(11-19-2023 11:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 11:28 AM)esayem 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:  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!

That’s called a conference.

Look - I get it. You don’t want UNC to get subsumed into the Borg of the Big Ten or SEC, so you’re trying to see some path where those leagues are effectively broken apart (if not competitively, then at least financially). That’s just not where the world is heading. You’re thinking about direct-to-consumer and every sports team owning their own individual service and “cutting out the middle man” is 2019 thinking. We’ve now seen what that model looks like in reality… and no one that actually depends on large broad-based audiences likes it and it’s straight up losing them money.

Every entertainment company started their own streaming service because they wanted to cut out the middle man of Netflix. That was outwardly the goal of every single entertainment company CEO: they ALL wanted to be Netflix. What they’re now finding is that there might be space for Netflix and maybe one or two other platforms with their reach… and everyone else will need to consolidate or die.

Once again, look at what Warner JUST did with DC movies and HBO shows in licensing them to Netflix again. Warner actually has one of the better performing streaming platforms with Max and they’re STILL finding out that it’s more profitable to go to the middle man of Netflix at the end of the day.

The middle man is actually more important than ever. Amazon is the ultimate middle man just like Walmart and Target have long been the middle man. I think you’re underestimating how much consumers value simplicity and a streamlined platform.

The paradox of the history of the Internet is that, on paper, it seems so easy to has low barriers to entry and would seem to be an equal marketplace where middle men are eliminated and anyone can directly sell to billions of people in their homes and then later via mobile truly anywhere that any person is located in the world.

Yet, what has instead happened is that the Internet has created the most powerful and wealthiest middlemen in the history of the world: Google for search, Amazon for consumer products, Apple and Android for mobile, YouTube and now TikTok for video, Facebook for social media, Uber and Lyft for ride sharing, etc. All of these firms had a ton of competition (even super well-financed competition like Microsoft in several of these areas) and even lower prices in a lot of instances… yet the problem a lot of business people and investors didn’t understand for far too long that people don’t *want* to have to choose between dozens of different choices to get what they’re looking for.

That has been the irony of the Internet: too *much* choice paralyzes consumers. So, they have ended up going to a handful of places that aggregate all of that together: the most powerful companies in the world are PURE middlemen.

Streaming is merely another Internet industry. Netflix will surely survive. Amazon will survive because it’s tied to the Prime service that people need for ordering other things. Disney probably survives because it’s the one entertainment company that is a brand itself. Everything else is at risk (and we’re talking about behemoths like Comcast and Warner, much less individual teams attempting to go to market alone).

Not even the NFL, the one league that could conceivably go it alone direct to market, wants to do that anymore. It wants to sell all of its network and digital assets because it simply makes so much more money selling its content to the networks and Amazon and Google (for Sunday Ticket) than doing it alone. That should be instructive to the Big Ten and SEC and their individual members as they certainly don’t have more market power than the NFL.

I get it, you don’t want to see Illinois pushed out of their role as a barnacle on the Big Ten barge. See what I did there? This isn’t about Carolina or Illinois. I’m looking outside of my fandom at the big picture, and what I see is declining demographics for 1) people that pay for cable 2) people that care about general college football games 3) people that are happy with the status quo of the same old sports tv experience.

People here like to think we’ll end up with some stagnant super league or leagues and then be set for the future. Well, I don’t believe that for one instant. Everything changes. College sports are the most dynamic of any sports package. 25 years ago do you think you’d believe people saying UCF won a national title?

And I love that everyone ignored FOX straight up NOT paying UO and UW a full share. So while ND is striking independent deals which double their current paycheck, we are seeing the cracks on the Big Ten’s foundation.

(11-19-2023 12:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 11:28 AM)esayem 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:  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?

You just championed unbundling. PAckaging Ohio State athletics with Purdue and Indiana athletics has a lot more synergy than packaging it with Batman and the Powerpuff Girls, or with JAne Austen adaptations or the Fast and the Furious movies.

Quote:Think about how much money universities already spend on production costs.

