(01-24-2023 08:35 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 11:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 11:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  LIV Golf is effectively giving away its product right now because anyone with a relationship with the PGA (which primarily consists of CBS and NBC/Golf Channel along with ESPN for the PGA Championship) wasn’t going to touch them.

I don’t see the CW/Nexstar going after anything other than minor or very inexpensive sports rights. As other posters have mentioned, they are in heavy cost cutting mode (even more compared to the rest of the industry) and just trying to wring out whatever cash is available from these legacy linear TV channels.

Cheap sports, yes, but LIV is relatively high profile given the controversy. It could draw some decent viewership on a network that doesn't have to fight for carriage. It's a pretty smart play especially given the price tag.

I'm not suggesting they'll go after anything major anytime soon, but it's an interesting option for any college conference looking for OTA opportunities. Unlike the other broadcast networks, The CW will have plenty of slots.

Also, I think you're underestimating the power of OTA a little bit. It will never be what it was in the old days when you basically had 3 TV stations, but streaming options are a mixed bag...especially when it comes to sports. People thought cable would effectively kill off traditional OTA television. Here we are a few decades later and cable is dying while traditional OTA is still strong. I don't really see anything that suggests they won't be viable in the marketplace going forward even if linear cable is on the way out.

As long as Nexstar finds a way to monetize online content then they'll be in a pretty good spot. Actually, I've wondered for a long time why CBS(I've recently realized it was co-owned by Warner Bros) or some other company hadn't taken advantage of what The CW could be.

They were. It's just that "what the CW could be" was "an incubator for shows that can then be sold to Netflix and internationally for a profit." The Netflix deal is over, and CBS Paramount Global and Warner Bros Discovery HBO Max Turner want the shows for their own streaming services--or not.

Nexstar was able to buy the CW (75% ownership) for $0 and an agreement to fund the continuing losses. Which makes sense for them because they own a ton of the CW's stations, and those stations gotta have SOMETHING to put on the air.

Could that "something" be low-level college football on fall Saturdays? Why not? ESPN sells games to CBS-SN, why not to the CW?

I also wonder if local pro sports start moving back to OTA on the MyNetwork TV and CW affiliates. If the leagues buy the wreckage of Diamond Sports out of bankruptcy, split the games between local TV and league-owned streaming services.

Local syndication is even easier now with the diginets. Even if your market doesn't have an independent station, they could easily syndicate the sports content on a diginet.

(01-24-2023 10:01 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 08:35 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 11:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 11:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  LIV Golf is effectively giving away its product right now because anyone with a relationship with the PGA (which primarily consists of CBS and NBC/Golf Channel along with ESPN for the PGA Championship) wasn’t going to touch them.

I don’t see the CW/Nexstar going after anything other than minor or very inexpensive sports rights. As other posters have mentioned, they are in heavy cost cutting mode (even more compared to the rest of the industry) and just trying to wring out whatever cash is available from these legacy linear TV channels.

Cheap sports, yes, but LIV is relatively high profile given the controversy. It could draw some decent viewership on a network that doesn't have to fight for carriage. It's a pretty smart play especially given the price tag.

I'm not suggesting they'll go after anything major anytime soon, but it's an interesting option for any college conference looking for OTA opportunities. Unlike the other broadcast networks, The CW will have plenty of slots.

Also, I think you're underestimating the power of OTA a little bit. It will never be what it was in the old days when you basically had 3 TV stations, but streaming options are a mixed bag...especially when it comes to sports. People thought cable would effectively kill off traditional OTA television. Here we are a few decades later and cable is dying while traditional OTA is still strong. I don't really see anything that suggests they won't be viable in the marketplace going forward even if linear cable is on the way out.

As long as Nexstar finds a way to monetize online content then they'll be in a pretty good spot. Actually, I've wondered for a long time why CBS(I've recently realized it was co-owned by Warner Bros) or some other company hadn't taken advantage of what The CW could be.

