(11-18-2023 10:36 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:33 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 06:59 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 05:39 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 04:45 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Several people on Twitter reporting the NBC deal is for $60 million a year

If true, when combined with the $17+ million a year from the ACC, that puts ND in P2 money range.

https://frontofficesports.com/notre-dame...20Peacock.

This article says that NBC payouts will double from the current level…to nearly $50M per year. Not quite as much as teams in the Big Ten, but enough to continue football independence.

Plus the $17+ million it gets from the ACC.

If the reported sums are correct, this deal is directly comparable to the media rights deals from the P2 when you factor in what ND is also getting from the ACC. It's a HUGE win for the Irish.

Yep. Independent media deals are the way of the future (and the past).

Eh - if we believe that Notre Dame is the most valuable brand in college football (and I believe that), then the fact that they’re only matching what Purdue and Mississippi State make means that they’re taking a substantial financial haircut in order to maintain independence. To be sure, there are institutional reasons outside of money as to why they insist on continuing to be independent. The entertainment business has continuously shown that bundling content makes more money, whether it was the cable bundle before, the conferences, the NFL, Netflix programs, etc. Notre Dame is a special situation in their *institutional* (NOT financial) reasons for going it alone. I wouldn’t apply it to schools like Ohio State or Alabama (if that’s what you’re trying to get at) - the Big Ten and SEC are going to continue to steamroll everyone other than Notre Dame whether people like it or not. I just think that end game will be finalized in the 2030s as opposed to conspiracy theorists that believe it’s always coming next Tuesday.

(11-18-2023 04:51 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Again, if true, Swarbrick has earned a statue near the stadium.

That amount will have been obtained without an exit fee, GOR buyout or having to join a conference.

No mention of a Big Ten scheding deal yet, if any.

Someone will always overpay for ND, anyone can broker their deals.

Now that their media deal is done the next question will be how will they work entering Cal, Stanford and Southern Methodist into their future schedules. There will be six years between the current contract and the new one. I think the Domers would want at least one trip into the state of Texas for those years.

College football is better with Notre Dame as an independent; The way God intended.

(11-18-2023 10:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:36 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:33 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 06:59 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 05:39 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  https://frontofficesports.com/notre-dame...20Peacock.

This article says that NBC payouts will double from the current level…to nearly $50M per year. Not quite as much as teams in the Big Ten, but enough to continue football independence.

Plus the $17+ million it gets from the ACC.

If the reported sums are correct, this deal is directly comparable to the media rights deals from the P2 when you factor in what ND is also getting from the ACC. It's a HUGE win for the Irish.

Yep. Independent media deals are the way of the future (and the past).

Eh - if we believe that Notre Dame is the most valuable brand in college football (and I believe that), then the fact that they’re only matching what Purdue and Mississippi State make means that they’re taking a substantial financial haircut in order to maintain independence. To be sure, there are institutional reasons outside of money as to why they insist on continuing to be independent. The entertainment business has continuously shown that bundling content makes more money, whether it was the cable bundle before, the conferences, the NFL, Netflix programs, etc. Notre Dame is a special situation in their *institutional* (NOT financial) reasons for going it alone. I wouldn’t apply it to schools like Ohio State or Alabama (if that’s what you’re trying to get at) - the Big Ten and SEC are going to continue to steamroll everyone other than Notre Dame whether people like it or not. I just think that end game will be finalized in the 2030s as opposed to conspiracy theorists that believe it’s always coming next Tuesday.

In the 30’s and beyond, I believe conference bundling will hit its ceiling and the repercussion of antiquated market adds will start affecting payouts, while singular large brands continue to increase their value. So we’ll be in a situation where it’s going to come down to unequal revenue sharing or solo deals. Solo deals with advanced technology allow more customization for the future sports fan.

(11-18-2023 10:54 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 04:51 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Again, if true, Swarbrick has earned a statue near the stadium.

That amount will have been obtained without an exit fee, GOR buyout or having to join a conference.

No mention of a Big Ten scheding deal yet, if any.

Someone will always overpay for ND, anyone can broker their deals.

Lol. ND is the fourth most watched team in the country this year and NBC averaged 5.1 million fans per ND broadcast, but you think NBC paying ND what Illinois and Vanderbilt makes is because "someone will always overpay for ND."

