Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
"Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
Author Message
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,079
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 785
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #41
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-12-2022 10:40 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 10:18 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 07:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 01:57 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I have a heavy cable bill, about $210 a month (which includes my internet service), and yeah, much of what I watch is live sports, but I have shopped around and don't see how streaming alone could save me much money.

IIRC, there was a time maybe 6-7 years ago, when streaming was new and streamers were offering awesome deals, where you could "cut the cord" and save a lot. But as with everything, markets converge, and streaming prices have risen, while cable channels have responded by making their channels available via streaming, not just tethered to the home TVs.

So my solution has been "both". I have the cable package, and also pay about $30 a month on top of the for the Disney Bundle and Netflix. I also get Peacock for "free" as part of my cable deal.

OTA AntennA (free TV, networks and live sports) along with Sling TV $35 with the ESPNs.

I grew up with OTA, in the 1970s we had a big antenna on the roof of our house, before that "rabbit ears" on our TVs.

Won't ever have that ever again save as a backup if a hurricane hits and cable TV goes out (which it did and I did for two days last September). Picture quality and reception is too shaky, IMO.

I grew up with OTA as well, with both a roof antenna and rabbit ears. I had all the sports I needed without cable, and there was decent weeknight programming on the major networks. But reception was a problem when I moved to North Carolina. NBC was hit or miss on its UHF channel and PBS was more miss than hit if we could get it at all. Then, "reality" shows proliferated on weeknight TV, so in 2005 or thereabouts, I broke down and got basic cable.

I now pay $127/month for cable and internet and need the internet to boost the signal from Verizon so I can talk on my very first smart phone I had to buy last summer when Verizon stopped supporting my flip phone. Even then, until I got a device to boost Verizon's signal I couldn't make outgoing calls. I'm one of the cable subscribers that are subsidizing you guys, since I probably only watch live sports on average about 300 hours a year (mostly on Saturdays from September to April).

My fervent hope is that I'm dead before streaming is my only option. Fortunately, I still think the odds of that are in my favor.

Why do you have a signal booster from Verizon? You should be able to connect to your Wifi inside your house and talk and text and surf on your phone without using any Cell Data from Verizon. There should be a feature on your phone called Wifi Calling...

"When you’re in a place with weak or no cellular network coverage, you may be able to make and receive calls and texts over a Wi-Fi network instead. Learn about the built-in Wi-Fi Calling feature and how it works with your smartphone.'

https://www.verizon.com/support/wifi-calling-faqs/

I do have wifi-calling, and it is enabled. But without the boost, I could hear callers (intermittently) but they couldn't hear me. Verizon techs tried for four hours to fix the problem before resorting to attaching a device to my router. That seems to have fixed the problem. Considering that 99% of the time I really only use the phone for incoming and outgoing calls, I hadn't anticipated having a problem like that.
05-12-2022 11:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TroyFootball05 Online
1987 Man of the Year
*

Posts: 8,638
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 329
I Root For: Good Times
Location: 8-Bit Pizza Bar
Post: #42
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
I pay $70 for high speed internet, and about $60 in streaming subscriptions. When football season comes around I pay an additional $40 for Sling. While that's about what my cable bill was, I don't just use the internet for streaming. So I'm still saving money.

If I were doing it perfectly, I'd limit myself to three non sports streaming platforms. Pause and rotate when I need something from a service I'm not currently using. Right now I have Netflix, Prime, Hulu, HBO Max, and Criterion Channel. Sling and ESPN+ during football season. I probably should pause Hulu and Criterion Channel since I don't use them as much.

My ego is too big to let these companies nickel and dime me to death and end up paying a monster bill like I was with cable, but that seems to be the direction we are heading.
05-12-2022 11:26 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 39,206
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2173
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #43
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
Thought the current cable sports network subscriber data reported in this tweet was pretty interesting. The most surprising stat is that CBS-Sports Network has substantially closed the subscriber gap between CBSSN and the top ESPN networks. While ESPN remains king, according to these numbers, the CBSSN subscriber count now compares favorably to ESPN-U.


Bryan Fischer
@BryanDFischer
Per Kagan estimates released last month, 2021 Year-end subscribers:

75.7 million — ESPN
75.6 — ESPN2
72.2 — FS1
62.6 — CBSSN
54.9 — ESPNU
51.2 — SECN
50.7 — FS2
48.1 — BTN

Wilner added this nugget---

Tweet
See new Tweets
Conversation
Jon Wilner
@wilnerhotline
P12N is ~14 million


Its worth noting that ESPN+ has 22 million subscribers---meaning that at this point, ESPN+ has over 50% more reach than the Pac-12 Network.
(This post was last modified: 05-12-2022 01:06 PM by Attackcoog.)
05-12-2022 01:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
whittx Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,681
Joined: Apr 2016
Reputation: 57
I Root For: FSU, Bport,Corn
Location:
Post: #44
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-12-2022 11:26 AM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  I pay $70 for high speed internet, and about $60 in streaming subscriptions. When football season comes around I pay an additional $40 for Sling. While that's about what my cable bill was, I don't just use the internet for streaming. So I'm still saving money.

