(05-17-2022 10:13 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 09:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 09:40 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 08:26 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  In my case, I finally was going to have a competitor to my current option come into my market, but their tv side is streaming box channels only--no cable box/line channels.... in that world 3 tvs in the house would be SOL and not worth the investment to get stream boxes attached but also, not worth the hassle of figuring up all the apps and what not needed to just see what we normally watch... so in the end, going with the competitor just wasn't a viable option financially or user friendly for me.

I ended up buying the Disney+ bundle last November because of all the stuff they kept dropping on it.... so with NetFlix and D+ I have nearly all the streaming alternatives I will actually watch. It still killed me to pay for ESPN+ in that when my sports tier package gets me ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNEWS, ESPNU, SECN, ACCN, and ____. But at the rate they kept pushing ECU games to + instead of normal channels I was almost forced to do it--especially for basketball and baseball, luckily, the ESPN+ tied to my cable provider does open up a few more ESPN family of channels to get games on.

I tell you what though, as soon as "someone" sees the money dry up they will try to recoup in other ways. Think about how cheap streaming was a few years ago, and in some cases a throwaway extra and now the fees have gone up, content is getting more diverse but spread across more platforms because everyone wants their cut and their "hook" to get you to their platform. Once the cable well dries up, the money will get replaced in the streaming fees.

Then the truth will come out.

P5 ratings are mostly due to their linear timeslots.

Ultimately consumers won't pay for linear TV and if they can't get what they want streaming they'll just follow something else.

I'd say partially due. And probably a small partial. Some of the USFL games are on linear TV and in good time slots. What kinds of ratings are they getting compared to the NFL?

Let's face it - the TV networks are in business to know what people want to see. IMO there is just a lot more interest in a Pitt vs Clemson game than a USF vs ECU game. That's reality. That's why they put more P5 games on, because more people want to see them.

Now is there a self-fulfilling prophecy aspect, or at least a virtuous circle (for the P5) to that? Sure, but that's true in all walks of life. You do well, you get put in a position where it is easier for you to do well, which then perpetuates that.

The ratings for AAC games have been half to 3/4 of the P5 in the same timeslots. Sometimes they pull equal numbers.

Aside from programs in the championship hunt its mostly about appearing on those timeslots. Aside from the B1G with gigantic alumni bases the other conferences have been failing at conference networks.

So why isn't the AAC getting the same kinds of contracts, or contracts proportional to its ratings, from the major networks?

Right now, the AAC is getting about $83m a year for its TV. The ACC is getting about $333m a year, and rising. Four times as much despite the ratings not being four times as high. And that's an ACC deal that many/most think is a bad deal for the ACC.

Is the AAC just not good at negotiating its TV deals?