Okay, man.

(11-18-2023 10:30 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 05:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 04:51 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Again, if true, Swarbrick has earned a statue near the stadium.

That amount will have been obtained without an exit fee, GOR buyout or having to join a conference.

No mention of a Big Ten scheding deal yet, if any.

I don't begrudge a guy a statue, he's been a Notre DAme fixture for a long time.

I do think he had good cards to play though. NBC is paying the Big Ten $350M a year for ~15 games, plus 8 Peacock games, and a couple CCGs over the course of the contract. At $60M per, Swarbrick is asking ~$10M per game (valuing the single Notre Dame Peacock game at zero), or less if you count the PEacock game in the average.

If NBC had made a bad decision and rejected Notre Dame's pretty reasonable offer, I think Swarbrick would have had suitors in Bristol and in the Fox offices ready to offer comparable money and afternoon kickoffs on Fox or ESPN.

What makes you guys think that Swarbrick negotiated this deal? They just hired Pete Bevacqua a few months ago, I'd wager that he handled things.

Bevacqua had nothing to do with it. He recused himself from the negotiations.

"Swarbrick will be succeeded as athletic director in 2024 by Pete Bevacqua, who came to the school from NBC. Swarbrick says negotiations on the new deal began when Bevacqua was still there as chairman of NBC Sports, then he recused himself after it was announced that he was moving to his alma mater as AD."

https://www.si.com/college/2023/11/18/no...p-nbc-2029

(11-19-2023 09:14 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:54 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 04:51 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Again, if true, Swarbrick has earned a statue near the stadium.

That amount will have been obtained without an exit fee, GOR buyout or having to join a conference.

No mention of a Big Ten scheding deal yet, if any.

Someone will always overpay for ND, anyone can broker their deals.

Lol. ND is the fourth most watched team in the country this year and NBC averaged 5.1 million fans per ND broadcast, but you think NBC paying ND what Illinois and Vanderbilt makes is because "someone will always overpay for ND."

Okay, man.

I don't think that's a slam on Notre Dame. Yes they're getting the same money as Illinois and Vanderbilt, but also the same money as Georgia and Michigan. We're saying that, given the brand value Notre Dame has, getting a P2-level TV deal isn't a statue-worthy pulling-a-rabbit-out-of-a-hat move.

(Scoochpooch can correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but I think he finds the Big Ten and SEC overpaid too)

It was, in my opinion, probably a very cordial negotiation on both sides with the agreement outlines known in advance. Notre DAme and NBC both made a reasonable deal to protect and extent a profitable and beneficial relationship.

The background reality is, if NBC balked at paying Notre Dame's price, Fox and ESPN were very likely to snap them up for a half-dozen 3:30 ESPN or Fox OTA games.

(11-19-2023 08:10 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:36 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:33 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 06:59 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Plus the $17+ million it gets from the ACC.

If the reported sums are correct, this deal is directly comparable to the media rights deals from the P2 when you factor in what ND is also getting from the ACC. It's a HUGE win for the Irish.

Yep. Independent media deals are the way of the future (and the past).

Eh - if we believe that Notre Dame is the most valuable brand in college football (and I believe that), then the fact that they’re only matching what Purdue and Mississippi State make means that they’re taking a substantial financial haircut in order to maintain independence. To be sure, there are institutional reasons outside of money as to why they insist on continuing to be independent. The entertainment business has continuously shown that bundling content makes more money, whether it was the cable bundle before, the conferences, the NFL, Netflix programs, etc. Notre Dame is a special situation in their *institutional* (NOT financial) reasons for going it alone. I wouldn’t apply it to schools like Ohio State or Alabama (if that’s what you’re trying to get at) - the Big Ten and SEC are going to continue to steamroll everyone other than Notre Dame whether people like it or not. I just think that end game will be finalized in the 2030s as opposed to conspiracy theorists that believe it’s always coming next Tuesday.

In the 30’s and beyond, I believe conference bundling will hit its ceiling and the repercussion of antiquated market adds will start affecting payouts, while singular large brands continue to increase their value. So we’ll be in a situation where it’s going to come down to unequal revenue sharing or solo deals. Solo deals with advanced technology allow more customization for the future sports fan.