A drop in the bucket really, compared to the scale of what happens to sports media rights without the bundle. You're not going to produce revolutionary cost savings by dumping the ESPN and Fox and conference network crews and replacing them with grad students. (And even grad students might figure out that you're training them and giving them "experience" in a field with no jobs, because all the work gets done by the next crop of grad students)

Think of it this way: TV production costs are a meaningful line item in the Ohio University athletic budget. In the Ohio State athletic budget, not so much.

Packaging the Ohio State app with the Michigan app, Notre Dame app, and the USC app sounds a lot better than a bundle with Purdue and Indiana.

The evolution I’m talking about is just a logical next step in what we are seeing already happen. ND is showing us the way once the bottom falls out.

(11-19-2023 05:45 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 11:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 11:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

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

(11-19-2023 10:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  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!

That’s called a conference.

Look - I get it. You don’t want UNC to get subsumed into the Borg of the Big Ten or SEC, so you’re trying to see some path where those leagues are effectively broken apart (if not competitively, then at least financially). That’s just not where the world is heading. You’re thinking about direct-to-consumer and every sports team owning their own individual service and “cutting out the middle man” is 2019 thinking. We’ve now seen what that model looks like in reality… and no one that actually depends on large broad-based audiences likes it and it’s straight up losing them money.

Every entertainment company started their own streaming service because they wanted to cut out the middle man of Netflix. That was outwardly the goal of every single entertainment company CEO: they ALL wanted to be Netflix. What they’re now finding is that there might be space for Netflix and maybe one or two other platforms with their reach… and everyone else will need to consolidate or die.

Once again, look at what Warner JUST did with DC movies and HBO shows in licensing them to Netflix again. Warner actually has one of the better performing streaming platforms with Max and they’re STILL finding out that it’s more profitable to go to the middle man of Netflix at the end of the day.

The middle man is actually more important than ever. Amazon is the ultimate middle man just like Walmart and Target have long been the middle man. I think you’re underestimating how much consumers value simplicity and a streamlined platform.

The paradox of the history of the Internet is that, on paper, it seems so easy to has low barriers to entry and would seem to be an equal marketplace where middle men are eliminated and anyone can directly sell to billions of people in their homes and then later via mobile truly anywhere that any person is located in the world.

Yet, what has instead happened is that the Internet has created the most powerful and wealthiest middlemen in the history of the world: Google for search, Amazon for consumer products, Apple and Android for mobile, YouTube and now TikTok for video, Facebook for social media, Uber and Lyft for ride sharing, etc. All of these firms had a ton of competition (even super well-financed competition like Microsoft in several of these areas) and even lower prices in a lot of instances… yet the problem a lot of business people and investors didn’t understand for far too long that people don’t *want* to have to choose between dozens of different choices to get what they’re looking for.

That has been the irony of the Internet: too *much* choice paralyzes consumers. So, they have ended up going to a handful of places that aggregate all of that together: the most powerful companies in the world are PURE middlemen.

Streaming is merely another Internet industry. Netflix will surely survive. Amazon will survive because it’s tied to the Prime service that people need for ordering other things. Disney probably survives because it’s the one entertainment company that is a brand itself. Everything else is at risk (and we’re talking about behemoths like Comcast and Warner, much less individual teams attempting to go to market alone).

Not even the NFL, the one league that could conceivably go it alone direct to market, wants to do that anymore. It wants to sell all of its network and digital assets because it simply makes so much more money selling its content to the networks and Amazon and Google (for Sunday Ticket) than doing it alone. That should be instructive to the Big Ten and SEC and their individual members as they certainly don’t have more market power than the NFL.

I get it, you don’t want to see Illinois pushed out of their role as a barnacle on the Big Ten barge. See what I did there? This isn’t about Carolina or Illinois. I’m looking outside of my fandom at the big picture, and what I see is declining demographics for 1) people that pay for cable 2) people that care about general college football games 3) people that are happy with the status quo of the same old sports tv experience.

People here like to think we’ll end up with some stagnant super league or leagues and then be set for the future. Well, I don’t believe that for one instance. Everything changes. College sports are the most dynamic of any sports package. 25 years ago do you think you’d believe people saying UCF won a national title?

