https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/disn...27866.html

Morgan Stanley has increased its price target for Disney based on its conclusion that it has the scale and streaming capabilities to successfully transition its ESPN programming from the traditional cable bundle model to a direct to consumer streaming model.

Quote:Concerns are mounting among investors and media executives that the primacy of live sports may not be enough to save the linear bundle in a world of consumer choice. Swinburne argues the financial model of sports broadcasting “looks unsustainable” and there could be dire consequences in coming years by stakeholders preserving the status quo....

For Disney, making a strategic pivot would address a looming issue on the balance sheet: eroding subscriber numbers at ESPN. After peaking several years ago, subscriber levels have been steadily declining, and income along with it....

That downturn “has brought the network and the entire ecosystem to this point: The risk of unbundling ESPN may finally be worth the potential reward.”

My take is that major college sports are well positioned for the transition. The schools and conferences have dedicated fan bases likely to follow their schools to new platforms and to support those platforms. The conferences have high profile in season and post season games and the sport has high profile post season events that will continue to hold value for more widely distributed platforms, such as over the air networks, and potentially dedicated PPV or event pass subscription offerings.

For conferences like the ACC, whose current deal with ESPN runs through 2036 or 2037, base revenue is secure, while variable revenue from ACCN may be augmented by expanding its programming new platforms. Conferences looking for new or extended contracts will see a different marketplace, and it will be interesting to see how those rights deals play out. Finally, I will note that college football has one major card up its sleeve in the opportunity to expand the CFP to eight schools as a way to enhance rights payments.

(06-24-2020 10:25 AM)orangefan Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/disn...27866.html

Morgan Stanley has increased its price target for Disney based on its conclusion that it has the scale and streaming capabilities to successfully transition its ESPN programming from the traditional cable bundle model to a direct to consumer streaming model.

Quote:Concerns are mounting among investors and media executives that the primacy of live sports may not be enough to save the linear bundle in a world of consumer choice. Swinburne argues the financial model of sports broadcasting “looks unsustainable” and there could be dire consequences in coming years by stakeholders preserving the status quo....

For Disney, making a strategic pivot would address a looming issue on the balance sheet: eroding subscriber numbers at ESPN. After peaking several years ago, subscriber levels have been steadily declining, and income along with it....

That downturn “has brought the network and the entire ecosystem to this point: The risk of unbundling ESPN may finally be worth the potential reward.”

My take is that major college sports are well positioned for the transition. The schools and conferences have dedicated fan bases likely to follow their schools to new platforms and to support those platforms. The conferences have high profile in season and post season games and the sport has high profile post season events that will continue to hold value for more widely distributed platforms, such as over the air networks, and potentially dedicated PPV or event pass subscription offerings.

For conferences like the ACC, whose current deal with ESPN runs through 2036 or 2037, base revenue is secure, while variable revenue from ACCN may be augmented by expanding its programming new platforms. Conferences looking for new or extended contracts will see a different marketplace, and it will be interesting to see how those rights deals play out. Finally, I will note that college football has one major card up its sleeve in the opportunity to expand the CFP to eight schools as a way to enhance rights payments.

Expect the next ACC/ESPN "look-in" to consider moving ACCN subscriptions to streaming direct-to-consumers.

So the ACC will see an uptick when Comcast reups with Disney in 2022 and then the ACCN/ESPN "look-in" to consider moving ACCN subscriptions to streaming direct-to-consumers.

Who on this board said the ACC Network would never work?????

It would be much more profitable in the long run. You cut out the large % of profit that cable companies grab off the top before ESPN splits the AACN and SECN profits with the conferences. And by requiring a subscription to ESPN+ to be able to see all games not carried on the streaming provider billed as ESPN, ESPNU, ESPN2, etc, would also enable every game a conference has to actually draw individual revenue.