I disagree.

I always point back to the NFL: the Jaguars make the exact same money as the Cowboys. The Big Ten has been the longest equal revenue sharing conference and the SEC went to that model upon the formation of the SEC Network and they’re the leagues blowing everyone away. Meanwhile, Texas just had the individual deal that you speak of with the Longhorn Network… and willingly joined a league to make the same as Mississippi State.

It’s not just sports. Look at streaming, where the entertainment companies are realizing that going direct-to-market and owning all of their own content isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. If you haven’t seen, Warner Bros. is going back to licensing some of their most valuable content - DC movies and HBO shows - even though they own Max. Suits became a Netflix hit this past year… and it’s a show owned by Comcast that also owns Peacock and had shown Suits on that platform before without moving viewership at all.

Why? Because human beings continuously show that they want consolidation of content and simplicity and, at a certain point, you’re no longer maximizing the value of your content if you’re going it alone. Suits is quite literally the exact same cancelled show that it was 4 years ago, yet the power of integrating it onto Netflix totally changed the value. Likewise, the power of selling Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and USC together (and yes even including schools like Illinois and Rutgers because there are major advantages to being in major markets for advertising purposes) is greater than any one of those individual schools alone. It’s true for sports and for entertainment in general. Consolidating top brands together creates additional synergistic value that doesn’t exist on an individual basis and that’s actually becoming a stronger truth in economics than going the other direction.

(11-19-2023 09:42 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 09:14 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:54 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 04:51 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Again, if true, Swarbrick has earned a statue near the stadium.

That amount will have been obtained without an exit fee, GOR buyout or having to join a conference.

No mention of a Big Ten scheding deal yet, if any.

Someone will always overpay for ND, anyone can broker their deals.

Lol. ND is the fourth most watched team in the country this year and NBC averaged 5.1 million fans per ND broadcast, but you think NBC paying ND what Illinois and Vanderbilt makes is because "someone will always overpay for ND."

Okay, man.

I don't think that's a slam on Notre Dame. Yes they're getting the same money as Illinois and Vanderbilt, but also the same money as Georgia and Michigan. We're saying that, given the brand value Notre Dame has, getting a P2-level TV deal isn't a statue-worthy pulling-a-rabbit-out-of-a-hat move.

(Scoochpooch can correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but I think he finds the Big Ten and SEC overpaid too)

It was, in my opinion, probably a very cordial negotiation on both sides with the agreement outlines known in advance. Notre DAme and NBC both made a reasonable deal to protect and extent a profitable and beneficial relationship.

The background reality is, if NBC balked at paying Notre Dame's price, Fox and ESPN were very likely to snap them up for a half-dozen 3:30 ESPN or Fox OTA games.

I certainly do agree with the bolded comment. From the SI article cited above:


"Notre Dame is completing its 33rd season with NBC, and this deal encompasses 39 seasons when it is concluded. That’s the longest-running college sports media partnership with one outlet. The Fighting Irish’s home game Saturday against Wake Forest will be the 217th game of the partnership."

(11-19-2023 08:10 AM)esayem Wrote:  In the 30’s and beyond, I believe conference bundling will hit its ceiling and the repercussion of antiquated market adds will start affecting payouts, while singular large brands continue to increase their value. So we’ll be in a situation where it’s going to come down to unequal revenue sharing or solo deals. Solo deals with advanced technology allow more customization for the future sports fan.

Nope, because you can never make as much money when you move from a subsidized model to an unsubsidized one. It's simple math.

I mean, Disney has almost their whole library bundled on Disney+ and then they also bundle that together with other entertainment offerings Hulu and ESPN+--and still none of that is profitable.

So much of sports viewing (among those "large brands" you speak of) is casual viewers. For instance, I don't watch a lot of college basketball. But I do frequently watch UNC-Duke, because it is event viewing (just as in I don't watch a lot of golf but do watch Sunday of the Masters). But would I (and lots of other casual fans who watch now) subscribe to a UNC streaming service just to watch that game? Nope.

