USC, UCLA to join the Big Ten in 2024

[Saturdaze]

Well, ESPN the cable network is subject to the broader trends of the industry. But ESPN the company has properties people want to watch and is attached to Disney, wherever the industry and the technology goes, ESPN will be there even if the death of the cable scam means less revenue.

It's something like the BTN that nobody ever watches but collects $1 a month from a declining subscriber base that's just going to disappear. And then quite how something like NBC Sports Chicago makes the transition is an interesting question. How would they have to price that to maintain even revenue parity let alone growth?

As I've blathered about for years, sports is a bubble and it's starting to pop.


It's funny how people are talking about NIL "getting out of control fast", as if there was ever control.

The Berlin Wall fell the instant that was let out of the bag. NCAA control of player compensation is in the past.

I either don’t follow or don’t agree. I think ESPN is uniquely positioned compared to BTN, and the others. The purpose of those other networks is to carry sports games. They have one or two channels, plus spillover channels during games. ESPN is 9 channels, plus 4 ncaa conference affiliate channels for 13 total.

ESPN has used the consumer desire for their flagship channel to force cable providers to include the other 10-12 channels In their packages. They’ve filled the dead air with an immense amount of studio productions.

I recently read that the ESPN studio production ratings are at an all time low dating back to when the network was created in the 70s. People don’t care to watch PTI, around the horn, etc anymore. Even SportsCenter.

The other networks are more suited to a streaming model with a focus on games not studio production. AppleTV, Prime, etc even more so because they don’t need to fill dead air time with any studio productions.

 

[ChiefGritty]

I either don’t follow or don’t agree. I think ESPN is uniquely positioned compared to BTN, and the others. The purpose of those other networks is to carry sports games. They have one or two channels, plus spillover channels during games. ESPN is 9 channels, plus 4 ncaa conference affiliate channels for 13 total.

ESPN has used the consumer desire for their flagship channel to force cable providers to include the other 10-12 channels In their packages. They’ve filled the dead air with an immense amount of studio productions.

I recently read that the ESPN studio production ratings are at an all time low dating back to when the network was created in the 70s. People don’t care to watch PTI, around the horn, etc anymore. Even SportsCenter.

The other networks are more suited to a streaming model with a focus on games not studio production. AppleTV, Prime, etc even more so because they don’t need to fill dead air time with any studio productions.

Yeah so everything you say is 100% true, ESPN's business model is broken, they are really the paradigmatic example of the cable scam of extracting money from people who aren't interested in your content, and their subs and thereby revenue are in an inexorable decline.

However, unlike most cable operations, there is a there there. ESPN has a dominant position in sports rights, and have lots of properties millions of people want to watch. If they took everything to an OTT streamer they'd be able to command a large monthly fee to a very large audience.

No one else in the sports space is anywhere close. ESPN doesn't have a bright future but it has a future. The BTN does not. Now, the Big Ten could try to make their own over-the-top service, but there's no way it could stand up with the C-tier games they have now alone, they'd have to pull from the stuff they're selling to networks now, leaving aside the relationship with Fox in the BTN.

You can chop it up a million different ways (and they will) but at the end of the day the sports business has been floating atop an astronomical subsidy from non-sports viewers through the cable scam, and that's rapidly ending. They're going to pull every lever to try and sustain revenue growth, but winter is coming.

 

[Saturdaze]

I think we agree, mostly, but I see BTN in a better position long-term than ESPN.

I think ESPN is trying to retain their conglomerate model in the streaming world, and it won’t work. I think they‘re assuming people will continue to be willing to pay for sports they don’t consume (why not people have been doing for decades?) so they are collecting rights to a myriad of sports interests and will eventually offer a streaming only package that includes all of them. This is also why they want to buy rights to some of the big time BIG matchups in FB and BB. They’re gambling the BIG fans will subscribe to ESPN to get that OSU vs MI prime time game, etc.

Someone wants to watch SEC then they need to also pay for ACC, B12, B10 prime, etc. I read that ESPN executives are telling investors (publicly) that they think they can sell a $30 per month sports streaming plan, and that their biggest concern is maintaining subscribers annually vs month to month so they’ll incentivize annual subscriptions. They don’t plan to do this until cable subscriptions drop below 50 million because they think offering it now will accelerate cord cutting, and they’d prefer to maintain status quo as long as possible.

