ESPN, Fox Open Discussions for Next Big 12 Deal
- Thread starter tigershoops31
- Start date
One thing we tend to oversimplify is that the majority people watching ISU (or any school for that matter) are fans of that school. I would suspect that may be 50% accurate. An extreme example is Alabama- on most Saturdays more people watch their games than there are people in Alabama.
So that would give a lot of credence to people liking to watch a winner or brand. But Alabama gets all the credit. And they deserve a lot based on putting a great product on the field.
But it will be interesting as media technology evolves, will streaming and cable be able to capture the demographics of viewership on a granular basis. Watching football last night got me thinking about this with all the viewership discussion related to realignment.
I watched the 2nd Q of the WV v Pitt game. At half turned on the PSU v Purdue game & watched that until half. Turned the WV v Pitt game back on til it ended. Then watched the rest of the PSU v Purdue game. I did take a sneak peak and caught a NMSU v Gopher touchdown drive. Does technology today allow Nielsen or whoever reports CFB viewership capture how much of a game a household watches? That doesn't even bring into the picture viewership numbers within a household (are 1 or 10 people watching). Even more so people watching at bars.
So people keep arguing about viewership value, but how accurate are the numbers? I guess in short how is the data captured?
Also in the future, will technology be able to track the fan base of the viewer to their primary school? Looping back to my initial example of Alabama. Will technology be able to assign a viewer a primary school, in my case Iowa State. So if I watch an Alabama game, the media folks understand that Iowa State is responsible for the viewer, just as much as Alabama. After all, some people watch 1 CFB game a weekend and others watch 4-10 in whole or partial.
Just another rabbit hole in my mind.
So that would give a lot of credence to people liking to watch a winner or brand. But Alabama gets all the credit. And they deserve a lot based on putting a great product on the field.
But it will be interesting as media technology evolves, will streaming and cable be able to capture the demographics of viewership on a granular basis. Watching football last night got me thinking about this with all the viewership discussion related to realignment.
I watched the 2nd Q of the WV v Pitt game. At half turned on the PSU v Purdue game & watched that until half. Turned the WV v Pitt game back on til it ended. Then watched the rest of the PSU v Purdue game. I did take a sneak peak and caught a NMSU v Gopher touchdown drive. Does technology today allow Nielsen or whoever reports CFB viewership capture how much of a game a household watches? That doesn't even bring into the picture viewership numbers within a household (are 1 or 10 people watching). Even more so people watching at bars.
So people keep arguing about viewership value, but how accurate are the numbers? I guess in short how is the data captured?
Also in the future, will technology be able to track the fan base of the viewer to their primary school? Looping back to my initial example of Alabama. Will technology be able to assign a viewer a primary school, in my case Iowa State. So if I watch an Alabama game, the media folks understand that Iowa State is responsible for the viewer, just as much as Alabama. After all, some people watch 1 CFB game a weekend and others watch 4-10 in whole or partial.
Just another rabbit hole in my mind.
Be careful….some on this site will call you a Hawk fan for suggesting such blasphemy.
Nielsen essentially cultivates representative samples and pays people to place tracking devices on their TVs to monitor their viewing habits, then extrapolates that data to estimate viewership. If you were one of their subjects, their tracking would show the channel changes.One thing we tend to oversimplify is that the majority people watching ISU (or any school for that matter) are fans of that school. I would suspect that may be 50% accurate. An extreme example is Alabama- on most Saturdays more people watch their games than there are people in Alabama.
So that would give a lot of credence to people liking to watch a winner or brand. But Alabama gets all the credit. And they deserve a lot based on putting a great product on the field.
But it will be interesting as media technology evolves, will streaming and cable be able to capture the demographics of viewership on a granular basis. Watching football last night got me thinking about this with all the viewership discussion related to realignment.
I watched the 2nd Q of the WV v Pitt game. At half turned on the PSU v Purdue game & watched that until half. Turned the WV v Pitt game back on til it ended. Then watched the rest of the PSU v Purdue game. I did take a sneak peak and caught a NMSU v Gopher touchdown drive. Does technology today allow Nielsen or whoever reports CFB viewership capture how much of a game a household watches? That doesn't even bring into the picture viewership numbers within a household (are 1 or 10 people watching). Even more so people watching at bars.