If I were doing it perfectly, I'd limit myself to three non sports streaming platforms. Pause and rotate when I need something from a service I'm not currently using. Right now I have Netflix, Prime, Hulu, HBO Max, and Criterion Channel. Sling and ESPN+ during football season. I probably should pause Hulu and Criterion Channel since I don't use them as much.

My ego is too big to let these companies nickel and dime me to death and end up paying a monster bill like I was with cable, but that seems to be the direction we are heading.

Spend the extra buck a month and add Disney + so you can get the full bundle. Netflix is useless unless you're into one of their shows since the rights agreements they had are running out.
05-12-2022 02:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GreenBison Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,832
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 173
I Root For: The Herd!!!
Location: B'ville
Post: #45
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-12-2022 02:03 PM)whittx Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 11:26 AM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  I pay $70 for high speed internet, and about $60 in streaming subscriptions. When football season comes around I pay an additional $40 for Sling. While that's about what my cable bill was, I don't just use the internet for streaming. So I'm still saving money.

If I were doing it perfectly, I'd limit myself to three non sports streaming platforms. Pause and rotate when I need something from a service I'm not currently using. Right now I have Netflix, Prime, Hulu, HBO Max, and Criterion Channel. Sling and ESPN+ during football season. I probably should pause Hulu and Criterion Channel since I don't use them as much.

My ego is too big to let these companies nickel and dime me to death and end up paying a monster bill like I was with cable, but that seems to be the direction we are heading.

Spend the extra buck a month and add Disney + so you can get the full bundle. Netflix is useless unless you're into one of their shows since the rights agreements they had are running out.

I'm about ready to ditch Netflix myself.
05-12-2022 02:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 44,256
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1669
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #46
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-12-2022 02:08 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 02:03 PM)whittx Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 11:26 AM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  I pay $70 for high speed internet, and about $60 in streaming subscriptions. When football season comes around I pay an additional $40 for Sling. While that's about what my cable bill was, I don't just use the internet for streaming. So I'm still saving money.

If I were doing it perfectly, I'd limit myself to three non sports streaming platforms. Pause and rotate when I need something from a service I'm not currently using. Right now I have Netflix, Prime, Hulu, HBO Max, and Criterion Channel. Sling and ESPN+ during football season. I probably should pause Hulu and Criterion Channel since I don't use them as much.

My ego is too big to let these companies nickel and dime me to death and end up paying a monster bill like I was with cable, but that seems to be the direction we are heading.

Spend the extra buck a month and add Disney + so you can get the full bundle. Netflix is useless unless you're into one of their shows since the rights agreements they had are running out.

I'm about ready to ditch Netflix myself.

I find too many cool shows to watch on Netflix to let it go.

To me, Netflix and the Disney Bundle are the streaming essentials. Everything else is optional.
05-12-2022 05:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DoubleRSU Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,816
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 115
I Root For: Seattle U
Location:
Post: #47
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-11-2022 09:54 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 10:12 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I don't mind seeing The ACC, Big 10, SEC and PAC 12 Networks die. That is where the most of the fees from Cable and dish comes from. It is forced on us by ESPN mainly, but they just don't have much live events anymore. ESPN in the 80s and 90s had more sporting events from fishing, hunting, scuba diving, pro-wrestling, autoracing and all that which could cover their channels 24 hours a day. One of my favorite channels that they had was Classic which I liked to go back and remember all the old wrestling and roller derby that they had shown in the 80s on ESPN 2.

ACCN Live Sports, next 4 days

5/11
1:00 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: Louisville vs Syracuse
3:30 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: Georgia Tech vs NC State
7:00 pm - Baseball: Virginia Tech vs Liberty

5/12
11:00 am - ACC Softball Tournament: quarterfinal
1:30 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: quarterfinal
5:00 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: quarterfinal
7:30 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: quarterfinal

5/13
1:00 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: semifinal
3:30 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: semifinal
6:00 pm - Baseball: N Carolina vs Wake Forest

5/14
1:00 pm - Baseball: Virginia Tech vs Louisville
4:00 pm - Baseball: Notre Dame vs Pitt
7:00 pm - Baseball: Florida State vs Miami

What live events do they have after Memorial Day? In June? July?
05-12-2022 08:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
whittx Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,681
Joined: Apr 2016
Reputation: 57
I Root For: FSU, Bport,Corn
Location:
Post: #48
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-12-2022 08:05 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  
(05-11-2022 09:54 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 10:12 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I don't mind seeing The ACC, Big 10, SEC and PAC 12 Networks die. That is where the most of the fees from Cable and dish comes from. It is forced on us by ESPN mainly, but they just don't have much live events anymore. ESPN in the 80s and 90s had more sporting events from fishing, hunting, scuba diving, pro-wrestling, autoracing and all that which could cover their channels 24 hours a day. One of my favorite channels that they had was Classic which I liked to go back and remember all the old wrestling and roller derby that they had shown in the 80s on ESPN 2.