This is one reason I expect ESPN to go hard after the Big 12 rights in full, and possibly even the PAC 12 rights and the other half of the Big 10 rights. The money to be made off all all college sports packages would be phenomenal. You could purchase the stream to your own conference for a set amount and bundle for 40% more that would include all P5 conferences. That gives each conference direct proceeds based on purchased programming and % of the bundled amount.

Make it season specific and it works even better for the consumer. Those wanting football purchase it separate from basketball and baseball/softball which could be packaged together. This rewards top basketball schools more directly and rewards schools strong in baseball, or hockey in the case of the Big 10. The consumer gets more say, and the advertising would be an exclusive split between Disney and the conferences.

That said, it would also help ESPN to go to just broadcasting the events and possibly using local color people and getting rid of their obnoxious talking heads. That political wing of ESPN is costing them business.

Wait, I thought the CSNBBS party line was to mock the AAC for letting some of their games be streamed instead of on cable. Somebody's got some 'splainin to do...

USFFan

(06-25-2020 09:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It would be much more profitable in the long run. You cut out the large % of profit that cable companies grab off the top before ESPN splits the AACN and SECN profits with the conferences. And by requiring a subscription to ESPN+ to be able to see all games not carried on the streaming provider billed as ESPN, ESPNU, ESPN2, etc, would also enable every game a conference has to actually draw individual revenue.

This is one reason I expect ESPN to go hard after the Big 12 rights in full, and possibly even the PAC 12 rights and the other half of the Big 10 rights. The money to be made off all all college sports packages would be phenomenal. You could purchase the stream to your own conference for a set amount and bundle for 40% more that would include all P5 conferences. That gives each conference direct proceeds based on purchased programming and % of the bundled amount.

Make it season specific and it works even better for the consumer. Those wanting football purchase it separate from basketball and baseball/softball which could be packaged together. This rewards top basketball schools more directly and rewards schools strong in baseball, or hockey in the case of the Big 10. The consumer gets more say, and the advertising would be an exclusive split between Disney and the conferences.

That said, it would also help ESPN to go to just broadcasting the events and possibly using local color people and getting rid of their obnoxious talking heads. That political wing of ESPN is costing them business.

One can only hope so...

USFFan

(06-25-2020 10:56 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(06-25-2020 09:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It would be much more profitable in the long run. You cut out the large % of profit that cable companies grab off the top before ESPN splits the AACN and SECN profits with the conferences. And by requiring a subscription to ESPN+ to be able to see all games not carried on the streaming provider billed as ESPN, ESPNU, ESPN2, etc, would also enable every game a conference has to actually draw individual revenue.

This is one reason I expect ESPN to go hard after the Big 12 rights in full, and possibly even the PAC 12 rights and the other half of the Big 10 rights. The money to be made off all all college sports packages would be phenomenal. You could purchase the stream to your own conference for a set amount and bundle for 40% more that would include all P5 conferences. That gives each conference direct proceeds based on purchased programming and % of the bundled amount.

Make it season specific and it works even better for the consumer. Those wanting football purchase it separate from basketball and baseball/softball which could be packaged together. This rewards top basketball schools more directly and rewards schools strong in baseball, or hockey in the case of the Big 10. The consumer gets more say, and the advertising would be an exclusive split between Disney and the conferences.

That said, it would also help ESPN to go to just broadcasting the events and possibly using local color people and getting rid of their obnoxious talking heads. That political wing of ESPN is costing them business.

One can only hope so...

USFFan

I think the G5 would very much be a part of this. Imagine if you could buy a total college football stream in which you could watch any games live you wished to watch and watch games during the week you missed. Let's say you pay $350 for that privilege and it covered September, October, November, December and January and you paid 75 a month from September through December and 50 for January. For that you get every regular season game all conference championships, all bowls and the Playoffs. If you have a basic TV package to stream and Hulu and the ESPN/Disney+ you would be paying about $130 for four months and about 110 for January and the total cost is still cheaper than an average P5 season ticket book. You don't like hoops and baseball so the rest of the year you pay $55 a month for TV. Or even if you like hoops you get basketball season for $20 bucks a month. Maybe 10 bucks for baseball season per month and they toss in softball as well. That's still a great deal.

