Conference Realignment

cpf2001

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
789
I agree with all this. Except, I think the move away from cable will accelerate and then basically come to a screeching halt. I think we're 30 years from cable programming going away completely.
I think that’s true, I think there’s a certain amount of attrition that will only happen through natural causes, as it were. No reason for ESPN and all to STOP putting sports on those channels too for people, just have to find a profitable way to move away from exclusivity.

Honestly it could be good for ESPN and by extension the ACC (and SEC) - the B1G/Fox/NBC are all fairly behind on their digital stuff in comparison with Disney, and is much more of a one-league-show.

I don’t think it could be good for the ACC without being also good for the SEC, which is fine I guess, but I’m getting increasingly hesitant about the Big 10 strategy the more I look into the numbers.

(There’s probably a scenario where that “national footprint” idea for the B1G works out, though. Maybe a GT addition doesn’t bring a ton of new subscribers today in a direct to consumer streaming package, but if you want to be THE league, you have to plan for growth too. You gotta get more handholds in more population centers where you can grow your audience. It’s not about how many new subcriber GT brings today, it’s about total subscriber potential in ten, twenty years vs not expanding.)
 

g0lftime

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,391
While I agree with this, I think that that future is further out than most think. We tend to be technophiles around here, so we older folk tend to be more akin to the younger people when it comes to technology. However, there are a vast majority of people still on cable and will stay on cable for a good while longer. That is important to the B1G and their short and long-term goals regarding expansion and the TV revenue.
Some of us currently live in semi-remote areas with limited bandwidth. I came close to cord cutting recently when I had a problem with Spectrum but I have no other option where I live. If I had fiber BW I would likely be cutting as I don't like Spectrum. I am getting a lot of channels I really don't watch. I had to get another level in order to get the ACCN so I am paying a lot for stuff I don't usually watch. I have 4 TV's BTW. Most people I know who cut the cord are trying to save money.
 

UgaBlows

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,369
Our viewership numbers are 4th in the ACC through some very bad years. So take our normal viewership (Which WILL improve with better results) plus all the BIG fans and alumni in the Atlanta area, that is going to equal a LOT of money in increased subscriptions, and subscription cost increases for the BIG- whether it’s cable, satellite or streaming. I’m not so sure anyone else in the ACC can even come close to what we have to offer in that regard. Add in our AUC membership, and the possible attraction of getting more deep South recruiting exposure for Northern schools I believe our chances of getting another chance at membership is very underrated by almost everyone.
 

yeti92

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,592
Some of us currently live in semi-remote areas with limited bandwidth. I came close to cord cutting recently when I had a problem with Spectrum but I have no other option where I live. If I had fiber BW I would likely be cutting as I don't like Spectrum. I am getting a lot of channels I really don't watch. I had to get another level in order to get the ACCN so I am paying a lot for stuff I don't usually watch. I have 4 TV's BTW. Most people I know who cut the cord are trying to save money.
The problem I've seen with cutting the cord is that everybody now wants a piece of the cord cutting pie, so nobody has everything and you end up paying $15/month to Netflix, $15 to Hulu, $10 to NBC/Peacock, $X to Youtube TV, $Y to ESPN/Disney, or Amazon Prime, etc. and end up nearly back where you were on cost. Sure now you can stream most of the content when you want vs having to watch what's on at the moment, but a lot of the cable providers have streaming options already too, and a lot of the streaming services are still showing you ads or making you buy a bundle of stuff where you don't want most of it.
 

cpf2001

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
789
From what I've seen of the under-30 crowd nowdays, they're where the real change is: they don't *want* to have all of Hulu/Peacock/TV/Disney/Amazon/Paramount/whoever to fully replace their cable bundle. They didn't grow up on the cable bundle the same way I did. They have random whoevers on Youtube/Instagram/TikTok/Snap/Twitch where we had background-noise-sports or background-noise-news or background-noise-HGTV.

I'm in between, I don't pay for all the streaming stuff at the same time, it depends on what shows premiere when. Comes out cheaper than my old cable bundle, even accounting for the 5 or six months a year I add in Youtube TV for sports. I think this is probably true for a lot of the 30-to-50 crowd - how true this is is what will determine how fast there's a tipping point. If it was all ala carte GT was bad would you drop ESPN in late October? Even if not, would you keep paying for the Big10 if GT was in the ACC and bad in a given year? Or would you just keep them all on in the background all year because it's annoying to try to micromanage? I think "just leave it all signed up year round" is going to be pretty common, but I don't think it's nearly as lucrative as ESPN/Big10's current cable deals.

But in 20 years when the under-30s who don't even have big cable on the radar are the under-50s? Yikes!
 