Two things came to mind when this announced: Peacock and market presence. I do think you’re going to see more ND games pushed exclusively to Peacock through this deal, but, as Don Draper said in Mad Men, “that’s what the money is for!” Either Peacock “acceptance money,” or, there were pledges for some considerable content to avoid Peacock and live mostly on the main dial (NBC).

But, more than that, I feel more and more certain NBC/Comcast would spend big money for college athletics if schools/conferences would piecemeal their content instead of bundling it all. Like, it’s not rocket science…Notre Dame football is a bell cow. There are buyers for even a portion of it, and Notre Dame knew it. But, you can’t tell that to more collectivist-thinking conferences. What ND can make should surprise nobody. Part of me kind of thinks that this deal sends out a clear signal to some of those PAC schools who moved east that, maybe, this could be you, too. Specifically, USC. That, at the core, there is a market for football independence and piecemeal contracts. It’s just that ESPN and Fox’s cashwads for everything just looks bigger and better than something more creative, or specific, like NBC and CBS have done.

(11-19-2023 09:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 08:10 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:36 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:33 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  If the reported sums are correct, this deal is directly comparable to the media rights deals from the P2 when you factor in what ND is also getting from the ACC. It's a HUGE win for the Irish.

Yep. Independent media deals are the way of the future (and the past).

Eh - if we believe that Notre Dame is the most valuable brand in college football (and I believe that), then the fact that they’re only matching what Purdue and Mississippi State make means that they’re taking a substantial financial haircut in order to maintain independence. To be sure, there are institutional reasons outside of money as to why they insist on continuing to be independent. The entertainment business has continuously shown that bundling content makes more money, whether it was the cable bundle before, the conferences, the NFL, Netflix programs, etc. Notre Dame is a special situation in their *institutional* (NOT financial) reasons for going it alone. I wouldn’t apply it to schools like Ohio State or Alabama (if that’s what you’re trying to get at) - the Big Ten and SEC are going to continue to steamroll everyone other than Notre Dame whether people like it or not. I just think that end game will be finalized in the 2030s as opposed to conspiracy theorists that believe it’s always coming next Tuesday.

In the 30’s and beyond, I believe conference bundling will hit its ceiling and the repercussion of antiquated market adds will start affecting payouts, while singular large brands continue to increase their value. So we’ll be in a situation where it’s going to come down to unequal revenue sharing or solo deals. Solo deals with advanced technology allow more customization for the future sports fan.

I disagree.

I always point back to the NFL: the Jaguars make the exact same money as the Cowboys. The Big Ten has been the longest equal revenue sharing conference and the SEC went to that model upon the formation of the SEC Network and they’re the leagues blowing everyone away. Meanwhile, Texas just had the individual deal that you speak of with the Longhorn Network… and willingly joined a league to make the same as Mississippi State.

It’s not just sports. Look at streaming, where the entertainment companies are realizing that going direct-to-market and owning all of their own content isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. If you haven’t seen, Warner Bros. is going back to licensing some of their most valuable content - DC movies and HBO shows - even though they own Max. Suits became a Netflix hit this past year… and it’s a show owned by Comcast that also owns Peacock and had shown Suits on that platform before without moving viewership at all.

Why? Because human beings continuously show that they want consolidation of content and simplicity and, at a certain point, you’re no longer maximizing the value of your content if you’re going it alone. Suits is quite literally the exact same cancelled show that it was 4 years ago, yet the power of integrating it onto Netflix totally changed the value. Likewise, the power of selling Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and USC together (and yes even including schools like Illinois and Rutgers because there are major advantages to being in major markets for advertising purposes) is greater than any one of those individual schools alone. It’s true for sports and for entertainment in general. Consolidating top brands together creates additional synergistic value that doesn’t exist on an individual basis and that’s actually becoming a stronger truth in economics than going the other direction.

Irrelevant. There are no Dallas Cowboy tennis teams or Jacksonville Jaguar golf teams, nor is it the University of Dallas etc. College athletics are MUCH more complex. You continually underestimate this as I suspect you don't spend any real time on a campus.

Then you go on to list corporations and current advertising trends. I'm sorry, but what works today is not guaranteed to work in 15 years. The people in charge are obviously trying to slow it down with GORs, but eventually what you see happening in the ACC will happen in the Big Ten. I mean are we just ignoring the fact that FOX straight up denied paying UO and UW full shares? But but but consolidation?

