(10-20-2020 03:14 PM)bullet Wrote: Without the subscription model, I don't think going to 14 pays. Certainly not with Maryland, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, Missouri and probably not with A&M. So there will be some re-thinking as the conference networks lose value.
FWIW, I've never bought in to the subscription model, at least not in its most robust form. E.g., back in 2012 when the subscription model was at its apex, the Big East was falling apart and the issue was who we should backfill with, the dominant thought among BEast fans was to add "markets", as in, "we can keep our TV value high, at AQ level, by adding schools in Big Markets. TV will pay for Markets".
At that time, I scoffed at that, and would make snide comments about how fanciful it was to believe that Temple "brought" the Philly market or that Houston "brought" the Houston market, or whatever. I emphasized that it was the brand value of the school that mattered, and that the mere presence in a market didn't mean there was much actual interest in that school's athletics there. Even when the most common retort was offered - "well what about Maryland and Rutgers? The B1G is obviously adding them just to gain access to their rich markets"? I would reply with "well, you don't see the B1G adding Fordham and George Mason, do you? Those schools are in those same markets, but they lack brand value, whereas Maryland and Rutgers have brand presence in those markets".
But, I am also not sold on any paradigm shifts that allegedly come from a transition from cable subscriptions to streaming. Texas AM is very valuable to the SEC under either model, because Texas AM is a huge, rich university with a massive fan base and thus a big following. They are a nationally prominent athletic brand.
So to me, Brand Value has always been the name of the game, and that doesn't change whether the model is cable subscriptions or streaming. Also, too much is made of the "transition", as cable subscriptions are still extremely lucrative in athletics, way moreso than streaming, and is likely to remain that way for some time. It's a slow transition, it's not a drop-off-a-cliff thing like the Iphone and Android killing Blackberry in 2010-2011.
To me, the enduring features are, on the side of the schools and conferences, brand value of the schools, and on the media company side, ownership of media rights. Regardless of the format, people will want to watch college football and ESPN and FOX and CBS will be able to charge them to do so. Just as record companies are currently making more money than ever under the Spotify et al. streaming model of music. You no longer hear talk of the Good Old Days of selling CDs for $15 a pop back in the 80s and 90s. These are now the Good Old Days. Yes, they went through a very lean 12 years, from around 2000 to 2012, because of piracy, but that's not something ESPN etc. face. Yes, there will be a weaning-period, some bumps in transition - we're seeing it now with ESPN - of declining revenues, but hyperbolic talk of "ESPN is a money-loser" is just that, hyperbole.