Thisvis my personal opinion but I just don’t think streamers consume media that way anymore. I just can’t see those hypothetical SEC fans being anything but frustrated needing to pay a premium for ACC, PAC10, BIG12, Golf, etc; and ESPN will lose subscribers because of it.

I think BIG is better off because they can offer a much more curated package at a lower cost that will be more attractive to consumers.

 

[redwingillini11]

I think we agree, mostly, but I see BTN in a better position long-term than ESPN.

I think ESPN is trying to retain their conglomerate model in the streaming world, and it won’t work. I think they‘re assuming people will continue to be willing to pay for sports they don’t consume (why not people have been doing for decades?) so they are collecting rights to a myriad of sports interests and will eventually offer a streaming only package that includes all of them. This is also why they want to buy rights to some of the big time BIG matchups in FB and BB. They’re gambling the BIG fans will subscribe to ESPN to get that OSU vs MI prime time game, etc.

Someone wants to watch SEC then they need to also pay for ACC, B12, B10 prime, etc. I read that ESPN executives are telling investors (publicly) that they think they can sell a $30 per month sports streaming plan, and that their biggest concern is maintaining subscribers annually vs month to month so they’ll incentivize annual subscriptions. They don’t plan to do this until cable subscriptions drop below 50 million because they think offering it now will accelerate cord cutting, and they’d prefer to maintain status quo as long as possible.

Thisvis my personal opinion but I just don’t think streamers consume media that way anymore. I just can’t see those hypothetical SEC fans being anything but frustrated needing to pay a premium for ACC, PAC10, BIG12, Golf, etc; and ESPN will lose subscribers because of it.

I think BIG is better off because they can offer a much more curated package at a lower cost that will be more attractive to consumers.

$30/month is insanity for one platform. They are in serious trouble if they are acting that delusional.

 

[Saturdaze]

Couldn’t find the article I read but these two pretty much cover it. One is from last year and the other 2015.

Disney's shift to streaming puts ESPN in awkward position of clinging to the past

Disney has executed the transition to streaming effectively, but its popular ESPN channels are still reliant on traditional pay TV.

www.cnbc.com

Are You Willing To Pay $36 Per Month For ESPN?

An a la carte world probably won't make good economic sense.

www.forbes.com

 

[ChiefGritty]

I think we agree, mostly, but I see BTN in a better position long-term than ESPN.

I think ESPN is trying to retain their conglomerate model in the streaming world, and it won’t work. I think they‘re assuming people will continue to be willing to pay for sports they don’t consume (why not people have been doing for decades?) so they are collecting rights to a myriad of sports interests and will eventually offer a streaming only package that includes all of them. This is also why they want to buy rights to some of the big time BIG matchups in FB and BB. They’re gambling the BIG fans will subscribe to ESPN to get that OSU vs MI prime time game, etc.

Someone wants to watch SEC then they need to also pay for ACC, B12, B10 prime, etc. I read that ESPN executives are telling investors (publicly) that they think they can sell a $30 per month sports streaming plan, and that their biggest concern is maintaining subscribers annually vs month to month so they’ll incentivize annual subscriptions. They don’t plan to do this until cable subscriptions drop below 50 million because they think offering it now will accelerate cord cutting, and they’d prefer to maintain status quo as long as possible.

Thisvis my personal opinion but I just don’t think streamers consume media that way anymore. I just can’t see those hypothetical SEC fans being anything but frustrated needing to pay a premium for ACC, PAC10, BIG12, Golf, etc; and ESPN will lose subscribers because of it.

I think BIG is better off because they can offer a much more curated package at a lower cost that will be more attractive to consumers.

The problem is that both kinds of consumers absolutely exist. The one that wants to watch the big sportsball game whatever it might be, and the one that wants wall-to-wall access to a specific conference or league.

The place the industry is going can't serve both at once the way cable did.

It's an unsolvable riddle. There's just going to be decline. The age of the sports monoculture is receding.

$30/month is insanity for one platform. They are in serious trouble if they are acting that delusional.

