(10-17-2023 10:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 10:30 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

Go College Sports Wrote:I don't think the BTN comparison is quite right. Within a year of launch, most people with basic cable in footprint had expanded access to games that had previously been available on a patchwork, regional syndicated basis and/or on PPV out of market, at marginal additional cost, if any.

It's not clear what benefits that same consumer is going to get from streaming and when. You've taken a game previously available to almost everyone, moved to a service with an additional charge, where the service might often be perceived as being of lower value to the consumer, both in overall quality and in convenience (e.g. inability to channel surf). And that's before you get into second order costs to the league (fans general feeling of being taken advantage of, moving games to a platform with much lower exposure and no hopes of capturing the casual fan, etc.)

I think you're both right on your takes. I do think the BTN comparison is fair; it's a progression, and, really, the next step of the journey of placing content. It started with moving local team games off the basic dials to cable options, then to more niche cable options (and I think this is a big range from BTN when it started to what now is all of the ESPN channels, including ESPN+, to the BTN+ channels), to streaming. As a Penn State alum, I've had to shift from not doing a darned thing in getting to enjoy Penn State on channels where cable wasn't necessary to this level of "needing" expanded cable and streaming services to access all of the content. This is especially true, even outside of Penn State football interest, for my college basketball fix for all of the local (to me) teams.

But, yeah, streaming is at this point where it's current form does not work well with cable/channel-surfing. The apps can be good or not. For Peacock, totally not. And, I agree that this sense of fan exploitation is a bit different in that, at least for Comcast/Peacock, I could be an Xfinity customer, decked out to the gills with my sports tiers. To then have to then add more to access Peacock, which I can't then just surf with the other games (this is total failure for the NBC/Comcast app); for my local team, no less? I'm not a fan of this. But, I expressed where my anger in this one rests: back on the schools. Feel free to hate on Comcast and how bad Peacock is (I know I'm there)...your schools are doing this to fans. Heck, I feel like this is covered territory in a way because of how the PAC-12 did this to its fans with their media deal.

Frank the Tank Wrote:This is why the government shouldn’t be intervening in these transactions in the first place. Every action has a reaction. NBC paid additional money to have streaming-exclusive Peacock games. If they aren’t exclusive in the markets where the games are in most demand (e.g. an Ohio State game in the State of Ohio), then the value drops considerably and the media partner will pay less money. Is the Ohio legislature willing to cover that shortfall?

I mean, this is a collective of mostly public state institutions, so why are we treating it like private businesses in a free market? I get the desire for exploring the space of the market, but, I'd also say OSU shouldn't really hand everything over and/or demand something more given what they are. There is this nagging ethical matter about transparency for these institutions once they work in cohort with the athletic conference that is very suspect; where the state houses are in the decision-making. So, I very much disagree about the government not intervening...oh, they very much should. At least, with public institutions.

The state governments are two-faced about it. They have virtually all drastically cut public funding for these universities (in many cases barely funding them at all) and tell them to go out and find alternative funding sources to cover the difference… yet then turn around and complain about those alternative funding sources (whether it’s a streaming deal like this one or letting in more out-of-state students that pay more tuition).

Not to mention, once again, how do you distinguish between a restriction on streaming for Ohio State versus the MAC schools that have virtually no market power to dictate terms and wouldn’t get a TV deal at all without a streaming-exclusive component? These politicians are trying to legislate a global change - a movement from linear TV to streaming - that is completely out of their control. The only thing I’m confident of is that whatever the government thinks is a good solution on this matter will end up backfiring and/or become outdated quickly (e.g. in 5 years when there are more streaming households than cable households, cutting off streaming exclusives would *reduce* access to residents). The comments from the legislator seem to indicate that he either has zero understanding of the broader entertainment industry trends that are waaaaay beyond simply impacting Ohio State or chooses to ignore it because it will score a few cheap political points.

Murphy’s Law now says that the Bengals and Browns will end up playing in the NFL Wild Card Game that is a Peacock exclusive this year, which will make these Ohio politicians’ heads completely explode. Granted, the NFL does mandate streaming and cable games to be simulcast on an OTA channel in home markets, but note that the OTA channels would *want* those games via a free market process, anyway. At the same time, if the NFL is putting its most valuable product of them all - a *playoff* game - exclusively on streaming, then no other sports entity really has any standing to challenge to inevitable march towards streaming. (And to be clear, I think streaming is a *much* worse business for both the media companies and sports leagues compared to cable, but there’s no turning back.)

On NIL, it really is the Wild West right now. The P5 schools in Texas got a huge shot in the arm from our legislature. Tennessee has, too. Many others? Crickets, or less-effective legislation that puts them at a disadvantage against other Conference schools. One overarching set of NIL rules for the entire country would be a very good idea, but, unfortunately for us, it will take an Act of Congress to make it happen.