(11-19-2023 09:54 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 08:10 AM)esayem Wrote:  In the 30’s and beyond, I believe conference bundling will hit its ceiling and the repercussion of antiquated market adds will start affecting payouts, while singular large brands continue to increase their value. So we’ll be in a situation where it’s going to come down to unequal revenue sharing or solo deals. Solo deals with advanced technology allow more customization for the future sports fan.

Nope, because you can never make as much money when you move from a subsidized model to an unsubsidized one. It's simple math.

I mean, Disney has almost their whole library bundled on Disney+ and then they also bundle that together with other entertainment offerings Hulu and ESPN+--and still none of that is profitable.

So much of sports viewing (among those "large brands" you speak of) is casual viewers. For instance, I don't watch a lot of college basketball. But I do frequently watch UNC-Duke, because it is event viewing (just as in I don't watch a lot of golf but do watch Sunday of the Masters). But would I (and lots of other casual fans who watch now) subscribe to a UNC streaming service just to watch that game? Nope.

Disney? Who needs Disney when Notre Dame or USC go straight to consumer and incorporate students in media curriculum?

(11-19-2023 09:44 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 08:10 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:36 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-18-2023 10:33 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  If the reported sums are correct, this deal is directly comparable to the media rights deals from the P2 when you factor in what ND is also getting from the ACC. It's a HUGE win for the Irish.

Yep. Independent media deals are the way of the future (and the past).

Eh - if we believe that Notre Dame is the most valuable brand in college football (and I believe that), then the fact that they’re only matching what Purdue and Mississippi State make means that they’re taking a substantial financial haircut in order to maintain independence. To be sure, there are institutional reasons outside of money as to why they insist on continuing to be independent. The entertainment business has continuously shown that bundling content makes more money, whether it was the cable bundle before, the conferences, the NFL, Netflix programs, etc. Notre Dame is a special situation in their *institutional* (NOT financial) reasons for going it alone. I wouldn’t apply it to schools like Ohio State or Alabama (if that’s what you’re trying to get at) - the Big Ten and SEC are going to continue to steamroll everyone other than Notre Dame whether people like it or not. I just think that end game will be finalized in the 2030s as opposed to conspiracy theorists that believe it’s always coming next Tuesday.

In the 30’s and beyond, I believe conference bundling will hit its ceiling and the repercussion of antiquated market adds will start affecting payouts, while singular large brands continue to increase their value. So we’ll be in a situation where it’s going to come down to unequal revenue sharing or solo deals. Solo deals with advanced technology allow more customization for the future sports fan.

I disagree.

I always point back to the NFL: the Jaguars make the exact same money as the Cowboys. The Big Ten has been the longest equal revenue sharing conference and the SEC went to that model upon the formation of the SEC Network and they’re the leagues blowing everyone away. Meanwhile, Texas just had the individual deal that you speak of with the Longhorn Network… and willingly joined a league to make the same as Mississippi State.

It’s not just sports. Look at streaming, where the entertainment companies are realizing that going direct-to-market and owning all of their own content isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. If you haven’t seen, Warner Bros. is going back to licensing some of their most valuable content - DC movies and HBO shows - even though they own Max. Suits became a Netflix hit this past year… and it’s a show owned by Comcast that also owns Peacock and had shown Suits on that platform before without moving viewership at all.

Why? Because human beings continuously show that they want consolidation of content and simplicity and, at a certain point, you’re no longer maximizing the value of your content if you’re going it alone. Suits is quite literally the exact same cancelled show that it was 4 years ago, yet the power of integrating it onto Netflix totally changed the value. Likewise, the power of selling Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and USC together (and yes even including schools like Illinois and Rutgers because there are major advantages to being in major markets for advertising purposes) is greater than any one of those individual schools alone. It’s true for sports and for entertainment in general. Consolidating top brands together creates additional synergistic value that doesn’t exist on an individual basis and that’s actually becoming a stronger truth in economics than going the other direction.

While some media distributions may be equal in the NFL, nobody would argue that the Jaguars make the same income as the Cowboys. That's also true within conferences. Northwestern makes a lot less than Michigan and Vanderbilt's income is a dwarf in comparison to Alabama's.