And I love that everyone ignored FOX straight up NOT paying UO and UW a full share. So, while ND is striking independent deals which double their current paycheck, we are seeing the cracks on the Big Ten’s foundation.

Uhm, Esayem, The Big 10 is a barge with two solid engines, and decent sail, an oar they just acquired along with a couple of rowers, and an oyster which hasn't produced a pearl in quite some time, and of course the 11 barnacles they already had.

(11-19-2023 11:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Look - I get it. You don’t want UNC to get subsumed into the Borg of the Big Ten or SEC, but...

This pretty much means re-alignment is done until 2030-ish.

I think the B1G and SEC are gonna wanna play out with their new teams before expanding again.

(11-19-2023 05:45 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 11:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 11:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

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

(11-19-2023 10:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  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!

That’s called a conference.

Look - I get it. You don’t want UNC to get subsumed into the Borg of the Big Ten or SEC, so you’re trying to see some path where those leagues are effectively broken apart (if not competitively, then at least financially). That’s just not where the world is heading. You’re thinking about direct-to-consumer and every sports team owning their own individual service and “cutting out the middle man” is 2019 thinking. We’ve now seen what that model looks like in reality… and no one that actually depends on large broad-based audiences likes it and it’s straight up losing them money.

Every entertainment company started their own streaming service because they wanted to cut out the middle man of Netflix. That was outwardly the goal of every single entertainment company CEO: they ALL wanted to be Netflix. What they’re now finding is that there might be space for Netflix and maybe one or two other platforms with their reach… and everyone else will need to consolidate or die.

Once again, look at what Warner JUST did with DC movies and HBO shows in licensing them to Netflix again. Warner actually has one of the better performing streaming platforms with Max and they’re STILL finding out that it’s more profitable to go to the middle man of Netflix at the end of the day.

The middle man is actually more important than ever. Amazon is the ultimate middle man just like Walmart and Target have long been the middle man. I think you’re underestimating how much consumers value simplicity and a streamlined platform.

The paradox of the history of the Internet is that, on paper, it seems so easy to has low barriers to entry and would seem to be an equal marketplace where middle men are eliminated and anyone can directly sell to billions of people in their homes and then later via mobile truly anywhere that any person is located in the world.

Yet, what has instead happened is that the Internet has created the most powerful and wealthiest middlemen in the history of the world: Google for search, Amazon for consumer products, Apple and Android for mobile, YouTube and now TikTok for video, Facebook for social media, Uber and Lyft for ride sharing, etc. All of these firms had a ton of competition (even super well-financed competition like Microsoft in several of these areas) and even lower prices in a lot of instances… yet the problem a lot of business people and investors didn’t understand for far too long that people don’t *want* to have to choose between dozens of different choices to get what they’re looking for.

That has been the irony of the Internet: too *much* choice paralyzes consumers. So, they have ended up going to a handful of places that aggregate all of that together: the most powerful companies in the world are PURE middlemen.

Streaming is merely another Internet industry. Netflix will surely survive. Amazon will survive because it’s tied to the Prime service that people need for ordering other things. Disney probably survives because it’s the one entertainment company that is a brand itself. Everything else is at risk (and we’re talking about behemoths like Comcast and Warner, much less individual teams attempting to go to market alone).

Not even the NFL, the one league that could conceivably go it alone direct to market, wants to do that anymore. It wants to sell all of its network and digital assets because it simply makes so much more money selling its content to the networks and Amazon and Google (for Sunday Ticket) than doing it alone. That should be instructive to the Big Ten and SEC and their individual members as they certainly don’t have more market power than the NFL.

I get it, you don’t want to see Illinois pushed out of their role as a barnacle on the Big Ten barge. See what I did there? This isn’t about Carolina or Illinois. I’m looking outside of my fandom at the big picture, and what I see is declining demographics for 1) people that pay for cable 2) people that care about general college football games 3) people that are happy with the status quo of the same old sports tv experience.

