USC, UCLA to join the Big Ten in 2024

[Homecoming 2019]

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

Is this a declining interest in sports or a declining interest in the rising costs of viewing sports?

 

[MustangWally]

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.

I have DirectTV Stream for $95/month. In addition to the major cable channels, I get:
BTN
ACC Network
SEC Network
4 ESPN Channels
Golf Channel
Tennis Channel
Fox Sports Channel
Marquee
NBC Sports Chicago
MLB Network
NBA TV

More than meets my needs.

 

[ChiefGritty]

Is this a declining interest in sports or a declining interest in the rising costs of viewing sports?

Excellent question.

And the follow-on question, if you price interested fans out of attending and/or watching, does that interest still remain?

When the Golden State Warriors move from a rickety old 20,000 seat arena to a shiny new 18,000 seat arena better able to monetize the rich tech types interested in attending games, is that a business that's growing?

 

[BillyBob1]

I have DirectTV Stream for $95/month. In addition to the major cable channels, I get:
BTN
ACC Network
SEC Network
4 ESPN Channels
Golf Channel
Tennis Channel
Fox Sports Channel
Marquee
NBC Sports Chicago
MLB Network
NBA TV

More than meets my needs.

Does that include overlay channels for BIG?

 

[Ransom Stoddard]

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?

This isn't making your point at all. Just because a single show doesn't approach the ratings that "MASH", for example, had, doesn't mean that there isn't money to be made in video content. Content creators view this as a good thing because the barriers to entry are much lower and they get connected with their potential audience a whole lot more easily. In a sports context, Northwestern Basketball views this as a good thing because they're going to have more games on TV than they did pre-BTN, more people are going to be exposed to NU basketball, and more potential fans can be created outside of the traditional NU footprint.

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.

That's your metaphor, btw. Perhaps you can expand on what you mean by a "slow leak" in light of higher sports viewership across the board.

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.

Aside from conference realignment, what does this mean?

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.

I still don't understand what this "terrible cost" is, because to me it means that more games are available to watch, more schools get exposure, and more advertisers get to throw their money into the kitty that then gets piped back to a whole bunch of parties.

 

[MustangWally]

Does that include overlay channels for BIG?

Yes, during the football season.
And you're allowed three simultaneous log ons.

 

[ChiefGritty]

Aside from conference realignment, what does this mean?

More games like the NFL, expanded playoffs like MLB, expansion teams (coming soon to the NBA), lots of potential avenues, not all of them wholly unjustifiable.

more schools get exposure

Tell that to Oregon State fans. The B1G/SEC duopoly is shrinking the map of big time college sports, that's the entire point. We're drinking Kansas State's milkshake.

Just because a single show doesn't approach the ratings that "MASH", for example, had, doesn't mean that there isn't money to be made in video content.

Right, and there is money to be made in sports. But college football has been MASH for decades. If it becomes Breaking Bad, or even NCIS Los Angeles, that's a huge decline.

 

[Calvin]

Is this a declining interest in sports or a declining interest in the rising costs of viewing sports?

I'm sure it's some of both, but I think it's more of the former, at least for now. The income demographics for college sports fans is pretty good, so they generally can afford the premium entertainment. I think the long term erosion is a big concern though. College sports fandom is much more expensive as a form of entertainment than what younger demographics are switching to.

I think the issue of football parity is a problem as well. We're seeing a remarkable concentration of haves and have nots, and a format that rewards and favors the "haves" for the CFP. The folks running it don't really think long term IMO. They want their money now. Declining interest is a problem for another day.

 

[wma500]

Something to keep an eye on….

Notre Dame targeting $75 million annual media rights payout in quest to remain independent

Power Five shoulder programming around Notre Dame games will be key to making such a deal happen

www.cbssports.com

 

[the juiceman cometh]

Notre Dame targeting $75 million annual media rights payout in quest to remain independent

Power Five shoulder programming around Notre Dame games will be key to making such a deal happen

www.cbssports.com

Appears ND's decision is going to hinge on whether they can get NBC to pony up enough money to compete with joining the B1G. It's a pretty steep increase from what NBC is currently paying so it'll be interesting to see what they do.

Edit: @wma500 beat me to it

 

[cuillini]

I have DirectTV Stream for $95/month. In addition to the major cable channels, I get:
BTN
ACC Network
SEC Network
4 ESPN Channels
Golf Channel
Tennis Channel
Fox Sports Channel
Marquee
NBC Sports Chicago
MLB Network
NBA TV

More than meets my needs.

