(08-03-2022 11:53 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 09:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It's more nuanced than this here as, once again, we have to look at data like viewership in terms of the broader context of the entire entertainment industry as opposed to a vacuum. We have to remember that EVERYTHING on TV is getting lower viewership with every passing year, but college football and sports in general are actually retaining a much higher level of those viewers than every single other type of program on TV. This means that on a *relative* basis compared to everything else on TV, college football is stronger than ever. Both the Big Ten and SEC have multiple games per year that draw more viewers than EVERY regularly scheduled prime time TV program on OTA network television COMBINED.

It's not that the money is consolidating within sports, but rather the TV networks are shifting much more of their spending from other types of TV shows TO sports. The proper comparison isn't whether more people are watching the Big Ten or SEC game of the week compared to a decade ago, but rather where does the Big Ten or SEC game of the week rank compared to every other program on TV compared to a decade ago. The latter figure has actually *skyrocketed*, which is why rights fees are exploding and streaming services like Amazon want to get in on the action. This is the single most important item that sports fans NEED to remember whenever they want to understand what's going on with media rights (and not just in college sports, but in pro sports like the NFL and NBA).

Money is also consolidating into a smaller number of brands in the entertainment industry. We see this pretty directly in the movie theaters: any movie with any sort of substantial budget is a franchise. Entertainment companies with scarce dollars don't want to take material bets on something new. That's right in line with what we're seeing in college sports and the focus on the top brands.

You have to measure things on an absolute basis. The History Channel sucks now because of creative choices. Reality TV... we know where that's gone over the last decade. Does that really relate to college football and its growth trajectory? No... of course I haven't done my own data analysis on the matter, but has the market share increased, decreased, or stayed about the same for CFB? Best case you can argue is the latter which is extremely debatable. Realistically, it's probably decreased in popularity when you factor overall streaming services and digital content from independent creators, etc.

We have decreased BIGLY in popularity from the inception of the CFP. Look at the ratings then when we seemingly had decent parity among the power conferences. The buzz that was generated. Did everything go to streaming? It did not...I get that it was novel and all, but we've fallen off precipitously since 15'. Look at Disney stock. A lot of that is a reflection of ESPN. People have chosen to stream (or do) other things. And I'd argue streaming is still one of the most cheapest discretionary things there is to do, even when you factor in phone and internet costs. CFB has declined in popularity in the last ten years on any absolute metric.

This is where you're totally wrong... and why the Big Ten was already on pace to get over $1 billion per year in rights fees even before the USC/UCLA expansion.

The market share of college football compared to the rest of television has absolutely increased. If you want to try to throw in all of the streaming services and other platforms, that's all well and good, but the market share of college football (and several other sports) for televised programming where people actually watch commercials (AKA the programs that are the most valuable) has ABSOLUTELY increased.

95 of the 100 most watched TV shows in 2021 were sporting events. 3 of the other shows were news programs related to the presidential inauguration, 1 was the Oprah interview of Harry and Meghan, and the ONLY actual scripted TV show on that list was an episode of The Equalizer... which was only there because it was what CBS chose to put on after the Super Bowl. That figure is completely astounding compared to when we were growing up (I'm a child of the 1980s and 1990s) - there might have been the Super Bowl, the AFC/NFC Championship Games and a couple of World Series games on that top 100 list in terms of sporting events, but not too much past that. Instead, it would be filled with tons of prime time TV network shows - Cheers, Seinfeld, Friends, ER, etc. We certainly wouldn't be seeing *every* NFL game plus multiple college football games per week beating EVERY prime time network TV show in the ratings.

Look - if you're just going to look at absolute numbers, then there's no point in arguing with you since we're not going to get anywhere. To me, the absolute numbers are generally worthless (or at a minimum highly misleading when look at alone) because everything needs to be put into context with other forms of entertainment that would be competing with sports... and those other forms of entertainment are getting COMPLETELY pummeled.

There will never be a TV show like Friends or Seinfeld again that's ubiquitous throughout the broader culture. Music is similarly fragmented with streaming - what constitutes a hit song has a totally different meaning today. This is what you're missing: the ONLY thing that comes close to having any type of "monoculture" that we used to see is sports. It's literally the only type of program that has any type of audience aggregation anymore, which is why all of these networks are falling all over themselves to pay billions of dollars to the NFL, NBA, MLB, Big Ten, SEC and even entities like the NHL and PGA.

It's a supply and demand issue: 30 years ago, pretty much every network TV show gave you an audience larger than a college football game, so there was tons of supply of shows that advertisers could utilize. That world is gone: sports is IT in terms of supply.

We don't even need the data. Once again, you can follow the checkbooks of every major media company. They're certainly not sending the Big Ten and SEC billions of dollars out of the goodness of their hearts. If there were better options to spend their money than sports, then they would be doing so... but the point is that there is NOT a better option in today's world.

Now, will this continue forever? Maybe not. However, sports will always have the advantage of the live viewing element, which inherently makes them valuable because nothing else on TV or especially streaming has such element.

(08-03-2022 03:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This is where you're totally wrong... and why the Big Ten was already on pace to get over $1 billion per year in rights fees even before the USC/UCLA expansion.

