Conference Realignment

[UgaBlows]

Everyone doesn't pay the same amount for each channel. The Big Ten Network charges a lot more in markets where they have teams. There are a lot of people in the ATL so they could make a lot more money off their own Network by adding us to their conference.

This seem like kind of a big deal In our favor

 

[Richard7125]

Everyone doesn't pay the same amount for each channel. The Big Ten Network charges a lot more in markets where they have teams. There are a lot of people in the ATL so they could make a lot more money off their own Network by adding us to their conference.

Yep, I agree; but that is less impactful today than it was a few years ago based on cord cutting and streaming services.

 

[orientalnc]

So now you grow it legally?

This falls into the category of youthful decisions not rationally considered.

I don't think it would be legal in NC today. Let's say (because I don't want to say more) that I was growing a small amount for personal consumption.

 

[UgaBlows]

Yep, I agree; but that is less impactful today than it was a few years ago based on cord cutting and streaming services.

I believe I read that getting USC and UCLA amounted to a huge windfall for the BIG in the rate increase for the LA market. Would the same rate increase apply with streaming services?

 

[slugboy]

I believe I read that getting USC and UCLA amounted to a huge windfall for the BIG in the rate increase for the LA market. Would the same rate increase apply with streaming services?

TL;DR-> this isn’t the year to ask ESPN or CBS or FOX for more money

This year has a lot of headwinds for cable or streaming services. Dish Network is in huge trouble.

https://www.thestreet.com/media/cable-and-pay-tv-lost-a-sickening-amount-of-subscribers-last-year

As streaming services boom, cable TV continues its decline

Fewer than half of American adults now have a cable subscription. What's that mean for how we consume our news and entertainment?

www.wgbh.org

Streaming Is Starting to Look A Lot Like Cable TV

Streaming services are raising prices and introducing advertising now that their subscriber growth has slowed.

www.bloomberg.com

Streaming growth has slowed, and the services are adding ads to preserve revenue.

 

[orientalnc]

TL;DR-> this isn’t the year to ask ESPN or CBS or FOX for more money

This year has a lot of headwinds for cable or streaming services. Dish Network is in huge trouble.

https://www.thestreet.com/media/cable-and-pay-tv-lost-a-sickening-amount-of-subscribers-last-year

As streaming services boom, cable TV continues its decline

Fewer than half of American adults now have a cable subscription. What's that mean for how we consume our news and entertainment?

www.wgbh.org

Streaming Is Starting to Look A Lot Like Cable TV

Streaming services are raising prices and introducing advertising now that their subscriber growth has slowed.

www.bloomberg.com

Streaming growth has slowed, and the services are adding ads to preserve revenue.

A couple of thoughts:

I am part of the streaming world via YouTube TV and Netflix and Amazon Prime. Would I ever go back? Not with today's prices.

I am now paying for a lot on the Net that used to be free - AJC, NY Times, Washington Post, Atlantic, PBS Passport, and several subscriptions on Patreon and Substack. Eventually this has to change if more content transitions to streaming. And it's not just TV. For us, TV is just another internet choice. Fortunately, @CuseJacket hasn't erected a Swarm paywall.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

This falls into the category of youthful decisions not rationally considered.

I don't think it would be legal in NC today. Let's say (because I don't want to say more) that I was growing a small amount for personal consumption.

I had similar medical issues.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Yep, I agree; but that is less impactful today than it was a few years ago based on cord cutting and streaming services.

The number of households that have cable versus cord cutters is significant, and although more are cutting the cord, the sheer numbers isn't going to flip that much. Older people are always going to tend towards cable because the technology is such that they won't want to deal with streaming (gross generalization, but it's true). The number of cable households in a market is still going to be vastly important, even 15 years from now.

 

[orientalnc]

Older people are always going to tend towards cable because the technology is such that they won't want to deal with streaming (gross generalization, but it's true).

This is 100% true for many seniors. But that group is more likely to be donors to athletic departments than any other age group. If that is also the core group of declining cable subscribers, the future is grim for college sports. A lot of the boomers are not going to be around in 2036 and the ACC has to understand that reality. The streaming model where you subscribe to unbundled content via he Net is the future. It is not with cable.

 

[MidtownJacket]

[EDITED]

Fortunately, @CuseJacket hasn't erected a Swarm paywall.