They were. It's just that "what the CW could be" was "an incubator for shows that can then be sold to Netflix and internationally for a profit." The Netflix deal is over, and CBS Paramount Global and Warner Bros Discovery HBO Max Turner want the shows for their own streaming services--or not.

Nexstar was able to buy the CW (75% ownership) for $0 and an agreement to fund the continuing losses. Which makes sense for them because they own a ton of the CW's stations, and those stations gotta have SOMETHING to put on the air.

Could that "something" be low-level college football on fall Saturdays? Why not? ESPN sells games to CBS-SN, why not to the CW?

I also wonder if local pro sports start moving back to OTA on the MyNetwork TV and CW affiliates. If the leagues buy the wreckage of Diamond Sports out of bankruptcy, split the games between local TV and league-owned streaming services.

Local syndication is even easier now with the diginets. Even if your market doesn't have an independent station, they could easily syndicate the sports content on a diginet.

Frank argued in another post that the pro teams basically won't touch local OTA at all. I'm not sure about that, but they definitely won't touch out-of-market syndication.

The audience for a ST Louis Cardinals game on Channel 9 in St Louis might (or might not) generate enough ad revenue to compete with just packaging all Cardinals games through an MLB.com subscription. The audience for a St Louis Cardinals game in Memphis and Independence Mo and Springfield IL and Iowa City IA just won't.

(01-24-2023 10:06 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 10:01 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 08:35 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 11:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 11:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  LIV Golf is effectively giving away its product right now because anyone with a relationship with the PGA (which primarily consists of CBS and NBC/Golf Channel along with ESPN for the PGA Championship) wasn’t going to touch them.

I don’t see the CW/Nexstar going after anything other than minor or very inexpensive sports rights. As other posters have mentioned, they are in heavy cost cutting mode (even more compared to the rest of the industry) and just trying to wring out whatever cash is available from these legacy linear TV channels.

Cheap sports, yes, but LIV is relatively high profile given the controversy. It could draw some decent viewership on a network that doesn't have to fight for carriage. It's a pretty smart play especially given the price tag.

I'm not suggesting they'll go after anything major anytime soon, but it's an interesting option for any college conference looking for OTA opportunities. Unlike the other broadcast networks, The CW will have plenty of slots.

Also, I think you're underestimating the power of OTA a little bit. It will never be what it was in the old days when you basically had 3 TV stations, but streaming options are a mixed bag...especially when it comes to sports. People thought cable would effectively kill off traditional OTA television. Here we are a few decades later and cable is dying while traditional OTA is still strong. I don't really see anything that suggests they won't be viable in the marketplace going forward even if linear cable is on the way out.

As long as Nexstar finds a way to monetize online content then they'll be in a pretty good spot. Actually, I've wondered for a long time why CBS(I've recently realized it was co-owned by Warner Bros) or some other company hadn't taken advantage of what The CW could be.

They were. It's just that "what the CW could be" was "an incubator for shows that can then be sold to Netflix and internationally for a profit." The Netflix deal is over, and CBS Paramount Global and Warner Bros Discovery HBO Max Turner want the shows for their own streaming services--or not.

Nexstar was able to buy the CW (75% ownership) for $0 and an agreement to fund the continuing losses. Which makes sense for them because they own a ton of the CW's stations, and those stations gotta have SOMETHING to put on the air.

Could that "something" be low-level college football on fall Saturdays? Why not? ESPN sells games to CBS-SN, why not to the CW?

I also wonder if local pro sports start moving back to OTA on the MyNetwork TV and CW affiliates. If the leagues buy the wreckage of Diamond Sports out of bankruptcy, split the games between local TV and league-owned streaming services.

Local syndication is even easier now with the diginets. Even if your market doesn't have an independent station, they could easily syndicate the sports content on a diginet.

Frank argued in another post that the pro teams basically won't touch local OTA at all. I'm not sure about that, but they definitely won't touch out-of-market streaming.