I still have the satellite Direct TV setup. With the dvr box and two other wifi boxes I pay $175. Seems pricey, but I'm not a fan of the clunky way one has to access streaming services. I can stream Direct from my phone or tablet. On the plus side, I've been with Direct so long they give me NFL ticket for free.

 

[illinistephen]

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.

The number of people watching the world series and nba finals has dropped over 25% from 10 years ago. And the number of viewers 10 years ago is way down compared to the Jordan era or 1980's/1970's baseball. Even the Super Bowl had a 10% viewership drop from 10 years ago.

In 2014 there were over 100M pay TV households and today it is at 68M. Assuming $10/month, this is 3.84B of lost revenue for ESPN.
There is a trend line pointing down. The speculation is that no one knows how far or how long this will continue or where the floor is. We only have the fun of guessing.

That isn't to say that there isn't billions of dollars here but I would not be surprised if the viewership declines are leading indicators and that the overall money peaks or decreases in the future. I could be wrong though .

 

[Stevegarbs]

Excellent question.

And the follow-on question, if you price interested fans out of attending and/or watching, does that interest still remain?

When the Golden State Warriors move from a rickety old 20,000 seat arena to a shiny new 18,000 seat arena better able to monetize the rich tech types interested in attending games, is that a business that's growing?

Pricing fans out of attending is killing motorsports, in particular NASCAR. The lack of obvious ROI for sponsors in an incredibly sponsor-heavy dependent sport is also concerning across all of motorsports.

 

[Ransom Stoddard]

The number of people watching the world series and nba finals has dropped over 25% from 10 years ago. And the number of viewers 10 years ago is way down compared to the Jordan era or 1980's/1970's baseball. Even the Super Bowl had a 10% viewership drop from 10 years ago.

In 2014 there were over 100M pay TV households and today it is at 68M. Assuming $10/month, this is 3.84B of lost revenue for ESPN.
There is a trend line pointing down. The speculation is that no one knows how far or how long this will continue or where the floor is. We only have the fun of guessing.

That isn't to say that there isn't billions of dollars here but I would not be surprised if the viewership declines are leading indicators and that the overall money peaks or decreases in the future. I could be wrong though .

There's a fallacy in looking only at Pay TV numbers--for anything, whether it's sports, movies, news, etc. The industry is now counting every monetizable method that put eyeballs on content. Cord cutting doesn't mean people aren't consuming that content, they're getting it differently, and there's money in that "differently", and IMO it's good for consumers because there's a greater breadth.

And for what little my opinion is worth--some of those "prestige" events are down because they've been overhyped. I'd also be interested in learning if the overall number of eyeballs are down on the Superbowl, or just the number on the "main" broadcast.

 

[Ransom Stoddard]

More games like the NFL, expanded playoffs like MLB, expansion teams (coming soon to the NBA), lots of potential avenues, not all of them wholly unjustifiable.

My question was in regard to leagues "disfiguring" themselves. Nothing you've described seems like disfigurement. I'm having a real hard time understanding what your hyperbole is trying to express.

Tell that to Oregon State fans. The B1G/SEC duopoly is shrinking the map of big time college sports, that's the entire point. We're drinking Kansas State's milkshake.

You've just described every competitive landscape everywhere. I don't see this as bad--in fact it's very similar to the landscape in this golden age of the 1980s you seem to refer back to. Oregon State was on TV far, far less than UCLA and USC. Kansas State had far fewer games broadcast than Texas and Oklahoma. The difference now is that OSU and KSU programs get more of their games televised, but for a lesser amount than UCLA and Texas.

Right, and there is money to be made in sports. But college football has been MASH for decades. If it becomes Breaking Bad, or even NCIS Los Angeles, that's a huge decline.

I don't think you get it. 40 years ago there might have been a half-dozen CFB games on nationally on a given Saturday, so naturally the ratings for each of those games would be high. Today there are a half-dozen or more CFB games on nationally at a given moment on a given Saturday. Those total eyeballs exceed what they did 40 years ago. Again, that's a teriffic thing for every program because they each have more exposure and don't have to rely on the whims of CBS, NBC, and ABC about getting a national broadcast.

And I'm still curious what "But my god at what terrible cost" means.

 

[KBLEE]

I have DirectTV Stream for $95/month. In addition to the major cable channels, I get:
BTN
ACC Network
SEC Network
4 ESPN Channels
Golf Channel
Tennis Channel
Fox Sports Channel
Marquee
NBC Sports Chicago
MLB Network
NBA TV

More than meets my needs.

YouTube TV has all of that except Marquee for $65/month, and you can't beat its unlimited cloud DVR.