Only now there is no middle man (cable network) so ad revenue is split between ESPN and the conference and the revenue from the games themselves are as well.

Let's say the average P5 prime time game can draw 5 million viewers. If those are single time viewers they pay 10 bucks for the game. If they are package buyers they are buying their conference for 30 bucks a month or buying the P5 bundle for 50 which pays 15 bucks a month to their conference (half of the 30) and pays the other 4 conferences an additional $2.50 per subscription. So each P5 gets $15 bucks a month for their own subscribers and $2.50 from every other conference fan who subscribes to the bundle.. Now figure the G5 at the total bundle level of $75 per month where they are getting $15 per month for their subscribers and $2.50 from all of the other G5 and P5 subscribers who buy the total college football package.

Now add 50% of the advertising value for all games watched live or recorded.

It would kill the current deals. The SECN had 70 million subscribers when it opened. 70 million x 15 x 4 = 4.2 billion for the regular season and December bowls and that's just their half and doesn't include the numbers x 2.50 for other conference's bundle buyers. That's 280 million per SEC school including the Conference share for the 14 current schools. Adding schools adds audience. And remember that doesn't include New Year's day bowls or the CFP.

The difference here is that you aren't permitting the Cable Channel to take its cut too.

This has, if shared as a partnership with say ESPN, the potential to more than cover all costs of stipends and image rights and insurance for the players and still leave the schools a tidy sum to be reinvested in the non revenue sports. And all by cutting out the middle man and charging a rate less than 1 season ticket book for the whole shebang.

Now think about it that way and we should not only let cable die, but should put it out of it's misery.

And what's more is the money sports stand on their own and the schools can offer streams of all sports as part of the Conference, P5, or Total College Sports Bundle. All they need do is to provide the stream which most are set up to do, and use their own local announcers for the feed.

And that total revenue I covered above was just for football. Remember you buy basketball separately and baseball as well. I do think however to go this route Basketball needs to start after January 15th if it seeks to make the most it can make. Baseball/Softball wouldn't cost you that much but they would be great Summertime filler.

(06-25-2020 10:54 PM)usffan Wrote:  Wait, I thought the CSNBBS party line was to mock the AAC for letting some of their games be streamed instead of on cable. Somebody's got some 'splainin to do...

USFFan

A conference would be foolish not to have multiple methods for getting their content to the public during these turbulent times.

Ah, the death of the traditional media market. I've been saying it for a few years now. Going forward, the size of the media market you're located in will matter far less than your brand and its ability to generate views.

Anyone else concerned that if ESPN does this, it will be through an app or online.. What do us channel surfers do when we pause one game and watch another, pause it and go back to the previous game or another?

The way I watch LHN, verizon does not carry it in HD so I play it off my ESPN app through my PS4. So I can still flip back n forth with my cable box just by hitting the aux button. But if there are multiple games on an app.. I cannot simply pause it and watch the other. Hope they can figure out something to make it easier for guys like me who like to flip channels to watch CFB, no matter what conference is playing.

(06-26-2020 07:21 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Ah, the death of the traditional media market. I've been saying it for a few years now. Going forward, the size of the media market you're located in will matter far less than your brand and its ability to generate views.

It's basically always been about brand value. What really happened was 7-8 years ago, about the time the B1G invited Maryland and Rutgers, there was a burst of enthusiasm about "media markets". But that was overblown, as it was patently obvious then that the most valuable college sports schools weren't necessarily anywhere near big media markets, and it was equally obvious that schools like Temple and my USF weren't mega-valuable just because we are located in the big Philly and Tampa Bay markets, respectively. Rutgers and Maryland were kind of unique one-time things, that did in fact pay off nicely for the B1G because they could in fact deliver their big media markets to the conference. In contrast, in 2012 the AAC signed a peanut media deal despite having many schools in large booming media markets. That bubble burst quickly.