The audience for a ST Louis Cardinals game might (or might not) in St Louis might or might not generate enough ad revenue to compete with just packaging all Cardinals games through an MLB.com subscription. The audience for a St Louis Cardinals game in Memphis and Independence Mo and Springfield IL and Iowa City IA just won't.

Frank is right in the sense that I doubt we will ever see anyone go full monty in syndication again.

But I do think a sampling of syndicated games that serve as a commercial for the consumer to purchase the streaming service and maintain engagement to the casuals who just aren't going to buy something like a sports streaming service, but will gladly watch if you make it available to them, is something that is not out of the realm of possibility.

(01-24-2023 10:09 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 10:06 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 10:01 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 08:35 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 11:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Cheap sports, yes, but LIV is relatively high profile given the controversy. It could draw some decent viewership on a network that doesn't have to fight for carriage. It's a pretty smart play especially given the price tag.

I'm not suggesting they'll go after anything major anytime soon, but it's an interesting option for any college conference looking for OTA opportunities. Unlike the other broadcast networks, The CW will have plenty of slots.

Also, I think you're underestimating the power of OTA a little bit. It will never be what it was in the old days when you basically had 3 TV stations, but streaming options are a mixed bag...especially when it comes to sports. People thought cable would effectively kill off traditional OTA television. Here we are a few decades later and cable is dying while traditional OTA is still strong. I don't really see anything that suggests they won't be viable in the marketplace going forward even if linear cable is on the way out.

As long as Nexstar finds a way to monetize online content then they'll be in a pretty good spot. Actually, I've wondered for a long time why CBS(I've recently realized it was co-owned by Warner Bros) or some other company hadn't taken advantage of what The CW could be.

They were. It's just that "what the CW could be" was "an incubator for shows that can then be sold to Netflix and internationally for a profit." The Netflix deal is over, and CBS Paramount Global and Warner Bros Discovery HBO Max Turner want the shows for their own streaming services--or not.

Nexstar was able to buy the CW (75% ownership) for $0 and an agreement to fund the continuing losses. Which makes sense for them because they own a ton of the CW's stations, and those stations gotta have SOMETHING to put on the air.

Could that "something" be low-level college football on fall Saturdays? Why not? ESPN sells games to CBS-SN, why not to the CW?

I also wonder if local pro sports start moving back to OTA on the MyNetwork TV and CW affiliates. If the leagues buy the wreckage of Diamond Sports out of bankruptcy, split the games between local TV and league-owned streaming services.

Local syndication is even easier now with the diginets. Even if your market doesn't have an independent station, they could easily syndicate the sports content on a diginet.

Frank argued in another post that the pro teams basically won't touch local OTA at all. I'm not sure about that, but they definitely won't touch out-of-market streaming.

The audience for a ST Louis Cardinals game might (or might not) in St Louis might or might not generate enough ad revenue to compete with just packaging all Cardinals games through an MLB.com subscription. The audience for a St Louis Cardinals game in Memphis and Independence Mo and Springfield IL and Iowa City IA just won't.

Frank is right in the sense that I doubt we will ever see anyone go full monty in syndication again.

But I do think a sampling of syndicated games that serve as a commercial for the consumer to purchase the streaming service and maintain engagement to the casuals who just aren't going to buy something like a sports streaming service, but will gladly watch if you make it available to them, is something that is not out of the realm of possibility.

Naaah. There are MLB games on Fox, ESPN and a couple of cable networks, Apple, PEacock. Adding a random syndicated game doesn't move the needle.

(01-24-2023 10:09 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 10:06 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 10:01 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 08:35 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 11:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Cheap sports, yes, but LIV is relatively high profile given the controversy. It could draw some decent viewership on a network that doesn't have to fight for carriage. It's a pretty smart play especially given the price tag.

I'm not suggesting they'll go after anything major anytime soon, but it's an interesting option for any college conference looking for OTA opportunities. Unlike the other broadcast networks, The CW will have plenty of slots.