 

[Konnie]

I wonder if this increases the likelihood of ND jumping to the B1G.

Notre Dame targeting $75 million annual media rights payout in quest to remain independent

Power Five shoulder programming around Notre Dame games will be key to making such a deal happen

www.cbssports.com

 

[dbeverly26]

YouTube TV has all of that except Marquee for $65/month, and you can't beat its unlimited cloud DVR.

And if we're being honest here, at the moment you should gladly pay more for not having to get Marquee.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

I wonder if this increases the likelihood of ND jumping to the B1G.

Notre Dame targeting $75 million annual media rights payout in quest to remain independent

Power Five shoulder programming around Notre Dame games will be key to making such a deal happen

www.cbssports.com

I think it shows what I've kinda suspected which is that ND places a value on being independent, but not as high a value as some expected. If the B1G deal is expected to net schools betweem $80 and $100 million annually and ND is willing to take $75 million to stay independent, the value ND puts on independence is probably about $15 million (the average difference). That means if the B1G can get ND a deal that's $15 million a year better than staying independent, there's a decent chance.

 

[wma500]

The number of people watching the world series and nba finals has dropped over 25% from 10 years ago. And the number of viewers 10 years ago is way down compared to the Jordan era or 1980's/1970's baseball. Even the Super Bowl had a 10% viewership drop from 10 years ago.

In 2014 there were over 100M pay TV households and today it is at 68M. Assuming $10/month, this is 3.84B of lost revenue for ESPN.
There is a trend line pointing down. The speculation is that no one knows how far or how long this will continue or where the floor is. We only have the fun of guessing.

That isn't to say that there isn't billions of dollars here but I would not be surprised if the viewership declines are leading indicators and that the overall money peaks or decreases in the future. I could be wrong though .

Two things...

1) Live major sports programming is a huge asset to networks.
2) Networks and their affiliated streaming services can and will adapt to meet consumer needs and demands. They'll continue to figure out a way to monetize the interests.

In this case, Big 10/SEC football is absolutely major sports programming and is highly valued. That's not going to change any time soon.

 

[wma500]

Pricing fans out of attending is killing motorsports, in particular NASCAR. The lack of obvious ROI for sponsors in an incredibly sponsor-heavy dependent sport is also concerning across all of motorsports.

Having 35+ races a year and fielding a generally vanilla product is killing NASCAR (and I'm a lifelong NASCAR fan).

 

[spotter]

I wonder if this increases the likelihood of ND jumping to the B1G.

Notre Dame targeting $75 million annual media rights payout in quest to remain independent

Power Five shoulder programming around Notre Dame games will be key to making such a deal happen

www.cbssports.com

If I'm NBC, I'm not touching that with a 10-foot pole. If ND wants to stay in the college sports game, target the Big 12 for football and basketball.

 

[ChiefGritty]

40 years ago there might have been a half-dozen CFB games on nationally on a given Saturday, so naturally the ratings for each of those games would be high. Today there are a half-dozen or more CFB games on nationally at a given moment on a given Saturday. Those total eyeballs exceed what they did 40 years ago.

I don't think those numbers pencil out, especially not as a share of viewers.

It's also my understanding that the age demographics look way, way worse for college football than they did then.

And I'm still curious what "But my god at what terrible cost" means.

The freaking Rose Bowl is dead dude. The Pac 12 is dead.

Someone mentioned NASCAR above which is the perfect example. It was a no-brainer in 1996 to cash in with moves from places like Rockingham and North Wilksboro to places like Chicago and Vegas. You're just an old man yelling at a cloud to think anything else. Well, didn't work out so hot did it?

(Sure enough, Formula One, the new hotness in motorsports is running headlong toward the exact same mistake)

There's a fallacy in looking only at Pay TV numbers--for anything, whether it's sports, movies, news, etc. The industry is now counting every monetizable method that put eyeballs on content.

Right, there's classic wire-from-outside cable that is in free fall and will be Blockbuster Video soon enough, but then most of those "cord cutters" are just signing up for Youtube TV-type internet based services that are fundamentally offering the same thing. But that's less fertile ground for monetization, and even including those numbers the total audience is declining.

And then if you think about putting big time sports on something like Apple+ or Amazon Prime Video, your viewership is just going to totally collapse.

 

[illiniguy]

You're just an old man yelling at a cloud to think anything else. Well, didn't work out so hot did it?

 

[spotter]

Conference realignment slows as Big 12, Pac-12 may be realizing they're worth more together than apart

Plus: What's ahead for the Big Ten, SEC, ACC and College Football Playoff?

www.cbssports.com