ACCN Live Sports, next 4 days

5/11
1:00 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: Louisville vs Syracuse
3:30 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: Georgia Tech vs NC State
7:00 pm - Baseball: Virginia Tech vs Liberty

5/12
11:00 am - ACC Softball Tournament: quarterfinal
1:30 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: quarterfinal
5:00 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: quarterfinal
7:30 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: quarterfinal

5/13
1:00 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: semifinal
3:30 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: semifinal
6:00 pm - Baseball: N Carolina vs Wake Forest

5/14
1:00 pm - Baseball: Virginia Tech vs Louisville
4:00 pm - Baseball: Notre Dame vs Pitt
7:00 pm - Baseball: Florida State vs Miami

What live events do they have after Memorial Day? In June? July?

None, unless one of the conference teams is playing basketball out of country.
05-13-2022 06:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 5,346
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 203
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US
Post: #49
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-10-2022 10:04 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 12:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 11:16 AM)nodak651 Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:18 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  The only reason to have cable/satellite anymore is for live sports. If it weren't a requirement where I rent, I wouldn't have it.

That's sort of the Catch-22 that these networks are all in right now.

The biggest reason why people are dropping cable/satellite is due to cost, which is disproportionately driven by networks with live sports.

Yet, simultaneously, the biggest reason why people *keep* cable/satellite is for live sports.

It's similar to the "TINA" ("There is no alternative") concept in investing. That is, people may continue to invest in and drive up the prices of superficially suboptimal assets because all of the other alternatives are seen to be even worse. The stock market over the past year is a classic example. It was pretty widely known that stocks by the middle of 2021 were generally historically overvalued by many metrics like P/E ratio. Yet, the problem was that bond prices and other investments (whether super-conservative like money market accounts or super-risky like Bitcoin) were performing so poorly combined with inflation that it drove people to keep piling into the stock market. When you're essentially losing money with "safe" investments due to various factors (e.g. inflation, rising interest rates, etc.), it means that you have a TINA situation where you need to invest in assets that you may know well are overpriced in the current environment (e.g. stocks and real estate). Even now with how the stock market has performed poorly in 2022 (especially this past week), it's still tough for investors to switch because bonds and other alternative investments simply don't look better by comparison.

That's essentially where TV networks are with respect to sports rights. Sports rights are going up and up and up to levels where they're eating into the profits of those TV networks. However, the problem is that very little else outside of sports is drawing live audiences on TV anymore, which means they're in a TINA situation. In essence, for a TV network today, the only thing worse than having to pay for live sports is not having live sports.

Is there a point where leagues like CUSA, Sun Belt, MAC, or potentially even CAA/MVFC/BigSky start to finally get some decent money or air time, simply due to budgeting reasons? Asking because the payouts some of the p5 conferences are getting just seem unsustainable. Is there any point where networks decide to cut costs a little bit? For instance, bottom rung p5 games don't really mean anything, and a sold out Washington Grizzly Stadium in Montana vs a rival in a meaningful game could probably be more exciting and visually appealing to a casual fan. FCS games can occasionally get ok tv ratings, but look at the amount of advertising other games get in comparison as well (none). With a bit of advertising, I could see something like a weekly FCS game of the week do ok, especially if sandwiched between a couple bigger games, and the networks could get the rights for essentially free, which would help with bottom line. Just as an example. I'm not saying this is something that should be done or that it would be worthwhile currently, but with the rising rights costs, you would think that non P5 programs would start to benefit more than they currently are, no?

Unfortunately for the G5, FCS and non-name brand schools, I believe that it's the opposite.

Unfortunately, non-brand name football (which is essentially the G5 and FCS) likely falls into that middle category. While the rights fees might be low, they also still have fixed level production costs and don't draw in large ratings compared to, say, a network-owned reality show that could also conceivably be shown multiple times and/or sent to a streaming service (optimally also owned by that same network).

Now, you could have some exceptions, particularly if there's a 12-team playoff and there ends up being value for, say, a G5 game that has a material impact on the playoff race. We've seen that to some extent in the CFP and BCS era with some AAC and Boise State games. However, the Big 12 backfilling really put a dent into the volume of non-P5 games that will likely have national interest based on brand names themselves.

From an entertainment company perspective, the highest and best use of non-P5 football games would be to fill out streaming services like ESPN+. These are serving niche (as opposed to mass market) audiences that make a lot more sense as streaming properties.

When we say "sports rights fees" are rising, what we really mean is that "sports rights fees for marquee properties" are rising, which would definitely include the P5. It doesn't mean that ALL sports rights fees are going up.

Well, Fox did just invest in owning the USLF to create more inventory. Are USFL teams less non-name brands than G5? $150-$250 million over three years for just 8 teams, plus getting additional investors. It would be more cost effective with less downside risk to lure the top of the G5 away and get them to play in the spring. Although FCS's one time spring was hit or miss with a lot of miss, for a first year the numbers even for that level were on par with second week of USFL and playoff hockey, better than sunday night baseball and much more cost effective than NBA playoff games.

We're in a time of disruption, with live sports being the last stand. In times of disruption it is a frequent mistake to carry forward previous world view constraints. I suspect the thirst for live sports will result in it being closing time at a bar.

IMO, no top G5 will play in the spring-horrible for attendance. Now I can see a conference like Conference USA going for it or even possibly FCS going for it again(attendance is low anyway; nothing to lose).
05-13-2022 09:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big 12 fan too Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 471
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 22
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #50
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-13-2022 09:27 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 10:04 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 12:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 11:16 AM)nodak651 Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That's sort of the Catch-22 that these networks are all in right now.