Also, I think you're underestimating the power of OTA a little bit. It will never be what it was in the old days when you basically had 3 TV stations, but streaming options are a mixed bag...especially when it comes to sports. People thought cable would effectively kill off traditional OTA television. Here we are a few decades later and cable is dying while traditional OTA is still strong. I don't really see anything that suggests they won't be viable in the marketplace going forward even if linear cable is on the way out.

As long as Nexstar finds a way to monetize online content then they'll be in a pretty good spot. Actually, I've wondered for a long time why CBS(I've recently realized it was co-owned by Warner Bros) or some other company hadn't taken advantage of what The CW could be.

They were. It's just that "what the CW could be" was "an incubator for shows that can then be sold to Netflix and internationally for a profit." The Netflix deal is over, and CBS Paramount Global and Warner Bros Discovery HBO Max Turner want the shows for their own streaming services--or not.

Nexstar was able to buy the CW (75% ownership) for $0 and an agreement to fund the continuing losses. Which makes sense for them because they own a ton of the CW's stations, and those stations gotta have SOMETHING to put on the air.

Could that "something" be low-level college football on fall Saturdays? Why not? ESPN sells games to CBS-SN, why not to the CW?

I also wonder if local pro sports start moving back to OTA on the MyNetwork TV and CW affiliates. If the leagues buy the wreckage of Diamond Sports out of bankruptcy, split the games between local TV and league-owned streaming services.

Local syndication is even easier now with the diginets. Even if your market doesn't have an independent station, they could easily syndicate the sports content on a diginet.

Frank argued in another post that the pro teams basically won't touch local OTA at all. I'm not sure about that, but they definitely won't touch out-of-market streaming.

The audience for a ST Louis Cardinals game might (or might not) in St Louis might or might not generate enough ad revenue to compete with just packaging all Cardinals games through an MLB.com subscription. The audience for a St Louis Cardinals game in Memphis and Independence Mo and Springfield IL and Iowa City IA just won't.

Frank is right in the sense that I doubt we will ever see anyone go full monty in syndication again.

But I do think a sampling of syndicated games that serve as a commercial for the consumer to purchase the streaming service and maintain engagement to the casuals who just aren't going to buy something like a sports streaming service, but will gladly watch if you make it available to them, is something that is not out of the realm of possibility.

Naaah. There are MLB games on Fox, ESPN and a couple of cable networks, Apple, PEacock. Adding a random syndicated game doesn't move the needle.

(01-24-2023 10:12 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 10:09 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 10:06 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 10:01 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 08:35 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  They were. It's just that "what the CW could be" was "an incubator for shows that can then be sold to Netflix and internationally for a profit." The Netflix deal is over, and CBS Paramount Global and Warner Bros Discovery HBO Max Turner want the shows for their own streaming services--or not.

Nexstar was able to buy the CW (75% ownership) for $0 and an agreement to fund the continuing losses. Which makes sense for them because they own a ton of the CW's stations, and those stations gotta have SOMETHING to put on the air.

Could that "something" be low-level college football on fall Saturdays? Why not? ESPN sells games to CBS-SN, why not to the CW?

I also wonder if local pro sports start moving back to OTA on the MyNetwork TV and CW affiliates. If the leagues buy the wreckage of Diamond Sports out of bankruptcy, split the games between local TV and league-owned streaming services.

Local syndication is even easier now with the diginets. Even if your market doesn't have an independent station, they could easily syndicate the sports content on a diginet.

Frank argued in another post that the pro teams basically won't touch local OTA at all. I'm not sure about that, but they definitely won't touch out-of-market streaming.

The audience for a ST Louis Cardinals game might (or might not) in St Louis might or might not generate enough ad revenue to compete with just packaging all Cardinals games through an MLB.com subscription. The audience for a St Louis Cardinals game in Memphis and Independence Mo and Springfield IL and Iowa City IA just won't.

Frank is right in the sense that I doubt we will ever see anyone go full monty in syndication again.

