) won't cost an extraordinary amount of money, but it can be a flagship part of a broader campaign to become more fan-friendly...which will allow the league to earn more revenue directly from fans, and perhaps most importantly, collect more of their data.

There's no meaningful pressure to do stuff like this now because Big Ten ADs and presidents have no incentive to think very long-term about anything....all of them are gone in six to eight years, and they're judged on how much cash they can grab *now*. I don't think that's the best stewardship of important (and mostly public) brands.

Excellent point regarding "short-term thinking". It seems to affect (infect?) just about everything these days. To the point when there's a leader (politician, CEO, university prez, etc) who shows long-term vision...he/she really stands out. Most of them focus entirely on the next election or financial quarter.

It's in the nature of business for short-term thinking to dominate, with a little bit of medium-term thinking. It's the rare executive who has the luxury of thinking long-term when his very survival is at stake every single day. People at the top of the food chain could theoretically do it, but it's a rare President or Athletic Director who will be around long enough to consider the long-term.

I wonder what Chat Bot would have to say about "Matt Brown for B1G Commissioner". Perhaps he would say that Matt Brown should first get some experience as an AD, perhaps at a local school...hmmmm...what's a local school that needs help Athletically. Chicago St?

(01-22-2023 06:34 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(01-17-2023 05:51 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  He lost me at to give fans access to all games over one streaming option. I guess he doesn’t get this after all. The fans aren’t the customers; they’re the goods. And the B1G just made a fat load of money by being able to distribute those goods to a bunch of different television providers who are each going to take their own chunk out of those fans’ wallets.

No, I understand why they're doing it. I legitimately don't think it's good business over a *long* period of time, because big-time college sports faces long-term demographic challenges, especially a league that depends on non-rich people in the Rust Belt as an important. Paying for streaming credits to fans who actually buy tickets (or heck, season ticket programs) won't cost an extraordinary amount of money, but it can be a flagship part of a broader campaign to become more fan-friendly...which will allow the league to earn more revenue directly from fans, and perhaps most importantly, collect more of their data.

There's no meaningful pressure to do stuff like this now because Big Ten ADs and presidents have no incentive to think very long-term about anything....all of them are gone in six to eight years, and they're judged on how much cash they can grab *now*. I don't think that's the best stewardship of important (and mostly public) brands.

Interesting points here.

On streaming specifically, I guess it depends. I would say that having a lot more OTA games is what makes a sports league more accessible to more fans while also maximizing (or getting closer to maximizing) the most money. The Big Ten is going to get a lot more exposure to a lot more fans by having games on FOX, CBS and NBC for free than if they sold all of their rights to Amazon, Apple or Peacock even if it means that a viewer can't just subscribe to one single streaming service to get all of the games (and I think that will be just as true 10 years from as it is today).

The MLS-Apple deal is going to be an interesting test case. The MLS is doing exactly what you've proposed: have every single MLS game under one single streaming service worldwide.

The positive side is that MLS fans can get every single game without any blackouts by paying one single fee to one single streaming provider.

However, I believe the negative side is that the MLS is essentially eliminating the ability for any casual fans to access its product, which in turn puts a ceiling on the number of new fans that it's going to develop. Either you love MLS and pay for everything in a single streaming service or you're not going to be able to see an MLS game at all.

So, that would be my issue with the Big Ten (or SEC or anyone else) signing up with only one streaming service. At least to me, multiple OTA games per week are more accessible (particularly people that *don't* have the money to pay to watch sports) even if they are different channels than having everything all on one streamer. Having one streamer is convenient in the sense that a fan knows that every game is going to be in one place and one service, but it's not necessarily more *accessible* than having multiple TV partners (particularly if there is a critical mass of OTA games).

I actually think what Kevin Warren did for the Big Ten package made a lot of sense in terms of long-term strategy. The NFL is a juggernaut because it still puts its best games on the broadest and most accessible platforms (OTA networks) possible. Sure, there are NFL packages that get sent to ESPN or Amazon nationally, but at a base level, you are still able to watch every single game of your local NFL home team on OTA (even if they're on ESPN or Amazon nationally). You can't get more accessible than that.

The Big Ten is the closest college league (or heck, even compared to MLB and NBA) to mimicking that NFL model- I don't think that accessibility and maximizing revenue are mutually exclusive concepts when it comes to media deals. The most accessible platforms are generally the ones that make the most money for the sports properties with the broadest fan bases. It's the less popular properties, such as MLS, that need to send everything to one single streamer if they want to maximize revenue.