The market share of college football compared to the rest of television has absolutely increased. If you want to try to throw in all of the streaming services and other platforms, that's all well and good, but the market share of college football (and several other sports) for televised programming where people actually watch commercials (AKA the programs that are the most valuable) has ABSOLUTELY increased.

95 of the 100 most watched TV shows in 2021 were sporting events. 3 of the other shows were news programs related to the presidential inauguration, 1 was the Oprah interview of Harry and Meghan, and the ONLY actual scripted TV show on that list was an episode of The Equalizer... which was only there because it was what CBS chose to put on after the Super Bowl. That figure is completely astounding compared to when we were growing up (I'm a child of the 1980s and 1990s) - there might have been the Super Bowl, the AFC/NFC Championship Games and a couple of World Series games on that top 100 list in terms of sporting events, but not too much past that. Instead, it would be filled with tons of prime time TV network shows - Cheers, Seinfeld, Friends, ER, etc. We certainly wouldn't be seeing *every* NFL game plus multiple college football games per week beating EVERY prime time network TV show in the ratings.

Look - if you're just going to look at absolute numbers, then there's no point in arguing with you since we're not going to get anywhere. To me, the absolute numbers are generally worthless (or at a minimum highly misleading when look at alone) because everything needs to be put into context with other forms of entertainment that would be competing with sports... and those other forms of entertainment are getting COMPLETELY pummeled.

There will never be a TV show like Friends or Seinfeld again that's ubiquitous throughout the broader culture. Music is similarly fragmented with streaming - what constitutes a hit song has a totally different meaning today. This is what you're missing: the ONLY thing that comes close to having any type of "monoculture" that we used to see is sports. It's literally the only type of program that has any type of audience aggregation anymore, which is why all of these networks are falling all over themselves to pay billions of dollars to the NFL, NBA, MLB, Big Ten, SEC and even entities like the NHL and PGA.

It's a supply and demand issue: 30 years ago, pretty much every network TV show gave you an audience larger than a college football game, so there was tons of supply of shows that advertisers could utilize. That world is gone: sports is IT in terms of supply.

We don't even need the data. Once again, you can follow the checkbooks of every major media company. They're certainly not sending the Big Ten and SEC billions of dollars out of the goodness of their hearts. If there were better options to spend their money than sports, then they would be doing so... but the point is that there is NOT a better option in today's world.

Now, will this continue forever? Maybe not. However, sports will always have the advantage of the live viewing element, which inherently makes them valuable because nothing else on TV or especially streaming has such element.

You killed your own argument. TV is virtually irrelevant for non-live events. You are still living in this 90s 00s model because you happen to pay up the whazoo for that type of programing. ESPN+ is failing... the streaming is not making up for loss of sports viewers, which has declined in CFB over the last 7-8 years on a percentage basis any way you slice and dice it. The sport is becoming regionalized to the upper midwest and the southeast. Those are literally the only hotbeds for college football, aside from PAC 12 teams actually being good once in a blue moon (that day may be already extinct from a national relevance viewpoint).

So again, why are we discussing television and programming that is becoming close to extinct with nothing to fill its void on the same viewing platform? You realize household TVs will no longer exist in a decade or two when VR headsets become more mainstream, right? There will not be a cable wire or optical fiber plugged into it billing you by the month. The trends are here to stay. CFB goes away completely for 7 months and the decline in TV viewership still prevails in the Spring and Summer months. And maybe you've heard of... Big Techs like Google monopolizing ad revenue on the internet? That's where all the advertisers have gone to because the young people (I'll throw myself into that category despite the greying hair) are consuming publicly available streaming content by the droves. It's not just premium subscription fees.

I don't know where this whole thing is going, but nothing that's taken place in that last 8 plus years is remotely healthy for the growth of CFB. OUT further cements the sports regionality. Maybe the B1G can revolutionize viewer habits with Warren's vision, but nobody would have guessed his next move was to cannibalize the B1Gs closest partner, network driven or otherwise. There is clearly something terribly amiss right now in CFB.

(08-03-2022 04:30 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(08-03-2022 03:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This is where you're totally wrong... and why the Big Ten was already on pace to get over $1 billion per year in rights fees even before the USC/UCLA expansion.

The market share of college football compared to the rest of television has absolutely increased. If you want to try to throw in all of the streaming services and other platforms, that's all well and good, but the market share of college football (and several other sports) for televised programming where people actually watch commercials (AKA the programs that are the most valuable) has ABSOLUTELY increased.

95 of the 100 most watched TV shows in 2021 were sporting events. 3 of the other shows were news programs related to the presidential inauguration, 1 was the Oprah interview of Harry and Meghan, and the ONLY actual scripted TV show on that list was an episode of The Equalizer... which was only there because it was what CBS chose to put on after the Super Bowl. That figure is completely astounding compared to when we were growing up (I'm a child of the 1980s and 1990s) - there might have been the Super Bowl, the AFC/NFC Championship Games and a couple of World Series games on that top 100 list in terms of sporting events, but not too much past that. Instead, it would be filled with tons of prime time TV network shows - Cheers, Seinfeld, Friends, ER, etc. We certainly wouldn't be seeing *every* NFL game plus multiple college football games per week beating EVERY prime time network TV show in the ratings.

