(07-02-2018 10:33 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 10:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 09:41 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 02:34 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 12:23 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Transic the options don't shrink with the passage of time. They shrink with the rise of income in our conferences. The SEC and Big 10 have priced themselves out of most potential additions. Now that the cable subscription pay model is dying this is doubly true.

Yup. Take the cable model, the idea of making money off of people who never watch TV sports, out of the equation. Then the SEC and Big Ten, especially, can only increase media income with the very few brands that draw the most actual viewers regardless of anyone's location. And then if the media model shifts again, the only profitable targets are the brands that draw the most fans who are willing to pay separately to watch the games.

The cable model is the only one that matters for the time being. ESPN holds the rights for the ACC and for a good portion of the SEC SEC SEC. It will not matter how the "product" gets distributed (whether over a cable or streamed), the payments from ESPN are still going to be distributed to each conference for distribution to the schools.
It won't matter that Alabama games are streamed over ESPN+ or some sublet streaming service, Mississippi State and Missouri will still benefit.
The notion that streaming will bring change as to how the schools get paid is a misnomer and has been promoted by some posters to make some believe that it will fundamentally change realignment.

Yes we are still being paid under the cable subscription fee formula by ESPN. Realignment is still 5 years out. The model has already been undermined. How the payouts are calculated will change. Schools will still get paid. But what they get paid for is going to change. It is pretty clear that the only pay model that will make sense moving forward is one that pays schools for their actual viewers and not their potential ones. As that transitions basketball schools and schools in large markets but with fewer actual viewers will lose favor as additions. Having a flagship school to carry a market will no longer be a favored addition. Having a national brand with a high % of actual viewers will be. Strong regional brands will likely be favored over large state schools with less than inspiring sports and even less inspired viewers.

So are you suggesting that Alabama might not want to share their streaming revenue with Mississippi State and Missouri, and that contracts will be with schools and not conferences?

While that could be an extreme outcome, no it is not what I am suggesting. What I am stating is that ESPN and other carriers will have to determine what qualities in a school are worth more to them. Once that is established, and content value will be the benchmark but not the only factor in determining value, the conferences will adapt their selections in realignment to continue to add to their value.

At that time some conferences are going to discover that some of their additions under the subscription fee model were pretty poor selections. But since the marriage has already occurred and the divorce would be too expensive they are going to be stuck with a partner that no longer supports the family.

(07-02-2018 10:33 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 10:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 09:41 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 02:34 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 12:23 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Transic the options don't shrink with the passage of time. They shrink with the rise of income in our conferences. The SEC and Big 10 have priced themselves out of most potential additions. Now that the cable subscription pay model is dying this is doubly true.

Yup. Take the cable model, the idea of making money off of people who never watch TV sports, out of the equation. Then the SEC and Big Ten, especially, can only increase media income with the very few brands that draw the most actual viewers regardless of anyone's location. And then if the media model shifts again, the only profitable targets are the brands that draw the most fans who are willing to pay separately to watch the games.

The cable model is the only one that matters for the time being. ESPN holds the rights for the ACC and for a good portion of the SEC SEC SEC. It will not matter how the "product" gets distributed (whether over a cable or streamed), the payments from ESPN are still going to be distributed to each conference for distribution to the schools.
It won't matter that Alabama games are streamed over ESPN+ or some sublet streaming service, Mississippi State and Missouri will still benefit.
The notion that streaming will bring change as to how the schools get paid is a misnomer and has been promoted by some posters to make some believe that it will fundamentally change realignment.

Yes we are still being paid under the cable subscription fee formula by ESPN. Realignment is still 5 years out. The model has already been undermined. How the payouts are calculated will change. Schools will still get paid. But what they get paid for is going to change. It is pretty clear that the only pay model that will make sense moving forward is one that pays schools for their actual viewers and not their potential ones. As that transitions basketball schools and schools in large markets but with fewer actual viewers will lose favor as additions. Having a flagship school to carry a market will no longer be a favored addition. Having a national brand with a high % of actual viewers will be. Strong regional brands will likely be favored over large state schools with less than inspiring sports and even less inspired viewers.

So are you suggesting that Alabama might not want to share their streaming revenue with Mississippi State and Missouri, and that contracts will be with schools and not conferences?

I don't see JR arguing that.

I think JR is likely arguing what I would argue is most likely.