The biggest reason why people are dropping cable/satellite is due to cost, which is disproportionately driven by networks with live sports.

Yet, simultaneously, the biggest reason why people *keep* cable/satellite is for live sports.

It's similar to the "TINA" ("There is no alternative") concept in investing. That is, people may continue to invest in and drive up the prices of superficially suboptimal assets because all of the other alternatives are seen to be even worse. The stock market over the past year is a classic example. It was pretty widely known that stocks by the middle of 2021 were generally historically overvalued by many metrics like P/E ratio. Yet, the problem was that bond prices and other investments (whether super-conservative like money market accounts or super-risky like Bitcoin) were performing so poorly combined with inflation that it drove people to keep piling into the stock market. When you're essentially losing money with "safe" investments due to various factors (e.g. inflation, rising interest rates, etc.), it means that you have a TINA situation where you need to invest in assets that you may know well are overpriced in the current environment (e.g. stocks and real estate). Even now with how the stock market has performed poorly in 2022 (especially this past week), it's still tough for investors to switch because bonds and other alternative investments simply don't look better by comparison.

That's essentially where TV networks are with respect to sports rights. Sports rights are going up and up and up to levels where they're eating into the profits of those TV networks. However, the problem is that very little else outside of sports is drawing live audiences on TV anymore, which means they're in a TINA situation. In essence, for a TV network today, the only thing worse than having to pay for live sports is not having live sports.

Is there a point where leagues like CUSA, Sun Belt, MAC, or potentially even CAA/MVFC/BigSky start to finally get some decent money or air time, simply due to budgeting reasons? Asking because the payouts some of the p5 conferences are getting just seem unsustainable. Is there any point where networks decide to cut costs a little bit? For instance, bottom rung p5 games don't really mean anything, and a sold out Washington Grizzly Stadium in Montana vs a rival in a meaningful game could probably be more exciting and visually appealing to a casual fan. FCS games can occasionally get ok tv ratings, but look at the amount of advertising other games get in comparison as well (none). With a bit of advertising, I could see something like a weekly FCS game of the week do ok, especially if sandwiched between a couple bigger games, and the networks could get the rights for essentially free, which would help with bottom line. Just as an example. I'm not saying this is something that should be done or that it would be worthwhile currently, but with the rising rights costs, you would think that non P5 programs would start to benefit more than they currently are, no?

Unfortunately for the G5, FCS and non-name brand schools, I believe that it's the opposite.

Unfortunately, non-brand name football (which is essentially the G5 and FCS) likely falls into that middle category. While the rights fees might be low, they also still have fixed level production costs and don't draw in large ratings compared to, say, a network-owned reality show that could also conceivably be shown multiple times and/or sent to a streaming service (optimally also owned by that same network).

Now, you could have some exceptions, particularly if there's a 12-team playoff and there ends up being value for, say, a G5 game that has a material impact on the playoff race. We've seen that to some extent in the CFP and BCS era with some AAC and Boise State games. However, the Big 12 backfilling really put a dent into the volume of non-P5 games that will likely have national interest based on brand names themselves.

From an entertainment company perspective, the highest and best use of non-P5 football games would be to fill out streaming services like ESPN+. These are serving niche (as opposed to mass market) audiences that make a lot more sense as streaming properties.

When we say "sports rights fees" are rising, what we really mean is that "sports rights fees for marquee properties" are rising, which would definitely include the P5. It doesn't mean that ALL sports rights fees are going up.

Well, Fox did just invest in owning the USLF to create more inventory. Are USFL teams less non-name brands than G5? $150-$250 million over three years for just 8 teams, plus getting additional investors. It would be more cost effective with less downside risk to lure the top of the G5 away and get them to play in the spring. Although FCS's one time spring was hit or miss with a lot of miss, for a first year the numbers even for that level were on par with second week of USFL and playoff hockey, better than sunday night baseball and much more cost effective than NBA playoff games.

We're in a time of disruption, with live sports being the last stand. In times of disruption it is a frequent mistake to carry forward previous world view constraints. I suspect the thirst for live sports will result in it being closing time at a bar.

IMO, no top G5 will play in the spring-horrible for attendance. Now I can see a conference like Conference USA going for it or even possibly FCS going for it again(attendance is low anyway; nothing to lose).

Depends on how much the networks want more inventory.

Attendance is secondary if TV revenue increases revenue overall.

