I think the worst part of this for me is that I'm gonna have to teach my dad how to use Peacock now. If the upcoming changes to HBO Max are as bad as people say they're gonna be, I know where the money to pay for it will come from...
New Big Ten Media Rights Deal
- Status
redwingillini11
White and Sixth
- North Aurora
The thing is weekend vs. weeknight games. Of course, with the trajectory we are on, we are most likely to be playing on CBS or Fox or FS1 for any of our weekend games. We are up there with any B1G team for national appeal. But its the weeknights where streaming comes in. CBS and Fox will not be bumping any of their primetime programing for B1G basketball. That means that you're trying to replace any weeknight games that would have been on ESPN or ESPN2, which is where Peacock comes in.
I went back and tallied up weeknight conference games for us last year. 6 on FS1, 4 on ESPN/2, and 4 on BTN. My guess is that you are looking at something like maybe adding another game on FS1 and BTN each, and then Peacock gets the other 2-3 games. This is probably going to be the same for most of the conference, with teams like us, Michigan, MSU, OSU, Indiana, Wisconsin getting put on FS1 slightly more and teams like Nebraska, Minnesota, Penn State, and Rutgers getting put on BTN or Peacock slightly more.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
Well let's be fair and compare apples to apples. Bar the BTN+ scam (which will absolutely continue) every Illini game is currently available on basic(ish) cable.
Now they won't be. In order to continue squeezing growth from our TV partners, we need to indulge them putting our content behind a paywall where way fewer people will see it.
1. That stinks! It's not nuclear war, but it's worth complaining about.
2. The audience for those games is going to be WAAAAAAAAAY smaller, even compared to "lesser" games on BTN. BTN has 60 million subscribers, Peacock has 27 million, and only 13 million who aren't getting it (temporarily) for free as part of their cable package.
The Peacock games will be watched only by a small number of hardcore fans, who are paying extra for the privilege. That's the new world of sports that the whole industry is nervously tiptoeing towards. It keeps the wolf from the door today, but the numbers do not pencil out for that in the long term.
Last edited:
How is the replay option for peacock? I regularly record football/basketball games. easy to replay? Available right away?
I wanna say a few hours but might change with this contract?
Hurts bars to. Unless they have smart tv's they won't be getting peacock I would imagine
The Galloping Ghost
- Washington, DC
I guess my mindset is just very different as a fan of both soccer and Olympic sports. Both have necessitated me to pay to stream since 2005ish. Let me tell you, those original FloTrack telecasts were janky as hell. And again, I remember when I just straight up couldn't pay to see things. Everybody has at least one streaming service, just now you might need to change which one you have.
As far as the audience on Peacock, I guess I have to say, who cares? I've been watching EPL, Diamond League Track meets, the Tour de France, the Olympics, etc. there since its inception and never had a problem. I think the streaming service that had excellent coverage of the Track and Field World Championships this summer, something I'm willing to bet only a handful of people actually watched, can also handle some basketball games. Will the price go up? Probably, but I'm also willing to bet it's still going to be significantly cheaper than the horrible Netflix, which again, doesn't even show live sports.
Joel Goodson
- respect my decision™
Nope. It's definitely not as nice as many of the other streaming options (not as many viewer options), but, quality of picture-wise, it's as good as any. This is based on several years of Premier League viewing. As always, YMMV.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
The Big Ten takes all of its basketball inventory off ESPN and disappears a bunch of it into the streaming netherworld.
ESPN is all-in with the SEC in football terms, a stronger with UT and OU but still relatively underpowered basketball league.
So much of the elite basketball world is out there outside that duopoly, especially if ACC inventory is somehow in play.
Totally hare-brained and half-baked, but it just feels like there's an angle there somewhere, I dunno. ESPN does not want to backfill the slots it was showing Michigan-Purdue basketball games with Georgia-Texas A&M basketball games.
ESPN is all-in with the SEC in football terms, a stronger with UT and OU but still relatively underpowered basketball league.
So much of the elite basketball world is out there outside that duopoly, especially if ACC inventory is somehow in play.
Totally hare-brained and half-baked, but it just feels like there's an angle there somewhere, I dunno. ESPN does not want to backfill the slots it was showing Michigan-Purdue basketball games with Georgia-Texas A&M basketball games.