(11-19-2023 10:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 09:54 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 08:10 AM)esayem Wrote:  In the 30’s and beyond, I believe conference bundling will hit its ceiling and the repercussion of antiquated market adds will start affecting payouts, while singular large brands continue to increase their value. So we’ll be in a situation where it’s going to come down to unequal revenue sharing or solo deals. Solo deals with advanced technology allow more customization for the future sports fan.

Nope, because you can never make as much money when you move from a subsidized model to an unsubsidized one. It's simple math.

I mean, Disney has almost their whole library bundled on Disney+ and then they also bundle that together with other entertainment offerings Hulu and ESPN+--and still none of that is profitable.

So much of sports viewing (among those "large brands" you speak of) is casual viewers. For instance, I don't watch a lot of college basketball. But I do frequently watch UNC-Duke, because it is event viewing (just as in I don't watch a lot of golf but do watch Sunday of the Masters). But would I (and lots of other casual fans who watch now) subscribe to a UNC streaming service just to watch that game? Nope.

Disney? Who needs Disney when Notre Dame or USC go straight to consumer and incorporate students in media curriculum?

Disney, in a vacuum, wasn't the point. The point is streaming isn't profitable. Think about it this way:

RSNs were charging cable companies $2-$3 per subscriber. RSNs that have gone DTC are charging $20-$30 a month--or about 10x. ESPN (just ESPN--not ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, ACC Network, SEC Network) is $10 a month per cable subscriber. So, to maintain current profits that would be $100 a month for just ESPN content. I love sports, but I'm not paying that.

And the point is: right now, even though I don't watch much college basketball, I watch Duke-UNC because it's there on ESPN. I'm not, however, going to pay $20 a month, even for one month, to subscribe to a UNC Streaming service just to watch the game.

If you have 10 million-ish people watching The Game: how many of those are die-hard Michigan and Ohio State fans and how many of those are just casual viewers? I imagine if that game is only available on a Michigan Streaming service and an Ohio State Streaming service, that you have 1-2 million viewers tops.

(11-19-2023 10:37 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 10:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 09:54 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 08:10 AM)esayem Wrote:  In the 30’s and beyond, I believe conference bundling will hit its ceiling and the repercussion of antiquated market adds will start affecting payouts, while singular large brands continue to increase their value. So we’ll be in a situation where it’s going to come down to unequal revenue sharing or solo deals. Solo deals with advanced technology allow more customization for the future sports fan.

Nope, because you can never make as much money when you move from a subsidized model to an unsubsidized one. It's simple math.

I mean, Disney has almost their whole library bundled on Disney+ and then they also bundle that together with other entertainment offerings Hulu and ESPN+--and still none of that is profitable.

So much of sports viewing (among those "large brands" you speak of) is casual viewers. For instance, I don't watch a lot of college basketball. But I do frequently watch UNC-Duke, because it is event viewing (just as in I don't watch a lot of golf but do watch Sunday of the Masters). But would I (and lots of other casual fans who watch now) subscribe to a UNC streaming service just to watch that game? Nope.

Disney? Who needs Disney when Notre Dame or USC go straight to consumer and incorporate students in media curriculum?

Disney, in a vacuum, wasn't the point. The point is streaming isn't profitable. Think about it this way:

RSNs were charging cable companies $2-$3 per subscriber. RSNs that have gone DTC are charging $20-$30 a month--or about 10x. ESPN (just ESPN--not ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, ACC Network, SEC Network) is $10 a month per cable subscriber. So, to maintain current profits that would be $100 a month for just ESPN content. I love sports, but I'm not paying that.

And the point is: right now, even though I don't watch much college basketball, I watch Duke-UNC because it's there on ESPN. I'm not, however, going to pay $20 a month, even for one month, to subscribe to a UNC Streaming service just to watch the game.

If you have 10 million-ish people watching The Game: how many of those are die-hard Michigan and Ohio State fans and how many of those are just casual viewers? I imagine if that game is only available on a Michigan Streaming service and an Ohio State Streaming service, that you have 1-2 million viewers tops.

