(04-17-2023 10:02 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 09:51 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The new football postseason will make it rain for a while. A new basketball postseason might up the humidity even more for a while.

Any Dust Bowl will hit after that.

I'd guess we're looking at a good news first/bad news later pivot point around 2040, give or take.

Basketball could itself be left standing after the demand for football fades. We'll see.

And you never know. The generation in diapers right now might go totally wild for chess played with crash helmets, to the total embarrassment of its Gen Z parents, and the whole corny football thing enjoys a retro revival.

Youth tackle football participation rose 12% from 2021-2022 according to a study I recently saw. These things ebb and flow so I would not panic quite yet... although I do wonder what young men will be interested in over the next few decades.

Your comment regarding the potential for violent chess got a chuckle out of me. I would pay to see folks playing chess while randomly slapping each other and placing their opponents in choke holds.

What ever happened to the Ultimate Slap Fighting Championship that McMahon was planning? That needs to happen!

I tried for years to get a buddy to make a Slap Bet with me, but everyone is afraid to bet me.

(04-17-2023 10:03 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 09:55 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  I wonder how long it will be till we see TV rights negotiated on a per-school basis instead of a conference basis, or if we will ever see that happen en masse (it already does occur in some cases)?

For example, ECU (the program I follow on ESPN+) would be paid for each subscription that is set up and then renewed under their name on a commission basis. It seems to me that this would be a better way to determine what the value is of each program.

Consumers could pay for as many "favorite teams" as they wanted to. Heck, the bowl games, playoff and NCAA tournament games could be set up as pay-per-views.

It seems to me that this would be much easier to negotiate. Programs could shop media partners -the streaming services- to get the highest commissions available. The media partners would be able to offer more targeted advertising, catered to the fanbase of each program and the region that they reside in.

I'm very interested in this as a possibility once streaming takes hold. There's a lot to like about it.

Schools will still need collective structures to standardise labour practices, in addition to the more traditional tasks of planning schedules and arranging postseason events.

It's not a bad idea and I'm sure that the idea is being bantered about.

Let's say that the subscription to ECU would cost me $600. If ECU were to agree to cover the costs of production for each game (with in-house teams) they might get a ... 65% commission? Keep in mind that the streaming service could structure things in such a way that they get all of the advertising revenues for themselves.

At 100,000 subscribers (which is a fair number) the program would net $39M. I would take that in a minute.

Season packages could also be offered individually for football, baseball, basketball, etc.

(04-17-2023 08:38 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  ESPN/Disney isn't dependent on cable because it has a streaming platform

FOX isn't dependent on cable because it has a streaming platform

NBC isn't dependent on cable because it has a streaming platform

All the major players are diversified, no one is solely dependent on cable success anymore.

There is a bigger problem for all of the above. The baby boom generation was a huge sports fan generation. The younger generations not so much. The Boomer's are now in retirement and dying off. There are not the #s coming up behind them.

Sports a a business will suffer over the next 15 to 20 years.

(04-17-2023 10:14 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:03 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 09:55 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  I wonder how long it will be till we see TV rights negotiated on a per-school basis instead of a conference basis, or if we will ever see that happen en masse (it already does occur in some cases)?

For example, ECU (the program I follow on ESPN+) would be paid for each subscription that is set up and then renewed under their name on a commission basis. It seems to me that this would be a better way to determine what the value is of each program.

Consumers could pay for as many "favorite teams" as they wanted to. Heck, the bowl games, playoff and NCAA tournament games could be set up as pay-per-views.

It seems to me that this would be much easier to negotiate. Programs could shop media partners -the streaming services- to get the highest commissions available. The media partners would be able to offer more targeted advertising, catered to the fanbase of each program and the region that they reside in.

I'm very interested in this as a possibility once streaming takes hold. There's a lot to like about it.

Schools will still need collective structures to standardise labour practices, in addition to the more traditional tasks of planning schedules and arranging postseason events.

It's not a bad idea and I'm sure that the idea is being bantered about.