So people keep arguing about viewership value, but how accurate are the numbers? I guess in short how is the data captured?
Also in the future, will technology be able to track the fan base of the viewer to their primary school? Looping back to my initial example of Alabama. Will technology be able to assign a viewer a primary school, in my case Iowa State. So if I watch an Alabama game, the media folks understand that Iowa State is responsible for the viewer, just as much as Alabama. After all, some people watch 1 CFB game a weekend and others watch 4-10 in whole or partial.
Just another rabbit hole in my mind.
Streaming essentially does the same thing, but there's no sample size, devices or extrapolation necessary. They'll know if loads of people are bailing on something they're watching 10 min in or if the whole thing plays.
The advertising possibilities are huuuuge. When you sign up for streaming, you're putting your contact info, email and credit card into their system. This can be used in house, or through a digital ad agency, and combined with data from other companies to build a profile for you. The amount of info that can be derived is crazy - where you shop, who you live with, people you know, where you went to school, what kind of car you drive.
Streamers could then turn around and target ads based on that profile. Right now, if we're both watching the same game on ABC, we both see the same ads and 99% are trucks, fast food and macro beers. With targeted ads, they could show you an ad for the new model of the car you currently drive because they know your lease is up in 3 months. Meanwhile, I'm seeing an ad for the pizza place I ordered from last Saturday when I was watching a game. Not only will they be able to track that they showed us an ad, they can track if we purchase whatever they advertised.
Basically, streaming could target ads like what you see online.
As for determining viewership, the data collected could easily be used to determine exactly who is watching what, and very likely predict viewership for a given game at one time or another. They could see exactly how many people are watching a game and likely derive how many are fans of Team A or Team B, how many are casual fans of the Big XII, or how many watching are just watching because it's the best game on right now. More importantly, that data could be used to set up scheduling to maximize viewership across the slate of CFB games. For example, maybe team A has a good following that watches no matter what what time the game is on, but performs better in a certain time slot with casual fans.
Honestly, I'd be more nervous as an Iowa fan for that.
If they have a few bad seasons and go 6-6 or whatever, they could very well be regulated to the peacock.
Fans of Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Rutgers, northwestern, they're all going to have this with that new big 10 deal.
I don't know. I think the "There is just so much to do here, line" is just an excuse. Especially one that is used by the Wilners, Cazanos, and Mandels. There are a lot of places with a lot of things to do that still fill out their stadiums on any given Saturday.
I'm only half serious as I suggest this and I'm not even sure it's possible, but as I read this debate about TV vs. being in the stands I find myself wondering why not have it both ways, and encourage people to pull the game up on their phones even as they attend live.
Impractical in a lot of ways, but 20,000 people doing that drives viewership up, what, a couple percentage points?
There could definitely be a few but I think there are only 8 games per season that'll be on Peacock, and we still have BTN and FS1 for most of the non-marquee games.
True, but my problem is that they use it as a way to poo poo attendance and viewership for Big 12 schools. Yeah, we don't have a beach, so we're bigger CFB fans. But you guys are covering CFB, and CFB is what we're talking about, so isn't having more fans good? Not caring about a beach, a pro team, or whatever is a GOOD THING in this context.
In the end there is a lot more at play then just a simple network (ESPN) offering a deal for a conference and the other network (Fox) offering a deal and let's see who wins.
Let's start with ESPN.
- They need Texas and OU to the SEC ASAP because the revenue from the games they can air will offset any exit fees or the like (they know they will have to pay up to the Big 12 in some fashion to make this happen)
- They need to get out of the LHN ASAP because it may be the single worst deal they have ever signed, and that is a negotiation piece to work with in many avenues (I expect them to get out of the remainder of that)
- They still need programming when it isn't football season, and college hoops does play a factor for them, as they are the leader there (Big 12 basketball is a HUGE piece of this for them come winter, and yes it's about football for teams moving conferences BUT for rights, having nothing to show is a death knell to ESPN during the months of December through early March)
- They own rights to Pac-12 games in some fashion which includes USC and UCLA, whom Fox wants to move to the Big Ten ASAP for the exact same reason, but FOX has something too (I will list under the Fox section)
Now Fox.