Look what happened to boxing. In the 1970s and early 1980s, top boxing matches were huge events on network TV. the biggest biggest events were on closed circuit TV, on ABC on tape-delay

HBO and Showtime came in with wads of cash, and the biggest events moved to Pay Per View and subscription-only HBO and Showtime. They made a ton of money, but the audience stopped growing and started dwindling. Boxing lost its audience.

(11-19-2023 10:52 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 10:37 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 10:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 09:54 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 08:10 AM)esayem Wrote:  In the 30’s and beyond, I believe conference bundling will hit its ceiling and the repercussion of antiquated market adds will start affecting payouts, while singular large brands continue to increase their value. So we’ll be in a situation where it’s going to come down to unequal revenue sharing or solo deals. Solo deals with advanced technology allow more customization for the future sports fan.

Nope, because you can never make as much money when you move from a subsidized model to an unsubsidized one. It's simple math.

I mean, Disney has almost their whole library bundled on Disney+ and then they also bundle that together with other entertainment offerings Hulu and ESPN+--and still none of that is profitable.

So much of sports viewing (among those "large brands" you speak of) is casual viewers. For instance, I don't watch a lot of college basketball. But I do frequently watch UNC-Duke, because it is event viewing (just as in I don't watch a lot of golf but do watch Sunday of the Masters). But would I (and lots of other casual fans who watch now) subscribe to a UNC streaming service just to watch that game? Nope.

Disney? Who needs Disney when Notre Dame or USC go straight to consumer and incorporate students in media curriculum?

Disney, in a vacuum, wasn't the point. The point is streaming isn't profitable. Think about it this way:

RSNs were charging cable companies $2-$3 per subscriber. RSNs that have gone DTC are charging $20-$30 a month--or about 10x. ESPN (just ESPN--not ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, ACC Network, SEC Network) is $10 a month per cable subscriber. So, to maintain current profits that would be $100 a month for just ESPN content. I love sports, but I'm not paying that.

And the point is: right now, even though I don't watch much college basketball, I watch Duke-UNC because it's there on ESPN. I'm not, however, going to pay $20 a month, even for one month, to subscribe to a UNC Streaming service just to watch the game.

If you have 10 million-ish people watching The Game: how many of those are die-hard Michigan and Ohio State fans and how many of those are just casual viewers? I imagine if that game is only available on a Michigan Streaming service and an Ohio State Streaming service, that you have 1-2 million viewers tops.

Look what happened to boxing. In the 1970s and early 1980s, top boxing matches were huge events on network TV. the biggest biggest events were on closed circuit TV, on ABC on tape-delay

HBO and Showtime came in with wads of cash, and the biggest events moved to Pay Per View and subscription-only HBO and Showtime. They made a ton of money, but the audience stopped growing and started dwindling. Boxing lost its audience.

Boxing had a very generation specific fanbase. It seems college football does as well.

(11-19-2023 10:37 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 10:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 09:54 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 08:10 AM)esayem Wrote:  In the 30’s and beyond, I believe conference bundling will hit its ceiling and the repercussion of antiquated market adds will start affecting payouts, while singular large brands continue to increase their value. So we’ll be in a situation where it’s going to come down to unequal revenue sharing or solo deals. Solo deals with advanced technology allow more customization for the future sports fan.

Nope, because you can never make as much money when you move from a subsidized model to an unsubsidized one. It's simple math.

I mean, Disney has almost their whole library bundled on Disney+ and then they also bundle that together with other entertainment offerings Hulu and ESPN+--and still none of that is profitable.

So much of sports viewing (among those "large brands" you speak of) is casual viewers. For instance, I don't watch a lot of college basketball. But I do frequently watch UNC-Duke, because it is event viewing (just as in I don't watch a lot of golf but do watch Sunday of the Masters). But would I (and lots of other casual fans who watch now) subscribe to a UNC streaming service just to watch that game? Nope.

Disney? Who needs Disney when Notre Dame or USC go straight to consumer and incorporate students in media curriculum?