But I do think a sampling of syndicated games that serve as a commercial for the consumer to purchase the streaming service and maintain engagement to the casuals who just aren't going to buy something like a sports streaming service, but will gladly watch if you make it available to them, is something that is not out of the realm of possibility.

Naaah. There are MLB games on Fox, ESPN and a couple of cable networks, Apple, PEacock. Adding a random syndicated game doesn't move the needle.

True, but if you like the Red Sox and only the Red Sox, the Red Sox are going to want to keep you engaged. Random non Red Sox games on ESPN, Fox etc are not going to interest you. But if the Red Sox put a regular schedule of games on a local station, they are more likley to keep you better engaged and perhaps convert you to a paying customer.

(01-24-2023 10:22 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 10:12 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 10:09 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 10:06 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 10:01 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Local syndication is even easier now with the diginets. Even if your market doesn't have an independent station, they could easily syndicate the sports content on a diginet.

Frank argued in another post that the pro teams basically won't touch local OTA at all. I'm not sure about that, but they definitely won't touch out-of-market streaming.

The audience for a ST Louis Cardinals game might (or might not) in St Louis might or might not generate enough ad revenue to compete with just packaging all Cardinals games through an MLB.com subscription. The audience for a St Louis Cardinals game in Memphis and Independence Mo and Springfield IL and Iowa City IA just won't.

Frank is right in the sense that I doubt we will ever see anyone go full monty in syndication again.

But I do think a sampling of syndicated games that serve as a commercial for the consumer to purchase the streaming service and maintain engagement to the casuals who just aren't going to buy something like a sports streaming service, but will gladly watch if you make it available to them, is something that is not out of the realm of possibility.

Naaah. There are MLB games on Fox, ESPN and a couple of cable networks, Apple, PEacock. Adding a random syndicated game doesn't move the needle.

True, but if you like the Red Sox and only the Red Sox, the Red Sox are going to want to keep you engaged. Random non Red Sox games on ESPN, Fox etc are not going to interest you. But if the Red Sox put a regular schedule of games on a local station, they are more likley to keep you better engaged and perhaps convert you to a paying customer.

I don't think it's worth doing as advertising. It's a matter of can you make more money selling shampoo and Toyotas showing 1-2-3 games a week on Channel 11, or can you make more money making all non-national games streaming exclusive.

(01-24-2023 10:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 10:22 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 10:12 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 10:09 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 10:06 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Frank argued in another post that the pro teams basically won't touch local OTA at all. I'm not sure about that, but they definitely won't touch out-of-market streaming.

The audience for a ST Louis Cardinals game might (or might not) in St Louis might or might not generate enough ad revenue to compete with just packaging all Cardinals games through an MLB.com subscription. The audience for a St Louis Cardinals game in Memphis and Independence Mo and Springfield IL and Iowa City IA just won't.

Frank is right in the sense that I doubt we will ever see anyone go full monty in syndication again.

But I do think a sampling of syndicated games that serve as a commercial for the consumer to purchase the streaming service and maintain engagement to the casuals who just aren't going to buy something like a sports streaming service, but will gladly watch if you make it available to them, is something that is not out of the realm of possibility.

Naaah. There are MLB games on Fox, ESPN and a couple of cable networks, Apple, PEacock. Adding a random syndicated game doesn't move the needle.

True, but if you like the Red Sox and only the Red Sox, the Red Sox are going to want to keep you engaged. Random non Red Sox games on ESPN, Fox etc are not going to interest you. But if the Red Sox put a regular schedule of games on a local station, they are more likley to keep you better engaged and perhaps convert you to a paying customer.

I don't think it's worth doing as advertising. It's a matter of can you make more money selling shampoo and Toyotas showing 1-2-3 games a week on Channel 11, or can you make more money making all non-national games streaming exclusive.

The national partners already take a lot of Red Sox games so they might not be the best example. But you just have to be careful about putting everything behind a paywall.

It will be VERY interesting to see how it works for MLS. Following your local MLS team is now going to cost you $80 to $100 on top of everything else you pay for. How many people are going to opt out and go with other entertainment options.