Let's say that the subscription to ECU would cost me $600. If ECU were to agree to cover the costs of production for each game (with in-house teams) they might get a ... 65% commission? Keep in mind that the streaming service could structure things in such a way that they get all of the advertising revenues for themselves.

At 100,000 subscribers (which is a fair number) the program would net $39M. I would take that in a minute.

Season packages could also be offered individually for football, baseball, basketball, etc.

I can see some other angles. You could bundle away game viewing with your season tickets.

I could also see a weekender package where you could get any three games you wanted over a weekend every weekend. You'd need a bundler that could sell across streaming services, but doing it bulk I suspect the details could be worked out.

(04-17-2023 09:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 09:31 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 08:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 08:15 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Sports fans pretty much assume an unlimited supply of money from ESPN and competitors if they can come up with more attractive sports packages.

That’s not true anymore. The cable bundle is shrinking, streaming is not coming to the rescue. And increased advertising revenues aren’t going to make up the difference either -- advertising is about 20% of ESPN’s revenue, around half of the OTA networks’ revenue.1

Fox was paying around $600M a year for NFL Thursday Night Football for 11 games. 2 TNF averaged 15M viewers in 2019.(3) Fox gave up the package a year early, and Lachlan Murdoch said that would save the company $350-$400M. (4) So Fox could only sell around $200-250M worth of ads on Thursday Night NFL.

So do we really expect CBS and NBC to make money on the $350M a year they’re spending on Big Ten football? For an average audience of 4M? 7M a game?

Do these deals look good for CBS or NBC in a year or two? And if not, why do we think there is a bottomless pool of money to finance Big Ten expansion? (Fox needs the Big Ten to keep FS1 and BTN alive, which is a billion-dollar revenue generator. Or who knows, maybe with another 5 years of cord-cutting, maybe the math shifts there too)

Additionally: If Fox can’t make $600M a year for 11 NFL games on Thursday nights work, do we really expect them to step up to the plate with a $1B offer for half of the 12-team, 11-game College Football Playoff?

(https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/04/1...asting.asp )
Other sources apparently reported less, so I’m rounding off to $600M.

All valid questions. But are most Americans willing to admit that banking is on shaky ground, equities are overvalued, and that social trends a veering away from watching team sports? It's over with the statistical diminishment of Boomers which are still propped up by X'ers until 2036 passes.

It could be well over before then with a protracted recession which Bloomberg was admitting could get started relatively soon. It also didn't help sentiment this morning that the head of the ECB Christine Lagarde was discussing what would happen should the U.S. default on its loans, though she downplayed the notion, even discussing it had to be a drag on investment. An odd way to start your business morning on Emancipation Day to be sure.

My point being the gravy train that was college football could hit a wall much sooner than 2036 if extant economic factors decline.

Very true. I'm not as bearish on the overall economy, but even a mild recession in the overall economy is a near-extinction-level event for an industry that's priced in revenues doubling every time you fart.

Quote:1. But until then contracts ending before 2036 should be relatively safe as far as advertising money goes.

1. I'm not sure of your phrasing here. Contracts are going to be relatively safe as long as the contract runs. But when the contract runs out, you risk free-fall, like the New Big East did in 2013 and the PAC is (probably) seeing right now.

Quote:Boomers and Xers have more disposable income, though the debt levels of subsequent generations are rising. So, merchandisers will want to advertise what they watch until there aren't enough of them left to justify it.

In part this consolidation we see is a much needed elimination of duplicated expenses by these schools. Do 69 universities need 5 commissioners? 5 sets of corporate offices? 5 sets of officials? 5 sets of employees?

Again, I think you over-estimate how much juice can be squeezed from that orange.

Quote:ESPN and FOX will react to trends. And like the ACC and SEC who each signed long term bad contracts (ESPN/CBS) so too can networks sign bad contracts. What you suggest is very plausible.

The ACC contract looked bad a year ago, but I expect it to look a lot better in a couple of years when, say, ARizona is making $29M in the Big 12 and Washignton is making $15M a year after the PAC hires Mike Aresco and gets them 2 games a week on CW, simulcast on ESPN+, and 1 After Dark game on ESPN.