They’d need some type of initial marketing point. My guess is if the network had P2 inventory, with the expanded roster size, you’d see them somehow work in the spring game. Can an ASUN team beat Bama’s JV team?
05-13-2022 09:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 5,346
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 203
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US
Post: #51
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-13-2022 09:54 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-13-2022 09:27 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 10:04 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 12:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 11:16 AM)nodak651 Wrote:  Is there a point where leagues like CUSA, Sun Belt, MAC, or potentially even CAA/MVFC/BigSky start to finally get some decent money or air time, simply due to budgeting reasons? Asking because the payouts some of the p5 conferences are getting just seem unsustainable. Is there any point where networks decide to cut costs a little bit? For instance, bottom rung p5 games don't really mean anything, and a sold out Washington Grizzly Stadium in Montana vs a rival in a meaningful game could probably be more exciting and visually appealing to a casual fan. FCS games can occasionally get ok tv ratings, but look at the amount of advertising other games get in comparison as well (none). With a bit of advertising, I could see something like a weekly FCS game of the week do ok, especially if sandwiched between a couple bigger games, and the networks could get the rights for essentially free, which would help with bottom line. Just as an example. I'm not saying this is something that should be done or that it would be worthwhile currently, but with the rising rights costs, you would think that non P5 programs would start to benefit more than they currently are, no?

Unfortunately for the G5, FCS and non-name brand schools, I believe that it's the opposite.

Unfortunately, non-brand name football (which is essentially the G5 and FCS) likely falls into that middle category. While the rights fees might be low, they also still have fixed level production costs and don't draw in large ratings compared to, say, a network-owned reality show that could also conceivably be shown multiple times and/or sent to a streaming service (optimally also owned by that same network).

Now, you could have some exceptions, particularly if there's a 12-team playoff and there ends up being value for, say, a G5 game that has a material impact on the playoff race. We've seen that to some extent in the CFP and BCS era with some AAC and Boise State games. However, the Big 12 backfilling really put a dent into the volume of non-P5 games that will likely have national interest based on brand names themselves.

From an entertainment company perspective, the highest and best use of non-P5 football games would be to fill out streaming services like ESPN+. These are serving niche (as opposed to mass market) audiences that make a lot more sense as streaming properties.

When we say "sports rights fees" are rising, what we really mean is that "sports rights fees for marquee properties" are rising, which would definitely include the P5. It doesn't mean that ALL sports rights fees are going up.

Well, Fox did just invest in owning the USLF to create more inventory. Are USFL teams less non-name brands than G5? $150-$250 million over three years for just 8 teams, plus getting additional investors. It would be more cost effective with less downside risk to lure the top of the G5 away and get them to play in the spring. Although FCS's one time spring was hit or miss with a lot of miss, for a first year the numbers even for that level were on par with second week of USFL and playoff hockey, better than sunday night baseball and much more cost effective than NBA playoff games.

We're in a time of disruption, with live sports being the last stand. In times of disruption it is a frequent mistake to carry forward previous world view constraints. I suspect the thirst for live sports will result in it being closing time at a bar.

IMO, no top G5 will play in the spring-horrible for attendance. Now I can see a conference like Conference USA going for it or even possibly FCS going for it again(attendance is low anyway; nothing to lose).

Depends on how much the networks want more inventory.

Attendance is secondary if TV revenue increases revenue overall.

They’d need some type of initial marketing point. My guess is if the network had P2 inventory, with the expanded roster size, you’d see them somehow work in the spring game. Can an ASUN team beat Bama’s JV team?

Disagree unless networks decided to fork over an obscene amount of $$'s to have tv dollars make up for attendance $$'s and bodybag game $$'s lost.

Had another thought about this:. D2 football rarely gets any airtime, and attendance is low anyway. Plus, the P5 can't use D2 for bodybag games anyway. D2 would be a very good candidate in this slot. D3 and NAIA also, IMO.
05-13-2022 10:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DoubleRSU Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,816
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 115
I Root For: Seattle U
Location:
Post: #52
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-13-2022 06:04 AM)whittx Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 08:05 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  
(05-11-2022 09:54 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 10:12 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I don't mind seeing The ACC, Big 10, SEC and PAC 12 Networks die. That is where the most of the fees from Cable and dish comes from. It is forced on us by ESPN mainly, but they just don't have much live events anymore. ESPN in the 80s and 90s had more sporting events from fishing, hunting, scuba diving, pro-wrestling, autoracing and all that which could cover their channels 24 hours a day. One of my favorite channels that they had was Classic which I liked to go back and remember all the old wrestling and roller derby that they had shown in the 80s on ESPN 2.

ACCN Live Sports, next 4 days

5/11
1:00 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: Louisville vs Syracuse
3:30 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: Georgia Tech vs NC State
7:00 pm - Baseball: Virginia Tech vs Liberty

5/12
11:00 am - ACC Softball Tournament: quarterfinal
1:30 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: quarterfinal
5:00 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: quarterfinal
7:30 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: quarterfinal

5/13
1:00 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: semifinal
3:30 pm - ACC Softball Tournament: semifinal
6:00 pm - Baseball: N Carolina vs Wake Forest

5/14
1:00 pm - Baseball: Virginia Tech vs Louisville
4:00 pm - Baseball: Notre Dame vs Pitt
7:00 pm - Baseball: Florida State vs Miami

What live events do they have after Memorial Day? In June? July?

None, unless one of the conference teams is playing basketball out of country.

That’s the problem with college networks, there’s nothing of value to watch in the summer. People watch less tv in the summer, but still. A hardcore fan can only watch those Clemson football replays so many times.
05-13-2022 10:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big 12 fan too Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 471
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 22
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #53
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-13-2022 10:23 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(05-13-2022 09:54 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-13-2022 09:27 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 10:04 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 12:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Unfortunately for the G5, FCS and non-name brand schools, I believe that it's the opposite.