- They have shown (not that it can't change) they do not have an interest in the Pac-12 rights
- They do have an interest in OU and Texas because they own rights to Big 12 games too like I noted with ESPN and USC/UCLA, so if ESPN gets Texas and OU to move early, that hurts Fox as they are the big money makers for them in what little time they have left on the current Big 12 deal.
- Fox still does not (although they will soon) have rights to the CFP, so there is concern reported (and valid) their new shiny toy in the Big 10 could get blacklisted a bit from the network that owns those current rights (ESPN) and thus hurting their partner in the Big Ten for a bit. (The amount they will make being part of the CFP deal is peanuts compared to what they are going to have to help ESPN with to make this whole. So they will give a bit to what ESPN wants)
In the end, this is one giant negotiation to finish this big round of rights and contracts up. It's not so simple, and these two networks are not working together to be buddies BUT if you've been around high-level negotiations they absolutely will be working together on this last piece to try and both get what they want from the above list. There is going to be give and take and trading galore until everyone is satisfied. You won't know most of what goes on, but listen to industry leaders and podcasts, reports etc. from people who have done this at a high level. This is what's going on behind closed doors.
I mean Fox literally traded Joe Buck to ESPN for a Big Ten game.
Fascinating stuff, and this is not as simple as some make it out to be. We shall see where that nets out for the Big 12, but I feel it will be decent at least for the conference.
Let's start with ESPN.
- They need Texas and OU to the SEC ASAP because the revenue from the games they can air will offset any exit fees or the like (they know they will have to pay up to the Big 12 in some fashion to make this happen)
- They need to get out of the LHN ASAP because it may be the single worst deal they have ever signed, and that is a negotiation piece to work with in many avenues (I expect them to get out of the remainder of that)
- They still need programming when it isn't football season, and college hoops does play a factor for them, as they are the leader there (Big 12 basketball is a HUGE piece of this for them come winter, and yes it's about football for teams moving conferences BUT for rights, having nothing to show is a death knell to ESPN during the months of December through early March)
- They own rights to Pac-12 games in some fashion which includes USC and UCLA, whom Fox wants to move to the Big Ten ASAP for the exact same reason, but FOX has something too (I will list under the Fox section)
Now Fox.
- They have shown (not that it can't change) they do not have an interest in the Pac-12 rights
- They do have an interest in OU and Texas because they own rights to Big 12 games too like I noted with ESPN and USC/UCLA, so if ESPN gets Texas and OU to move early, that hurts Fox as they are the big money makers for them in what little time they have left on the current Big 12 deal.
- Fox still does not (although they will soon) have rights to the CFP, so there is concern reported (and valid) their new shiny toy in the Big 10 could get blacklisted a bit from the network that owns those current rights (ESPN) and thus hurting their partner in the Big Ten for a bit. (The amount they will make being part of the CFP deal is peanuts compared to what they are going to have to help ESPN with to make this whole. So they will give a bit to what ESPN wants)
In the end, this is one giant negotiation to finish this big round of rights and contracts up. It's not so simple, and these two networks are not working together to be buddies BUT if you've been around high-level negotiations they absolutely will be working together on this last piece to try and both get what they want from the above list. There is going to be give and take and trading galore until everyone is satisfied. You won't know most of what goes on, but listen to industry leaders and podcasts, reports etc. from people who have done this at a high level. This is what's going on behind closed doors.
I mean Fox literally traded Joe Buck to ESPN for a Big Ten game.
Fascinating stuff, and this is not as simple as some make it out to be. We shall see where that nets out for the Big 12, but I feel it will be decent at least for the conference.