 

[RamblinRed]

This is 100% true for many seniors. But that group is more likely to be donors to athletic departments than any other age group. If that is also the core group of declining cable subscribers, the future is grim for college sports. A lot of the boomers are not going to be around in 2036 and the ACC has to understand that reality. The streaming model where you subscribe to unbundled content via he Net is the future. It is not with cable.

I wish I had the study on hand but there was one a couple of years ago looking at the demographics of the TV viewers for all the major US Sports.
College football had one of the older "avg age" (I believe it was about 55). Not super old yet but significantly older than NBA, MLS, and MLB and a little older than the NFL (which is basically US).
It also was one of the more 'white' audiences. Only PGA and NASCAR had a higher percentage of white viewers.

College football definitely has some long term concerns in terms of who its audience is, though it is probably a decade from it really becoming an issue.

As far the the B1G talk. Former commish Warren in one interview said they would need few years to digest the programs they just brought in, so it may be a little time before they make a move. In terms of ACC schools I think there are 2 big time periods coming up. First is the end of this decade when the B1G media contracts expires. The second is around 2033-2034 as the SEC contract expires and the ACC contract is a couple of years from expiring. IMO those are the 2 most obvious windows when movement could happen.

I believe B1G would have some interest in GT, but I don't believe GT is at the top of the list. I would think UNC and UVA, at the very least, would be higher on the list of ACC options due to their state flagship status and populations in their states. Oregon and/or Washington could be attractive due to their location (especially if they want to add schools to pair with the LA schools), though it is interesting that they could have taken them now and chose not to. One of the AZ schools could be attractive if they really are thinking National.

I also expect there to be a limit on how many schools the SEC or B1G would want to add. They are only going to make moves that make financial sense. There are not likely many more programs that would add enough value to increase the per share revenue.

 

[forensicbuzz]

This is 100% true for many seniors. But that group is more likely to be donors to athletic departments than any other age group. If that is also the core group of declining cable subscribers, the future is grim for college sports. A lot of the boomers are not going to be around in 2036 and the ACC has to understand that reality. The streaming model where you subscribe to unbundled content via he Net is the future. It is not with cable.

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.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I wish I had the study on hand but there was one a couple of years ago looking at the demographics of the TV viewers for all the major US Sports.
College football had one of the older "avg age" (I believe it was about 55). Not super old yet but significantly older than NBA, MLS, and MLB and a little older than the NFL (which is basically US).
It also was one of the more 'white' audiences. Only PGA and NASCAR had a higher percentage of white viewers.

College football definitely has some long term concerns in terms of who its audience is, though it is probably a decade from it really becoming an issue.

As far the the B1G talk. Former commish Warren in one interview said they would need few years to digest the programs they just brought in, so it may be a little time before they make a move. In terms of ACC schools I think there are 2 big time periods coming up. First is the end of this decade when the B1G media contracts expires. The second is around 2033-2034 as the SEC contract expires and the ACC contract is a couple of years from expiring. IMO those are the 2 most obvious windows when movement could happen.

I believe B1G would have some interest in GT, but I don't believe GT is at the top of the list. I would think UNC and UVA, at the very least, would be higher on the list of ACC options due to their state flagship status and populations in their states. Oregon and/or Washington could be attractive due to their location (especially if they want to add schools to pair with the LA schools), though it is interesting that they could have taken them now and chose not to. One of the AZ schools could be attractive if they really are thinking National.

I also expect there to be a limit on how many schools the SEC or B1G would want to add. They are only going to make moves that make financial sense. There are not likely many more programs that would add enough value to increase the per share revenue.

I see Stanford/Cal combo as being higher priority than Oregon/Washington. SF/San Jose is a bigger market than Seattle/Portland. Stanford has ALL the other sports, and the B1G like that, a lot.

I don't see UNC as a bigger draw to B1G than GT, and that's backed by potential back-channel information. I'm not 100% on that, as it was an off-handed comment last Christmas.

 

[Techster]

I wish I had the study on hand but there was one a couple of years ago looking at the demographics of the TV viewers for all the major US Sports.
College football had one of the older "avg age" (I believe it was about 55). Not super old yet but significantly older than NBA, MLS, and MLB and a little older than the NFL (which is basically US).
It also was one of the more 'white' audiences. Only PGA and NASCAR had a higher percentage of white viewers.

College football definitely has some long term concerns in terms of who its audience is, though it is probably a decade from it really becoming an issue.