It may work out great for them, but paywalling so much of content is putting them at a risk IMO of turning of people who aren't already fans

At a much lower level, UNCW and the CAA have done this with their FloSports deal. Unless you are a hardcore supporter, you aren't watching this team outside of Twitter highlights.

Maybe Twitter/YouTube highlights are where the new casual fans go to get their fix and that fills the void of OTA games of the 80's/90's/00's. I just don't know if we are there yet.

(01-24-2023 10:45 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 10:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 10:22 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 10:12 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 10:09 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Frank is right in the sense that I doubt we will ever see anyone go full monty in syndication again.

But I do think a sampling of syndicated games that serve as a commercial for the consumer to purchase the streaming service and maintain engagement to the casuals who just aren't going to buy something like a sports streaming service, but will gladly watch if you make it available to them, is something that is not out of the realm of possibility.

Naaah. There are MLB games on Fox, ESPN and a couple of cable networks, Apple, PEacock. Adding a random syndicated game doesn't move the needle.

True, but if you like the Red Sox and only the Red Sox, the Red Sox are going to want to keep you engaged. Random non Red Sox games on ESPN, Fox etc are not going to interest you. But if the Red Sox put a regular schedule of games on a local station, they are more likley to keep you better engaged and perhaps convert you to a paying customer.

I don't think it's worth doing as advertising. It's a matter of can you make more money selling shampoo and Toyotas showing 1-2-3 games a week on Channel 11, or can you make more money making all non-national games streaming exclusive.

The national partners already take a lot of Red Sox games so they might not be the best example. But you just have to be careful about putting everything behind a paywall.

It will be VERY interesting to see how it works for MLS. Following your local MLS team is now going to cost you $80 to $100 on top of everything else you pay for. How many people are going to opt out and go with other entertainment options.

It may work out great for them, but paywalling so much of content is putting them at a risk IMO of turning of people who aren't already fans

At a much lower level, UNCW and the CAA have done this with their FloSports deal. Unless you are a hardcore supporter, you aren't watching this team outside of Twitter highlights.

Maybe Twitter/YouTube highlights are where the new casual fans go to get their fix and that fills the void of OTA games of the 80's/90's/00's. I just don't know if we are there yet.

I definitely agree that MLS has that risk with not gaining casual fans or new fans for the future. So, I understand what you're saying about getting more casual fans with OTA games and that could be a gateway for them purchasing a streaming service.

However, I don't think either MLB or the NBA has that same risk at least in the short-to-medium term. If anything, it's the opposite: the MLB and NBA fan bases are already large and a "committed" MLB or NBA fan is generally watching 1 or 2 games of their team per week, which means putting 1 or 2 games on per week locally on OTA would actually make it WAY less likely for a large number of fans to buy the streaming service. That's honestly how the MLB and NBA teams are thinking. (The NHL is sort of in between the MLB/NBA and MLS on that spectrum.) The MLB/NBA teams are looking at the national games on linear TV to whet the appetite of fans to then buy their local team packages as opposed to local OTA games.

Now, maybe they'll be totally wrong on it, but the data that they've gained for the past 20-30 years on RSNs generally support that idea. The market with the best cable penetration for many years was Philadelphia and that was entirely because Comcast controlled all of the rights for the sports teams in that market and you could only get their channel on Comcast cable itself (meaning Comcast Sports wasn't available on DirecTV or satellite). In contrast, Chicago had relatively low cable penetration because, up until a few years ago, we had such a large number of games (particularly the Cubs) on OTA compared to any other pro sports market. If a local team gave "too much" of their product on OTA, then it was shown that fans wouldn't sign up for cable at the same rates as other teams that went exclusively to cable. So, the MLB and NBA have had that experience with cable and are making the assumption that streaming would be the same way.

To be clear, I personally don't *want* this to happen. I'd rather have the cable bundle than all of these different streaming services to watch sports, but that world is going away.

