Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Which conference would ACC schools be willing to leave for?
Author Message
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 16,247
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1202
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #81
RE: Which conference would ACC schools be willing to leave for?
(05-14-2022 04:16 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  
(05-14-2022 03:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-14-2022 02:14 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 02:30 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 12:57 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  The admins at UNC, UVA, and Duke have no interest in being in the same conference as Mississippi State.

I hope you're right, and that they win any internal battles over which lifeboat to get in. It may be leaving money on the table, but I prefer none of those three ever join the SEC.

UNC and Duke are going to find life much harder in any P2.

If A&M can be twin level with UT in the SEC, I think FSU would enjoy being in a conference in which those three are no longer special

If the SEC could cherry pick the optimal additions they would be Virginia Tech which has the strongest draw in their state, North Carolina which is the strongest in theirs, Florida State which gives the SEC advertising's top rates in Florida and a second Florida school, Clemson which is a strong content multiplier, Notre Dame which would just jack the payouts up even more, would the presidents then jump on Duke for academics and because UNC demanded? If so would we permit their demand for Virginia instead of Tech?

The smart business move might be to let them go to the Big 10. N.C. State solves the demand issue and Virginia Tech is the better business move. The SEC could then build the N.C. State brand in North Carolina. Clemson, FSU, N.D. if they were so inclined, and Georgia Tech to protect the Deep South and keep the B1G out of Georgia would be, IMO the best business move.

So why not? ESPN's desire for North Carolina's brand. The SEC could play hardball and use Texas and Oklahoma neither of which got to bring in state tag-alongs. If the B1G wants Duke and UVa let them have them! Let UNC decide if they want associations with Texas & A&M & Florida or continue with Duke and UVa. Watching that decision would be priceless, especially with them knowing N.C. State would get the golden ticket if they passed. No Notre Dame add Kansas or Miami.

I agree! Texas has learned, or soon will, that they won't be calling the shots in the SEC the way they did in the Big XII. UNC needs to learn the same lesson if they want in. There's no denying UNC is the best brand in their market, but I totally oppose allowing them to bring two tag-alongs in Duke and UVA (when VT is a much better fit for the SEC). Make UNC choose...I think their arrogance & elitism will kick in and they'll go with their two soulmates to the B1G. Then we invite NC State who I think will fit better anyway, and could really blossom as the only NC school in the SEC.

So many reasons none of this will happen. You’re being guided by irrational emotions and not thinking clearly about the situation.

ESPN wants to keep UNC-Duke. All you have to do is watch their hype weeks to know how important they are together. They will do what it takes to preserve that and keep them under their umbrella.

The UNC PTB are smart enough to understand sending all their teams north is not a good idea. UNC will be looking to Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, and even Georgia and Florida as peers if they join the SEC. Virginia would come along as well and an Atlantic wing is an easy setup.

I would be worried as an FSU fan because there is no guarantee you’d be coming along. No new market, no academic clout, no hardwood content of any notoriety — which benefits a football-heavy SEC in those lonely winter months. You might be left picking up the pieces in a bastardized ACC, or whatever the abomination left in the dust will be called because I guarantee ESPN will buy the name and records for brand continuity.

07-coffee3
05-15-2022 02:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big 12 fan too Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,660
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 210
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #82
RE: Which conference would ACC schools be willing to leave for?
(05-15-2022 02:37 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-14-2022 04:16 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  
(05-14-2022 03:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-14-2022 02:14 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 02:30 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  I hope you're right, and that they win any internal battles over which lifeboat to get in. It may be leaving money on the table, but I prefer none of those three ever join the SEC.

UNC and Duke are going to find life much harder in any P2.

If A&M can be twin level with UT in the SEC, I think FSU would enjoy being in a conference in which those three are no longer special

If the SEC could cherry pick the optimal additions they would be Virginia Tech which has the strongest draw in their state, North Carolina which is the strongest in theirs, Florida State which gives the SEC advertising's top rates in Florida and a second Florida school, Clemson which is a strong content multiplier, Notre Dame which would just jack the payouts up even more, would the presidents then jump on Duke for academics and because UNC demanded? If so would we permit their demand for Virginia instead of Tech?