There is a number of people who would pay X dollars for an SEC streaming subscription and there are people who are fans of other schools who would gladly also pay that fee if their favorite school is involved. Plus there are people who just like watching games for entertainment (or to track their bets) who are more likely to pay X dollars for a subscription the more quality content is available on the service.

Let's say the offer is for a package that costs $300 per year for all Alabama home football, men's and women's basketball, volleyball, softball and baseball.

Some number of subscriptions will be sold.

Now let's say the offer is still $300 per year but it includes all SEC conference games in those sports as well as any non-conference contests where an SEC team is the home team.

Mr. Fan working at the Golden Flake factory who loves him some Tide sports might not bite on paying $300 upfront or a one year contract at $30 per month for only games played in Tuscaloosa. Offer him everything except non-conference road games and post-season for his $300 per year or $30 per month on a 12 month contract and that suddenly looks like a pretty good deal.

Alabama probably ends up making more being bundled and sharing because there is more Alabama content than Alabama would make just selling its home games because more fans will part with their money.

(07-02-2018 09:41 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 02:34 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 12:23 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Transic the options don't shrink with the passage of time. They shrink with the rise of income in our conferences. The SEC and Big 10 have priced themselves out of most potential additions. Now that the cable subscription pay model is dying this is doubly true.

Yup. Take the cable model, the idea of making money off of people who never watch TV sports, out of the equation. Then the SEC and Big Ten, especially, can only increase media income with the very few brands that draw the most actual viewers regardless of anyone's location. And then if the media model shifts again, the only profitable targets are the brands that draw the most fans who are willing to pay separately to watch the games.

The cable model is the only one that matters for the time being. ESPN holds the rights for the ACC and for a good portion of the SEC SEC SEC. It will not matter how the "product" gets distributed (whether over a cable or streamed), the payments from ESPN are still going to be distributed to each conference for distribution to the schools.
It won't matter that Alabama games are streamed over ESPN+ or some sublet streaming service, Mississippi State and Missouri will still benefit.
The notion that streaming will bring change as to how the schools get paid is a misnomer and has been promoted by some posters to make some believe that it will fundamentally change realignment.

Cable TV is the predominant means of distribution in 2018. That doesn't mean it will be in 10 years.

Wagons used to be the predominant means of traveling long distances until trains come along. Trains dominated until airplanes came along.

To put things in a more modern context, shopping in retail stores was the predominant means of purchasing goods for a very long time until companies like Amazon took advantage of new technology. And now malls and retail stores are closing in droves around the country. Whole chains are going under in fact and the pace appears to be picking up.

Things remain the same until they don't.

Companies that aren't prepared to change with the times become subjects in history books. So it doesn't matter what people at ESPN or FOX want with regard to how best to take advantage of their products.

I think what you're concerned about is the fact the only advantage the ACC possesses over other leagues is the large market footprint. This is a nice tool in the arsenal to have if cable TV dominates the landscape, but it doesn't mean as much if the pay model changes.

So I believe you are a victim of your own wishful thinking.

(07-02-2018 03:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Alabama probably ends up making more being bundled and sharing because there is more Alabama content than Alabama would make just selling its home games because more fans will part with their money.

However, the fewer true road games you play, the smaller this impact becomes... play 8 home games and suddenly you're only talking about 4 more games per season. Some SEC teams do, in fact, play that many home games.

(07-02-2018 03:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 10:33 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 10:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 09:41 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 02:34 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Yup. Take the cable model, the idea of making money off of people who never watch TV sports, out of the equation. Then the SEC and Big Ten, especially, can only increase media income with the very few brands that draw the most actual viewers regardless of anyone's location. And then if the media model shifts again, the only profitable targets are the brands that draw the most fans who are willing to pay separately to watch the games.

The cable model is the only one that matters for the time being. ESPN holds the rights for the ACC and for a good portion of the SEC SEC SEC. It will not matter how the "product" gets distributed (whether over a cable or streamed), the payments from ESPN are still going to be distributed to each conference for distribution to the schools.
It won't matter that Alabama games are streamed over ESPN+ or some sublet streaming service, Mississippi State and Missouri will still benefit.
The notion that streaming will bring change as to how the schools get paid is a misnomer and has been promoted by some posters to make some believe that it will fundamentally change realignment.