(01-24-2023 11:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I definitely agree that MLS has that risk with not gaining casual fans or new fans for the future. So, I understand what you're saying about getting more casual fans with OTA games and that could be a gateway for them purchasing a streaming service.

However, I don't think either MLB or the NBA has that same risk at least in the short-to-medium term. If anything, it's the opposite: the MLB and NBA fan bases are already large and a "committed" MLB or NBA fan is generally watching 1 or 2 games of their team per week, which means putting 1 or 2 games on per week locally on OTA would actually make it WAY less likely for a large number of fans to buy the streaming service. That's honestly how the MLB and NBA teams are thinking. (The NHL is sort of in between the MLB/NBA and MLS on that spectrum.) The MLB/NBA teams are looking at the national games on linear TV to whet the appetite of fans to then buy their local team packages as opposed to local OTA games.

Now, maybe they'll be totally wrong on it, but the data that they've gained for the past 20-30 years on RSNs generally support that idea. The market with the best cable penetration for many years was Philadelphia and that was entirely because Comcast controlled all of the rights for the sports teams in that market and you could only get their channel on Comcast cable itself (meaning Comcast Sports wasn't available on DirecTV or satellite). In contrast, Chicago had relatively low cable penetration because, up until a few years ago, we had such a large number of games (particularly the Cubs) on OTA compared to any other pro sports market. If a local team gave "too much" of their product on OTA, then it was shown that fans wouldn't sign up for cable at the same rates as other teams that went exclusively to cable. So, the MLB and NBA have had that experience with cable and are making the assumption that streaming would be the same way.

To be clear, I personally don't *want* this to happen. I'd rather have the cable bundle than all of these different streaming services to watch sports, but that world is going away.

Fair point on MLB and NBA. They are going to have to assume the same level of short term risk that MLS is.

I do question the sustainability though if it costs $20 to watch the Phillies, $15 to watch the 76ers, and $10 to watch the Flyers. Only the most hardcore is going to get all 3. Long term you run the risk of ending up like boxing if you paywall everything. I just think you gotta give away something every now and then which can be justified as marketing for new subscribers. No where near the level of Cubs on WGN giveaway, but enough to keep you engaged and plant the seed to become a bigger part of the team's "universe."

LIV is merging with the PGA! Seismic golf news.

What happens to the existing deals and the overlapping events? Lots of stuff to sort out here.

I was really enjoying watching PGA Tour events without certain golfers that left for LIV. I hope this doesn't mean that I have to watch some of the guys again on a weekly basis.

I wonder what this does for the future of CW in sports broadcasting.

(06-06-2023 01:50 PM)schmolik Wrote:  I wonder what this does for the future of CW in sports broadcasting.

(06-06-2023 01:50 PM)schmolik Wrote:  I wonder what this does for the future of CW in sports broadcasting.

They paid money, so I'm assuming they'd either be bought out or would still hold or renegotiate whatever they own broadcast wise. If it's the former, that would free up more money for the PAC12 or whatever else they'd be interested in.

If I were them, I'd look at more niche sports, but the PAC12 would still very much remain in play.

(06-06-2023 02:16 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-06-2023 01:50 PM)schmolik Wrote:  I wonder what this does for the future of CW in sports broadcasting.

They paid money,

not exactly. its a split of the ad revenue, or maybe the commercial time. CW dudnt put up any money.

the rest us about right-- negotiations will happen

Quote: so I'm assuming they'd either be bought out or would still hold or renegotiate whatever they own broadcast wise. If it's the former, that would free up more money for the PAC12 or whatever else they'd be interested in.

If I were them, I'd look at more niche sports, but the PAC12 would still very much remain in play.

(06-06-2023 09:22 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  LIV is merging with the PGA! Seismic golf news.

WOW

LIV is victorious. Their players are vindicated. They made the right move and get to have that LIV cake and eat it too on the PGA tour.

(06-06-2023 03:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  LIV is victorious. Their players are vindicated. They made the right move and get to have that LIV cake and eat it too on the PGA tour.

Remains to be seen.