The smart business move might be to let them go to the Big 10. N.C. State solves the demand issue and Virginia Tech is the better business move. The SEC could then build the N.C. State brand in North Carolina. Clemson, FSU, N.D. if they were so inclined, and Georgia Tech to protect the Deep South and keep the B1G out of Georgia would be, IMO the best business move.

So why not? ESPN's desire for North Carolina's brand. The SEC could play hardball and use Texas and Oklahoma neither of which got to bring in state tag-alongs. If the B1G wants Duke and UVa let them have them! Let UNC decide if they want associations with Texas & A&M & Florida or continue with Duke and UVa. Watching that decision would be priceless, especially with them knowing N.C. State would get the golden ticket if they passed. No Notre Dame add Kansas or Miami.

I agree! Texas has learned, or soon will, that they won't be calling the shots in the SEC the way they did in the Big XII. UNC needs to learn the same lesson if they want in. There's no denying UNC is the best brand in their market, but I totally oppose allowing them to bring two tag-alongs in Duke and UVA (when VT is a much better fit for the SEC). Make UNC choose...I think their arrogance & elitism will kick in and they'll go with their two soulmates to the B1G. Then we invite NC State who I think will fit better anyway, and could really blossom as the only NC school in the SEC.

So many reasons none of this will happen. You’re being guided by irrational emotions and not thinking clearly about the situation.

ESPN wants to keep UNC-Duke. All you have to do is watch their hype weeks to know how important they are together. They will do what it takes to preserve that and keep them under their umbrella.

The UNC PTB are smart enough to understand sending all their teams north is not a good idea. UNC will be looking to Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, and even Georgia and Florida as peers if they join the SEC. Virginia would come along as well and an Atlantic wing is an easy setup.

I would be worried as an FSU fan because there is no guarantee you’d be coming along. No new market, no academic clout, no hardwood content of any notoriety — which benefits a football-heavy SEC in those lonely winter months. You might be left picking up the pieces in a bastardized ACC, or whatever the abomination left in the dust will be called because I guarantee ESPN will buy the name and records for brand continuity.

07-coffee3

Another reason why dissolution will happen, and sooner than later.

The prudent thing for both to do is leverage this now, and avoid risk that UNC-Duke doesn’t depreciate over a decade in a different era of college athletics.

I know you’re a “we don’t exactly know” type! So you understand why although such decline seems unlikely to emotional fans that don’t think clearly on this, those making the decisions will price in that risk of change, when making the decision to move far, far earlier than GOR.
(This post was last modified: 05-15-2022 05:27 PM by Big 12 fan too.)
05-15-2022 05:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 16,247
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1202
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #83
RE: Which conference would ACC schools be willing to leave for?
(05-15-2022 05:26 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-15-2022 02:37 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-14-2022 04:16 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  
(05-14-2022 03:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-14-2022 02:14 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  UNC and Duke are going to find life much harder in any P2.

If A&M can be twin level with UT in the SEC, I think FSU would enjoy being in a conference in which those three are no longer special

If the SEC could cherry pick the optimal additions they would be Virginia Tech which has the strongest draw in their state, North Carolina which is the strongest in theirs, Florida State which gives the SEC advertising's top rates in Florida and a second Florida school, Clemson which is a strong content multiplier, Notre Dame which would just jack the payouts up even more, would the presidents then jump on Duke for academics and because UNC demanded? If so would we permit their demand for Virginia instead of Tech?

The smart business move might be to let them go to the Big 10. N.C. State solves the demand issue and Virginia Tech is the better business move. The SEC could then build the N.C. State brand in North Carolina. Clemson, FSU, N.D. if they were so inclined, and Georgia Tech to protect the Deep South and keep the B1G out of Georgia would be, IMO the best business move.

So why not? ESPN's desire for North Carolina's brand. The SEC could play hardball and use Texas and Oklahoma neither of which got to bring in state tag-alongs. If the B1G wants Duke and UVa let them have them! Let UNC decide if they want associations with Texas & A&M & Florida or continue with Duke and UVa. Watching that decision would be priceless, especially with them knowing N.C. State would get the golden ticket if they passed. No Notre Dame add Kansas or Miami.

I agree! Texas has learned, or soon will, that they won't be calling the shots in the SEC the way they did in the Big XII. UNC needs to learn the same lesson if they want in. There's no denying UNC is the best brand in their market, but I totally oppose allowing them to bring two tag-alongs in Duke and UVA (when VT is a much better fit for the SEC). Make UNC choose...I think their arrogance & elitism will kick in and they'll go with their two soulmates to the B1G. Then we invite NC State who I think will fit better anyway, and could really blossom as the only NC school in the SEC.