Quote:2. The push for the post season expansion is the pot of gold FOX and ESPN are hoping for with an upper tier playoff and tourney, however they are defined.

I don't remember any breadcrumbs about Fox pushing for playoff expansion. They'll say they're interested if someone asks, they're generally assumed to be interested.

But if you look at the record, what's driving it is not the Murdochs, who have no emotional attachment to college football. It's the Big Ten's longtime suspicion of ESPN. That's why they launched BTN in the first place, before they partnered with Fox. The Big Ten created the Alliance with the ACC and PAC-12, and the only real objective was to make sure that ESPN did not completely control the postseason.

And if you think that the idea of having Big Ten football games on three different OTA networks was a Fox Sports idea, I suggest you think about whether that makes sense for Fox.

Quote:But as with all pots of gold the rainbow has to stay in the sky so you can find the end of it. That's not likely when it is sunny now, but with Category 5 level economic storms and demographic shifts which seismically could be 7.0 or higher are on the way. I guess I'm saying we are in for some dark and shaky days before 2036 and none of it has to do with football contracts.

3. But they're going to have definite impacts on the future of sports TV contracts.

Quote:The demographic shifts are global in nature, and natural resources are stressed. That alone would be inflationary. But should the dollar sag more, we the people will be feeling it in declining disposable income, and that hits all non-necessary expenditures pretty hard. And this means endless cable options, multiple streaming services, purchases of the crap they sell during sporting event commercial breaks, and tickets for those events will all take big hits. Well, except maybe for beer advertisements. Cheap sedatives may be in order!

But Budweiser is perfectly content to concentrate the viewership on 2 or 3 games at at time, a dozen games per weekend, rather than spread it out over a half-dozen TV games at a time.

Say what you want to say and quit cropping every damn sentence.

1. I wasn't referring to contracts, but the holders of them, they are safe as long as they terminate prior to the sharp decline in Boomer money, as in when the youngest Boomers are 74. The contracts ending in 2030-4 should be safe if all other economic factors are stable. Beyond 2030 viewership will decline and it will only pick up downward momentum. So the existing contract periods aren't too risky for the networks. The ACC's expires in 2036 but is the among the cheapest. The Big 10's and SEC's end between 2030 and 2034. The Big 12's was will end about that same time as well.

2. FOX pushed for the postseason. It was called the alliance. Their stated goal was to bid it out. ESPN and FOX seem to be coordinating more than opposing one another.

3. You intentionally ignored my emphasis in my point #1 by focusing on the word contract and feigning that you didn't know to what I was referring and emphasizing that the contract is fine because it has to be enforced. And when I'm speaking of external events not affecting the actual contracts, you switch and state the holders would be impacted, when I'm specifically speaking of the contract itself and not the holders of them. Of course, outside factors will change the impact upon the holders of the rights contracts.

This is the classic dissembling which I've told you would not be tolerated. You are just creating an argument to have one which deemphasizes the content of the post and turns honest conversation into needlessly tedious exercise.

4. Here you do it again when I use the beer commercials as a humorous quip and you treat it seriously. You are either wholly humorless and obtuse, or intentionally dissembling.

If you want to have a discussion, then have one. But drop the cropping and quoting of every alleged point which in itself is tedious and distracting practice and engage the other posters conversationally. You use the cropping to interject arguments either not present or unintended by the body of the post you are quoting. The methodology is deliberately pettifogging in nature.

0. I'm not sure I see a valuable distinction between cropping point-by-point and responding with a numbered list. But I can accommodate, I suppose.

1. I'm glad you clarified. Agreed, all existing contracts are safe, on both the buyer and seller end

2. I agree that Fox is happy to collaborate with ESPN. We continue to disagree on the relative power in the Fox - Big Ten partnership, and on Fox's continued ability to influence events, with their reduced scale and uncertain long term future.

3. I didn't think we had a big disagreement here, I'm not sure where the heat is coming from. I edited in bold above, I can rephrase here.

