Found this article over at ADU by Steve Dittmore. Thought it was interesting in that it laid out some currently operational platforms I haven't even heard of before.

Sinclair and FloSports Poised to Reshape College Sports Content Distribution

I had been following the story of the sale of the RSNs for a while. Technically, they still don't belong to Sinclair as regulatory approval hasn't been given.

Nonetheless, it looks like the RSNs will be branded with the "Stadium" moniker and that may be the beginning of an interesting foray into sports broadcasting. Sinclair may end up being a huge player in the market with their broadcast stations, their RSNs, and their online services...many of which are currently free.

The article raises the question...

How long before the major conferences decide to dedicate large portions of their rights to a company like this?

I think it's a reasonable question because someone noted the other day that we are coming full circle. Until cable and satellite came around, TV was free. The local broadcast stations still send a free signal...multiple signals actually if you have a digital antenna to pick them up.

Now, the internet isn't free, but most people have it. If sports once again becomes a staple of free broadcasting stations/services whether those are terrestrial or virtual then that changes a lot. Even if free online services are used, perhaps, as the bait to get you to buy into the premium services where most of the great content is then that's a game changer.

You want a world where ESPN isn't calling the shots? Pull for Sinclair...

(06-17-2019 02:18 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Found this article over at ADU by Steve Dittmore. Thought it was interesting in that it laid out some currently operational platforms I haven't even heard of before.

Sinclair and FloSports Poised to Reshape College Sports Content Distribution

I had been following the story of the sale of the RSNs for a while. Technically, they still don't belong to Sinclair as regulatory approval hasn't been given.

Nonetheless, it looks like the RSNs will be branded with the "Stadium" moniker and that may be the beginning of an interesting foray into sports broadcasting. Sinclair may end up being a huge player in the market with their broadcast stations, their RSNs, and their online services...many of which are currently free.

The article raises the question...

How long before the major conferences decide to dedicate large portions of their rights to a company like this?

I think it's a reasonable question because someone noted the other day that we are coming full circle. Until cable and satellite came around, TV was free. The local broadcast stations still send a free signal...multiple signals actually if you have a digital antenna to pick them up.

Now, the internet isn't free, but most people have it. If sports once again becomes a staple of free broadcasting stations/services whether those are terrestrial or virtual then that changes a lot. Even if free online services are used, perhaps, as the bait to get you to buy into the premium services where most of the great content is then that's a game changer.

You want a world where ESPN isn't calling the shots? Pull for Sinclair...

No.

Sinclair pushes a conservative agenda, even on local news stations.

Flo Sports is plaqued with issues , mostly reliability of broadcasts and being able to show the game to the end — like in extra time or overtime.

Ideally, any sports team or league looking to sell their rights wants the most money for those rights, the highest quality production of that broadcast, and easy accessibility to that broadcast. As this young generation turns into teenagers and young adults, the small screens will be their primary method of viewing entertainment. Providers will have to fight for those subscribers

(06-18-2019 12:25 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 02:18 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Found this article over at ADU by Steve Dittmore. Thought it was interesting in that it laid out some currently operational platforms I haven't even heard of before.

Sinclair and FloSports Poised to Reshape College Sports Content Distribution

I had been following the story of the sale of the RSNs for a while. Technically, they still don't belong to Sinclair as regulatory approval hasn't been given.

Nonetheless, it looks like the RSNs will be branded with the "Stadium" moniker and that may be the beginning of an interesting foray into sports broadcasting. Sinclair may end up being a huge player in the market with their broadcast stations, their RSNs, and their online services...many of which are currently free.

The article raises the question...

How long before the major conferences decide to dedicate large portions of their rights to a company like this?

I think it's a reasonable question because someone noted the other day that we are coming full circle. Until cable and satellite came around, TV was free. The local broadcast stations still send a free signal...multiple signals actually if you have a digital antenna to pick them up.

Now, the internet isn't free, but most people have it. If sports once again becomes a staple of free broadcasting stations/services whether those are terrestrial or virtual then that changes a lot. Even if free online services are used, perhaps, as the bait to get you to buy into the premium services where most of the great content is then that's a game changer.

You want a world where ESPN isn't calling the shots? Pull for Sinclair...

No.

Sinclair pushes a conservative agenda, even on local news stations.

Virtually every major media company pushes a leftist agenda. Of course, private companies are free to do what they wish, but I welcome the balance.