Unfortunately, non-brand name football (which is essentially the G5 and FCS) likely falls into that middle category. While the rights fees might be low, they also still have fixed level production costs and don't draw in large ratings compared to, say, a network-owned reality show that could also conceivably be shown multiple times and/or sent to a streaming service (optimally also owned by that same network).

Now, you could have some exceptions, particularly if there's a 12-team playoff and there ends up being value for, say, a G5 game that has a material impact on the playoff race. We've seen that to some extent in the CFP and BCS era with some AAC and Boise State games. However, the Big 12 backfilling really put a dent into the volume of non-P5 games that will likely have national interest based on brand names themselves.

From an entertainment company perspective, the highest and best use of non-P5 football games would be to fill out streaming services like ESPN+. These are serving niche (as opposed to mass market) audiences that make a lot more sense as streaming properties.

When we say "sports rights fees" are rising, what we really mean is that "sports rights fees for marquee properties" are rising, which would definitely include the P5. It doesn't mean that ALL sports rights fees are going up.

Well, Fox did just invest in owning the USLF to create more inventory. Are USFL teams less non-name brands than G5? $150-$250 million over three years for just 8 teams, plus getting additional investors. It would be more cost effective with less downside risk to lure the top of the G5 away and get them to play in the spring. Although FCS's one time spring was hit or miss with a lot of miss, for a first year the numbers even for that level were on par with second week of USFL and playoff hockey, better than sunday night baseball and much more cost effective than NBA playoff games.

We're in a time of disruption, with live sports being the last stand. In times of disruption it is a frequent mistake to carry forward previous world view constraints. I suspect the thirst for live sports will result in it being closing time at a bar.

IMO, no top G5 will play in the spring-horrible for attendance. Now I can see a conference like Conference USA going for it or even possibly FCS going for it again(attendance is low anyway; nothing to lose).

Depends on how much the networks want more inventory.

Attendance is secondary if TV revenue increases revenue overall.

They’d need some type of initial marketing point. My guess is if the network had P2 inventory, with the expanded roster size, you’d see them somehow work in the spring game. Can an ASUN team beat Bama’s JV team?

Disagree unless networks decided to fork over an obscene amount of $$'s to have tv dollars make up for attendance $$'s and bodybag game $$'s lost.

Had another thought about this:. D2 football rarely gets any airtime, and attendance is low anyway. Plus, the P5 can't use D2 for bodybag games anyway. D2 would be a very good candidate in this slot. D3 and NAIA also, IMO.

G5 attendance doesn't bring in much. A conference like the MAC is already picking TV money over it by playing every day except Saturday.

The USFL at least $8 million per team investment is getting ratings equivalent to the ad hoc FCS spring year. The top G5 could do better.

In the scenario we're talking about- future consolidation- there likely won't be many bodybag games. The P2 is likely not going to have many games against G5 teams. They need the extra 3 to 4 games to build the new conference. Can you imagine the NFL playing the USFL?
05-13-2022 11:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nodak651 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 192
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 17
I Root For: North Dakota
Location:
Post: #54
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-12-2022 01:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thought the current cable sports network subscriber data reported in this tweet was pretty interesting. The most surprising stat is that CBS-Sports Network has substantially closed the subscriber gap between CBSSN and the top ESPN networks. While ESPN remains king, according to these numbers, the CBSSN subscriber count now compares favorably to ESPN-U.


Bryan Fischer
@BryanDFischer
Per Kagan estimates released last month, 2021 Year-end subscribers:

75.7 million — ESPN
75.6 — ESPN2
72.2 — FS1
62.6 — CBSSN
54.9 — ESPNU
51.2 — SECN
50.7 — FS2
48.1 — BTN

Wilner added this nugget---

Tweet
See new Tweets
Conversation
Jon Wilner
@wilnerhotline
P12N is ~14 million


Its worth noting that ESPN+ has 22 million subscribers---meaning that at this point, ESPN+ has over 50% more reach than the Pac-12 Network.

That's good to see. Have you seen anything in regard to cbssn viewership numbers?
05-13-2022 11:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 11,480
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 528
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #55
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-13-2022 11:12 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  The USFL at least $8 million per team investment is getting ratings equivalent to the ad hoc FCS spring year. The top G5 could do better.

I don't think there's any reason to believe that. The USFL is pretty much getting the ratings that you get when you put spring football on network television. Same ballpark as the XFL 2020, same ballpark as the FCS games in that played in the spring. (AAF isn't a direct comparison because it was on lesser networks--CBS-SN, NFL Network).

If anyone in the G5 had enough of a television fanbase to make any difference in the TV ratings relative to replacement-level network television, they wouldn't be in the G5.