Disney, in a vacuum, wasn't the point. The point is streaming isn't profitable. Think about it this way:

RSNs were charging cable companies $2-$3 per subscriber. RSNs that have gone DTC are charging $20-$30 a month--or about 10x. ESPN (just ESPN--not ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, ACC Network, SEC Network) is $10 a month per cable subscriber. So, to maintain current profits that would be $100 a month for just ESPN content. I love sports, but I'm not paying that.

And the point is: right now, even though I don't watch much college basketball, I watch Duke-UNC because it's there on ESPN. I'm not, however, going to pay $20 a month, even for one month, to subscribe to a UNC Streaming service just to watch the game.

If you have 10 million-ish people watching The Game: how many of those are die-hard Michigan and Ohio State fans and how many of those are just casual viewers? I imagine if that game is only available on a Michigan Streaming service and an Ohio State Streaming service, that you have 1-2 million viewers tops.

Well I can tell you every bar-grill in the country will subscribe, so there is that.

Also, what's to prevent the Ohio State direct-to-consumer feed from being bundled with other apps/services? Think about how much money universities already spend on production costs. Cut out the middle man. As much as y'all reference corporations, this is exactly what they do!

(11-19-2023 10:37 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 10:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 09:54 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 08:10 AM)esayem Wrote:  In the 30’s and beyond, I believe conference bundling will hit its ceiling and the repercussion of antiquated market adds will start affecting payouts, while singular large brands continue to increase their value. So we’ll be in a situation where it’s going to come down to unequal revenue sharing or solo deals. Solo deals with advanced technology allow more customization for the future sports fan.

Nope, because you can never make as much money when you move from a subsidized model to an unsubsidized one. It's simple math.

I mean, Disney has almost their whole library bundled on Disney+ and then they also bundle that together with other entertainment offerings Hulu and ESPN+--and still none of that is profitable.

So much of sports viewing (among those "large brands" you speak of) is casual viewers. For instance, I don't watch a lot of college basketball. But I do frequently watch UNC-Duke, because it is event viewing (just as in I don't watch a lot of golf but do watch Sunday of the Masters). But would I (and lots of other casual fans who watch now) subscribe to a UNC streaming service just to watch that game? Nope.

Disney? Who needs Disney when Notre Dame or USC go straight to consumer and incorporate students in media curriculum?

Disney, in a vacuum, wasn't the point. The point is streaming isn't profitable. Think about it this way:

RSNs were charging cable companies $2-$3 per subscriber. RSNs that have gone DTC are charging $20-$30 a month--or about 10x. ESPN (just ESPN--not ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, ACC Network, SEC Network) is $10 a month per cable subscriber. So, to maintain current profits that would be $100 a month for just ESPN content. I love sports, but I'm not paying that.

And the point is: right now, even though I don't watch much college basketball, I watch Duke-UNC because it's there on ESPN. I'm not, however, going to pay $20 a month, even for one month, to subscribe to a UNC Streaming service just to watch the game.

If you have 10 million-ish people watching The Game: how many of those are die-hard Michigan and Ohio State fans and how many of those are just casual viewers? I imagine if that game is only available on a Michigan Streaming service and an Ohio State Streaming service, that you have 1-2 million viewers tops.

Exactly.

The big money in sports is not about people like us here as the die-hard college sports fans.

Instead, the big money in sports is about the random person in New York City or some other valuable market that receives higher advertiser and affiliate fee rates (or where the network actually owns and operates stations) that watches NFL games but not a regular college sports viewer but will turn on Michigan-Ohio State football or UNC-Duke basketball because it’s an event.

Don’t people see it? THAT is what conference realignment is all about. It’s not about targeting and maximizing the revenue from Ohio State and Alabama die-hards, but rather the 15 million-plus casual sports fans that turn on Ohio State-Michigan or Alabama-Auburn. The LAST thing that’s going to happen is a disaggregation of selling those brands. If anything, we’re way more likely to see all of those brands getting together and selling Super League than them ever going to independent TV deals.

I know a LOT of people outside of the Big Ten and SEC want to see what they’re doing backfire… but it’s not going to backfire financially. The people that matter aren’t the die-hard Alabama fans in Tuscaloosa that will pay anything to watch their team every week, but rather the random New York Giants fan living in the Bronx that watches a handful of major college football games per year. THAT is where the money is and inherently can’t be tied to a model based on individual subscriptions.