4shotB

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
4,628
Fortunately, @CuseJacket hasn't erected a Swarm paywall.
I have a great aversion to paying for something that I have come to expect to be free. I left another Tech message board on account of this. Although, to be completely honest, I have purchased a bottle of water on more than one occassion. Something my grandpa would have never done. He would've rather died of thirst.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,047
I have a great aversion to paying for something that I have come to expect to be free. I left another Tech message board on account of this. Although, to be completely honest, I have purchased a bottle of water on more than one occassion. Something my grandpa would have never done. He would've rather died of thirst.
I remember when cable got started - swore I would never pay for TV. Finally caved in '93.
Swore I'd never buy blackberries in the store, but did that, too, once.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,047
And phones have only gotten more expensive since then!
Never had one of the non-edible blackberries. One might charitably call me "old school".
But back to the "B1G expansion?" - I'm happy Tech is safely tucked away in the ACC for the rest of the decade because right now, it might be the best we can hope for.
If in the future Tech is unfortunate enough to be left out of a power conference, I see an independent redux in our future. I'd vastly prefer that to the Sun Belt.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,942
Our viewership numbers are 4th in the ACC through some very bad years. So take our normal viewership (Which WILL improve with better results) plus all the BIG fans and alumni in the Atlanta area, that is going to equal a LOT of money in increased subscriptions, and subscription cost increases for the BIG- whether it’s cable, satellite or streaming. I’m not so sure anyone else in the ACC can even come close to what we have to offer in that regard. Add in our AUC membership, and the possible attraction of getting more deep South recruiting exposure for Northern schools I believe our chances of getting another chance at membership is very underrated by almost everyone.
Major purchase decisions always have valuation on up and downside potential.
You pointed out the upside of winning for viewer ship and fan support in ATL.

We have done this well inspite of alumni donating for decades like they are broke. Winning will bring higher donations. In Batt we trust

Gt is well thought in most of usa. I often àsk a osu or alabama fan " since your team always wins and you know that, would you consider make Gt your underdog favorite team. They know we have uphill battle ( academics, tech curriculum, small) but are a tough out. Generally get agreement.

Angel working on ways to be competitive at getting a few stud players (without destroying our reputation) is another possibility of long term athletic improvement.



Imo, we have a lot of up side if Angel and Batt perform.
I hope the tv guys agree.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,620
Makes one wonder about Texas and Oklahoma and what the fine print said on their move.

Also, does TV money trump GOR?

Is ESPN basically running college football now? Does the NCAA even exist?

How many colleges have high-minded presidents who will not sacrifice their institutions academic integrity for TV money?

So many questions and unknowns.
 

RamblinRed

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
5,726
The e-gaming stuff is interesting and wouldn't surprise me in the long term.

My son, who turned 20 this week, has very little interest in traditional sports. But he has alot of interest in gaming.
He might go to a football or basketball game with me if I take him just to spend time with me, but I don't see him ever getting season tickets (heck even single game tickets) to a professional or college sporting event. Just doesn't interest him.

My 29 yr old daughter and son-in-law also do not have season tickets and don't really have an interest to do so. They probably like Soccer the best of any of the traditional sports and hockey funnily enough a little. They will go to a handful of Atlanta United games each year. Might take in one college football and/or basketball game a year.

It does certainly feel anecdotally that as the boomers (and Gen X) age there is going to come a point where the interest and money for some of these sports may not be there to support the current funding levels. Just a matter of how far in the future that is. Still might be 20 years away, but it is likely coming.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
10,799
The e-gaming stuff is interesting and wouldn't surprise me in the long term.

My son, who turned 20 this week, has very little interest in traditional sports. But he has alot of interest in gaming.
He might go to a football or basketball game with me if I take him just to spend time with me, but I don't see him ever getting season tickets (heck even single game tickets) to a professional or college sporting event. Just doesn't interest him.

My 29 yr old daughter and son-in-law also do not have season tickets and don't really have an interest to do so. They probably like Soccer the best of any of the traditional sports and hockey funnily enough a little. They will go to a handful of Atlanta United games each year. Might take in one college football and/or basketball game a year.

It does certainly feel anecdotally that as the boomers (and Gen X) age there is going to come a point where the interest and money for some of these sports may not be there to support the current funding levels. Just a matter of how far in the future that is. Still might be 20 years away, but it is likely coming.
It will come gradually, then suddenly.

My kids weren’t (and aren’t) very interested in anything other than the sports they were playing. All day Switch tournaments get their attention, though. Even XBox is in trouble. There’s a generational shift coming.

You can already see the effects on mainstream TV. The shows get cheaper and cheaper. Also, CBS demographics skew OLD and some others do, too. When their audience gets too old to watch, or starts dying to the point that they lose advertising, it’ll be like a run on the bank.
 
Top