(06-18-2019 12:25 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  Flo Sports is plaqued with issues , mostly reliability of broadcasts and being able to show the game to the end — like in extra time or overtime.

Ideally, any sports team or league looking to sell their rights wants the most money for those rights, the highest quality production of that broadcast, and easy accessibility to that broadcast. As this young generation turns into teenagers and young adults, the small screens will be their primary method of viewing entertainment. Providers will have to fight for those subscribers

They probably do have issues on the technical side, but the platform is not very old and probably not well-funded at this stage.

Other companies like ESPN have been in the game for a while and can afford to dump money into losing ventures in order to gain the marketshare. They'll make their money in the long run, but Sinclair is just venturing into a new world.

More to the point, it's not so much about Sinclair as it is about a radically new model of delivery. Right now, they have the motivation and a plan to disrupt the market. Someone else in a similar position might have done the same thing, but most of the legacy media companies make a lot of money with the current way of doing things.

I have no doubt the legacy companies will adapt, but they will likely have to be forced into it. The market tends to work that way. If you're making a ton of money doing Plan A then a competitor usually has to come along with something different before you move to Plan B.

I do agree that a Power 5 or a major pro league won't take a chance on FloSports in the near future, but I think the day is coming when it or a similar service will be a viable option.

If we come to the place where everybody and their brother has a streaming service(we're fast approaching) then I think leagues and/or content providers will end up migrating to whatever platform gives them the best overall distribution. I don't think we should discount the potential value of free apps or free live streaming. If a game is on ABC for example rather than CBS then the barrier for the consumer is the same. Just flip the channel and see whatever it is you're looking for. Under that dynamic, their viewers will stay loyal and migrate with them.

The difference makers will be the ones that can promise a fresh audience to anyone who teams up with them. That dynamic is a little trickier because it in part depends upon the tech being used as well as notoriety of the company. Right now, cable still rules the roost so a popular cable network like ESPN has a built-in audience that tunes in for most anything. Team up with ESPN and you get that fresh audience another company might not have. But there's no guarantee that will always be the case.

It still remains true that OTA networks bring down bigger audiences than even super popular cable networks. The barrier for the consumer is greater with ESPN so they have fewer potential viewers than ABC despite being under the same corporate roof. Alter the barrier for the consumer and you alter the potential for a network to generate rights fees.

I might add this...

It occurs to me that the real power a company like Sinclair has is in their ownership of terrestrial TV stations. Unless the Feds radically alter the laws on telecommunications then that sort of power is pretty well cemented. You own a local TV station and you have some sway over how the market moves.

I imagine Sinclair stations have contracts with any and all of the major broadcast networks depending on the market, but there's no requirement for these stations to maintain those agreements for decades to come.

What if Sinclair decided to buck the system and basically create their own broadcast network using only the stations they own? They could decide what the content is and lock the major broadcasters out of certain markets. I'm sure it's not that simple, but there's probably a way of essentially doing just that.

Or if they forced the major broadcast companies to alter their rights structures so that Sinclair generated content through Stadium or whatever had equal air time or primetime coverage? There's probably a way to do that as well.

If Sinclair or any company owns the terrestrial station then they should have a lot of freedom in deciding what they broadcast to their local market and what they don't. Of course, a company like that has to wager that sort of influence against losing their local audience that may prefer the content of major broadcasters.

Someone smarter than me will have to figure that out, but I think things could get really interesting.

I'm not rooting for anything that Sinclair does. The way they manipulate local news stations is a huge turnoff.

(06-18-2019 12:25 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 02:18 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Found this article over at ADU by Steve Dittmore. Thought it was interesting in that it laid out some currently operational platforms I haven't even heard of before.

Sinclair and FloSports Poised to Reshape College Sports Content Distribution

I had been following the story of the sale of the RSNs for a while. Technically, they still don't belong to Sinclair as regulatory approval hasn't been given.

Nonetheless, it looks like the RSNs will be branded with the "Stadium" moniker and that may be the beginning of an interesting foray into sports broadcasting. Sinclair may end up being a huge player in the market with their broadcast stations, their RSNs, and their online services...many of which are currently free.

The article raises the question...

How long before the major conferences decide to dedicate large portions of their rights to a company like this?

I think it's a reasonable question because someone noted the other day that we are coming full circle. Until cable and satellite came around, TV was free. The local broadcast stations still send a free signal...multiple signals actually if you have a digital antenna to pick them up.