(10-17-2023 11:23 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 11:16 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:16 AM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(10-16-2023 07:22 AM)esayem Wrote:  For instance, when television broadcasts first started, some universities were terrified it would kill their gate.

It definitely wasn't just Universities; it was pro baseball, football, basketball, hockey, boxing, racing (horse and auto).

We still see the ramifications of that viewpoint to this day, as the TV rules have evolved and adapted from "protect the gate" policies. Most from the Nixon era (where he flew to Florida to watch NFL playoff games that were blacked out in DC).

The NFL local blackouts if tickets aren't sold was in place until 2014. The Indy 500 still has a similar rule. England still has a window where any soccer match played at that time can't be on TV.


When you think about, the effect pretty much everyone thought about what television will do to sports teams as businesses, might be the most wrong interpretation in the history of the modern world. "No one will want to go if the game is on TV" was 100% the exact opposite of what transpired. TV made more people care more about sports.

It was an understandable concern, especially for the bigger programs that generated so much more money from game day sales than they did from early TV contracts. And one of the biggest reason for the incredible rise in TV sports-rights sales would have been pretty hard to predict 30 or 40 years ago: the rise of Tivo, then streaming, eventually winnowing the "must watch now" window on TV down to, well, Live Sports and just about nothing else.

Hmmm, as I think about this, I also think that changing attitudes towards gambling have had a big impact. I was next to a 21 yo Tennessee student during the game the other day. After we kind of puffed out our chests for the first quarter, we ended up being best buds. Towards the end of the game, we got to talking about gambling, and how different it is now than it was 30 years ago. I knew absolutely nobody who gambled EVER when I was in school. I mean, literally nobody. I know a couple guys in my 30s who used illegal bookies to gamble, but we all had good salaries and it was only a couple grand a month, so even that didn't seem like much. But now? Everybody, every college kid in the country (it's not just in Iowa guys), every adult male and many females post-college can easily sign up with gambling platform now. Fantasy football? Baseball? Soccer? Whatever you want, it's there. The NFL and NHL are in Vegas, with Baseball soon to follow. I'm sure the NBA won't be far behind. All of those casual gamblers, and a whole bunch of others with an actual gambling problem, REALLY want to watch live sports so they can know in real time how that parley will turn out.

Nobody was going to forecast 30-40 years ago that gambling would take over Sports. I mean, what could go wrong with $Billion$ at stake every year on the outcome of a few field goals or officiating errors? It would have been like forecasting that NASA would go to the moon then spend the next 50 years tooling around in orbit, going nowhere and doing very little.

I'd argue gambling has always driven sports. Think Black Sox scandal and early NCAA basketball scandals

Technology just made it more common and profitable as did cultural perception

It had a very small impact in the past because it was out of reach for casuals. Sort of like how TV has greatly increased the exposure of the biggest programs now that I think about it.

(10-17-2023 11:41 AM)Hootyhoo Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 11:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 11:16 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:16 AM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(10-16-2023 07:22 AM)esayem Wrote:  For instance, when television broadcasts first started, some universities were terrified it would kill their gate.

It definitely wasn't just Universities; it was pro baseball, football, basketball, hockey, boxing, racing (horse and auto).

We still see the ramifications of that viewpoint to this day, as the TV rules have evolved and adapted from "protect the gate" policies. Most from the Nixon era (where he flew to Florida to watch NFL playoff games that were blacked out in DC).

The NFL local blackouts if tickets aren't sold was in place until 2014. The Indy 500 still has a similar rule. England still has a window where any soccer match played at that time can't be on TV.


When you think about, the effect pretty much everyone thought about what television will do to sports teams as businesses, might be the most wrong interpretation in the history of the modern world. "No one will want to go if the game is on TV" was 100% the exact opposite of what transpired. TV made more people care more about sports.

It was an understandable concern, especially for the bigger programs that generated so much more money from game day sales than they did from early TV contracts. And one of the biggest reason for the incredible rise in TV sports-rights sales would have been pretty hard to predict 30 or 40 years ago: the rise of Tivo, then streaming, eventually winnowing the "must watch now" window on TV down to, well, Live Sports and just about nothing else.