People here like to think we’ll end up with some stagnant super league or leagues and then be set for the future. Well, I don’t believe that for one instant. Everything changes. College sports are the most dynamic of any sports package. 25 years ago do you think you’d believe people saying UCF won a national title?

And I love that everyone ignored FOX straight up NOT paying UO and UW a full share. So while ND is striking independent deals which double their current paycheck, we are seeing the cracks on the Big Ten’s foundation.

Not commenting on the rest of your post, but this particular section has problems. UW and UO didn't get a full share b/c they were invited a year after the contract was signed. They were lucky to get offered anything at all. CBS didn't pay the SEC ANYTHING for A&M and Missouri b/c we joined during an existing contract and they weren't obligated to do so. The B1G contract only had a clause if ND joined. Fox and the rest could have said "we won't pay one cent more for any schools other than ND" and they'd have been within their rights. I suspect that the only reason they were willing to paying anything at all was that the B1G has such a short contract that will be up for renewal in just a few short years. They saw what happened between CBS and the SEC, and they didn't want to be next.

Matt Brown was told by at least one source that UW/UO would have been slightly additive to the B1G if they'd joined in summer 2022. If the B1G thought that they would be a drain on resources starting in 2029, they wouldn't have invited them to join.

(11-19-2023 06:06 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  This pretty much means re-alignment is done until 2030-ish.

I think the B1G and SEC are gonna wanna play out with their new teams before expanding again.

I actually do, too. The reason FSU is kicking up so much dust right now is that they realize their best shot at getting out early is getting the SEC to really WANT them sooner rather than later. What's a good way to do that? Get Sankey thinking that the B1G is a realistic possibility. Sankey can't even get 14 teams to agree to add a 9th Conference game, and it's only gonna get harder to run the SEC with 2 more schools that are used to getting their way coming on board. I'm highly confident that, barring a ND or B1G Brand phone call, Sankey would like to spend a few years digesting our latest meal. But he's also not going to sit back and watch the B1G waltz into Tallahassee and take the best ACC program out there, either.

(11-19-2023 06:10 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 05:45 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 11:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 11:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

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

That’s called a conference.

Look - I get it. You don’t want UNC to get subsumed into the Borg of the Big Ten or SEC, so you’re trying to see some path where those leagues are effectively broken apart (if not competitively, then at least financially). That’s just not where the world is heading. You’re thinking about direct-to-consumer and every sports team owning their own individual service and “cutting out the middle man” is 2019 thinking. We’ve now seen what that model looks like in reality… and no one that actually depends on large broad-based audiences likes it and it’s straight up losing them money.

Every entertainment company started their own streaming service because they wanted to cut out the middle man of Netflix. That was outwardly the goal of every single entertainment company CEO: they ALL wanted to be Netflix. What they’re now finding is that there might be space for Netflix and maybe one or two other platforms with their reach… and everyone else will need to consolidate or die.

Once again, look at what Warner JUST did with DC movies and HBO shows in licensing them to Netflix again. Warner actually has one of the better performing streaming platforms with Max and they’re STILL finding out that it’s more profitable to go to the middle man of Netflix at the end of the day.

The middle man is actually more important than ever. Amazon is the ultimate middle man just like Walmart and Target have long been the middle man. I think you’re underestimating how much consumers value simplicity and a streamlined platform.

The paradox of the history of the Internet is that, on paper, it seems so easy to has low barriers to entry and would seem to be an equal marketplace where middle men are eliminated and anyone can directly sell to billions of people in their homes and then later via mobile truly anywhere that any person is located in the world.

Yet, what has instead happened is that the Internet has created the most powerful and wealthiest middlemen in the history of the world: Google for search, Amazon for consumer products, Apple and Android for mobile, YouTube and now TikTok for video, Facebook for social media, Uber and Lyft for ride sharing, etc. All of these firms had a ton of competition (even super well-financed competition like Microsoft in several of these areas) and even lower prices in a lot of instances… yet the problem a lot of business people and investors didn’t understand for far too long that people don’t *want* to have to choose between dozens of different choices to get what they’re looking for.