One thing we tend to oversimplify is that the majority people watching ISU (or any school for that matter) are fans of that school. I would suspect that may be 50% accurate. An extreme example is Alabama- on most Saturdays more people watch their games than there are people in Alabama.
So that would give a lot of credence to people liking to watch a winner or brand. But Alabama gets all the credit. And they deserve a lot based on putting a great product on the field.
But it will be interesting as media technology evolves, will streaming and cable be able to capture the demographics of viewership on a granular basis. Watching football last night got me thinking about this with all the viewership discussion related to realignment.
I watched the 2nd Q of the WV v Pitt game. At half turned on the PSU v Purdue game & watched that until half. Turned the WV v Pitt game back on til it ended. Then watched the rest of the PSU v Purdue game. I did take a sneak peak and caught a NMSU v Gopher touchdown drive. Does technology today allow Nielsen or whoever reports CFB viewership capture how much of a game a household watches? That doesn't even bring into the picture viewership numbers within a household (are 1 or 10 people watching). Even more so people watching at bars.
So people keep arguing about viewership value, but how accurate are the numbers? I guess in short how is the data captured?
Also in the future, will technology be able to track the fan base of the viewer to their primary school? Looping back to my initial example of Alabama. Will technology be able to assign a viewer a primary school, in my case Iowa State. So if I watch an Alabama game, the media folks understand that Iowa State is responsible for the viewer, just as much as Alabama. After all, some people watch 1 CFB game a weekend and others watch 4-10 in whole or partial.
Just another rabbit hole in my mind.
I don’t think there’s any change.
Consolidation is about aggregating big brands. And these brands are big in large part because they pull casual viewers better than others. So it’s already in the numbers This is about improving and increasing T1 inventory- national games.
USC is a name to the nation (casual viewers). It will be even more so as member of BIG. The same is true of many PAC schools.
Big local markets matters more for the network carriage implications of last realignment era, and to the leftovers, in which it’s assumed the brands won’t pull out of area for the conference (as well as P2 schools do) and the revenue at a level in which carriage differences are more important . That’s why ESPN built the original American with metro schools.
Agree.
I don’t think we can compare this to other eras of realignment.
This is far more macro level motivated, with much bigger stakes than just whether a school is $60 million valuation vs the $75 million conference average.
And never before have conferences and networks been as aligned in their motivations, at least with Fox and BIG. ESPN with the SEC, but they still have cards to play that may mean getting some of BIG
I think the answer to “if BIG wanted more PAC, why didn’t they already add them” is clear- this is a complicated horse trade between primarily two networks and two conferences, which three more conference HQs jockeying for survival and individual schools capable of slowing things up.
But not stopping. CFP, looming pay, and existential level revenue deltas will drive this to steady state soon
I heard something around the time ESPN pulled out of BIG that makes me think a 3 conference setup is not far away.
I don't think media companies believe that viewers = fans. In fact, that's why we don't see a perfect correlation in attendance and viewership. In fact, I would say that the difference in valuable media brands (viewership) is mostly about fans of other teams watching.One thing we tend to oversimplify is that the majority people watching ISU (or any school for that matter) are fans of that school. I would suspect that may be 50% accurate. An extreme example is Alabama- on most Saturdays more people watch their games than there are people in Alabama.
So that would give a lot of credence to people liking to watch a winner or brand. But Alabama gets all the credit. And they deserve a lot based on putting a great product on the field.
But it will be interesting as media technology evolves, will streaming and cable be able to capture the demographics of viewership on a granular basis. Watching football last night got me thinking about this with all the viewership discussion related to realignment.
I watched the 2nd Q of the WV v Pitt game. At half turned on the PSU v Purdue game & watched that until half. Turned the WV v Pitt game back on til it ended. Then watched the rest of the PSU v Purdue game. I did take a sneak peak and caught a NMSU v Gopher touchdown drive. Does technology today allow Nielsen or whoever reports CFB viewership capture how much of a game a household watches? That doesn't even bring into the picture viewership numbers within a household (are 1 or 10 people watching). Even more so people watching at bars.
So people keep arguing about viewership value, but how accurate are the numbers? I guess in short how is the data captured?