That said, I wouldn't be too fast to write off the cable model just yet. Despite the streaming inroads, cable is still a very big media delivery mode.

And I wouldn't necessarily trust these analysts about Disney being in prime position either, because the same kinds of analysts were telling us just 3 or so years ago that Disney was a dinosaur in mortal peril because its big cash-cow, ESPN, had missed the streaming boat as was going to inevitably drag Disney down with her.

(06-26-2020 07:55 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  Anyone else concerned that if ESPN does this, it will be through an app or online.. What do us channel surfers do when we pause one game and watch another, pause it and go back to the previous game or another?

The way I watch LHN, verizon does not carry it in HD so I play it off my ESPN app through my PS4. So I can still flip back n forth with my cable box just by hitting the aux button. But if there are multiple games on an app.. I cannot simply pause it and watch the other. Hope they can figure out something to make it easier for guys like me who like to flip channels to watch CFB, no matter what conference is playing.

WatchESPN already has a thing where you can stream multiple games at once and use split screen I believe

Streaming is the future.

I’m curious as to how the Big Ten and BTN will adapt. Will the Big Ten continue on it’s own or are we likely to see Big Ten T3 content wrapped up in a Fox Sports streaming service?

(06-26-2020 11:39 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Streaming is the future.

I’m curious as to how the Big Ten and BTN will adapt. Will the Big Ten continue on it’s own or are we likely to see Big Ten T3 content wrapped up in a Fox Sports streaming service?

To my knowledge, FOX has no comprehensive streaming product.

I think you can probably replay their shows online if you have a cable sub, but everybody does that. They have FOXSports2Go, but its content is even more limited than ESPN+ I think. I literally don't know anyone who has it and they obviously don't promote it very much.

I often wonder about the future of the FOX network. They've got some good products, but they've streamlined in a way that forgoes most of their scripted content...a traditional staple of any streaming service. They literally sold their studios to Disney. Combine that with their lack of entry into the streaming market in any serious way, and I'm really not sure what their plan is anymore.

Wouldn't be shocked to see the network get sold off to some other conglomerate.

(06-25-2020 10:54 PM)usffan Wrote:  Wait, I thought the CSNBBS party line was to mock the AAC for letting some of their games be streamed instead of on cable. Somebody's got some 'splainin to do...

USFFan

Its one the things UConn was reportedly up in arms about with the latest media deal. All the Big East fans on the board and the "In Your Face AAC" crowd that support other schools, were right there with them. We had people suggesting it was going to cost each AAC school $2-3M a year for production costs. Now they are saying it is the future and everyone is going there.

Figures.

(06-25-2020 11:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-25-2020 10:56 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(06-25-2020 09:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It would be much more profitable in the long run. You cut out the large % of profit that cable companies grab off the top before ESPN splits the AACN and SECN profits with the conferences. And by requiring a subscription to ESPN+ to be able to see all games not carried on the streaming provider billed as ESPN, ESPNU, ESPN2, etc, would also enable every game a conference has to actually draw individual revenue.

This is one reason I expect ESPN to go hard after the Big 12 rights in full, and possibly even the PAC 12 rights and the other half of the Big 10 rights. The money to be made off all all college sports packages would be phenomenal. You could purchase the stream to your own conference for a set amount and bundle for 40% more that would include all P5 conferences. That gives each conference direct proceeds based on purchased programming and % of the bundled amount.

Make it season specific and it works even better for the consumer. Those wanting football purchase it separate from basketball and baseball/softball which could be packaged together. This rewards top basketball schools more directly and rewards schools strong in baseball, or hockey in the case of the Big 10. The consumer gets more say, and the advertising would be an exclusive split between Disney and the conferences.

That said, it would also help ESPN to go to just broadcasting the events and possibly using local color people and getting rid of their obnoxious talking heads. That political wing of ESPN is costing them business.

One can only hope so...