That has been the irony of the Internet: too *much* choice paralyzes consumers. So, they have ended up going to a handful of places that aggregate all of that together: the most powerful companies in the world are PURE middlemen.

Streaming is merely another Internet industry. Netflix will surely survive. Amazon will survive because it’s tied to the Prime service that people need for ordering other things. Disney probably survives because it’s the one entertainment company that is a brand itself. Everything else is at risk (and we’re talking about behemoths like Comcast and Warner, much less individual teams attempting to go to market alone).

Not even the NFL, the one league that could conceivably go it alone direct to market, wants to do that anymore. It wants to sell all of its network and digital assets because it simply makes so much more money selling its content to the networks and Amazon and Google (for Sunday Ticket) than doing it alone. That should be instructive to the Big Ten and SEC and their individual members as they certainly don’t have more market power than the NFL.

I get it, you don’t want to see Illinois pushed out of their role as a barnacle on the Big Ten barge. See what I did there? This isn’t about Carolina or Illinois. I’m looking outside of my fandom at the big picture, and what I see is declining demographics for 1) people that pay for cable 2) people that care about general college football games 3) people that are happy with the status quo of the same old sports tv experience.

People here like to think we’ll end up with some stagnant super league or leagues and then be set for the future. Well, I don’t believe that for one instant. Everything changes. College sports are the most dynamic of any sports package. 25 years ago do you think you’d believe people saying UCF won a national title?

And I love that everyone ignored FOX straight up NOT paying UO and UW a full share. So while ND is striking independent deals which double their current paycheck, we are seeing the cracks on the Big Ten’s foundation.

Not commenting on the rest of your post, but this particular section has problems. UW and UO didn't get a full share b/c they were invited a year after the contract was signed. They were lucky to get offered anything at all. CBS didn't pay the SEC ANYTHING for A&M and Missouri b/c we joined during an existing contract and they weren't obligated to do so. The B1G contract only had a clause if ND joined. Fox and the rest could have said "we won't pay one cent more for any schools other than ND" and they'd have been within their rights. I suspect that the only reason they were willing to paying anything at all was that the B1G has such a short contract that will be up for renewal in just a few short years. They saw what happened between CBS and the SEC, and they didn't want to be next.

Matt Brown was told by at least one source that UW/UO would have been slightly additive to the B1G if they'd joined in summer 2022. If the B1G thought that they would be a drain on resources starting in 2029, they wouldn't have invited them to join.

So you want me to believe if Notre Dame joined they would be getting the same deal as UO/UW?

(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.

Your 17M number is from 2022, when the ACC Network was only 6 months at full Distro (90M)

this year expect 19-20M maybe more.... Then bump up again when SMU/Calford join the ACC as the ACC Network will get "in-state" rate in those two state.... I would say 25M in ACC Network plus the 50M from NBC for a cool 75M

(11-19-2023 05:51 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 12:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 11:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

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

(11-19-2023 10:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  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?

You just championed unbundling. PAckaging Ohio State athletics with Purdue and Indiana athletics has a lot more synergy than packaging it with Batman and the Powerpuff Girls, or with JAne Austen adaptations or the Fast and the Furious movies.

Quote:Think about how much money universities already spend on production costs.

A drop in the bucket really, compared to the scale of what happens to sports media rights without the bundle. You're not going to produce revolutionary cost savings by dumping the ESPN and Fox and conference network crews and replacing them with grad students. (And even grad students might figure out that you're training them and giving them "experience" in a field with no jobs, because all the work gets done by the next crop of grad students)

Think of it this way: TV production costs are a meaningful line item in the Ohio University athletic budget. In the Ohio State athletic budget, not so much.

Packaging the Ohio State app with the Michigan app, Notre Dame app, and the USC app sounds a lot better than a bundle with Purdue and Indiana.

The evolution I’m talking about is just a logical next step in what we are seeing already happen. ND is showing us the way once the bottom falls out.

OK, it sounded like you were talking about independent schools being the wave of the future.

A superleague of the Georgias, Michigans, Ohio STates, USC and Texas and 15-20 friends, leaving behind the Purdues and mississippi States is definitely viable.