"The general economic climate will have effects on the sports TV business, and the sports business. But yes, sports TV will be among the least of our worries at that point"

4. Yes, I took your joke seriously -- there will always be SOMETHING to sell. I added the point that the advertisers will not be as concerned as ESPN Disney with keeping a half-dozen platforms (ABC, ESPN, 2, U, SECn, ACCn, ESPN+) viable as mass-advertiser vehicles.

(04-17-2023 10:23 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:14 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:03 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 09:55 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  I wonder how long it will be till we see TV rights negotiated on a per-school basis instead of a conference basis, or if we will ever see that happen en masse (it already does occur in some cases)?

For example, ECU (the program I follow on ESPN+) would be paid for each subscription that is set up and then renewed under their name on a commission basis. It seems to me that this would be a better way to determine what the value is of each program.

Consumers could pay for as many "favorite teams" as they wanted to. Heck, the bowl games, playoff and NCAA tournament games could be set up as pay-per-views.

It seems to me that this would be much easier to negotiate. Programs could shop media partners -the streaming services- to get the highest commissions available. The media partners would be able to offer more targeted advertising, catered to the fanbase of each program and the region that they reside in.

I'm very interested in this as a possibility once streaming takes hold. There's a lot to like about it.

Schools will still need collective structures to standardise labour practices, in addition to the more traditional tasks of planning schedules and arranging postseason events.

It's not a bad idea and I'm sure that the idea is being bantered about.

Let's say that the subscription to ECU would cost me $600. If ECU were to agree to cover the costs of production for each game (with in-house teams) they might get a ... 65% commission? Keep in mind that the streaming service could structure things in such a way that they get all of the advertising revenues for themselves.

At 100,000 subscribers (which is a fair number) the program would net $39M. I would take that in a minute.

Season packages could also be offered individually for football, baseball, basketball, etc.

I can see some other angles. You could bundle away game viewing with your season tickets.

I could also see a weekender package where you could get any three games you wanted over a weekend every weekend. You'd need a bundler that could sell across streaming services, but doing it bulk I suspect the details could be worked out.

There would be many options, which is the main benefit of such a model.

I rarely watch TV these days yet I tune in each week to catch an ECU game online or elsewhere. I would imagine that this is the case with many folks (although I know for a fact that I watch much less TV than the average person does).

Even when I watched "cable" TV I never, never watched sports news coverage, editorials (such as "Pardon My Take"), etc. It's boring and frankly not important enough for me to waste my time on such activities. What sports news I get comes from reading online or perusing message boards. ESPN and other outlets have increasingly become like MTV... the channel that used to show music videos but is now focused on teen moms and gender issues. I just want 120 Minutes or Headbanger's Ball... not some poorly acted show like Jersey Shore.

I wonder how much value is placed on sports news and opinion coverage by ESPN, FOX, etc? Is it equal to, greater or less than live game coverage? I bet that it's worth way less and could be cut without much fanfare.

I would love a streaming service that only offered game coverage. The journalists and talking head opinion mouthpieces for (insert whatever various cause) could have their own platforms with their own subscription packages... which would save the streaming platform that I want tons of cash. Their only expense would be the tech support needed to keep the thing running.

This needs to happen and could very well happen in the future if things are as bleak economically as some on here suggest because well-ran companies find efficiencies in troubled times and those who don't suffer, providing openings for companies that do.

(04-17-2023 11:09 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  I wonder how much value is placed on sports news and opinion coverage by ESPN, FOX, etc? Is it equal to, greater or less than live game coverage? I bet that it's worth way less and could be cut without much fanfare.

Much, much less. Quick googling indicates that Jim Rome gets paid $30M for his radio show, which is on 5 days a week year-round (maybe some vacation weeks I don't know).

$30M a year. That's Sun Belt Conference money.

They're not going to drop the talkers, because those hours between games are more profitable with the talkers than they would be with dead air, or game reruns or infomercials.