USFFan

I think the G5 would very much be a part of this. Imagine if you could buy a total college football stream in which you could watch any games live you wished to watch and watch games during the week you missed. Let's say you pay $350 for that privilege and it covered September, October, November, December and January and you paid 75 a month from September through December and 50 for January. For that you get every regular season game all conference championships, all bowls and the Playoffs. If you have a basic TV package to stream and Hulu and the ESPN/Disney+ you would be paying about $130 for four months and about 110 for January and the total cost is still cheaper than an average P5 season ticket book. You don't like hoops and baseball so the rest of the year you pay $55 a month for TV. Or even if you like hoops you get basketball season for $20 bucks a month. Maybe 10 bucks for baseball season per month and they toss in softball as well. That's still a great deal.

Only now there is no middle man (cable network) so ad revenue is split between ESPN and the conference and the revenue from the games themselves are as well.

Let's say the average P5 prime time game can draw 5 million viewers. If those are single time viewers they pay 10 bucks for the game. If they are package buyers they are buying their conference for 30 bucks a month or buying the P5 bundle for 50 which pays 15 bucks a month to their conference (half of the 30) and pays the other 4 conferences an additional $2.50 per subscription. So each P5 gets $15 bucks a month for their own subscribers and $2.50 from every other conference fan who subscribes to the bundle.. Now figure the G5 at the total bundle level of $75 per month where they are getting $15 per month for their subscribers and $2.50 from all of the other G5 and P5 subscribers who buy the total college football package.

Now add 50% of the advertising value for all games watched live or recorded.

It would kill the current deals. The SECN had 70 million subscribers when it opened. 70 million x 15 x 4 = 4.2 billion for the regular season and December bowls and that's just their half and doesn't include the numbers x 2.50 for other conference's bundle buyers. That's 280 million per SEC school including the Conference share for the 14 current schools. Adding schools adds audience. And remember that doesn't include New Year's day bowls or the CFP.

The difference here is that you aren't permitting the Cable Channel to take its cut too.

This has, if shared as a partnership with say ESPN, the potential to more than cover all costs of stipends and image rights and insurance for the players and still leave the schools a tidy sum to be reinvested in the non revenue sports. And all by cutting out the middle man and charging a rate less than 1 season ticket book for the whole shebang.

Now think about it that way and we should not only let cable die, but should put it out of it's misery.

And what's more is the money sports stand on their own and the schools can offer streams of all sports as part of the Conference, P5, or Total College Sports Bundle. All they need do is to provide the stream which most are set up to do, and use their own local announcers for the feed.

And that total revenue I covered above was just for football. Remember you buy basketball separately and baseball as well. I do think however to go this route Basketball needs to start after January 15th if it seeks to make the most it can make. Baseball/Softball wouldn't cost you that much but they would be great Summertime filler.

There's an interesting wrinkle here that runs against what most of us have discussed as far as realignment goes.

If a company like ESPN can sell a large package of college content for a bundled price and then supplement it by selling individual subscriptions to conferences then it might not be profitable at all to work towards eliminating any of the current P5.

Parsing out 1 or 2 conferences would create better match-ups, no doubt, but it could also reduce the potential audience for an individual stream. If you've got 5 channels(all of them at inevitably difference prices) then that could potentially bring down more total subs than 4 or 3 channels. The content value is greater with contraction, but it depends on how many subs you lose in the process. Depends on what the price point is...depend on what the audience is for any of the individual streams. That's especially true considering the sub price would be the same no matter where you are in the country because local cable markets are no longer the primary factor in determining whether or not you have access.

What could throw a wrench in that approach, however, is if 1 or more of the 5 conferences didn't want to get on board with the plan. I could see the PAC 12 resisting this, for example. So does that motivate ESPN to organize a wide scale raid of the league?

(06-26-2020 02:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-25-2020 11:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-25-2020 10:56 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(06-25-2020 09:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It would be much more profitable in the long run. You cut out the large % of profit that cable companies grab off the top before ESPN splits the AACN and SECN profits with the conferences. And by requiring a subscription to ESPN+ to be able to see all games not carried on the streaming provider billed as ESPN, ESPNU, ESPN2, etc, would also enable every game a conference has to actually draw individual revenue.