Yes we are still being paid under the cable subscription fee formula by ESPN. Realignment is still 5 years out. The model has already been undermined. How the payouts are calculated will change. Schools will still get paid. But what they get paid for is going to change. It is pretty clear that the only pay model that will make sense moving forward is one that pays schools for their actual viewers and not their potential ones. As that transitions basketball schools and schools in large markets but with fewer actual viewers will lose favor as additions. Having a flagship school to carry a market will no longer be a favored addition. Having a national brand with a high % of actual viewers will be. Strong regional brands will likely be favored over large state schools with less than inspiring sports and even less inspired viewers.

So are you suggesting that Alabama might not want to share their streaming revenue with Mississippi State and Missouri, and that contracts will be with schools and not conferences?

I don't see JR arguing that.

I think JR is likely arguing what I would argue is most likely.

There is a number of people who would pay X dollars for an SEC streaming subscription and there are people who are fans of other schools who would gladly also pay that fee if their favorite school is involved. Plus there are people who just like watching games for entertainment (or to track their bets) who are more likely to pay X dollars for a subscription the more quality content is available on the service.

Let's say the offer is for a package that costs $300 per year for all Alabama home football, men's and women's basketball, volleyball, softball and baseball.

Some number of subscriptions will be sold.

Now let's say the offer is still $300 per year but it includes all SEC conference games in those sports as well as any non-conference contests where an SEC team is the home team.

Mr. Fan working at the Golden Flake factory who loves him some Tide sports might not bite on paying $300 upfront or a one year contract at $30 per month for only games played in Tuscaloosa. Offer him everything except non-conference road games and post-season for his $300 per year or $30 per month on a 12 month contract and that suddenly looks like a pretty good deal.

Alabama probably ends up making more being bundled and sharing because there is more Alabama content than Alabama would make just selling its home games because more fans will part with their money.

I think that's the issue at hand.

That's also why I think the SEC would still take UNC and Duke in a heartbeat. The valuations as we understand them are relevant, but supply and demand are the more fundamental principles at play.

The more quality content that a single league possesses, the more valuable that league is to any network partner. That's why I don't mind the idea of very large conferences. A network like ESPN or FOX can't afford to strong arm a league if there are multiple competitors on their side of the transaction. This is especially true if entities like Amazon or AT&T make inroads into the industry.

The larger the league, assuming its components are desirable, the more risk a network takes on in saying 'no' to any demands.

In short, there's always strength in numbers.

(07-02-2018 04:01 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 03:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Alabama probably ends up making more being bundled and sharing because there is more Alabama content than Alabama would make just selling its home games because more fans will part with their money.

However, the fewer true road games you play, the smaller this impact becomes... play 8 home games and suddenly you're only talking about 4 more games per season. Some SEC teams do, in fact, play that many home games.

If you are an Alabama fan which are you most interested in?
A home only package that gets you The Citadel, Louisiana-Lafayette, Arkansas State, TAMU, Mizzou, Miss St, Auburn, or do you really want the package that also includes at LSU, at Tennessee, at Arkansas and at Ole Miss? At least two of those are must watch you are a Roll Tider.

(I have no idea who is the contract home team for Louisville-Alabama though I'm guessing it is Louisville since its ABC primetime).

(07-02-2018 04:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 04:01 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 03:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Alabama probably ends up making more being bundled and sharing because there is more Alabama content than Alabama would make just selling its home games because more fans will part with their money.

However, the fewer true road games you play, the smaller this impact becomes... play 8 home games and suddenly you're only talking about 4 more games per season. Some SEC teams do, in fact, play that many home games.

If you are an Alabama fan which are you most interested in?
A home only package that gets you The Citadel, Louisiana-Lafayette, Arkansas State, TAMU, Mizzou, Miss St, Auburn, or do you really want the package that also includes at LSU, at Tennessee, at Arkansas and at Ole Miss? At least two of those are must watch you are a Roll Tider.

(I have no idea who is the contract home team for Louisville-Alabama though I'm guessing it is Louisville since its ABC primetime).

Well, I still think the rights will be sold on a conference-wide basis.

But yes, I want to watch as much SEC content as I can get. I'd pay for a package of Bama games if that's what I had to do, but I'm more likely to pay for a package that includes more sports and more schools.

This is the sole reason I subscribe to ESPN+ because I can get everything I'm interested in for a very reasonable price.