Quote:I would love a streaming service that only offered game coverage. The journalists and talking head opinion mouthpieces for (insert whatever various cause) could have their own platforms with their own subscription packages... which would save the streaming platform that I want tons of cash. Their only expense would be the tech support needed to keep the thing running.

Paying a dude or dudes to sit in a studio and talk is one of the cheapest things to broadcast (or stream). It's not going to save "tons of cash."

(04-17-2023 09:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 09:11 AM)LazygonInfinity Wrote:  No. But's its all relative. Even if the total pots are smaller, the SEC and B1G will still be taking the lion's share of those pots. So if the question is posed to suggest that realignment does not come with a guarantee of financial returns, then the premise is flawed.

Yes, the SEC and Big Ten will be taking the lions' share. But it's the lions' share of a smaller pot. Making up numbers, let's say in 2030 the Big Ten is looking at a 10% cut and the Big 12 is looking at a 50% cut. The Big Ten is not in a position to add schools and increase the existing schools' per-school payout.

I think you're just looking at this the wrong way. Consider this: if the Big Ten is taking a 10% paycut and the Big 12 is taking a 50% paycut, then adding schools has absolutely increased payout per school for the Big Ten relative to the Big 12. It's still just a matter of whether further expansion increases payout per school in the immediate future.

For example, say adding Washington immediately increases annual payout per school for the Big Ten from $58.9mm to $60mm. The Big 12 is at $41.8mm. Using your proposed reduction numbers (10% for the Big Ten and 50% for the Big 12), the average payout per school becomes $54mm per Big Ten School and $20.9mm per Big 12 school. So the Big Ten actually increases its advantage over the Big 12 in payout per school by 32.3% despite the reductions in total value of the media deal.

I remember being in my late teens which would be late 90s while attending a NASCAR race at Dover. When we first started attending races at Dover in the late 80s there were maybe 50k seats and a decade later there were 140k. Even without the fortune of having the context of time to watch various things evolve I believed, without anyone being in my ear, that to a likely significant degree, what I saw wasn't sustainable given the attendance/"support" at other sports I watched. I "knew" before Earnhardt died that NASCAR was at its peak and a downfall was inevitable. The downfall would be the TV deal in 2001, not Earnhardt's death. They took control of the product and forcefully turned the "greatest spectator sport" into a made for TV product which racing is not meant to be. Prior to that, the tracks negotiated their deals with the various networks which created a sense of autonomy, less upheaval within the "operating system". When Winston left in 2003 the final nail in the coffin was hammered in.

I foresee college football at the highest level experiencing a similar fate ultimately as it continues to be run TV who just want to extract maximum value until something else comes along to suck dry. The regional component, unique fan allegiance, game day experience/atmosphere, traditions were/are similar to NASCAR. Obviously, I am very interested to see how this all plays out. As it is, I have a hypothesis rooted in an honest preliminary assessment.....

(04-17-2023 10:22 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 08:38 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  ESPN/Disney isn't dependent on cable because it has a streaming platform

FOX isn't dependent on cable because it has a streaming platform

NBC isn't dependent on cable because it has a streaming platform

All the major players are diversified, no one is solely dependent on cable success anymore.

There is a bigger problem for all of the above. The baby boom generation was a huge sports fan generation. The younger generations not so much. The Boomer's are now in retirement and dying off. There are not the #s coming up behind them.

Sports a a business will suffer over the next 15 to 20 years.

We are talking about the 2030s. Boomers aren't dying off that quickly.

My Boomer Dad is looking forward to RVing and going to home and away games. Boomer Retirement should be Sports Consumption Peak. 2030 deals should reflect that too.

I'm almost certain there will be less sports money in 2030 than today. In fact, I'm pretty sure that sports money has already dropped in just the last few months, which is part of the PAC's problem in getting a contract.

(04-17-2023 10:22 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 08:38 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  ESPN/Disney isn't dependent on cable because it has a streaming platform

FOX isn't dependent on cable because it has a streaming platform

NBC isn't dependent on cable because it has a streaming platform

All the major players are diversified, no one is solely dependent on cable success anymore.