And another point--Fox owns the USFL. OWNS. They own the upside. So if the USFL turns out to be more successful than it is, Fox reaps the benefits. If the G5 moved to the spring, and the ratings were good, in 5 or 7 years when the contract is up, Fox is bidding for the new G5 contract against ESPN or Amazon or Elon Musk or whoever.
(This post was last modified: 05-13-2022 12:59 PM by johnbragg.)
05-13-2022 12:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 5,346
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 203
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US
Post: #56
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-13-2022 11:12 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-13-2022 10:23 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(05-13-2022 09:54 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-13-2022 09:27 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 10:04 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Well, Fox did just invest in owning the USLF to create more inventory. Are USFL teams less non-name brands than G5? $150-$250 million over three years for just 8 teams, plus getting additional investors. It would be more cost effective with less downside risk to lure the top of the G5 away and get them to play in the spring. Although FCS's one time spring was hit or miss with a lot of miss, for a first year the numbers even for that level were on par with second week of USFL and playoff hockey, better than sunday night baseball and much more cost effective than NBA playoff games.

We're in a time of disruption, with live sports being the last stand. In times of disruption it is a frequent mistake to carry forward previous world view constraints. I suspect the thirst for live sports will result in it being closing time at a bar.

IMO, no top G5 will play in the spring-horrible for attendance. Now I can see a conference like Conference USA going for it or even possibly FCS going for it again(attendance is low anyway; nothing to lose).

Depends on how much the networks want more inventory.

Attendance is secondary if TV revenue increases revenue overall.

They’d need some type of initial marketing point. My guess is if the network had P2 inventory, with the expanded roster size, you’d see them somehow work in the spring game. Can an ASUN team beat Bama’s JV team?

Disagree unless networks decided to fork over an obscene amount of $$'s to have tv dollars make up for attendance $$'s and bodybag game $$'s lost.

Had another thought about this:. D2 football rarely gets any airtime, and attendance is low anyway. Plus, the P5 can't use D2 for bodybag games anyway. D2 would be a very good candidate in this slot. D3 and NAIA also, IMO.

G5 attendance doesn't bring in much. A conference like the MAC is already picking TV money over it by playing every day except Saturday.

The USFL at least $8 million per team investment is getting ratings equivalent to the ad hoc FCS spring year. The top G5 could do better.

In the scenario we're talking about- future consolidation- there likely won't be many bodybag games. The P2 is likely not going to have many games against G5 teams. They need the extra 3 to 4 games to build the new conference. Can you imagine the NFL playing the USFL?

What's wrong with D2, D3, and NAIA going to the spring?? What's wrong with FCS giving spring another chance???
05-13-2022 01:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,545
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 412
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #57
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-13-2022 09:27 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 10:04 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 12:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 11:16 AM)nodak651 Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 09:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That's sort of the Catch-22 that these networks are all in right now.

The biggest reason why people are dropping cable/satellite is due to cost, which is disproportionately driven by networks with live sports.

Yet, simultaneously, the biggest reason why people *keep* cable/satellite is for live sports.

It's similar to the "TINA" ("There is no alternative") concept in investing. That is, people may continue to invest in and drive up the prices of superficially suboptimal assets because all of the other alternatives are seen to be even worse. The stock market over the past year is a classic example. It was pretty widely known that stocks by the middle of 2021 were generally historically overvalued by many metrics like P/E ratio. Yet, the problem was that bond prices and other investments (whether super-conservative like money market accounts or super-risky like Bitcoin) were performing so poorly combined with inflation that it drove people to keep piling into the stock market. When you're essentially losing money with "safe" investments due to various factors (e.g. inflation, rising interest rates, etc.), it means that you have a TINA situation where you need to invest in assets that you may know well are overpriced in the current environment (e.g. stocks and real estate). Even now with how the stock market has performed poorly in 2022 (especially this past week), it's still tough for investors to switch because bonds and other alternative investments simply don't look better by comparison.

That's essentially where TV networks are with respect to sports rights. Sports rights are going up and up and up to levels where they're eating into the profits of those TV networks. However, the problem is that very little else outside of sports is drawing live audiences on TV anymore, which means they're in a TINA situation. In essence, for a TV network today, the only thing worse than having to pay for live sports is not having live sports.

Is there a point where leagues like CUSA, Sun Belt, MAC, or potentially even CAA/MVFC/BigSky start to finally get some decent money or air time, simply due to budgeting reasons? Asking because the payouts some of the p5 conferences are getting just seem unsustainable. Is there any point where networks decide to cut costs a little bit? For instance, bottom rung p5 games don't really mean anything, and a sold out Washington Grizzly Stadium in Montana vs a rival in a meaningful game could probably be more exciting and visually appealing to a casual fan. FCS games can occasionally get ok tv ratings, but look at the amount of advertising other games get in comparison as well (none). With a bit of advertising, I could see something like a weekly FCS game of the week do ok, especially if sandwiched between a couple bigger games, and the networks could get the rights for essentially free, which would help with bottom line. Just as an example. I'm not saying this is something that should be done or that it would be worthwhile currently, but with the rising rights costs, you would think that non P5 programs would start to benefit more than they currently are, no?

Unfortunately for the G5, FCS and non-name brand schools, I believe that it's the opposite.

Unfortunately, non-brand name football (which is essentially the G5 and FCS) likely falls into that middle category. While the rights fees might be low, they also still have fixed level production costs and don't draw in large ratings compared to, say, a network-owned reality show that could also conceivably be shown multiple times and/or sent to a streaming service (optimally also owned by that same network).