Hmmm, as I think about this, I also think that changing attitudes towards gambling have had a big impact. I was next to a 21 yo Tennessee student during the game the other day. After we kind of puffed out our chests for the first quarter, we ended up being best buds. Towards the end of the game, we got to talking about gambling, and how different it is now than it was 30 years ago. I knew absolutely nobody who gambled EVER when I was in school. I mean, literally nobody. I know a couple guys in my 30s who used illegal bookies to gamble, but we all had good salaries and it was only a couple grand a month, so even that didn't seem like much. But now? Everybody, every college kid in the country (it's not just in Iowa guys), every adult male and many females post-college can easily sign up with gambling platform now. Fantasy football? Baseball? Soccer? Whatever you want, it's there. The NFL and NHL are in Vegas, with Baseball soon to follow. I'm sure the NBA won't be far behind. All of those casual gamblers, and a whole bunch of others with an actual gambling problem, REALLY want to watch live sports so they can know in real time how that parley will turn out.

Nobody was going to forecast 30-40 years ago that gambling would take over Sports. I mean, what could go wrong with $Billion$ at stake every year on the outcome of a few field goals or officiating errors? It would have been like forecasting that NASA would go to the moon then spend the next 50 years tooling around in orbit, going nowhere and doing very little.

To your point on the prevalence of gambling today, this is a counter to some of the negative demographic trends of younger people not watching as much sports. On the one hand, they generally aren’t the loyal “watch your team every night through thick and thin” that most of us are. On the other hand, sports gambling is what Gen Z males do at a level far beyond older groups. I remember being at a holiday party last year where our younger extended family members brought their respective boyfriends (all in their 20s) and they ALL had money on the NFL games that day. (It was that Saturday when the Vikings came back and beat the Colts after being down 33-0, so talk about a gambling moment.) It’s not that they bet a ton of money on any single game, but rather $10 here and $10 there just to make games interesting. I was sort of skeptical about the extent to which sports gambling would drive overall TV viewership a couple of years ago, but I’ve done a 180 on that front. This is basically how football is going to keep viewership levels high with the Gen Z crowd (along with other gambling-friendly sports like basketball).

They really need to get some more laws about gambling advertisements. It's fun and I love placing $3 across the slate of games on a Saturday, but it is a little concerning how easily they're roping us into something addictive and destructive.

Gambling is quite similar to alcohol. Some are predisposed to horribly abuse it and let it take over their lives, but the vast majority of us can do it a bit here or there and it's no issue at all. My biggest concern with gambling in sports is the ease with which one or 2 players (or officials) can swing the outcome of a contest. It's not as bad as boxing, but there's a whole lot more money on the line, too.

(10-17-2023 11:52 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 11:32 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  The lawmaker thinks that students should not have to pay for those subscriptions, and that there should be a local option available, but isn't against the concept of paywalls for those programming. But Ohio State football isn't a niche product. It might be the least niche product in the entire sport. You don't *have* to paywall it. You do that because of greed. And since the State has some oversight over virtually all of Ohio State's commercial activity or vendor contracts, I understand why they might want to have a say here.

This.

I would quibble, however, over the argument of "niche," and how MAC was decidedly pushed to that extremity, coincidentally a conference remaining pretty quiet on expansion (and, technically, for football: contraction), whereas getting over onto a major provider's dial has involved expansion, like the Big Ten. Or how conferences/major schools have operated with intra and inter-conference scheduling arrangements. There's just a lot at play here.

Huh? The MAC doesn't get much TV exposure b/c they don't have any Big Brands. End of discussion. If they had a bunch of big brands like the B1G or SEC then they'd be everywhere.

(10-17-2023 12:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 11:41 AM)Hootyhoo Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 11:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 11:16 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 12:16 AM)JSchmack Wrote:  It definitely wasn't just Universities; it was pro baseball, football, basketball, hockey, boxing, racing (horse and auto).

We still see the ramifications of that viewpoint to this day, as the TV rules have evolved and adapted from "protect the gate" policies. Most from the Nixon era (where he flew to Florida to watch NFL playoff games that were blacked out in DC).

The NFL local blackouts if tickets aren't sold was in place until 2014. The Indy 500 still has a similar rule. England still has a window where any soccer match played at that time can't be on TV.


When you think about, the effect pretty much everyone thought about what television will do to sports teams as businesses, might be the most wrong interpretation in the history of the modern world. "No one will want to go if the game is on TV" was 100% the exact opposite of what transpired. TV made more people care more about sports.

It was an understandable concern, especially for the bigger programs that generated so much more money from game day sales than they did from early TV contracts. And one of the biggest reason for the incredible rise in TV sports-rights sales would have been pretty hard to predict 30 or 40 years ago: the rise of Tivo, then streaming, eventually winnowing the "must watch now" window on TV down to, well, Live Sports and just about nothing else.