There is a bigger problem for all of the above. The baby boom generation was a huge sports fan generation. The younger generations not so much. The Boomer's are now in retirement and dying off. There are not the #s coming up behind them.

Sports a a business will suffer over the next 15 to 20 years.

Other generations have probably followed the same pattern, where they became more interested in sports as they got older. (And ironically got too old to be an athlete themselves.) Baby boomers dying would only be a problem if younger people don't become more interested in sports as they get older.

The much bigger problem is that cable is much better for sports money than streaming.

(04-17-2023 11:31 AM)LazygonInfinity Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 09:39 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 09:11 AM)LazygonInfinity Wrote:  No. But's its all relative. Even if the total pots are smaller, the SEC and B1G will still be taking the lion's share of those pots. So if the question is posed to suggest that realignment does not come with a guarantee of financial returns, then the premise is flawed.

Yes, the SEC and Big Ten will be taking the lions' share. But it's the lions' share of a smaller pot. Making up numbers, let's say in 2030 the Big Ten is looking at a 10% cut and the Big 12 is looking at a 50% cut. The Big Ten is not in a position to add schools and increase the existing schools' per-school payout.

I think you're just looking at this the wrong way. Consider this: if the Big Ten is taking a 10% paycut and the Big 12 is taking a 50% paycut, then adding schools has absolutely increased payout per school for the Big Ten relative to the Big 12. It's still just a matter of whether further expansion increases payout per school in the immediate future.

Yes, that is indeed the question.

If the value of the Big Ten and SEC tv contracts are concentrated in the top half-dozen games every Saturday, then adding more schools from the PAC and Big 12 and ACC doesn't create more money.

Quote:For example, say adding Washington immediately increases annual payout per school for the Big Ten from $58.9mm to $60mm.

That's what I'm questioning.

Moving Texas, Oklahoma, USC (and UCLA) out of the Big 12 and PAC-12 moved a top-5 game every week out of the Big 12 package into the SEC package. Adding USC (and UCLA) meant that the Big Ten could offer 3 Tier 1 packages (and the PAC can't offer any.)

Having 3 Tier 1 packages meant that the Big Ten could run an auction, CBS vs Amazon, NBC vs ESPN vs Amazon, to get a big contract. Part of the value of adding USC and UCLA was that the PAC was not a viable "second prize" if you lost the auction. The big increased financed the addition.

Next round, there may not be as many bidders at the auction.

Quote:The Big 12 is at $41.8mm. Using your proposed reduction numbers (10% for the Big Ten and 50% for the Big 12), the average payout per school becomes $54mm per Big Ten School and $20.9mm per Big 12 school. So the Big Ten actually increases its advantage over the Big 12 in payout per school by 32.3% despite the reductions in total value of the media deal.

The gap doesn't matter. the number matters. The Iowa AD doesn't care that the gap between Iowa and Iowa State grew by $30M instead of $29M. he cares about Iowa's number.

(04-17-2023 10:23 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:14 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:03 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 09:55 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  I wonder how long it will be till we see TV rights negotiated on a per-school basis instead of a conference basis, or if we will ever see that happen en masse (it already does occur in some cases)?

For example, ECU (the program I follow on ESPN+) would be paid for each subscription that is set up and then renewed under their name on a commission basis. It seems to me that this would be a better way to determine what the value is of each program.

Consumers could pay for as many "favorite teams" as they wanted to. Heck, the bowl games, playoff and NCAA tournament games could be set up as pay-per-views.

It seems to me that this would be much easier to negotiate. Programs could shop media partners -the streaming services- to get the highest commissions available. The media partners would be able to offer more targeted advertising, catered to the fanbase of each program and the region that they reside in.

I'm very interested in this as a possibility once streaming takes hold. There's a lot to like about it.

Schools will still need collective structures to standardise labour practices, in addition to the more traditional tasks of planning schedules and arranging postseason events.

It's not a bad idea and I'm sure that the idea is being bantered about.

