Conference Realignment

cpf2001

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,283
Yeah I use the same distinction that RonJohn is using: "YouTubeTV" = "linear tv" = "cable" colloquially. The online versions of those are growing some, but WAY less than the traditional ones are declining. What's really important from college sports and ESPN/Fox's perspective though is the "sign up once, get a boatload of channels" model, with a virtuous cycle for them around "if you sign up for the Big10 Network it still helps ESPN too". All the pain we're seeing right now for the PAC and their failure to get the deal they wanted to basically comes down to the reality of those overall subscriber numbers going down more and more, and that being a big reality check for ESPN and such (especially as the larger economic environment gets tighter lending/fundraising-wise and the companies shift from "invest in hopes of profit later" to "make profit now").

What I'd call streaming is what is also known as "direct to consumer" or "over the top." It has a lot of open questions that could shake out in various ways (in general, but especially for sports). ESPN+ is direct to consumer, and it has the same consumer-facing issues of a Netflix. Your thing you want to watch is on Amazon instead of Netflix? Whoops now you need another subscription. Consumer patience for having 6+ subscriptions seems to be wearing thin, especially since they're all raising prices. So would an ESPN streaming service be competiting directly with a Fox/Big 10 streaming service, and some fans only have ESPN and some only have Big 10? Cause that's super annoying. But can the companies get out of the winner-take-all model enough to find some other structure? (In some ways this is also an old model, with pay-per-view for single events going back a long time, but I can't see PPV working out for a regularly scheduled seasonal sport.) Would the streaming packages be run by today's sports networks, or would the conferences or NCAA get involved more actively themselves? Is basketball a different product than football than baseball than pro sports? It's gonna get hairy to try to replace traditional cable channels and their various sports teams deals in various markets with direct-to-consumer stuff.

("linear" is a particularly confusing term when it comes to sports discussions because it generally means "watched on original channel at original time" instead of DVRd or on-demand, but sports are by nature "linear" and real-time in a way that 99% of other shows on TV aren't. but generally people just use it to mean "traditional multi-channel cable bundle." But I digress.)
 

stech81

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,904
Location
Woodstock Georgia
FSU on tryouts for running backs.

1692317500681.png
 

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,100
Location
Augusta, Georgia
Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, and Apple+ are all reaching a stage of looking for profit instead of looking for additional subscribers. They aren't spending the same money they have spent in the last several years to acquire content. They are raising prices to the consumer. That is all in an effort to realize a profit instead of minimizing profit or losing money in order to gain subscribers. The open spicket is closing in that area.

This is similar to the cell phone market earlier this century. Initially, it was all about new subscribers, but eventually the market was saturated so it became about profit margins.
 

cpf2001

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,283
The fact that they ever launched the cable-TV-but-online packages at like $40/45 bucks and included ESPN and such is crazy in retrospect. Like, who was running the numbers on the expectations of "we need to attract users to get good press by lighting money on fire" vs "people are gonna be pissed when this goes up 75% in 5 years". Someone moves first and picks a price point and then everyone else was just chasing...
 

roadkill

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,837
Here we go. This may be the future, but will be a tough climb...

The Knight Commission recommendation was probably never going to fly without some sort of tectonic shift in the way conferences control the product. The current realignment craziness may be just what is needed to get the powers that be to move in this direction. I've seen a number of coaches and administrators calling for a separation of football from other sports - interest may be building for this.
 

roadkill

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,837
Yeah I use the same distinction that RonJohn is using: "YouTubeTV" = "linear tv" = "cable" colloquially. The online versions of those are growing some, but WAY less than the traditional ones are declining. What's really important from college sports and ESPN/Fox's perspective though is the "sign up once, get a boatload of channels" model, with a virtuous cycle for them around "if you sign up for the Big10 Network it still helps ESPN too". All the pain we're seeing right now for the PAC and their failure to get the deal they wanted to basically comes down to the reality of those overall subscriber numbers going down more and more, and that being a big reality check for ESPN and such (especially as the larger economic environment gets tighter lending/fundraising-wise and the companies shift from "invest in hopes of profit later" to "make profit now").

What I'd call streaming is what is also known as "direct to consumer" or "over the top." It has a lot of open questions that could shake out in various ways (in general, but especially for sports). ESPN+ is direct to consumer, and it has the same consumer-facing issues of a Netflix. Your thing you want to watch is on Amazon instead of Netflix? Whoops now you need another subscription. Consumer patience for having 6+ subscriptions seems to be wearing thin, especially since they're all raising prices. So would an ESPN streaming service be competiting directly with a Fox/Big 10 streaming service, and some fans only have ESPN and some only have Big 10? Cause that's super annoying. But can the companies get out of the winner-take-all model enough to find some other structure? (In some ways this is also an old model, with pay-per-view for single events going back a long time, but I can't see PPV working out for a regularly scheduled seasonal sport.) Would the streaming packages be run by today's sports networks, or would the conferences or NCAA get involved more actively themselves? Is basketball a different product than football than baseball than pro sports? It's gonna get hairy to try to replace traditional cable channels and their various sports teams deals in various markets with direct-to-consumer stuff.

