(08-09-2022 11:23 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote: ESPN is apparently out and CBS and NBC are possibly in, additionally Apple or Amazon may get in on the streaming. Certainly a lot of cash and exposure for the B1G.
Before I get to the point of this post, I'd like to do a quick pros and cons as I see moving away from ESPN.
Pro: Cord cutting is real. By reverting back to primarily over-the-air broadcasts, households that choose to cut the cord are still contributing to eyeball watching B1G football. This almost looks to me like a Wallstreet guy that sees the fundamentals deteriorating with the ESPN model and going back to old faithful while still keeping a toe in the cable business. There will still be cable exposure with FS1, FS2, & BTN however the Worldwide Leader won't be among them as their business model seems to be crumbling the fastest.
Agreed that cord cutting is real, but the flip side is that I believe that Disney is MUCH better positioned than the other legacy media companies for the streaming world. FOX doesn't have any material streaming capabilities (beyond authenticated mirroring of their games on their linear networks), Paramount+ for CBS is "meh", and Peacock subscriptions for NBC/Comcast has totally stalled (which might be why NBC suddenly pulled out the pocketbook for the Big Ten as they are truly desperate for Peacock content).
Quote:Pro: on a marginal level this puts downward pressure on ESPN carriage fees in B1G states. Why should B1G states pay full freight when no local team is being supported by those rates?
This isn't material at all (and I say this as a Big Ten guy that lives in a Big Ten state). ESPN has a full suite of NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL games on top of other college conferences and the Midwest (much more than the South) is a big-time pro sports area. No one in the Big Ten footprint is going to pay less for an ESPN that has the Packers, Bears, Steelers, Eagles, Cubs, Cardinals, Yankees, Mets, Phillies, Bulls, Knicks, Bucks... and now Dodgers, Lakers, Rams, etc. The network can charge full price across the entire country regardless of not having the Big Ten. There is only one TV contract that matters for the ESPN carriage rate: the NFL. (This isn't speculation - the ESPN carriage rate automatically goes down if they lose NFL games under their carriage agreements.)
Quote:Con: ESPN drives the narrative in College football so I fully expect ABC/ESPN to really crank up the SEC bias and do everything they can to downplay or ignore B1G programs.
I don't think ESPN will ignore the Big Ten in the sense that they can't ignore all of the NFL games that are on FOX/CBS/NBC or the NBA games on TNT, just as ESPN has never ignored Notre Dame and, to their credit, does send the GameDay crew to South Bend when the Irish have a major game or other sites where a major game isn't on an ESPN network. (ESPN is honestly a lot less parochial than FOX, who strictly sends their Big Noon Kickoff crew to FOX game sites.) The Big Ten has too many big brands to ignore from an editorial perspective.
However, I do worry more about what I mentioned above that *Disney* has a multi-platform strategy that makes sense for the next 5 to 10 years while the other legacy media companies are floundering. I have a lot of faith that Disney is going to have full-fledged streaming capabilities in 5 years, whether it's continuing the current bundle or merging everything into an even larger Disney+ service. In contrast, I have zero idea whether Peacock will exist 5 years from. THAT is the part of losing the ESPN relationship that concerns me. It's not about talking heads on ESPN (as fans just perceive what they want to perceive), but rather being a part of the much larger and more powerful Disney ecosystem.
Quote:Con: Reduces likelihood of B1G expansion into ACC territory because why expand past 20?
Not sure if this is a con, but I agree with the conclusion that the bar for Big Ten expansion is higher than ever.
Quote:Neutral: Bad for Pac 12 but good for Big 12. ESPN now has more slots to fill and some extra money to burn. The Big 12 stands to pick up most of those slots along with a nice payday. The Pac 12 has a beautiful late window that only they can fill, if they can stay together, BUT that late window also makes them more attractive for B1G expansion.
It's too early to tell whether the Pac-12 or Big 12 will come out better (if either one ends up better at all). I can see the spin from both sides.
Quote:On to the main point. NBC has pitched and apparently sold the B1G on a prime time window. In other news, the B1G doesn't usually play prime time games in November for obvious reason.
Does this portend more West Coast teams being added? I think so, here are my reasons:
1. Keep a good amount of inventory available for the 7:00 EST slot. USC and UCLA will probably dominate late season prime time games but there is room for more potential content in that late slot from other Western teams.
2. Possibly create a super-late slot starting at 10 EST / 7 PST. I say limit this to 2 ish games per year. The east coast is starting to doze of to sleep so overall exposure suffers in the super late window, but it is still live content, and if it an important conference game, it may draw some east/central viewership.
3. Shut out ESPN from super-late start window, or bring them back to the table for that window. ESPN pioneered the After dark programing and is has been a success relative to other content in that window. It would hurt ESPN if the previously rumored combo of Cal, Oregon, Stanford, and Washington were gone from that window.
4. Grow Fox/CBS/NBC viewership in college football out West at the expense of ESPN and their associated properties. The SEC is great, but not everyone likes or watches the SEC...or B1G for that matter. ESPN is focusing on the South East almost to the exclusion of the rest of the country. By contrast the B1G is coast to coast and though mostly regional can still boast of NYC, DC, & LA. If the 4 aforementioned Pac-12 school go to the B1G, that would be the entire Left Coast not really caring what is going on with ESPN.
In the final analysis, I don't think another league could pull this off, the Big Ten/ESPN relationship is a long-standing one and no other league has (to my knowledge) walked away from ESPN. I don't think they are enemies but going West adds opportunities for the B1G and their partners while simultaneously removing them from ESPN and decimating the Pac12.
I honestly don't believe that this is what's happening. There might be other reasons for the Big Ten to expand with more Pac-12 teams (e.g. more cohesive region for non-football sports), but they're not going to be financial or TV-driven. From a TV perspective, the networks want as many USC/UCLA vs. Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State/Michigan State/Wisconsin/Iowa/Nebraska games as possible and that's very efficiently achieved with 16 schools in a 3-6-6 scheduling format. Any further expansion that doesn't include ND is actually going to decrease the number of marquee game combinations noted above.