This is one reason I expect ESPN to go hard after the Big 12 rights in full, and possibly even the PAC 12 rights and the other half of the Big 10 rights. The money to be made off all all college sports packages would be phenomenal. You could purchase the stream to your own conference for a set amount and bundle for 40% more that would include all P5 conferences. That gives each conference direct proceeds based on purchased programming and % of the bundled amount.

Make it season specific and it works even better for the consumer. Those wanting football purchase it separate from basketball and baseball/softball which could be packaged together. This rewards top basketball schools more directly and rewards schools strong in baseball, or hockey in the case of the Big 10. The consumer gets more say, and the advertising would be an exclusive split between Disney and the conferences.

That said, it would also help ESPN to go to just broadcasting the events and possibly using local color people and getting rid of their obnoxious talking heads. That political wing of ESPN is costing them business.

One can only hope so...

USFFan

I think the G5 would very much be a part of this. Imagine if you could buy a total college football stream in which you could watch any games live you wished to watch and watch games during the week you missed. Let's say you pay $350 for that privilege and it covered September, October, November, December and January and you paid 75 a month from September through December and 50 for January. For that you get every regular season game all conference championships, all bowls and the Playoffs. If you have a basic TV package to stream and Hulu and the ESPN/Disney+ you would be paying about $130 for four months and about 110 for January and the total cost is still cheaper than an average P5 season ticket book. You don't like hoops and baseball so the rest of the year you pay $55 a month for TV. Or even if you like hoops you get basketball season for $20 bucks a month. Maybe 10 bucks for baseball season per month and they toss in softball as well. That's still a great deal.

Only now there is no middle man (cable network) so ad revenue is split between ESPN and the conference and the revenue from the games themselves are as well.

Let's say the average P5 prime time game can draw 5 million viewers. If those are single time viewers they pay 10 bucks for the game. If they are package buyers they are buying their conference for 30 bucks a month or buying the P5 bundle for 50 which pays 15 bucks a month to their conference (half of the 30) and pays the other 4 conferences an additional $2.50 per subscription. So each P5 gets $15 bucks a month for their own subscribers and $2.50 from every other conference fan who subscribes to the bundle.. Now figure the G5 at the total bundle level of $75 per month where they are getting $15 per month for their subscribers and $2.50 from all of the other G5 and P5 subscribers who buy the total college football package.

Now add 50% of the advertising value for all games watched live or recorded.

It would kill the current deals. The SECN had 70 million subscribers when it opened. 70 million x 15 x 4 = 4.2 billion for the regular season and December bowls and that's just their half and doesn't include the numbers x 2.50 for other conference's bundle buyers. That's 280 million per SEC school including the Conference share for the 14 current schools. Adding schools adds audience. And remember that doesn't include New Year's day bowls or the CFP.

The difference here is that you aren't permitting the Cable Channel to take its cut too.

This has, if shared as a partnership with say ESPN, the potential to more than cover all costs of stipends and image rights and insurance for the players and still leave the schools a tidy sum to be reinvested in the non revenue sports. And all by cutting out the middle man and charging a rate less than 1 season ticket book for the whole shebang.

Now think about it that way and we should not only let cable die, but should put it out of it's misery.

And what's more is the money sports stand on their own and the schools can offer streams of all sports as part of the Conference, P5, or Total College Sports Bundle. All they need do is to provide the stream which most are set up to do, and use their own local announcers for the feed.

And that total revenue I covered above was just for football. Remember you buy basketball separately and baseball as well. I do think however to go this route Basketball needs to start after January 15th if it seeks to make the most it can make. Baseball/Softball wouldn't cost you that much but they would be great Summertime filler.

There's an interesting wrinkle here that runs against what most of us have discussed as far as realignment goes.

If a company like ESPN can sell a large package of college content for a bundled price and then supplement it by selling individual subscriptions to conferences then it might not be profitable at all to work towards eliminating any of the current P5.