Also in the future, will technology be able to track the fan base of the viewer to their primary school? Looping back to my initial example of Alabama. Will technology be able to assign a viewer a primary school, in my case Iowa State. So if I watch an Alabama game, the media folks understand that Iowa State is responsible for the viewer, just as much as Alabama. After all, some people watch 1 CFB game a weekend and others watch 4-10 in whole or partial.
Just another rabbit hole in my mind.
Obviously big name programs do have more fans, particularly out of area. But the viewership of every team varies way too much for it to be mostly driven by fans of the teams playing. Fans of teams typically watch those teams regardless of opponent. Bama and Georgia each playing Vandy might draw 2M. Then they play each other and might draw 8M. While I'm sure SOME Bama and Georgia fans may not tune into a game vs. Vandy, I think it's safe to assume that there's a massive "greater than the sum of their fans" effect for big games.
I disagree. There is absolutely that much to do there and a whole lot of it is free.
A team needs to bring it before I spend a few hundred instead of hitting the beach for free.
Speedy, to reinforce your point, people don't think of the real importance of butts in the seats.
Our payout from the Big 12 of $42.6 million includes about $26 million for TV rights. In addition, we get an additional tier 3 revenue from ESPN+ and Learfield that is budgeted for $5.5 million in the current year, for a total of $31.5 million.
The budget for the current year includes in revenues approximately $29 million for tickets sales and $30 from the Foundation (contributions) for a total of $59 million. The vast majority of the contributions have to come from people who go to the games.
The media contract is important, but it is not the end all.
Reports coming out that the 12 team playoff has been approved. Might speed up things even more with OUT wanting to go to the SEC for when it kicks in.
So you are saying nowhere else has as much to do as California?
Some would say other places have just as much to do, just maybe different things.
- Probably not a lot of corn and beans being combined in L.A. but there is in Iowa.
- Probably not a lot of Hunting being done in L.A. but there is in Iowa, and other states.
- Probably not a lot of hogs, cows and other farm chores to be done in L.A. but there is in Iowa and other areas.
- There are tons of other recreation activities that are just the same around the country that they are in Cali...biking, hiking, motorcycling, axe throwing, bowling, golfing, tournaments, Movies, theaters, parties, gatherings, bars, Lakes, fishing, swimming, Pools, boating, climbing walls, Parks, etc etc etc.
Basically LA has a beach and that is the excuse, but everywhere has things to do, some have beaches, some have other things. Some have lakes, some have ocean too. Florida, Texas, Alabama, Carolinas, ring a bell?
Football is just more important to some places than the west coast. The west coast uses excuses but really it just means that its just not that important. They are fair weather fans, and only care went they jump on the bandwagon. Otherwise they will find something else to do.
Other areas, Football is more important, and people believe they can go to the beach etc. anytime, except for the handful of weeks in the fall.
I would say I lived there for 15 years and didn't come close to doing everything that was available. I could live there another 15 years and it wouldn't change.
The Coliseum can be a hot box. USC would need to bring it before a casual fan would slap down the cash.
I've lived in quite a few places and nothing compares to SoCal and the overwhelming amount of entertainment options. Nothing.
If people in Tuscaloosa want to format their entire year and identity around Alabama football then great. But the people in SoCal don't give a **** what they do. They're too busy having fun in other ways.
Now USC has to compete for the football dollar with the Rams and the Chargers too. It's a good, but not great sports town. But it doesn't need to be a great sports town for it's identity
Part of your argument lists jobs as a reason not to attend football games...they have jobs in LA as well so that argument is nullified. If you don't think there isn't more entertainment options available in SoCal...well...I don't know what to tell you. Is football more or less "important" to people in SoCal? Who cares...either way that is a relative statement..."Important" compared to what? A person that lives in SoCal and is a big UCLA fan might just be willing to take their family to the mountains on a Saturday...or to an amusement park or whatever place families go. The entertainment options available to people in SoCal are riduculously more numerous than in Iowa and number a lot more than just a beach. Doesn't mean either region is better or worse than the other...just different.
