cpf2001
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,275
I just feel the the money for college football has peak out, ESPN losing money . Maybe I’m wrong I have be before.
I think there's a good chance that this is correct. ESPN is never going to make as much from cable companies as they did when cable subscribers were at an all time high.
I think/hope you need proximity of events too, especially to keep the fans of the middle-of-the-pack schools subscribed.I'm not sure TV market areas drive decisions like they used to. With streaming the norm now, the universities brand is more important than the market share of the universities location. Ohio State, Michigan, and other B1G alums in ATL are likely already subscribing to the B1G network via streaming. The average college football fan in ATL is likely a uga or Bama fan and likely won't subscribe to a B1G network with a GT addition. The SEC and B1G are adding brands, not markets.
I'm in CA and when GT's bad I don't really bother watching the rest of the ACC. But if there were conference schools playing games out here, maybe it would stay more interesting?
And just *more* games. In a direct streaming world, the number of people paying for B1G Network directly is going to be less than the number who are happy to get it in their existing cable package. So I think one of two things happens: either (a) a multi-conference streaming package, or (b) further league expansion to make *your* league the one that gets the most national subscribers. And I don't see any way the market supports more than a couple of those, and I think that's a lot easier to sell past the diehards if you've got more games. And then population comes back into play: when GT has good years, they can pull interest from all over a big city (assuming competent marketing and such ).