So many reasons none of this will happen. You’re being guided by irrational emotions and not thinking clearly about the situation.

ESPN wants to keep UNC-Duke. All you have to do is watch their hype weeks to know how important they are together. They will do what it takes to preserve that and keep them under their umbrella.

The UNC PTB are smart enough to understand sending all their teams north is not a good idea. UNC will be looking to Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, and even Georgia and Florida as peers if they join the SEC. Virginia would come along as well and an Atlantic wing is an easy setup.

I would be worried as an FSU fan because there is no guarantee you’d be coming along. No new market, no academic clout, no hardwood content of any notoriety — which benefits a football-heavy SEC in those lonely winter months. You might be left picking up the pieces in a bastardized ACC, or whatever the abomination left in the dust will be called because I guarantee ESPN will buy the name and records for brand continuity.

07-coffee3

Another reason why dissolution will happen, and sooner than later.

The prudent thing for both to do is leverage this now, and avoid risk that UNC-Duke doesn’t depreciate over a decade in a different era of college athletics.

I know you’re a “we don’t exactly know” type! So you understand why although such decline seems unlikely to emotional fans that don’t think clearly on this, those making the decisions will price in that risk of change, when making the decision to move far, far earlier than GOR.

I'm a "we don't exactly know what it will look like" type.

What I do know is Carolina would set themselves up to move onward just like they did when leaving the SoCon. Ironically, they would be joining a similar conglomeration to the original SoCon that the SEC schools split from.
05-15-2022 09:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big 12 fan too Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,660
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 210
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #84
RE: Which conference would ACC schools be willing to leave for?
(05-15-2022 09:18 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-15-2022 05:26 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-15-2022 02:37 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-14-2022 04:16 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  
(05-14-2022 03:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the SEC could cherry pick the optimal additions they would be Virginia Tech which has the strongest draw in their state, North Carolina which is the strongest in theirs, Florida State which gives the SEC advertising's top rates in Florida and a second Florida school, Clemson which is a strong content multiplier, Notre Dame which would just jack the payouts up even more, would the presidents then jump on Duke for academics and because UNC demanded? If so would we permit their demand for Virginia instead of Tech?

The smart business move might be to let them go to the Big 10. N.C. State solves the demand issue and Virginia Tech is the better business move. The SEC could then build the N.C. State brand in North Carolina. Clemson, FSU, N.D. if they were so inclined, and Georgia Tech to protect the Deep South and keep the B1G out of Georgia would be, IMO the best business move.

So why not? ESPN's desire for North Carolina's brand. The SEC could play hardball and use Texas and Oklahoma neither of which got to bring in state tag-alongs. If the B1G wants Duke and UVa let them have them! Let UNC decide if they want associations with Texas & A&M & Florida or continue with Duke and UVa. Watching that decision would be priceless, especially with them knowing N.C. State would get the golden ticket if they passed. No Notre Dame add Kansas or Miami.

I agree! Texas has learned, or soon will, that they won't be calling the shots in the SEC the way they did in the Big XII. UNC needs to learn the same lesson if they want in. There's no denying UNC is the best brand in their market, but I totally oppose allowing them to bring two tag-alongs in Duke and UVA (when VT is a much better fit for the SEC). Make UNC choose...I think their arrogance & elitism will kick in and they'll go with their two soulmates to the B1G. Then we invite NC State who I think will fit better anyway, and could really blossom as the only NC school in the SEC.

So many reasons none of this will happen. You’re being guided by irrational emotions and not thinking clearly about the situation.

ESPN wants to keep UNC-Duke. All you have to do is watch their hype weeks to know how important they are together. They will do what it takes to preserve that and keep them under their umbrella.

The UNC PTB are smart enough to understand sending all their teams north is not a good idea. UNC will be looking to Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, and even Georgia and Florida as peers if they join the SEC. Virginia would come along as well and an Atlantic wing is an easy setup.

I would be worried as an FSU fan because there is no guarantee you’d be coming along. No new market, no academic clout, no hardwood content of any notoriety — which benefits a football-heavy SEC in those lonely winter months. You might be left picking up the pieces in a bastardized ACC, or whatever the abomination left in the dust will be called because I guarantee ESPN will buy the name and records for brand continuity.