You'll pay. So will I. We both have been via our cable packages anyway.

 

[Saturdaze]

I don’t understand how you believe that “winter is coming” for these sports channels while simultaneously believing that consumers are willing to pay $30 to stream ESPN.

 

[ChiefGritty]

I don’t understand how you believe that “winter is coming” for these sports channels while simultaneously believing that consumers are willing to pay $30 to stream ESPN.

Because the numbers don't add up.

$30 a month to 15 million subscribers is a juggernaut in the streaming industry, but not compared to $11 a month via a cable package to 100 million.

 

[Guest]

I love this from the ESPN article cited by Saturdaze above,

"Those number (sic) are, of course, ridiculously high and they're even worse when you look at what people believe they should be able to pay for something like ESPN a la carte. Beta Research found that the perceived value of ESPN to viewers is $1.45 per month -- a $34.85 difference between what they would actually be asked to pay."

That's actually more than my perceived value of ESPN

 

[Saturdaze]

Also found this article which includes references to BTN, ACCN, SECN.

The True Cost to Consumers of Pay TV’s Top Channels

Note: An extended version of this analysis is available exclusively for VIP subscribers. It’s no secret that pay TV is facing a mounting existential challenge. A record 6.2 million subscribers can…

variety.com

Is $10 per month reasonable for BTN?

 

[ChiefGritty]

Is $10 per month reasonable for BTN?

Zoom out to 30,000 feet for the real question in all of this.

The twenty old guys here will pay whatever it takes to watch the Illini, we all know that. We're the customers that they have on the hook for life. $10, $100, whatever.

But when existing passionate interest is all that's left to monetize, actual viewership is going to collapse. What then? What happens when the only people watching sports are paying through the nose for the privilege of the continued experience of what they saw in the 90's?

Boxing still exists, and can still make big money and get big attention from time to time. But we all know it's nothing compared to its glory days. Our grandchildren will look at all of the stuff we watch through that same lens. And it didn't HAVE to be that way. Choices were made to squeeze the maximum present dollar over the sustainability of the sport. They continue to be made on the same basis, this thread being a perfect example.

 

[Stevegarbs]

I either don’t follow or don’t agree. I think ESPN is uniquely positioned compared to BTN, and the others. The purpose of those other networks is to carry sports games. They have one or two channels, plus spillover channels during games. ESPN is 9 channels, plus 4 ncaa conference affiliate channels for 13 total.

ESPN has used the consumer desire for their flagship channel to force cable providers to include the other 10-12 channels In their packages. They’ve filled the dead air with an immense amount of studio productions.

I recently read that the ESPN studio production ratings are at an all time low dating back to when the network was created in the 70s. People don’t care to watch PTI, around the horn, etc anymore. Even SportsCenter.

The other networks are more suited to a streaming model with a focus on games not studio production. AppleTV, Prime, etc even more so because they don’t need to fill dead air time with any studio productions.

Mid-80s I watched SportsCenter every night ( Patrick/Olberman glory days). I literally cannot remember the last time I watched it (15+ years).

 

[Mr. Tibbs]

Mid-80s I watched SportsCenter every night ( Patrick/Olberman glory days). I literally cannot remember the last time I watched it (15+ years).

agree . I probably haven’t watched it in 20 years nor any of the blowhards in the morning or afternoon . arguing for the sake of arguing .

in 1980 I recall watching it in our apt on 810 S Oak St on campus . Tom Mees, Berman & Bob Ley when ESPN was brand new and televised Aussie rules football and Irish handball and we thought it was great .

 

[Saturdaze]

Same. The peak may have been sooner, but SportsCenter has declined a lot since early 2000s. There is too much redundancy now with internet and other competing media. For a time SportsCenter and George Michaels Sports Machine were the only way to get more than a couple minutes of highlights.

 

[Bogey99]

Same. The peak may have been sooner, but SportsCenter has declined a lot since early 2000s. There is too much redundancy now with internet and other competing media. For a time SportsCenter and George Michaels Sports Machine were the only way to get more than a couple minutes of highlights.

Also CNN Sports Tonight with Fred Hickman and Nick Charles.

 

[IlliniFaninHoosierLand]

Also CNN Sports Tonight with Fred Hickman and Nick Charles.