Let's say that the subscription to ECU would cost me $600. If ECU were to agree to cover the costs of production for each game (with in-house teams) they might get a ... 65% commission? Keep in mind that the streaming service could structure things in such a way that they get all of the advertising revenues for themselves.

At 100,000 subscribers (which is a fair number) the program would net $39M. I would take that in a minute.

Season packages could also be offered individually for football, baseball, basketball, etc.

I can see some other angles. You could bundle away game viewing with your season tickets.

I could also see a weekender package where you could get any three games you wanted over a weekend every weekend. You'd need a bundler that could sell across streaming services, but doing it bulk I suspect the details could be worked out.

This could have some unpredictable consequences, too. Sports that no one imagined would catch on, for example, could quickly gain audiences.

People take chances on new experiences when the guide is someone they trust. If it's your alma mater's sports channel and you've already got a subscription to everything the program does, you may be as likely to stay with the home team for volleyball or golf as leave the platform for a football game between two teams you feel little personal connection to. Where teams are successful, the sports can gain ground.

(04-17-2023 11:24 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 11:09 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  I wonder how much value is placed on sports news and opinion coverage by ESPN, FOX, etc? Is it equal to, greater or less than live game coverage? I bet that it's worth way less and could be cut without much fanfare.

Much, much less. Quick googling indicates that Jim Rome gets paid $30M for his radio show, which is on 5 days a week year-round (maybe some vacation weeks I don't know).

$30M a year. That's Sun Belt Conference money.

They're not going to drop the talkers, because those hours between games are more profitable with the talkers than they would be with dead air, or game reruns or infomercials.

Quote:I would love a streaming service that only offered game coverage. The journalists and talking head opinion mouthpieces for (insert whatever various cause) could have their own platforms with their own subscription packages... which would save the streaming platform that I want tons of cash. Their only expense would be the tech support needed to keep the thing running.

Paying a dude or dudes to sit in a studio and talk is one of the cheapest things to broadcast (or stream). It's not going to save "tons of cash."

Thanks for the answer. Being that I don't watch cable sports, I have no idea how many talking heads are even in existence.

(04-17-2023 11:49 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 11:24 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 11:09 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  I wonder how much value is placed on sports news and opinion coverage by ESPN, FOX, etc? Is it equal to, greater or less than live game coverage? I bet that it's worth way less and could be cut without much fanfare.

Much, much less. Quick googling indicates that Jim Rome gets paid $30M for his radio show, which is on 5 days a week year-round (maybe some vacation weeks I don't know).

$30M a year. That's Sun Belt Conference money.

They're not going to drop the talkers, because those hours between games are more profitable with the talkers than they would be with dead air, or game reruns or infomercials.

Quote:I would love a streaming service that only offered game coverage. The journalists and talking head opinion mouthpieces for (insert whatever various cause) could have their own platforms with their own subscription packages... which would save the streaming platform that I want tons of cash. Their only expense would be the tech support needed to keep the thing running.

Paying a dude or dudes to sit in a studio and talk is one of the cheapest things to broadcast (or stream). It's not going to save "tons of cash."

Thanks for the answer. Being that I don't watch cable sports, I have no idea how many talking heads are even in existence.

There's a bunch, as many as they need to fill up hours in the day. (Because it's a cheap way to fill airtime) I used Jim Rome because he was the first name on the list besides game announcers. Everyone else is getting less. Stephen A Smith is at $12M, and no one else is in the top ten. There are probably a half dozen making more than $1M to talk in a studio.

Athough come to think of it, there are two different things. One is the pure "talking heads" who will talk about whatever that days or weeks' topic is. (Jim Rome, Stephen A Smith, PTI, etc etc) The other is the pregame guys, who usually are specific to that sport. You'd probably "save some cash" if you fired all of the Terry Bradshaws and Charles Barkleys, but I suspect the network would lose more money in ads that run on the pregame / halftime /postgame shows than they'd save on salaries

(04-17-2023 08:38 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  ESPN/Disney isn't dependent on cable because it has a streaming platform

FOX isn't dependent on cable because it has a streaming platform

NBC isn't dependent on cable because it has a streaming platform

All the major players are diversified, no one is solely dependent on cable success anymore.