Nah it's fine, plus you get a ton of extra golf if you like that.
bdutts
- Houston, Texas
I get it for being an internet subscriber only. Don't need cable.
bdutts
- Houston, Texas
I think the exact opposite unless somehow ND is forced out of the CFA playoffs by being independent. Wasn't NBC looking for "shoulder" programming to keep ND? Now they have it.
Xfinity provides Peacock for free if you solely subscribe to their internet service so cutting the cord is still an option. And Xfinitiy still sucks.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
Spitball idea: The Jordan League
North Carolina, Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, Arizona, Oregon.
This is not a new conference, it's a season-long men's basketball-only tournament played between those schools. On five weekday nights of the season (you could make it seven if you added, say, Baylor and Gonzaga) ESPN and ESPN2 broadcast a staggered tripleheader of those schools playing against each other in their home arenas. That's a whole bunch of ultra-premium inventory among the new ESPN family that ices out the B1G and creates some new money that can keep the tectonic plates a bit more stable.
If it's war with ESPN they have some cards they can play. And Phil Knight is available as a free agent.
Oh, and y'all realize the ACC/Big Ten Challenge is over, right?
I did read a couple of articles suggesting that the rights holders have the option to “sub-license” some BIG basketball content to ESPN, and the Josh Whitman quotes in the article I linked hints that the relationship isn’t over. Maybe ESPN cuts a deal to keep certain non-conference games, like say the BIGACC Challenge?
Other thing I am trying to figure is whether NBC’s participation in this deal makes it more or less willing to throwing big dollars at Notre Dame to re-up in 2025. I’m thinking … less? Seems like the ND lead-in to prime time coverage will become less valuable over time as the ACC weakens. Also, NBC have ability to fill its Saturday afternoon schedule with BIG content if ND leaves? Conversely, would NBC be willing to pay a lot more to ND if it joins BIG and NBC gets access every year to ND/USC + ND/BIG rivals, rather than Pitt/Syr/Duke/NC St/etc?
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
You guys are going to be very disappointed with the number ND gets from NBC
FWIW every school in the B12 has had at least 2 conference basketball games a month exclusively relegated into the streaming netherworld (ESPN+) for at least the last three seasons now and the last two national champions seemed to weather it.
Meaning it's going to be much higher than most people are expecting?
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
I think most people outside this board are expecting the right thing, that it won't be quite as high as the per-school B1G take, but it will be in that ballpark, and dramatically higher than what they got in 2013. Cobble it together with what the ACC gives them and they won't be leaving program-changing money on the table.
Thanks, after seeing all of this come through, I think you are correct.
I've seen that NBC may be throwing $60M+ at Notre Dame, add ACC $ (and whatever else ND gets) to that and it's pretty close to the B1G payouts, or way closer than people were thinking they were going to be, so my money is on them staying independent unless the ACC implodes.
Also hearing that the B1G may now be looking to add a couple West Coast teams now that this deal is signed. No clue why it would be beneficial to do this after the initial deal was signed, but if it happens, I'm sure there are valid ($) reasons. I would love to see us add Stanford and Washington, then wait to see if the ACC blows up down the road (if that even happens).
redwingillini11
White and Sixth
- North Aurora
It was reported that there are escalators included in the deal that could raise the total 7 year deal up to $10B. Probably means that if we add certain teams we will be getting enough extra to make it worth expanding further.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
FWIW, we actually get pretty good ratings when we’re good and/or get to play in a prime time slot, and I think everyone’s optimistic “plan” is for Bret to hopefully get us consistently competitive … right??
Big Ten signs TV rights deals worth over $8 billion
The league unveiled seven-year agreements with Fox/FS1, CBS, NBC and the Big Ten Network, which will run through the 2029-30 academic year.theathletic.com
It all sounds great except OOF on the Peacock part. There's no doubt we end up on one or two Peacock games per year. That really sucks...
Although I do think there's a chance they may want to balance to have higher profile teams play a Peacock game. If the whole goal is to get people to sign up for the service, who will drive more signups? Illinois fans or Penn State fans? Northwestern fans or Iowa fans? Rutgers fans or Michigan State fans? But this will no doubt be annoying for us at some point though.
- Status