("linear" is a particularly confusing term when it comes to sports discussions because it generally means "watched on original channel at original time" instead of DVRd or on-demand, but sports are by nature "linear" and real-time in a way that 99% of other shows on TV aren't. but generally people just use it to mean "traditional multi-channel cable bundle." But I digress.)
Gonna be an interesting evolution. Ultimately, I would not be surprised if direct-to-consumer streaming results in fewer viewers for sports overall, at least for routine games. Where the casual viewer may have ”tuned in” to a game that they saw when scrolling channels, that won’t be an option for many households that will lack subscriptions to the sports programming currently carried on linear TV. Instead, they will be scrolling through their Netflix options. Granted, major events like the Superbowl and perhaps the CFP will drive viewers due to their broad demand, but I know a lot of fans of teams like the Braves who became fans simply because it was regular programming.
 

Papa Foxtrot

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
411
Ultimately, I would not be surprised if direct-to-consumer streaming results in fewer viewers for sports overall, at least for routine games.
This is ESPN's(and the conferences) nightmare scenario. Inability to monetize the product would collapse the value of broadcast rights. It's gonna' be a tough needle to thread...
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,674
The accn TV guys gave acc teams X per year.
They expected that each team would raise some mulitple in $$s from other sources ( internal cash generated) to create a good product. Other sources at all schools are generally the same except for DONATIONS AND TICKET SALES

Now that the profits at tv slowed they have come back around to see whats happening. They looked who has been winning and raising internal cash.
They look at Gt and see a sorry on the field product. They find we have only matched them at 1X which is bottom ACC.
Looking at Clemson they see great product and donations and ticket sales at 3X
Looking at FSU they see team thats been firing coaches and now looks good. They have raised 2X.

Gt has started to try - prez is on it- but trying only goes so far.
To secure a long term football future ( tv money may shrink) Gt needs to get pledges (above existing) of approximatly 1X (30,000,000) per year for 4- 5 years.
So the Prez is going to be asking KEY TO WIN AND THEN GT TO GIVE.
 

1979jacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
632
just playing with fsu arguments of payouts based on viewership, I used medium.com viewership by week and arbitrarily said no school gets more than 60 or less than 20 million per year. Here is how it came out. We may be headed to this type arrangement.
1​
clemson
60​
2​
fsu
60​
3​
ncst
38​
4​
unc
36​
5​
syracuse
36​
6​
gt
36​
7​
pitt
28​
8​
um
26​
9​
wake
22​
10​
louisville
21​
11​
bc
20​
12​
vt
20​
13​
uva
20​
14​
duke
20​
444​
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,000
just playing with fsu arguments of payouts based on viewership, I used medium.com viewership by week and arbitrarily said no school gets more than 60 or less than 20 million per year. Here is how it came out. We may be headed to this type arrangement.
1​
clemson
60​
2​
fsu
60​
3​
ncst
38​
4​
unc
36​
5​
syracuse
36​
6​
gt
36​
7​
pitt
28​
8​
um
26​
9​
wake
22​
10​
louisville
21​
11​
bc
20​
12​
vt
20​
13​
uva
20​
14​
duke
20​
444​
In that arraignment, 8 schools would be losing $12 million or more per year. FSU might be complaining and saying that this is the method that should be followed, but how do you get enough votes to make such a change if more than half of the schools are going to lose that much? Plus, why would BC or Duke vote to give up half of their money to FSU who is publicly stating that they are going to leave no matter what as soon as they can? There is zero reason for any school to give up that much, especially if it doesn't help with stability later on.
 

1979jacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
632
In that arraignment, 8 schools would be losing $12 million or more per year. FSU might be complaining and saying that this is the method that should be followed, but how do you get enough votes to make such a change if more than half of the schools are going to lose that much? Plus, why would BC or Duke vote to give up half of their money to FSU who is publicly stating that they are going to leave no matter what as soon as they can? There is zero reason for any school to give up that much, especially if it doesn't help with stability later on.
at some point schools could be better off taking haircut but I here you - 50 max and 37 low might be better numbers
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,000
at some point schools could be better off taking haircut but I here you - 50 max and 37 low might be better numbers
If you believe the hype around FSU, they are leaving no matter what happens. Why would any of the schools agree to significantly less money to try to appease FSU, who already has one foot out of the door? FSU does not have the leverage they claim to have. IF FSU leaves now, they either have to pay $120 million to leave, plus somewhere around $400-600 million to get their broadcast rights, or pay $120 million and still let the ACC broadcast and collect the revenue from their games. The rest of the ACC would be in better financial shape if FSU had announced on Tuesday that they are leaving. My understanding is that the schools have agreed in principle to distribute post-season money unevenly based on how much revenue each school brings in during post season. I think there is very little chance in the next 4-5 years of a wildly different revenue distribution model for the existing ACC members. There is zero incentive for the majority of the conference to vote for such a thing. Under the sheet that you presented, there would be two votes to use that model.
 

stinger 1957

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,478
just playing with fsu arguments of payouts based on viewership, I used medium.com viewership by week and arbitrarily said no school gets more than 60 or less than 20 million per year. Here is how it came out. We may be headed to this type arrangement.
1​
clemson
60​
2​
fsu
60​
3​
ncst
38​
4​
unc
36​
5​
syracuse
36​
6​
gt
36​
7​
pitt
28​
8​
um
26​
9​
wake
22​
10​
louisville
21​
11​
bc
20​
12​
vt
20​
13​
uva
20​
14​
duke
20​
444​
How did you come up with the 1-14 rankings or order? Something you made up or is this actual viewership rankings? I ask because when I go into medium.com and look at their numbers it shows for instance that Louisville has viewership along with Pitt, UM higher than GT.
 
Top