Now, the internet isn't free, but most people have it. If sports once again becomes a staple of free broadcasting stations/services whether those are terrestrial or virtual then that changes a lot. Even if free online services are used, perhaps, as the bait to get you to buy into the premium services where most of the great content is then that's a game changer.

You want a world where ESPN isn't calling the shots? Pull for Sinclair...

No.

Sinclair pushes a conservative agenda, even on local news stations.

Flo Sports is plaqued with issues , mostly reliability of broadcasts and being able to show the game to the end — like in extra time or overtime.

Ideally, any sports team or league looking to sell their rights wants the most money for those rights, the highest quality production of that broadcast, and easy accessibility to that broadcast. As this young generation turns into teenagers and young adults, the small screens will be their primary method of viewing entertainment. Providers will have to fight for those subscribers

And ABC/Disney, CBS, NBC doesn't push a left wing agenda?

(06-18-2019 08:22 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I'm not rooting for anything that Sinclair does. The way they manipulate local news stations is a huge turnoff.

I sure as hell am not rooting for anything ESPN does, their PC horsecrap, their plugging of ACC stuff and Big 10 stuff on the SECN, and Disney's active left wing revisionism both at their theme parks and in their programming leaves me cold. I seriously question their whole approach to the SEC.

First they hire Finebaum so his trash redneck fringe callers only perpetuate a negative stereotype for the SEC. Then they have a Big 10 guy and N.D. guy doing his programming and sneering at the idiot callers.

Then his interviewees on the program include all of the other conference's beat writers and more than handful of people critical of the SEC's scheduling and perpetuating non issues as talking points for fans of other conferences. And now they piggyback the ACCN upon the SECN.

They discouraged our natural desires for expansion, and intentionally tried to keep each conference from consolidating their natural regions to try to keep them from gaining leverage (which was all the footprint model was about and I discussed this frequently prior to 2010 realignment cycle).

They may pay us, but they are not what is in the best long term interest of the SEC and they sure as hell haven't been the best for the long term interests of the ACC and may not be for the Big 12.

So if Sinclair or anyone else wants to give it a try and is more interested in trying to showcase the SEC or any conference than they are about trying to manipulate the whole sport, then I'm all for it.

(06-18-2019 08:22 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I'm not rooting for anything that Sinclair does. The way they manipulate local news stations is a huge turnoff.

If it's one thing I've learned about the modern media complex, every single company has an agenda. Left, right, or whatever...they all want to make money. That's their primary agenda. They all have their niche audiences they play to and the vast majority of what you see out there is click bait or the TV version of it. They want their audiences to keep coming back. They don't necessarily care if the populace is adequately informed about current events. That sort of endeavor doesn't make money.

The other aspect is that these companies are run by human beings and human beings have their own interests when it comes to influencing populations. Ted Turner was one of the most influential ideologues of our time and was famous for clamping down on different worldviews within his organization. Rupert Murdoch is traditionally coupled with the conservatives, but you could also find him at Hillary Clinton fundraisers when she was in the Senate.

It's a subtle thing, but if you've ever noticed one anchor or the other switching networks then you tend to notice an apparent change in perspective. A little odd, isn't it? Basically, whatever company you're working for dictates what sort of things you're going to say on air. The bosses run the show and it's a well-oiled machine.

Take all the pundits that make a name for themselves. I mean, how do they make their money? How do they have time to comment on everything that's happening in the world whether it be significant or utterly banal? They write books, they write blogs, they make appearances and give speeches, or they take some money here and there from their favored media outlet so they can act as a "contributor." It's a business for them too. They make their living by selling an image or selling ideas to whomever will consume them.

Personally, I don't think you can trust the source when the source depends on popularity to drive its relevancy and ultimately the bank account. If a company or pundit makes it their business to expand their platform then you can bet they are in it for the wrong reasons.

I don't even watch cable news anymore. I don't watch broadcast news either. I haven't in years. Most of the time, if I want a breakdown on what's happening in the US then I will examine foreign media. Not to mention, on the international scene, you'd be surprised how many relevant stories we miss because all the partisan hacks back here are having a pissing match on live TV.

(06-18-2019 01:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 08:22 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I'm not rooting for anything that Sinclair does. The way they manipulate local news stations is a huge turnoff.

I sure as hell am not rooting for anything ESPN does, their PC horsecrap, their plugging of ACC stuff and Big 10 stuff on the SECN, and Disney's active left wing revisionism both at their theme parks and in their programming leaves me cold. I seriously question their whole approach to the SEC.