07-coffee3

Another reason why dissolution will happen, and sooner than later.

The prudent thing for both to do is leverage this now, and avoid risk that UNC-Duke doesn’t depreciate over a decade in a different era of college athletics.

I know you’re a “we don’t exactly know” type! So you understand why although such decline seems unlikely to emotional fans that don’t think clearly on this, those making the decisions will price in that risk of change, when making the decision to move far, far earlier than GOR.

I'm a "we don't exactly know what it will look like" type.

What I do know is Carolina would set themselves up to move onward just like they did when leaving the SoCon. Ironically, they would be joining a similar conglomeration to the original SoCon that the SEC schools split from.

What is really going to be ironic, is that if the P2 occurs as it should and is successful in living up to its potential advantages, the ACC would likely remain in stature to pre-Big East days

P2 is in essence a mechanism to trim "90s" conferences of their "fat", bundle, then revenue share across the entity to stabilize and lead to competitive balance, and then have a stronger national sport but with the old "conferences" now called divisions
05-15-2022 09:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GTFletch Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,918
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 288
I Root For: Georgia Tech
Location: Georgia
Post: #85
RE: Which conference would ACC schools be willing to leave for?
Clearly the SEC or BIG10
05-16-2022 06:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,720
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1773
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #86
RE: Which conference would ACC schools be willing to leave for?
(05-09-2022 05:43 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  
(05-09-2022 03:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-09-2022 03:04 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  
(05-09-2022 02:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-09-2022 01:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  When Texas and Oklahoma admitted their move to the SEC, outside of the B1G which also sought them, the emotional impact was not jealousy, it was fear. And this cannot be emphasized enough. Their decision meant that the ability to decapitate any conference of its most marketable schools had been achieved and now no conference outside of the SEC and most likely the Big Ten, was safe. The Texas and Oklahoma led B12 had been solidly #3 even after 4 key losses.

Suddenly the Arizona schools, some of the Cali schools, Oregon State and Washington State could all potentially face becoming the next Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Kansas State, T.C.U. and Baylor.

If it happened to the ACC where might WVU go? If the B1G did grow with PAC schools would Kansas find a home?

The P5 in one move went from looking wholly secure to being vulnerable and the "Super League" went from fantasy to potential reality, and that left many AD's in a state of shock. The Big 10 took a punch in the chops and was stunned at first. The "Alliance" was a standing 8 count for the B1G. Now they are considering a counter punch. That too has many AD's sweating bullets. Who's next? And who makes a P2? Futures are at stake and reality is setting in.

Think of it as if your morning paper had announced that Germany and Great Britian had left the EU and joined Putin's Russia, or that Japan and the Philippines had joined the PRC. How secure would your new world feel? With that much shift in power you know more is coming, only now you also know you won't be able to stop with conventional defenses.

This move means the B1G will have to respond and it means that being the #3 or #4 conference you are no longer in the hunt. P2 is coming. When and how are the only questions.

I've got to disagree with this and it's a very core point. The Big 12 with Texas and Oklahoma was NOT the #3 league after the Big Ten and SEC when it comes to conference realignment strength. It has been very clearly the #5 league the entire time and that's why they've been the most unstable and a constant victim of poaching for the last 12 years. It would be like saying in 2016 that the Cleveland Cavaliers are a franchise on par in value with the Lakers and Celtics... but that simply wasn't true. As soon as LeBron and Kyrie Irving left, you couldn't even find their games on NBAtv (much less ABC/ESPN/TNT). The Big 12 was essentially the equivalent of the Cavs: their value was almost entirely wrapped up in Texas and Oklahoma alone.

Thus, we all knew that the fact that Texas was *specifically* a flight risk (as they showed straight up in 2010 with the Pac-16 proposal) made the Big 12 inherently vulnerable. Absolutely no school in the rest of the P5 was going to move to the Big 12 and everyone other than Texas was going to take an invite to one of the other P5 leagues if it ever came.

Now, whether the Big Ten responds is a different matter. Would the Big Ten take UNC, Duke and/or UVA? Sure! However, I don't believe that they *have* to do it. Expansion for the sake of expansion is a bad idea for everyone in the P5. We'll see how these new TV contracts come out because it may very well be the case that no one short of Notre Dame would even break even for the Big Ten in expansion with the $1 billion-plus numbers being bandied around as of now.