Parsing out 1 or 2 conferences would create better match-ups, no doubt, but it could also reduce the potential audience for an individual stream. If you've got 5 channels(all of them at inevitably difference prices) then that could potentially bring down more total subs than 4 or 3 channels. The content value is greater with contraction, but it depends on how many subs you lose in the process. Depends on what the price point is...depend on what the audience is for any of the individual streams. That's especially true considering the sub price would be the same no matter where you are in the country because local cable markets are no longer the primary factor in determining whether or not you have access.

What could throw a wrench in that approach, however, is if 1 or more of the 5 conferences didn't want to get on board with the plan. I could see the PAC 12 resisting this, for example. So does that motivate ESPN to organize a wide scale raid of the league?

If the PAC refused the wouldn't get the extra bundled rates from other conference's viewers. So fine let them starve. The other 4 could still make overwhelming more. I don't think it changes a thing.

Your first point however has some merit in that obviously the more fan bases the more bundles you sell. But remember there will be G5 conferences and in the ultimate bundle they would be included. So consolidation in the P5 will be measured by how much in terms of subscribers their fringe schools bring in. Is it significantly more than if they were part of a G5 conference or roughly the same? I think consolidation will continue but will be a case by case basis.

As to realignment the prime telecast values vs the secondary telecast values verses the final tier for streaming will all have to be weighed as to each groupings total value. If it earns the carrier more to have a particular school in a particular conference then that could still happen.

So what becomes of T2 rights if we are going to warehouse most of the P5’s T3 rights, plus any G5 rights owned by ESPN, into a streaming service?

Naturally you’re still going to have your T1 content on network television but what about the stuff previously aired on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and FS1?

(06-26-2020 02:31 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  So what becomes of T2 rights if we are going to warehouse most of the P5’s T3 rights, plus any G5 rights owned by ESPN, into a streaming service?

Naturally you’re still going to have your T1 content on network television but what about the stuff previously aired on ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and FS1?

I could see an Olympic package in addition to the football and basketball packages.

You could do baseball and softball as a combo for the Spring/Summer season, but I think you could throw in everything else in that package too. Volleyball, hockey, gymnastics, wrestling, track and field, lacrosse, any others...there's various sports that have some appeal even if the audiences are smaller.

If a school wants to produce events for their minor sports then whatever they want to make available could be on the docket. The potential audiences would vary widely from school to school and sport to sport, but it would be an option and there's probably a few fans out there across the country who would like to have the chance to see some of those games. Might increase the sub rates and the onus would be on the schools...

(06-26-2020 01:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-26-2020 11:39 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Streaming is the future.

I’m curious as to how the Big Ten and BTN will adapt. Will the Big Ten continue on it’s own or are we likely to see Big Ten T3 content wrapped up in a Fox Sports streaming service?

To my knowledge, FOX has no comprehensive streaming product.

I think you can probably replay their shows online if you have a cable sub, but everybody does that. They have FOXSports2Go, but its content is even more limited than ESPN+ I think. I literally don't know anyone who has it and they obviously don't promote it very much.

I often wonder about the future of the FOX network. They've got some good products, but they've streamlined in a way that forgoes most of their scripted content...a traditional staple of any streaming service. They literally sold their studios to Disney. Combine that with their lack of entry into the streaming market in any serious way, and I'm really not sure what their plan is anymore.

Wouldn't be shocked to see the network get sold off to some other conglomerate.

It's difficult to sell all of "New Fox" to another conglomerate because of what those conglomerates already own. Might be easier to sell it off in pieces.

Might be able to sell off Fox Sports to a sort-of ESPN competitor, like Comcast (NBCSN) or AT&T (TBS/TNT) because the combination would still have much less content than ESPN. IMO the combination of the broadcast rights of Fox Sports and TBS/TNT would make the best competitor to ESPN, and probably the government would also let them sell the Fox broadcast network to AT&T.