(07-02-2018 04:01 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 03:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Alabama probably ends up making more being bundled and sharing because there is more Alabama content than Alabama would make just selling its home games because more fans will part with their money.

However, the fewer true road games you play, the smaller this impact becomes... play 8 home games and suddenly you're only talking about 4 more games per season. Some SEC teams do, in fact, play that many home games.

Not that many really. What most SEC schools do however is have 7 homes games. Florida/Georgia still play in Jacksonville so both of those struggle to get 7 home games.

Those with year end P5 rivals out of conference (Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky) have to dedicate one of the OOC games to a home and home. So they are resistant to a 9th conference game because that would mean they were playing a 10 P games so their schedule would be 5 home 5 away and that means both of the remaining OOC games would have to buy games to keep 7 on the schedule.

And this has nothing to do with wanting easy games. It has everything to do with keeping 7 home games on the schedule because most SEC schools have stadiums that seat at least 70,000 plus with probably over half of the schools seating 85,000 plus. Multiply that by $60 bucks which is what you have to pay for a lower tier ticket and it starts to make sense. That's 5.1 million in an 85,000 seat stadium where the payout to the visitor is between 1 to 2 million for the game. So you net another 3.1 million at the least for having that game on the schedule. If we ever move to a 6 home 6 away all P schedule we are going to have to move the Spring Game to late August and call it a preseason game and play some lower tier school from within our states just to be able to sell a 7 game home schedule.

So, I'm patient with most of those who scream but the SEC won't play 9 conference games. Well we play 9 P games with minor exceptions. So on that odd year we have to have two buy games to make 7.

(07-02-2018 04:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 04:01 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  ...the fewer true road games you play, the smaller this impact becomes... play 8 home games and suddenly you're only talking about 4 more games per season. Some SEC teams do, in fact, play that many home games.

Not that many really. What most SEC schools do however is have 7 homes games. Florida/Georgia still play in Jacksonville so both of those struggle to get 7 home games.

Fair enough, though I must take exception to the notion that they "struggle" to get 7 home games. The Gators have failed to get 7 just twice in 11 years (2016 and 2013 both had 6 home games; I didn't research the Bulldogs but I believe it's similar).

(07-02-2018 04:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'm patient with most of those who scream but the SEC won't play 9 conference games. Well we play 9 P games with minor exceptions. So on that odd year we have to have two buy games to make 7.

I for one don't feel the need to push 9 conference games - which I think is unwise - but that shouldn't mean you can't play 10 P5 games. Using your example of 9 P5 games, alternating 5 or 4 at home, but with 3 more games to play - it's true that in years when there are 5 road games you need the 3 to all be at home, but keep in mind that one of those road games is a home-and-home. Two alternating home and home P5 series gives you 7 home games. If you always make all 3 "extra" games home games, you end up with either 7 or 8 home games per year.

(07-02-2018 09:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I for one don't feel the need to push 9 conference games - which I think is unwise - but that shouldn't mean you can't play 10 P5 games.

As a fan, 8 conference games and 2 P5 non-con games would make most teams' schedules more fun to watch.

I know the reasons why the conferences that play 9 won't drop back to 8, and it wouldn't surprise me if the Big Ten starts playing 10 conference games at some point. 8+2 would be more fun for a fan, though.

(07-04-2018 01:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-02-2018 09:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I for one don't feel the need to push 9 conference games - which I think is unwise - but that shouldn't mean you can't play 10 P5 games.

As a fan, 8 conference games and 2 P5 non-con games would make most teams' schedules more fun to watch.

I know the reasons why the conferences that play 9 won't drop back to 8, and it wouldn't surprise me if the Big Ten starts playing 10 conference games at some point. 8+2 would be more fun for a fan, though.

Going back to the other thread, that is why consolidation makes sense. Have two 12 team conferences instead of a 14-16 team conference. With 12, a 5-0-3 or 5-1-2 means you play the conference foes and have those 2 P5 ooc. With a partner conference, you can play 1 or both of those extra games within your 24 team group.

If you fully rotated and played both within the group, you would play everyone in the partner league home and away over 12 years. It currently takes 12 years for the SEC to do a full home and away rotation with 14 teams.

wouldn't 18 make the most sence, [9 school div]
8 conf games & 72 nonconf games, more inventory.
them days of playing everybody in conf are gone