Now, you could have some exceptions, particularly if there's a 12-team playoff and there ends up being value for, say, a G5 game that has a material impact on the playoff race. We've seen that to some extent in the CFP and BCS era with some AAC and Boise State games. However, the Big 12 backfilling really put a dent into the volume of non-P5 games that will likely have national interest based on brand names themselves.

From an entertainment company perspective, the highest and best use of non-P5 football games would be to fill out streaming services like ESPN+. These are serving niche (as opposed to mass market) audiences that make a lot more sense as streaming properties.

When we say "sports rights fees" are rising, what we really mean is that "sports rights fees for marquee properties" are rising, which would definitely include the P5. It doesn't mean that ALL sports rights fees are going up.

Well, Fox did just invest in owning the USLF to create more inventory. Are USFL teams less non-name brands than G5? $150-$250 million over three years for just 8 teams, plus getting additional investors. It would be more cost effective with less downside risk to lure the top of the G5 away and get them to play in the spring. Although FCS's one time spring was hit or miss with a lot of miss, for a first year the numbers even for that level were on par with second week of USFL and playoff hockey, better than sunday night baseball and much more cost effective than NBA playoff games.

We're in a time of disruption, with live sports being the last stand. In times of disruption it is a frequent mistake to carry forward previous world view constraints. I suspect the thirst for live sports will result in it being closing time at a bar.

IMO, no top G5 will play in the spring-horrible for attendance. Now I can see a conference like Conference USA going for it or even possibly FCS going for it again(attendance is low anyway; nothing to lose).

There is plenty to lose playing spring college football.

Who is going to want to play instead of working on the draft?

You want to start the season in January in Montana?

Nuts
05-13-2022 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,777
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 179
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #58
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-12-2022 01:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thought the current cable sports network subscriber data reported in this tweet was pretty interesting. The most surprising stat is that CBS-Sports Network has substantially closed the subscriber gap between CBSSN and the top ESPN networks. While ESPN remains king, according to these numbers, the CBSSN subscriber count now compares favorably to ESPN-U.


Bryan Fischer
@BryanDFischer
Per Kagan estimates released last month, 2021 Year-end subscribers:

75.7 million — ESPN
75.6 — ESPN2
72.2 — FS1
62.6 — CBSSN
54.9 — ESPNU
51.2 — SECN
50.7 — FS2
48.1 — BTN

Wilner added this nugget---

Tweet
See new Tweets
Conversation
Jon Wilner
@wilnerhotline
P12N is ~14 million


Its worth noting that ESPN+ has 22 million subscribers---meaning that at this point, ESPN+ has over 50% more reach than the Pac-12 Network.

Hmm…ESPN keeps getting lower and lower each year.
05-13-2022 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,009
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 665
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #59
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-13-2022 01:20 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 01:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thought the current cable sports network subscriber data reported in this tweet was pretty interesting. The most surprising stat is that CBS-Sports Network has substantially closed the subscriber gap between CBSSN and the top ESPN networks. While ESPN remains king, according to these numbers, the CBSSN subscriber count now compares favorably to ESPN-U.


Bryan Fischer
@BryanDFischer
Per Kagan estimates released last month, 2021 Year-end subscribers:

75.7 million — ESPN
75.6 — ESPN2
72.2 — FS1
62.6 — CBSSN
54.9 — ESPNU
51.2 — SECN
50.7 — FS2
48.1 — BTN

Wilner added this nugget---

Tweet
See new Tweets
Conversation
Jon Wilner
@wilnerhotline
P12N is ~14 million


Its worth noting that ESPN+ has 22 million subscribers---meaning that at this point, ESPN+ has over 50% more reach than the Pac-12 Network.

Hmm…ESPN keeps getting lower and lower each year.

ESPN used to be in the 90s
05-13-2022 01:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,868
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 906
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #60
RE: "Sports networks squeezed by rising costs and fewer subscribers"
(05-13-2022 01:20 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(05-12-2022 01:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thought the current cable sports network subscriber data reported in this tweet was pretty interesting. The most surprising stat is that CBS-Sports Network has substantially closed the subscriber gap between CBSSN and the top ESPN networks. While ESPN remains king, according to these numbers, the CBSSN subscriber count now compares favorably to ESPN-U.


Bryan Fischer
@BryanDFischer
Per Kagan estimates released last month, 2021 Year-end subscribers:

75.7 million — ESPN
75.6 — ESPN2
72.2 — FS1
62.6 — CBSSN
54.9 — ESPNU
51.2 — SECN
50.7 — FS2
48.1 — BTN

Wilner added this nugget---

Tweet
See new Tweets
Conversation
Jon Wilner
@wilnerhotline
P12N is ~14 million


Its worth noting that ESPN+ has 22 million subscribers---meaning that at this point, ESPN+ has over 50% more reach than the Pac-12 Network.

Hmm…ESPN keeps getting lower and lower each year.

Everyone is getting lower and lower. At this point, it's a shock if any cable network's subscriber numbers *don't* go down each quarter.
05-13-2022 02:57 PM
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 © 2002-2022 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, © 2002-2022 MyBB Group.