(11-19-2023 01:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I am curious to see the details including

1. Financial terms
2. How many games on Peacock (I sense more ND games would be on Peacock)
3. required number of ND/B10 match ups if any

This ND student paper article says the NBC deal provides:

1) $50 million a year;

2) One Peacock game per year (same as current deal);

3) Nothing on this yet, if at all.



https://ndsmcobserver.com/2023/11/notre-...ough-2029/

Quote:Given its national fan base, Notre Dame prefers a consistent 3:30 p.m. kickoff that can be flexed to prime time for big games.

I sense a lot of flexing will be going on.

(11-20-2023 08:17 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

Quote:Given its national fan base, Notre Dame prefers a consistent 3:30 p.m. kickoff that can be flexed to prime time for big games.

I sense a lot of flexing will be going on.

I think you'll see less flexing than in the past. In the past, flexing Notre Dame Wisconsin (or whatever) to prime time was a fairly simple negotiation with NBC, Notre Dame, the opponent, maybe the neutral-site venue.

Now, flexing (checking fbschedules Notre Dame 2026) Michigan STate @ South Bend to a night game involves NBC, Notre Dame, Michigan STate, PLUS the Big Ten (NBC Big Ten night game is scheduled in that spot normally), a couple of Big Ten teams, CBS (if you want to move the NBC Big Ten game to the afternoon slot, that infringes on CBS' Big Ten game). And once all of those moving parts have been moved around the board, you might have to talk to Fox about the implications of the solutions on Fox's Big Ten Big Noon game.

Some of those players maybe don't have veto power per the contract, but you want to keep people happy if you can.

(11-19-2023 08:11 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 05:51 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 12:32 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 11:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

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

You just championed unbundling. PAckaging Ohio State athletics with Purdue and Indiana athletics has a lot more synergy than packaging it with Batman and the Powerpuff Girls, or with JAne Austen adaptations or the Fast and the Furious movies.

Quote:Think about how much money universities already spend on production costs.

A drop in the bucket really, compared to the scale of what happens to sports media rights without the bundle. You're not going to produce revolutionary cost savings by dumping the ESPN and Fox and conference network crews and replacing them with grad students. (And even grad students might figure out that you're training them and giving them "experience" in a field with no jobs, because all the work gets done by the next crop of grad students)

Think of it this way: TV production costs are a meaningful line item in the Ohio University athletic budget. In the Ohio State athletic budget, not so much.

Packaging the Ohio State app with the Michigan app, Notre Dame app, and the USC app sounds a lot better than a bundle with Purdue and Indiana.

The evolution I’m talking about is just a logical next step in what we are seeing already happen. ND is showing us the way once the bottom falls out.

OK, it sounded like you were talking about independent schools being the wave of the future.

A superleague of the Georgias, Michigans, Ohio STates, USC and Texas and 15-20 friends, leaving behind the Purdues and mississippi States is definitely viable.

Yes - I actually agree that there are financial forces that could create a Super League and all of those schools aggregate their content together. What I don’t buy is that there will be a reversion to independent TV deals - that simply isn’t where either the sports or overall entertainment industries are moving to at all (and streaming doesn’t change that at all).

I think the easy solution if NBC wants to schedule Notre Dame in prime time is to switch with CBS for the week. CBS has aired at least one SEC game in prime time each season and aired Iowa/Penn State in prime time vs. Ohio State/Notre Dame this season. Now that week CBS got clobbered head to head so CBS as well as the Big Ten might hesitate if they are put in that situation again. On the other hand, if there's a big Notre Dame game, CBS is going to get slaughtered no matter what, it's only a matter of when they get slaughtered. If NBC wants to air Toledo-Notre Dame in prime time, CBS will gladly switch and laugh all the way to the bank when they get mega viewers in prime time rather than 3:30pm. NBC of course won't be that stupid. Also, NBC aired Big Ten games at 3:30pm ET the two weeks they aired Notre Dame in prime time this year. By contrast, NBC switching slots with FOX would force them to air a game at noon, there's no precedent for NBC to air a noon game plus it leaves a big gap before the prime time Notre Dame game. In addition, FOX also loses the ability for its pregame show to lead into the "Big Nooner".