Both of whom were products of WICS in Springfield if I'm not mistaken.

 

[BillyBob1]

Both of whom were products of WICS in Springfield if I'm not mistaken.

You are correct.

 

[KBLEE]

You'll pay. So will I. We both have been via our cable packages anyway.

The twenty old guys here will pay whatever it takes to watch the Illini, we all know that. We're the customers that they have on the hook for life. $10, $100, whatever.

I'm pushing 50, so I'm right in the demographic you are describing. The problem I see is not having everything together in one simple platform. If I have to subscribe to BTN and ESPN separately to get all of the games, this becomes an annoyance. I'll equate it to a couple of years ago when the Cubs created the Marquee network and didn't have the foresight to get carriage on all of the major streaming platforms. I've had YouTube TV for several years and refused to drop it just to be able to watch Marquee (didn't hurt that the Cubs have been really bad for a few years). Now, if I want to watch a Cub game, it is very simple to find a pirated stream online. If all of this goes down the same road for CFB and CBB. I'll likely do the same.

 

[ChiefGritty]

I'll equate it to a couple of years ago when the Cubs created the Marquee network and didn't have the foresight to get carriage on all of the major streaming platforms.

Foresight had absolutely nothing to do with it. The Ricketts/Sinclair priced Marquee at a level where the streaming carriers balked at it. Which is an ongoing battle. The Cubs came to the RSN party a few years too late.

I've had YouTube TV for several years and refused to drop it just to be able to watch Marquee (didn't hurt that the Cubs have been really bad for a few years). Now, if I want to watch a Cub game, it is very simple to find a pirated stream online. If all of this goes down the same road for CFB and CBB. I'll likely do the same.

Just as an aside related to this, cracking down on the very widespread practice of password sharing is going to be an emerging frontier in this stuff.

Lots of push and pull on a lot of fronts, but again the 30,000 foot view is going to continue to be higher prices, lower underlying interest in the sports.

 

[spotter]

What's next in conference realignment for ACC and Pac-12? Follow the grant of rights

There has already been an extreme amount of analysis by multiple schools' general counsels examining the legal strength of the grant of rights. Here's how it could factor into the next steps in realignment.

www.espn.com

 

[Ransom Stoddard]

Foresight had absolutely nothing to do with it. The Ricketts/Sinclair priced Marquee at a level where the streaming carriers balked at it. Which is an ongoing battle. The Cubs came to the RSN party a few years too late.

Just as an aside related to this, cracking down on the very widespread practice of password sharing is going to be an emerging frontier in this stuff.

Lots of push and pull on a lot of fronts, but again the 30,000 foot view is going to continue to be higher prices, lower underlying interest in the sports.

Where do you get this from?

 

[ChiefGritty]

Where do you get this from?

College football attendance declines for seventh straight season to lowest average since 1981

Even the best teams and conferences across college football saw attendance drops this season

www.cbssports.com

What April attendance reveals about MLB's worrying trend

MLB avoided the worst outcomes of losing regular-season games to the lockout, but the sport's overall attendance trends are still pointing downward.While no games were lost, the lockout generated significant negative publicity. That's nothing new. Attendance has declined after every MLB work...

www.thescore.com

NBA teams hike ticket prices as attendance drops, internal data shows

NBA owners are raking in more cash than before the pandemic by charging higher ticket prices despite increasingly empty seats at arenas, according to internal NBA data.

nypost.com

Deflated Finals Ratings Raise Questions About NBA’s TV Future

New VIP+ Analysis: Despite marquee teams and gripping backstory, ho-hum viewership belies the league's likely ask when broadcast deals end.

variety.com

Kansas-UNC big for cable, modest for National Championship

College basketball's Kansas-UNC National Championship was a ratings hit by cable standards, but a modest draw historically.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

Why is attendance down at Syracuse and through ACC? Officials offer number of reasons

All but one of the ACC's 15 schools are showing a decline in attendance this season.

www.syracuse.com

Attendance Is Down Across Sports, and Ticket Markets Are Flooded

Seven teams currently average less than 90% of their attendance capacity, and experts say more detailed metrics are even more troubling.

www.sportico.com

 

