(09-20-2022 11:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 08:21 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-20-2022 06:03 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Another Dennis Dodd posting, basically speculating about Pac’s further defection to the BIG.

I am sure that the Pac is talking with Amazon as ESPN lowballed and Fox is not interested in the Pac media deal. But why should the BIG reconsider Amazon and Pac 12 schools now? They must have crunched the numbers multiple times before signing the media deal and decided Amazon / Oregon / Washington were not valuable enough (in terms of money and/or exposure).

Another way to say that is “why should Amazon hugely overpay for PN4 in the B1G when they can pay less for them in the PAC”. I don’t want to say that they’re the favorites to land the PAC now, but they might be. And if they like the pac, they must really be interested in the big 12.

I’m getting dangerously close to forecasting both pac and big 12 keep their current roster this cycle with payouts like:

PAC $37.5m all Amazon
Big12 $42.5m, ESPN and Fox

That won’t be much fun for us bc we won’t have as much to talk about, but it would be a huge win for both of those conferences.

The looking for lower costs and a bargain would be a type of calculation that that ESPN would make - they’re filling multiple networks with 24/7/365 sports content plus a dedicated sports streaming service. Sheer tonnage even if it’s not marquee content has value to them.

Amazon is playing in a very different space. This isn’t about being cost conscious for them. They’re looking for monster cultural touchstone content - the type of programs that Netflix and Disney+ have been better at doing up to this point - to drive Prime subscriptions.

Think of it this way: for any other streaming service, their revenue is largely the number of subscriptions times the subscription price. So, if a property can add 1 million subscribers for a $10 per month service like ESPN+, that’s $120 million in revenue per year.

The Amazon numbers are totally different. An additional 1 million Prime subscribers at $139 per year (the current price) means the revenue starts out at $139 million per year. However, the latest figures show that Prime subscribers spend $1400 per year on Amazon. That’s an *additional* $1.4 billion in top line revenue to Amazon that comes from those 1 million Prime subscribers. Now imagine if there’s programming that can draw 2 million, 3 million or 10 million more subscribers. That’s multiple billions of dollars more in top line revenue from that customer base.

So, my educated guess is that the “good and solid” sports leagues like the Pac-12 and Big 12 really don’t get Amazon’s heart pumping. They need blockbusters: the NFL nationally, Yankees in the NYC market, Champions League in the UK market, etc. The only two college conferences that provide that blockbuster content are the Big Ten and SEC. (It’s in the entertainment space, too. Amazon is spending over $700 million for the first season of its Lord of the Rings show. That’s nearly three times the *combined* budget of the Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings movie trilogy.)

I don’t buy that any of the linear networks want more power conference consolidation, *especially* ESPN. I disagree with many others here on that point. However, Amazon is really the one entity that benefits from consolidation provided that they can get the rights. Amazon needs blockbuster sports content (not merely good enough content) because each additional subscriber isn’t just worth the Prime subscription price, but also another $1400 per year in additional Amazon purchases from that household. That makes the $10 per month ESPN has been making from cable subscriber fees look like chump change compared to the Amazon business model. Amazon is a company that’s built on scale (from product sales to cloud services), so it doesn’t surprise me they’re now looking for scale in their Prime programming.

I like your breakdown. I just wanted to add that not everyone of those new subscribers is likely paying that amount. Amazon has a discounted plan for those on things like Medicaid, SNAP, etc. I have the discounted plan and pay $6.99/mo. There are probably people out there that qualify for the discount, but are paying the full amount because they don't know about it.

(09-22-2022 05:16 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 06:59 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 06:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  2. Football had a serious PR issue a few years ago, and those middle class moms won’t forget. But those little kids won’t forget that a high school junior from Southlake got $1.4m last year to ride the pine at tOSU. I predict that NIL, combined with all of the intense interest surrounding conference realignment, new CFP structure, basically celebrity status for really good hrs players, and new schools climbing into FBS will help to reverse the trend of declining participation and in fact will help to increase participation in and enthusiasm about CFB for the long term.

I'd suggest that football's declining participation rates — whatever the actual numbers may be — are linked as much or more to "changing attitudes of young people" as much as overprotective moms steering their sons to less dangerous activities.

I don't know that a whole lot of young men with the prized combination of size and ability to receive a scholarship at the I-A, I-AA or even DII level are the ones choosing not to play football. I've read or heard nothing that indicates the available talent pool is shrinking even for those college programs closer to the bottom rung than the top.

IMO, where the numbers have been impacted is we tend to see less of those 140-pound offensive lineman or 5-foot-2 wide receivers with little to no chance of playing meaningful snaps but yet wanting to be a part of the team regardless.

I think that's the sort of mindset — and not to argue whether it's right or wrong — increasingly prevalent in young people today.

Can you really say the moms are "overprotective"?

If your son wanted to risk lifelong brain injury for a less than 1% chance he'd even get a scholarship to a Division II school, would you be happy?

Yeah, football is fun to watch- as long as it's complete strangers who are playing the game rather than your son.

At least football has helmets, and they had some new and interesting designs in NFL training camp this year. In Soccer there's nothing, just you hitting the ball with your head as hard as you can. In Baseball you have the very real threat of getting bored to death. No sport is perfect, but any violent sport is going to have some risks associated with it. And now, kids playing football are signing multi million dollar NIL deals when they're 17.

There's no doubt in my mind that the "concerned mom" effect is real, but that's unlikely to keep out kids with potential.