Look for Florida State-Notre Dame November 9, 2024 as the test case. Will there be a CBS-NBC switch or will NBC just air it in mid afternoon? Washington at Penn State is the same day. You can make the case that UW-PSU is just as strong a prime time game for NBC and NBC could just take that as their prime time game and let FSU-ND be at 3:30pm.

Correct me if I'm wrong here....

In the past (20 years ago or whatever), Notre Dame made more media money than every other program. Isn't that right?

Now there are going to be about 30 programs making more money than Notre Dame and this contract will keep them in the ballpark pf those 30 others, isn't that correct?

If so, let's temper the celebration for ND. Independence is dead. Notre Dame just will be the last one standing.

What this contract really does is give the middle finger to both FSU and Clemson and the rest of the ACC. 2036 is a looong way off.

(11-19-2023 08:40 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(11-19-2023 01:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I am curious to see the details including

1. Financial terms
2. How many games on Peacock (I sense more ND games would be on Peacock)
3. required number of ND/B10 match ups if any

This ND student paper article says the NBC deal provides:

1) $50 million a year;

2) One Peacock game per year (same as current deal);

3) Nothing on this yet, if at all.



https://ndsmcobserver.com/2023/11/notre-...ough-2029/

As always, Notre Dame continues to get a great deal based upon the value it continues to bring with the audience and viewership. And it is a short-term deal, which means they will be up for a new one (again) before the ACC deal ends.

(11-20-2023 08:59 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I think the easy solution if NBC wants to schedule Notre Dame in prime time is to switch with CBS for the week. CBS has aired at least one SEC game in prime time each season and aired Iowa/Penn State in prime time vs. Ohio State/Notre Dame this season. Now that week CBS got clobbered head to head so CBS as well as the Big Ten might hesitate if they are put in that situation again. On the other hand, if there's a big Notre Dame game, CBS is going to get slaughtered no matter what, it's only a matter of when they get slaughtered. If NBC wants to air Toledo-Notre Dame in prime time, CBS will gladly switch and laugh all the way to the bank when they get mega viewers in prime time rather than 3:30pm. NBC of course won't be that stupid. Also, NBC aired Big Ten games at 3:30pm ET the two weeks they aired Notre Dame in prime time this year. By contrast, NBC switching slots with FOX would force them to air a game at noon, there's no precedent for NBC to air a noon game plus it leaves a big gap before the prime time Notre Dame game. In addition, FOX also loses the ability for its pregame show to lead into the "Big Nooner".

Look for Florida State-Notre Dame November 9, 2024 as the test case. Will there be a CBS-NBC switch or will NBC just air it in mid afternoon? Washington at Penn State is the same day. You can make the case that UW-PSU is just as strong a prime time game for NBC and NBC could just take that as their prime time game and let FSU-ND be at 3:30pm.

I think this year’s schedule set the precedent of NBC slotting 1 to 2 ND prime time games per year (which is likely the most that ND would want, anyway) and they’ll just swap with CBS on those dates.

(11-20-2023 09:04 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong here....

In the past (20 years ago or whatever), Notre Dame made more media money than every other program. Isn't that right?

Now there are going to be about 30 programs making more money than Notre Dame and this contract will keep them in the ballpark pf those 30 others, isn't that correct?

If so, let's temper the celebration for ND. Independence is dead. Notre Dame just will be the last one standing.

What this contract really does is give the middle finger to both FSU and Clemson and the rest of the ACC. 2036 is a looong way off.

Every Big Ten school has made more than ND since the creation of the BTN (16 years ago).

(11-20-2023 09:04 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong here....

In the past (20 years ago or whatever), Notre Dame made more media money than every other program. Isn't that right?

I don't think so. I think Notre Dame hasn't topped the money list since the SEC - ESPN - SEC NEtwork deal.

Quote:If so, let's temper the celebration for ND. Independence is dead. Notre Dame just will be the last one standing.

Not sure those two don't go together.