[spotter]

Interesting headline from Tate's N-G column:

Tate | Academics, not money, lead Big Ten realignment plans. Seriously

The AAU reputation of universities is a big factor for any future Big Ten expansion

www.news-gazette.com

 

[Ransom Stoddard]

College football attendance declines for seventh straight season to lowest average since 1981

Even the best teams and conferences across college football saw attendance drops this season

www.cbssports.com

What April attendance reveals about MLB's worrying trend

MLB avoided the worst outcomes of losing regular-season games to the lockout, but the sport's overall attendance trends are still pointing downward.While no games were lost, the lockout generated significant negative publicity. That's nothing new. Attendance has declined after every MLB work...

www.thescore.com

NBA teams hike ticket prices as attendance drops, internal data shows

NBA owners are raking in more cash than before the pandemic by charging higher ticket prices despite increasingly empty seats at arenas, according to internal NBA data.

nypost.com

Deflated Finals Ratings Raise Questions About NBA’s TV Future

New VIP+ Analysis: Despite marquee teams and gripping backstory, ho-hum viewership belies the league's likely ask when broadcast deals end.

variety.com

Kansas-UNC big for cable, modest for National Championship

College basketball's Kansas-UNC National Championship was a ratings hit by cable standards, but a modest draw historically.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

Why is attendance down at Syracuse and through ACC? Officials offer number of reasons

All but one of the ACC's 15 schools are showing a decline in attendance this season.

www.syracuse.com

Attendance Is Down Across Sports, and Ticket Markets Are Flooded

Seven teams currently average less than 90% of their attendance capacity, and experts say more detailed metrics are even more troubling.

www.sportico.com

All but one of these are about attendance, not TV/streaming viewership. It's easy to try to draw a correlation between attendance and viewership, but that can also be a reverse correlation--the ability to watch something on TV might deter some from attending in person--discussions on this board in years past about Greek blocks going to bars to watch the game rather than MS support that line of thought. The ratings of college bowl games vs the in-stadium attendance follows the same trend line.

Sports viewership--regardless of platform (OTA, Cable, Streaming)--is about as high as it has ever been. There is more basketball, soccer, baseball, and football available to view on a screen now than at any time in the history of each sport. While I understand your overall doom and gloom that there is a "sports media bubble" that is about to pop, I haven't seen tangible evidence to support it, and observable evidence (the number of games available in any given week) contradicts it. When you talk about media coverage for sports, it's really under the umbrella of entertainment, and entertainment content is at an all time high and shows no sign of slowing down. Sports' piece of the entertainment pie is growing, not shrinking.

Edit--Not to mention, COVID's impact has resulted in a lot of people staying home, so of course attendance is down.

 

[ChiefGritty]

Sports viewership--regardless of platform (OTA, Cable, Streaming)--is about as high as it has ever been. There is more basketball, soccer, baseball, and football available to view on a screen now than at any time in the history of each sport. While I understand your overall doom and gloom that there is a "sports media bubble" that is about to pop, I haven't seen tangible evidence to support it, and observable evidence (the number of games available in any given week) contradicts it. When you talk about media coverage for sports, it's really under the umbrella of entertainment, and entertainment content is at an all time high and shows no sign of slowing down. Sports' piece of the entertainment pie is growing, not shrinking.

Well no, this is kind of making exactly my point. While you're dead right that the market for entertainment content is more expansive than its ever been, that means every individual thing faces that much more competition for attention and dollars. TV shows are a good example, nothing gets anywhere close to the ratings of ho-hum network dramas of 30-40 years ago, because people only had four channels, what the heck else were they gonna watch?

And the bubble about to pop metaphor I think is a little deceptive. There probably will be some dramatic moments here and there, but I think it's mostly just a slow leak. We've passed the peak, even though we're still close to it.

There's no shame in that, and there's no world in which sports aren't very popular in the US. My biggest fear as a sports fan is the ways in which sports and leagues may disfigure themselves in order to goose that sweet nectar of revenue growth for one more TV contract cycle, one more year, one more quarter. That's where you risk entering a downward spiral.

That's what we're talking about in this thread. The Big Ten is gonna get their groundbreaking TV deal. But my god at what terrible cost.