Look - if you're just going to look at absolute numbers, then there's no point in arguing with you since we're not going to get anywhere. To me, the absolute numbers are generally worthless (or at a minimum highly misleading when look at alone) because everything needs to be put into context with other forms of entertainment that would be competing with sports... and those other forms of entertainment are getting COMPLETELY pummeled.

There will never be a TV show like Friends or Seinfeld again that's ubiquitous throughout the broader culture. Music is similarly fragmented with streaming - what constitutes a hit song has a totally different meaning today. This is what you're missing: the ONLY thing that comes close to having any type of "monoculture" that we used to see is sports. It's literally the only type of program that has any type of audience aggregation anymore, which is why all of these networks are falling all over themselves to pay billions of dollars to the NFL, NBA, MLB, Big Ten, SEC and even entities like the NHL and PGA.

It's a supply and demand issue: 30 years ago, pretty much every network TV show gave you an audience larger than a college football game, so there was tons of supply of shows that advertisers could utilize. That world is gone: sports is IT in terms of supply.

We don't even need the data. Once again, you can follow the checkbooks of every major media company. They're certainly not sending the Big Ten and SEC billions of dollars out of the goodness of their hearts. If there were better options to spend their money than sports, then they would be doing so... but the point is that there is NOT a better option in today's world.

Now, will this continue forever? Maybe not. However, sports will always have the advantage of the live viewing element, which inherently makes them valuable because nothing else on TV or especially streaming has such element.

You killed your own argument. TV is virtually irrelevant for non-live events. You are still living in this 90s 00s model because you happen to pay up the whazoo for that type of programing. ESPN+ is failing... the streaming is not making up for loss of sports viewers, which has declined in CFB over the last 7-8 years on a percentage basis any way you slice and dice it. The sport is becoming regionalized to the upper midwest and the southeast. Those are literally the only hotbeds for college football, aside from PAC 12 teams actually being good once in a blue moon (that day may be already extinct from a national relevance viewpoint).

So again, why are we discussing television and programming that is becoming close to extinct with nothing to fill its void on the same viewing platform? You realize household TVs will no longer exist in a decade or two when VR headsets become more mainstream, right? There will not be a cable wire or optical fiber plugged into it billing you by the month. The trends are here to stay. CFB goes away completely for 7 months and the decline in TV viewership still prevails in the Spring and Summer months. And maybe you've heard of... Big Techs like Google monopolizing ad revenue on the internet? That's where all the advertisers have gone to because the young people (I'll throw myself into that category despite the greying hair) are consuming publicly available streaming content by the droves. It's not just premium subscription fees.

I don't know where this whole thing is going, but nothing that's taken place in that last 8 plus years is remotely healthy for the growth of CFB. OUT further cements the sports regionality. Maybe the B1G can revolutionize viewer habits with Warren's vision, but nobody would have guessed his next move was to cannibalize the B1Gs closest partner, network driven or otherwise. There is clearly something terribly amiss right now in CFB.

I think we're talking about two different things here.

I completely agree that viewership in general has gone down for college football and all sports.

Where I disagree is that you're looking at the market as "college football viewers" or even TV vs. streaming when the real market is "content that attracts live viewers."

When I took an advertising class as a business major, a line that was said on the first day has stuck with me for my entire life: "When you watch a program or read an article, you're not the consumer. You're the product." That is, whether it's a TV network, app, streaming service, podcast or Internet site, we (the viewer/reader/listener) are the product being sold to advertisers. This is as true on old rabbit ear TV channels and 1980s-era cable channels as it is on YouTube and TikTok. The delivery mechanism might change, but the core of every single one of these platforms - whether new school or old school - is selling us (the viewer/reader/listener) as the product.

As long as there is a market where we (the viewer/reader/listener) needs to be sold in a large quantity at a specific time and place (and there are lots of ads where time is of the essence, such as new movies and election campaigns), sports will have a LOT of value because it effectively MONOPOLIZES that market in a way that it didn't even 10 years ago.

Amazon is spending billions of dollars on the NFL, bought a stake in the YES Network where they now have weekly streaming exclusive Yankees games in the NYC market, and is offering a huge premium to get a Big Ten package. Forget about the old school linear TV networks if you'd like as being a 1990s mentality, but Amazon isn't suddenly spending billions of dollars on sports (including targeting college football specifically) because of some type of frivolity. Their core business is distributing consumer goods (along with providing the technological backbone via AWS for the companies that sell those consumer goods) and there is simply only one option to reach us (the product for advertisers selling consumer goods) at a mass scale in today's world: live sports.

Now, can this just continue forever? Maybe not! Very few things continue forever. I'm not saying that this is a permanent situation. However, it's just faulty reasoning to simply look at ratings in 2010 and compare them to 2022 and not put them into context of the greater marketplace that we're in today. Amazon gets the value of live sports and, with Apple and Google fighting over NFL Sunday Ticket, other tech companies get it, too. It can't just be passed off as an a 1990s model as you're trying to do here.