FWIW, I think everyone is discounting the reality of so much of this existing in a "bubble."

I live in Southern, Coastal Maine. This is normally a very desirable tourist spot that has exploded in year-round residents, with COVID just adding fuel to the fire. The market value of my home has almost doubled in less than three years. This cannot be sustained, IMO. Eventually the reality of the laws of economics and common sense will prevail and this bubble will bust, IMO.

We see this all through the economy - over and over again. To borrow a phrase from Margin call, "we cannot help ourselves."

A billion-plus $'s for college football games?? Sorry, but as I see it, that is not sustainable over the longer-term. At some point, the laws of economics and common sense will prevail, just as they have done with every other bubble. The more interesting question in my view, borrowing another phrase from Margin Call, who is going to be left holding the bag "when the music stops?"

To be honest, with the ratings that top college football games generate, they've actually been undervalued at least compared to the rights that MLB and the NBA have been able to garner over the past several years. People have been talking about a sports rights bubble for the past 40 years... yet they've only gone in one direction. Now, as any financial person will tell you, past performance is not a guarantee of future results. That being, sports will always have the important property of being TV (or streaming or whatever format) that is watched live, which is increasingly rare in today's media landscape.

So, I actually don't believe that there's a bubble here. It's more that when you get to the rights fees levels that the Big Ten and SEC are getting to now, the breakeven cost of expansion also goes up. It will likely take around 4 to 5 times as much for a school for the Big Ten to breakeven (not even make more money) today than it did for Rutgers and Maryland less than a decade ago. The list of schools that can do that is VERY short and two of them (Texas and Oklahoma) were just taken off the board by the SEC.

I gotta push back a bit on this.

One of the typical characteristics of a bubble is that the closer the players are to the bubble - and the more they benefit from the prevailing environment within said bubble - the more likely they miss the signs and the clues that could have forewarned them.

I spent the bulk of my career in asset management and I think the financial crisis of 2008 provides a good example of this. There were plenty of warning signs that flashed bright red before the crisis that some very smart people missed. Looking back, it seem clear that many (not all) firms got so seduced by the profitability of CDO's that they completely disregarded the fact that: (1) credit standards had all but disappeared in typical mortgage applications, (2) the housing market was cooling and a number of homeowners (many with teaser mortgage rates that were expiring) found themselves upside-down in their mortgages, and (3) all of this resulting in steadily increasing mortgage foreclosures rates (which were published and available to anybody). None of these developments forced a number of firms to review their exposure to the market as a result of their CDO holdings, as it should have, IMO. When the music stopped, well, the rest is history.

Today, I see many similar signs with sports, and college sports in particular. I am 66 years old and love sports - especially college sports. I will watch them on TV. My 33 year-old son, a successful, professional guy - has little interest in spectator sports. (He loves golf and skiing, though!). From what I can tell, this is the same with virtually all his friends in that generation. From what I can gather, and has been supported by numerous studies, the level of interest is even less in the succeeding generations. The audience is unlikely to get bigger and will likely shrink - probably dramatically as folks like me go to our final reward (hopefully not for a long time!).

You are right in claiming that people have been saying that college sports are overvalued for many decades. What may be changing are two factors - (1) the money has now grown to such ridiculous levels and (2) the number of eyeballs is likely to decline over the next decade+. Eventually, a "tipping point" occurs.

Sure, Conferences like the B10 have some rabid fanbases and will likely still do very good TV numbers in their local markets, but to make these huge payouts work, they will have to continue to do good numbers nationwide - and there is the rub, IMO. On a national level, how many B10 schools have huge national appeal - OSU and UM? - yes; PSU? maybe. Beyond that, not so much, IMO. Even a OSU vs UM game (or BC game for that matter) will typically not do anywhere near the TV numbers in the Boston market as a typical Patriots game. I would venture the same would be true for most NFL markets. The disparity with other B10 matchups will be even greater, IMO.

I hear what you are saying about the comparison to the NBA and MLB, but remember those are completely different models where teams play a number of games per week as opposed to one game a week. Not sure how this compares.