First they hire Finebaum so his trash redneck fringe callers only perpetuate a negative stereotype for the SEC. Then they have a Big 10 guy and N.D. guy doing his programming and sneering at the idiot callers.

Then his interviewees on the program include all of the other conference's beat writers and more than handful of people critical of the SEC's scheduling and perpetuating non issues as talking points for fans of other conferences. And now they piggyback the ACCN upon the SECN.

They discouraged our natural desires for expansion, and intentionally tried to keep each conference from consolidating their natural regions to try to keep them from gaining leverage (which was all the footprint model was about and I discussed this frequently prior to 2010 realignment cycle).

They may pay us, but they are not what is in the best long term interest of the SEC and they sure as hell haven't been the best for the long term interests of the ACC and may not be for the Big 12.

So if Sinclair or anyone else wants to give it a try and is more interested in trying to showcase the SEC or any conference than they are about trying to manipulate the whole sport, then I'm all for it.

I Don’t mind Finebaum’s crazy redneck callers, I just wish his show was not soooooo Alabama centric.

(06-18-2019 06:28 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 01:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 08:22 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I'm not rooting for anything that Sinclair does. The way they manipulate local news stations is a huge turnoff.

I sure as hell am not rooting for anything ESPN does, their PC horsecrap, their plugging of ACC stuff and Big 10 stuff on the SECN, and Disney's active left wing revisionism both at their theme parks and in their programming leaves me cold. I seriously question their whole approach to the SEC.

First they hire Finebaum so his trash redneck fringe callers only perpetuate a negative stereotype for the SEC. Then they have a Big 10 guy and N.D. guy doing his programming and sneering at the idiot callers.

Then his interviewees on the program include all of the other conference's beat writers and more than handful of people critical of the SEC's scheduling and perpetuating non issues as talking points for fans of other conferences. And now they piggyback the ACCN upon the SECN.

They discouraged our natural desires for expansion, and intentionally tried to keep each conference from consolidating their natural regions to try to keep them from gaining leverage (which was all the footprint model was about and I discussed this frequently prior to 2010 realignment cycle).

They may pay us, but they are not what is in the best long term interest of the SEC and they sure as hell haven't been the best for the long term interests of the ACC and may not be for the Big 12.

So if Sinclair or anyone else wants to give it a try and is more interested in trying to showcase the SEC or any conference than they are about trying to manipulate the whole sport, then I'm all for it.

I Don’t mind Finebaum’s crazy redneck callers, I just wish his show was not soooooo Alabama centric.

Agreed. It's impossible to listen to because I just do not care about Alabama/Auburn that much.

(06-19-2019 09:31 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 06:28 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 01:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 08:22 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I'm not rooting for anything that Sinclair does. The way they manipulate local news stations is a huge turnoff.

I sure as hell am not rooting for anything ESPN does, their PC horsecrap, their plugging of ACC stuff and Big 10 stuff on the SECN, and Disney's active left wing revisionism both at their theme parks and in their programming leaves me cold. I seriously question their whole approach to the SEC.

First they hire Finebaum so his trash redneck fringe callers only perpetuate a negative stereotype for the SEC. Then they have a Big 10 guy and N.D. guy doing his programming and sneering at the idiot callers.

Then his interviewees on the program include all of the other conference's beat writers and more than handful of people critical of the SEC's scheduling and perpetuating non issues as talking points for fans of other conferences. And now they piggyback the ACCN upon the SECN.

They discouraged our natural desires for expansion, and intentionally tried to keep each conference from consolidating their natural regions to try to keep them from gaining leverage (which was all the footprint model was about and I discussed this frequently prior to 2010 realignment cycle).

They may pay us, but they are not what is in the best long term interest of the SEC and they sure as hell haven't been the best for the long term interests of the ACC and may not be for the Big 12.

So if Sinclair or anyone else wants to give it a try and is more interested in trying to showcase the SEC or any conference than they are about trying to manipulate the whole sport, then I'm all for it.

I Don’t mind Finebaum’s crazy redneck callers, I just wish his show was not soooooo Alabama centric.

Agreed. It's impossible to listen to because I just do not care about Alabama/Auburn that much.

And you shouldn't have to. When the SECN was announced I was hoping that we would land a show like "Talking Football" which had Tony Barnhardt, Mark Schlabach, and Tee Martin with a guest each week. It was a fabulous show which didn't have major bias and they spent equal time talking about each of the SEC and ACC schools. Now obviously they wouldn't have to do that for the SECN but their approach was one of the more informative and less biased ones I had seen.