As far the the B1G talk. Former commish Warren in one interview said they would need few years to digest the programs they just brought in, so it may be a little time before they make a move. In terms of ACC schools I think there are 2 big time periods coming up. First is the end of this decade when the B1G media contracts expires. The second is around 2033-2034 as the SEC contract expires and the ACC contract is a couple of years from expiring. IMO those are the 2 most obvious windows when movement could happen.

I believe B1G would have some interest in GT, but I don't believe GT is at the top of the list. I would think UNC and UVA, at the very least, would be higher on the list of ACC options due to their state flagship status and populations in their states. Oregon and/or Washington could be attractive due to their location (especially if they want to add schools to pair with the LA schools), though it is interesting that they could have taken them now and chose not to. One of the AZ schools could be attractive if they really are thinking National.

I also expect there to be a limit on how many schools the SEC or B1G would want to add. They are only going to make moves that make financial sense. There are not likely many more programs that would add enough value to increase the per share revenue.

 

[stinger 1957]

I saw something that said the bay area was not a heavily sports minded media mkt.

 

[TooTall]

The way they have/are hemorrhaging pro sports teams it makes sense.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I saw something that said the bay area was not a heavily sports minded media mkt.

While this is true, it's the #6 market in the US. It's still about households and will be for the foreseeable future.

 

[cpf2001]

Cable subscribers are dropping something like 5-10% a year, and that’s with sports still pretty much locked up to cable.

If you are in LA and pay for YouTubeTV then I think the Big10 Network likely gets more money for you once USC/UCLA join. When I was at a competitor then sports network negotiations were still very regional for streamers.

But I think the tipping point is the moment some of these start moving over the top (like the much-rumored ESPN offerings).

Cable has gotten more expensive while having more competition. Ten years ago streaming first-run TV shows were a novelty, now they’re everywhere. Look at these numbers even without sports having other options: https://www.statista.com/statistics/251268/number-of-pay-tv-households-in-the-us/ Currently cable and cable channels are propped up by 1) raising prices, primarily defending those prices with sports and 2) advertisers paying price premiums since they aren’t in love with eg skippable YouTube ads and such, and sports is a good fit since there’s nothing to fast forward too. So the moment sports start being less exclusive… it’s gonna accelerate things.

It’s probably going to be a rapid bloodbath in the next decade. The older demographic won’t move quickly, and they’ll still watch CFB, but currently these deals are based on every demographic paying those subscriber fees even if they don’t watch ESPN. That’s gonna both tank the revenue and the importance of markets, once negotiations are no longer market-based.

I expect some sort of bundling to still emerge - Hulu and Amazon have been doing this even for their non-live offerings - but with fewer technological and infrastructure barrier to entry, I think there will be a lot less interest in paying today’s $$$$ for sports when that price is more directly visible to the consumer.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Cable subscribers are dropping something like 5-10% a year, and that’s with sports still pretty much locked up to cable.

If you are in LA and pay for YouTubeTV then I think the Big10 Network likely gets more money for you once USC/UCLA join. When I was at a competitor then sports network negotiations were still very regional for streamers.

But I think the tipping point is the moment some of these start moving over the top (like the much-rumored ESPN offerings).

Cable has gotten more expensive while having more competition. Ten years ago streaming first-run TV shows were a novelty, now they’re everywhere. Look at these numbers even without sports having other options: https://www.statista.com/statistics/251268/number-of-pay-tv-households-in-the-us/ Currently cable and cable channels are propped up by 1) raising prices, primarily defending those prices with sports and 2) advertisers paying price premiums since they aren’t in love with eg skippable YouTube ads and such, and sports is a good fit since there’s nothing to fast forward too. So the moment sports start being less exclusive… it’s gonna accelerate things.

It’s probably going to be a rapid bloodbath in the next decade. The older demographic won’t move quickly, and they’ll still watch CFB, but currently these deals are based on every demographic paying those subscriber fees even if they don’t watch ESPN. That’s gonna both tank the revenue and the importance of markets, once negotiations are no longer market-based.

I expect some sort of bundling to still emerge - Hulu and Amazon have been doing this even for their non-live offerings - but with fewer technological and infrastructure barrier to entry, I think there will be a lot less interest in paying today’s $$$$ for sports when that price is more directly visible to the consumer.

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.

 

[bobongo]

I'm probably misunderstanding this, but just wondering...
With folks cutting the cable and the ESPN contract running long term to 2036, might the contract look a lot better a decade from now than it looks now?