Bottom line for me, the issue is not whether or not the CURRENT financial model works. It clearly does! But if you add hundreds of millions of dollars (or even billions of dollars) to these media deals, then I would be hard pressed to see how the content providers can generate the added revenue to make this work, given the shifting demographics. Sure, maybe initially it all works; but eventually the demographic and other societal realities take hold. Again, who gets left holding the back in that scenario?

Just my 2 cents!

I agree that viewership is going down for sports in general and that will continue. However, that needs to be viewed in the context of the fact that the viewership for *everything* on TV is going down even more dramatically. Sports have actually retained their audiences much better than every other form of programming out there.

Here’s the list of the 100 most watched TV programs in the US last year:

https://www.sportico.com/business/media/...57845/amp/

When you break it down, they consisted of the following:

75 NFL games
10 Summer Olympics broadcasts
7 College Football games
2 NCAA Tournament games
3 Presidential inauguration-related news broadcasts (across multiple networks)
1 Oprah interview of Meghan and Harry
1 Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade
1 The Equalizer scripted program…. that aired after the Super Bowl

Obviously, the NFL is dominant. However, look at how sports overall had 94 of the top 100 most watched shows on TV, including 9 college sporting events.

Note that only 1 actual scripted TV show is on the list… and the only reason why it’s there is because it aired right after the Super Bowl (another sporting event)!

This is a complete sea change from 20 years ago. Even up until 2000, the NFL might win only 1 or 2 ratings weeks per year: the week of the Super Bowl and *maybe* the week of one of the conference championship games. The NFL almost never won ratings weeks in the fall - those weeks were dominated by shows like Friends and Survivor. Other sports properties weren’t even in the vicinity of those network shows for ratings. Now, it’s rare to see anything other than a sporting event in the top *five* shows (much less the #1 show) in the ratings every week.

To use a phrase that you might have used in asset management over the past decade or so, sports are to the TV networks as equities are to investors: TINA. “There is no alternative.” The monoculture that allowed the NBC Thursday lineup of Friends, Seinfeld and ER to dominate the 1990s or even the rise of reality competitions like Survivor and American Idol through the 2000s is completely gone. The TV viewing market is completely fragmented today, which means even where sports at have lost outright viewers in a vacuum, they’ve actually retained a way higher percentage of their viewers compared to everything else.

Putting aside the NFL (which is a unique juggernaut), the Big Ten and SEC had multiple games where they garnered higher ratings than ALL of the regularly scheduled programs on ALL of the TV networks (whether OTA or cable) in ALL of the time slots COMBINED. On a *relative* basis, the only type of regular program on TV that is more valuable than college football is the NFL itself. (The Olympics still show their high value even with reduced ratings, too, but they really a special event that isn’t regular.)

Now, I would concede that this doesn’t mean that there’s no bubble per se. It’s more that I’m viewing through the lens of whether there’s going to be a market for TV programs where people sit down and watch them live… which importantly means that they’re watching commercials. As long as that market exists, sports are really the only type of program that works in that environment (with maybe some reality shows). Scripted programs effectively don’t work anymore on network TV - that’s why anything scripted that the networks really want to invest in is all going straight to streaming now.

The Wall Street Journal’s front page today has a story on how so few investors are pulling out of stocks even with the market disruptions this year compared to prior market downturns (including the brief COVID crash of 2020 and the financial crisis of 2008). Why? It’s because the alternatives such as bonds and other fixed income assets aren’t providing any safety in a rising interest rate and inflationary environment, so equities are still the “least bad” option. Don’t get me wrong - it doesn’t mean that this time it’s different and all of our stock portfolios are just going to rebound as normal (and if anything, maybe it means that the valuations of stocks are truly getting propped up even now in a classic bubble, which means that they still could crash much further), but that’s where the psychology is coming from here.

That’s where every TV network that depends upon selling commercials (meaning people that watch TV live) is at right now. Sports are expensive already and only getting more expensive, but they’re really the only option to drive large viewership that get them the exponentially higher ad rates. There truly isn’t anything else that exists and there’s not really an innovative way to create a program that people are willing to watch live en masse that isn’t sports or reality-based. It’s not a matter of better technology improving things on the horizon or that there’s an entertainment equivalent of a fixed income alternative where you can make a bet that those valuations might improve. This legitimately looks like a TINA situation for the TV networks.
(This post was last modified: 05-16-2022 09:04 AM by Frank the Tank.)
05-16-2022 08:56 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.