But streaming isn’t yet profitable. Media is currently placing bets and subsidizing the streaming platforms. If streaming does much more cannibalizing, rather than growing the audience, there is a short term bubble in the industry.

(04-17-2023 09:10 AM)ExpertAd991 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 09:04 AM)LeeNobody Wrote:  The money will be there, but you are looking at the wrong buyers. Cable is not dying it is being replaced. Streaming is becoming cable. YoutubeTV won Sunday Ticket, and is offering it as an add on to the $72/month subscription. The standalone price is higher than the subscription price. The goal is clear get more subscribers!

ESPN+ is in discussions to have competitor signup and subscriptions in the ESPN App. They want to become the cable bundle of sports, with an additional "Disney Bundle atop this. Does this ring a bell, its the cable bundle again.

Netflix is added an ad supported feed. What will be next...

I predict youtube will combine Youtube TV and Youtube App. Free content and paid content will sit sideby side. Disney will formally combine the disney bundle into an Disney Infinity App. CBS and NBC will merge their digital offerings and also merging in WB/HBO/MAX/Discovery. These are going to be the buyers for broadcast rights.

Cable is dead. Long live the bundle!

I mean outside the US cable TV is still the most supported form of entertainment. So not really

Are you arguing that the market for College sports exists even marginally outside the US? You have to deal with the reality of the matket which is that the streaming bundle is the future.

This isn't so much a college football question as much as it is a question about sports on TV overall.

On the one hand, younger viewers aren't as loyal watchers of sports as prior generations and streaming revenue may never be as profitable as cable revenue (or even worse, may never be profitable *period*).

On the other hand, sports have effectively become the ONLY option for live TV viewership where ads actually get watched and that likely isn't going to be any different in 2030 (and if anything, sports will increase its lead on that front compared to everything else on TV). So, since TV at its core is about selling ads, sports may continue to have disproportionate value because without them, the TV ad business ceases to exist entirely, which means that the TV business itself ceases to exist entirely.

At the same time, one thing that I've observed with Millennials and Generation Z is that while they aren't the loyal "I'm watching my favorite team every night" fans to the same extent as older generations, they ARE heavy gamblers that follow national sports as a whole arguably as much or more than older generations. Stats show that 50% of online sports gamblers are age 18-34, which is extraordinarily young compared to the typical TV audience. The NFL is the #1 beneficiary of this trend, while college football is a clear #2.

Finally, look to the broader entertainment companies that buy sports. How do they invest money in the other parts of their businesses? Well, one thing has become clear: they are still investing a LOT in the marquee brand franchises. They are also spending money on cheap filler entertainment with high ROI, such as horror movies and reality TV shows. What they *aren't* spending money on is the "middle market" properties. You need to be either a premium product at the top or a cheap innings eater at the bottom - entertainment companies still make money on those properties even when the demographics are getting worse overall (e.g. the percentage of the American population going to movie theaters has been dropping for literally 70 years straight).

In essence, Marvel and Star Wars movies still make a ton of money even though the movie business overall is very challenging. This likely means that the sports properties that are the equivalent of Marvel and Star Wars - the NFL, Big Ten, SEC, NBA, New York Yankees, etc. - are still going to receive heavy investments because entertainment companies are able to monetize blockbusters. The ones at risk are the "middle class" - we see that right now with the Pac-12 negotiation. The Big 12 TV contract might very well be the last "middle class" contract that's worth very much that we'll see.

So, I'm fairly confident that the money will be there in 2030 for the NFL, Big Ten, SEC and other top of the food chain sports properties. As long as the TV business exists and they depend on selling ads, the TV networks essentially have no other choice. The Pac-12, though, is the canary in the coal mine for anyone that is below that very top tier. How much a "nice to have" property might be worth is turning out to be a LOT less than a "must have" property than it ever has been before. The movie business is already showing this and it would make sense that it would translate to the sports business, too.

It would certainly be ironic if the much reviled ACC GoR turns out to have been the smart play.