Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[BigWoof31]

My $.02 - in a year or two nobody is going to really care about the network you play on. This matters now because it has ripples in conference realignment.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

My $.02 - in a year or two nobody is going to really care about the network you play on. This matters now because it has ripples in conference realignment.

Nobody has ever cared about the network you play on. It's how that network propagandizes "their" conferences that you hear about......and the dipshits that eat it up. When a Tennessee fan tells me, in 2014, that Ohio State wouldn't go .500 in duh S-E-C......that's ESPN talking. So now we'll have NBC and CBS doing their schtick for the benefit of the B1G, and ABC/ESPN continuing it for duh S-E-C. It's disgusting.

 

[Dryden]

My $.02 - in a year or two nobody is going to really care about the network you play on. This matters now because it has ripples in conference realignment.

Disagree. People are inherently tribal and defensive about things they like. Networks still control commentators, graphics, and broadcast windows, so getting 'in bed' with a competent TV partner with broad reach is incredibly important.

Games on FOX, CBS, and ABC can get 15 million viewers. Games on AppleTV+, Amazon Prime, and Peacock will be lucky to get 800 k.

 

[Dryden]

Bye Felicia.

 

[LovelandBuckeye]

2014, that Ohio State wouldn't go .500 in duh S-E-C......

Technically, they went 1.000 in the SEC in 2014.

 

[TampaBuckeyes]

My $.02 - in a year or two nobody is going to really care about the network you play on. This matters now because it has ripples in conference realignment.

It matters when younger people aren’t just cutting cable, but never having it to begin with. ESPN requires cable.

ESPN creating a streaming service would change that, but they haven’t done it so far. We know they get the highest carriage rate on cable and ESPN is in the basic package so just about every cable customer is generating those fees. So they don’t want to kill cable, which they might do if they start a streaming service. So they are in a bind. Their bind also helps fs1 and BTN lol.

 

[TampaBuckeyes]

Bye Felicia.

Haha. Looks like ESPN got the middle finger price, while cbs got the friends and family.

 

[Dryden]

CBS deals for football and basketball are negotiated independent of one another. ESPN does them as a bundle, so that is part of the disparity in price.

Also, RIP Big Ten/ACC Challenge.

 

[sparcboxbuck]

So, how far are we from pay-to-view sports? More money has been answered in the past by adding more commercials, but this is a product that's already losing the youth market due to length and short attention spans. One way to avoid four hour games wouid be to shorten playing time to allow time for the commercials. Fewer time outs, fewer out of bounds stops, eliminate the stop on incomplete passes, OR pay to view w/wo commercials.

Too much demand for those commercial spots likely is the limiting factor for PPV like this.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

So do you want to stay with FOX, who believes that Prime Time is noon on Saturday, or go with NDBC (the D is intentional), who wants to add the Big Ten to its contract with Notre Dame, and who believes that Prime Time is late afternoon and evening? Pete Bevacqua, Sawbrick, and the Pope are pushing for the latter.

I can't believe this is a serious option. We would definitely be odd man in the ND-NBC-B1G triangle. We're going to trust the domers to not fuck us behind our backs? Plus, it props up ND independence, ahd why the fuck would we want to do that.

 

[sparcboxbuck]

It matters when younger people aren’t just cutting cable, but never having it to begin with. ESPN requires cable.

ESPN creating a streaming service would change that, but they haven’t done it so far. We know they get the highest carriage rate on cable and ESPN is in the basic package so just about every cable customer is generating those fees. So they don’t want to kill cable, which they might do if they start a streaming service. So they are in a bind. Their bind also helps fs1 and BTN lol.

FWIW, I have ESPN through Hulu. I know it’s the not-free version, but it’s still an easy option for cord cutters.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

I have ESPN on YouTube TV. It's part of their basic package which more or less mirrors the typical cable setup. I have no doubt that my subscription would be lower if ESPN was not included in that basic package, or ideally was offered as a part of a sports tier bundle, or more ideally a la carte so I could just have them fuck off and be done with them.

 

[TampaBuckeyes]

For the record I consider Hulu live and YouTube tv to be a techie version of cable, based on them being $60+ per month and bundling a ton of channels. I would pay less than that to add cable to my internet.

Sling is on the boarder at the $35 price point but $50 if you want ESPN, fs1 and nfl network. But they don’t have BTN at all…so pointless.

So right now if sec fan wants to watch their games it’s a base $35 a month.

I’m fucking pumped to not need ESPN anymore.

 

[TampaBuckeyes]

Too much demand for those commercial spots likely is the limiting factor for PPV like this.

Yeah. They will more than cut viewership in half by doing ppv. Makes the add spots less than half as valuable and that’s hard to make up. Just like viewership on broadcast will be higher than viewership on cable.
If the games go ppv I go from watching 4-5 games a week to 0-1.

 

[Dryden]