Hmmm, as I think about this, I also think that changing attitudes towards gambling have had a big impact. I was next to a 21 yo Tennessee student during the game the other day. After we kind of puffed out our chests for the first quarter, we ended up being best buds. Towards the end of the game, we got to talking about gambling, and how different it is now than it was 30 years ago. I knew absolutely nobody who gambled EVER when I was in school. I mean, literally nobody. I know a couple guys in my 30s who used illegal bookies to gamble, but we all had good salaries and it was only a couple grand a month, so even that didn't seem like much. But now? Everybody, every college kid in the country (it's not just in Iowa guys), every adult male and many females post-college can easily sign up with gambling platform now. Fantasy football? Baseball? Soccer? Whatever you want, it's there. The NFL and NHL are in Vegas, with Baseball soon to follow. I'm sure the NBA won't be far behind. All of those casual gamblers, and a whole bunch of others with an actual gambling problem, REALLY want to watch live sports so they can know in real time how that parley will turn out.

Nobody was going to forecast 30-40 years ago that gambling would take over Sports. I mean, what could go wrong with $Billion$ at stake every year on the outcome of a few field goals or officiating errors? It would have been like forecasting that NASA would go to the moon then spend the next 50 years tooling around in orbit, going nowhere and doing very little.

To your point on the prevalence of gambling today, this is a counter to some of the negative demographic trends of younger people not watching as much sports. On the one hand, they generally aren’t the loyal “watch your team every night through thick and thin” that most of us are. On the other hand, sports gambling is what Gen Z males do at a level far beyond older groups. I remember being at a holiday party last year where our younger extended family members brought their respective boyfriends (all in their 20s) and they ALL had money on the NFL games that day. (It was that Saturday when the Vikings came back and beat the Colts after being down 33-0, so talk about a gambling moment.) It’s not that they bet a ton of money on any single game, but rather $10 here and $10 there just to make games interesting. I was sort of skeptical about the extent to which sports gambling would drive overall TV viewership a couple of years ago, but I’ve done a 180 on that front. This is basically how football is going to keep viewership levels high with the Gen Z crowd (along with other gambling-friendly sports like basketball).

They really need to get some more laws about gambling advertisements. It's fun and I love placing $3 across the slate of games on a Saturday, but it is a little concerning how easily they're roping us into something addictive and destructive.

Gambling is quite similar to alcohol. Some are predisposed to horribly abuse it and let it take over their lives, but the vast majority of us can do it a bit here or there and it's no issue at all. My biggest concern with gambling in sports is the ease with which one or 2 players (or officials) can swing the outcome of a contest. It's not as bad as boxing, but there's a whole lot more money on the line, too.

Controlling the spread or outcome of the game is relatively difficult without involving multiple people, which increases the risk of getting totally exposed.

The rise of prop bets, though, is really where things are ripe for a scandal. That’s because all that it takes to pay off a lot of prop bets is a single play (e.g. one fumble or interception at a specific time, one sack, etc.). No coordination with multiple people or officials is needed at all.

(10-17-2023 12:49 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 11:52 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-17-2023 11:32 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  The lawmaker thinks that students should not have to pay for those subscriptions, and that there should be a local option available, but isn't against the concept of paywalls for those programming. But Ohio State football isn't a niche product. It might be the least niche product in the entire sport. You don't *have* to paywall it. You do that because of greed. And since the State has some oversight over virtually all of Ohio State's commercial activity or vendor contracts, I understand why they might want to have a say here.

This.

I would quibble, however, over the argument of "niche," and how MAC was decidedly pushed to that extremity, coincidentally a conference remaining pretty quiet on expansion (and, technically, for football: contraction), whereas getting over onto a major provider's dial has involved expansion, like the Big Ten. Or how conferences/major schools have operated with intra and inter-conference scheduling arrangements. There's just a lot at play here.

Huh? The MAC doesn't get much TV exposure b/c they don't have any Big Brands. End of discussion. If they had a bunch of big brands like the B1G or SEC then they'd be everywhere.

I come from the Philly 'burbs and still call the region home. There was a time MAC content (football) was available on ESPN and other outlets. Heck, I used to ruminate elsewhere back in the day that it was ironic that Temple football (when it was in the MAC) was easier to find than Pitt. But, it was just football.

Conference networks changed that. Content bundling for multiple sports (dedication to dial/slot space). Cable and carriage models, too (eyes on you, Rutgers). But, also expansion by those major conferences to increase/maximize (at the time) revenue. Also, that you had more major schools willing to take the sanctity of Saturday games and have bouts on weekdays (something MAC had done before others). Time and change.

MAC has always been MAC. Nobody mistakes them for the Big Ten. But, consider the scope of change the two conferences have had to do to retain their respective places in the pecking order...the boundaries of "niche" are blurry. Give it some more time, and we'll be in a different place in a few years, guaranteed.

It's working... Tosu is on Fox this week!