Paul, made his radio money muckraking crap between Auburn and Alabama and he hasn't learned any new tricks since. What he won't tell the public is how he egged on Harvey Updike before he poisoned the trees at Auburn and then acted shocked when Updike bragged about poisoning the trees.

He's Jerry Springer doing the SEC and quite frankly our alums deserve much much better and our schools need to be painted in a much less stereotyped way. I think he's a pure ESPN acquisition and that they tried to turn him into a national show but he can't translate except with the same kinds of callers from Ohio and Pennsylvania, and L.A.. Some of the whackier ones get a stipend to call in regularly.

I stand by my remarks that the show is a major disservice to the SEC and I think all of our schools deserve equal handed treatment.

(06-19-2019 09:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 09:31 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 06:28 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 01:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 08:22 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I'm not rooting for anything that Sinclair does. The way they manipulate local news stations is a huge turnoff.

I sure as hell am not rooting for anything ESPN does, their PC horsecrap, their plugging of ACC stuff and Big 10 stuff on the SECN, and Disney's active left wing revisionism both at their theme parks and in their programming leaves me cold. I seriously question their whole approach to the SEC.

First they hire Finebaum so his trash redneck fringe callers only perpetuate a negative stereotype for the SEC. Then they have a Big 10 guy and N.D. guy doing his programming and sneering at the idiot callers.

Then his interviewees on the program include all of the other conference's beat writers and more than handful of people critical of the SEC's scheduling and perpetuating non issues as talking points for fans of other conferences. And now they piggyback the ACCN upon the SECN.

They discouraged our natural desires for expansion, and intentionally tried to keep each conference from consolidating their natural regions to try to keep them from gaining leverage (which was all the footprint model was about and I discussed this frequently prior to 2010 realignment cycle).

They may pay us, but they are not what is in the best long term interest of the SEC and they sure as hell haven't been the best for the long term interests of the ACC and may not be for the Big 12.

So if Sinclair or anyone else wants to give it a try and is more interested in trying to showcase the SEC or any conference than they are about trying to manipulate the whole sport, then I'm all for it.

I Don’t mind Finebaum’s crazy redneck callers, I just wish his show was not soooooo Alabama centric.

Agreed. It's impossible to listen to because I just do not care about Alabama/Auburn that much.

And you shouldn't have to. When the SECN was announced I was hoping that we would land a show like "Talking Football" which had Tony Barnhardt, Mark Schlabach, and Tee Martin with a guest each week. It was a fabulous show which didn't have major bias and they spent equal time talking about each of the SEC and ACC schools. Now obviously they wouldn't have to do that for the SECN but their approach was one of the more informative and less biased ones I had seen.

Paul, made his radio money muckraking crap between Auburn and Alabama and he hasn't learned any new tricks since. What he won't tell the public is how he egged on Harvey Updike before he poisoned the trees at Auburn and then acted shocked when Updike bragged about poisoning the trees.

He's Jerry Springer doing the SEC and quite frankly our alums deserve much much better and our schools need to be painted in a much less stereotyped way. I think he's a pure ESPN acquisition and that they tried to turn him into a national show but he can't translate except with the same kinds of callers from Ohio and Pennsylvania, and L.A.. Some of the whackier ones get a stipend to call in regularly.

I stand by my remarks that the show is a major disservice to the SEC and I think all of our schools deserve equal handed treatment.

Yeah, I just don't watch or listen to him. Can't take it. Occasionally he would talk LSU, UGA, or UT but it just never went beyond that. A show like you described would probably do quite well.

Here's another perspective, though it is mostly focused on pro sports. Valid or not? College implications??

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...nd=premium

(06-20-2019 03:40 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  Here's another perspective, though it is mostly focused on pro sports. Valid or not? College implications??

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...nd=premium

It's an interesting thought...especially the anecdote on Netflix.

I don't think these positions are that different though. Regardless of the platform, if you entice viewers with free content in some fashion then you've got a hook. A fair percentage of them will stick around to pay for the premium content.

I think terrestrial TV will still play a role although I would agree that as time passes the internet becomes the predominant tool of delivery. It's too flexible and too cheap.

There was a time when the major broadcasters were radio companies. As the technology evolved so did their business model. I think some of these entities are too big to go away. They'll evolve again to take advantage of new markets. A lot of these networks are already creating streaming services of their own and they can piggyback that off of existing audiences. Some newer streaming services will have to acquire an audience from scratch so there's that.