It's a garbage product that ESPN gives little production money or assistance to. The camera angles suck, the announcers suck, it doesn't work half the time and its laborious for people to have to use. I stand by my assessment.
Big 12 Considering $1B in Private Equity
- Thread starter AgronAlum
- Start date
I think the basketball piece is key.
BY has been leaning into international exposure and basketball from day 1.
I could see a scenario where he sets up a game between Arizona and Kansas in Europe. Both teams spend a week there, play exhibition games against pro teams there, maybe match them up with teams that have nba prospects… then they play each other and come home.
Could that create some interest? Maybe…. I don’t know anything. But it feels like BY is looking to create new ways to bring more exposure to the league. Bottom line, we have to do something different.
It's BIG thinking and I'm all for it.
You have pointed why ESPN and Fox have a stranglehold on CFB. Those two are dictating realignment to their sole benefit and they are doing all they can to prevent new entrants like Amazon into the CFB production space as well as negating the efforts of the proposed CST Super League that is also being back by PE. Fox already has destroyed the ADs at Oregon St and Washington St. Next up will be ESPN putting a similar hatchet job on ACC schools like Wake, Cuse and BC. That is why the Cuse President is on the CST Super League Committee. He knows what's coming next. And that is why the B10 and SEC won't engage with CST, they don't want ESPN and Fox to get pissed at them for doing so.
And it really is no backend deal that Fox has with the B10. They are the majority owner of the BTN entity that owns all of the B10's TV rights and nobody outside of the B10 knows how long that deal is for. The CBS and NBC deals that the B10 has are actually sublicensing deals through BTN
Yes, I agree. I also fail to see how these intentions are any different from the intentions the networks have had for the last 3 decades or so. Unless people think ESPN, FOX, NBC, etc actually have the intentions of preserving traditional college football even if it costs them.
But if that were the case then Nebraska would still be playing Oklahoma and Colorado, Kansas would still be playing Missouri, Oklahoma vs Oklahoma State wouldn't be dead, Pitt vs West Virginia, Washington and Washington St, so on and so on.
Basically this is not new, it's just not being disguised.
FOX and ESPN have made their conference picks of the B10 and the SEC, they will throw a few dollars now at the ACC and B12 to keep us in line and so we can be picked over when the 2 leagues and their media overlords decide is time for the next merger to take place. Luckily for the B12 if looks like the B10 and SEC have their sites set on the big fish in the ACC. This would be the time for Yormark to start talking to Amazon and Apple to see if either is interested in getting into the world of college sports. We know they were lukewarm to the idea of doing it for the P12, but the league was unstable at the time and maybe they knew that the deal between the B10 and UCS and UCLA was already complete and were unsure if Oregon and Washington would be staying without the other two.
Some already are. The football field is. Even Kirk is the moon family head football coach.
So does this means we will be playing Big XII games in Barcelona, London, Amsterdam, and Paris before long? Yes, I realize we will play in Ireland next year but I'm talking on a regular basis.
I think fans have a tendency to write off the international aspirations/ideas as ridiculous before even getting any details. It's easy for people to say, "Why would Europeans care about two random colleges from middle of the U.S. playing each other?" But I think you could equally ask, "Why would people in the U.K. care about the Jacksonville Jaguars?" And yet, the Jaguars have played a bunch of games over there, and their attendance has been as good as any other team's international games.
One potential positive for the Big 12 being the first mover in the international space for college is that the perceptions, stereotypes, or comparisons of one conference vs. another or certain schools vs. others wouldn't exist in the same way anywhere else as they do among U.S. fans. If people from other countries are going to start following or become fans of U.S. college teams, they'll probably become fans of whoever plays there consistently first, and not just become fans of whichever teams ESPN covers more or have better history in football or basketball.
Do you remember how bad the streaming quality was with Cyclones.tv? Camera angles are all on the arena, Baylor's new stadium is an easy example of piss poor planning for that.
Big difference is that it’s the NFL not college. People show up just to watch the spectacle just like how when premier league teams show up in the states they also usually sell out or draw huge numbers even for people who aren’t fans. People show up to a Man United vs Liverpool friendly at the Big House, people don’t notice a Leeds vs Southampton match.
I could be wrong and if the Big12 pulls that trigger I hope it succeeds but I just don’t see a path.
No, ESPN doesn't send as many cameras to +. That translates to less angles for replay and more boring production. I know that Baylor's camera is their arena.
Also, Cyclones.TV is not the largest sports broadcaster in the world either. It shouldn't be a basis for comparison.
It's a basis because it was the only option for ISU games for years. And I'm just comparing streaming quality there. The lag on cyclones.tv was terrible. They might send less cameras but in basketball there's 1 main vantage point that is all I really care about and that falls to the arena.
You will care when they need to check replay and there's no angle to show what happened.
That's definitely true, and that's the risk. But I think the right marketing could help overcome that and make it successful.
Just for an example, Wrexham A.F.C. has legitimate fans in the U.S. despite still being a couple of levels away from the Premier League (even after a couple of promotions). And that only happened because a couple of movie/TV stars bought the team and made a show about it.
Now, could the Big 12 find the same marketing opportunity that Ryan Reynolds brings to Wrexham? No, probably not. But, if they're working with a group that already has a foothold in European sports, there can be a lot of opportunity for cross-promotion and other ways to enhance the marketability of a college conference.
I get your point but that is a massive stretch and as you mention something that is almost impossible to replicate.
Even with Wrexham having a hit TV show, one of the most popular and likable movie stars on the planet as owner (who also is god tier at branding) they are still the 84th most popular soccer team in the United States. Most people don’t watch their games they watch the show and check the score. That’s really about it.
I get what you're getting at, ESPN+ should be better. But it's better than what we had in the past and for $10/month and only subscribing during basketball season it's good for what it is.
I'm going to guess the "84th most popular soccer team in the U.S." came from this list? If so, you might want to take note of the quote at the bottom of the article.
I think that list also demonstrates, though, that foreign 2nd-tier teams can still be ahead of domestic teams--there are a lot of teams (including ones I've never heard of) before you get down to the bulk of the MLS teams, even though MLS games are probably more accessible to Americans on average.
In the same way, it might not be crazy for college American football to still be able to make an impact in Europe as the clear next-best level after the NFL. You mentioned earlier that the NFL games work there as a spectacle. But I think a large part of the spectacle is just the sport itself (that's why I mentioned the Jaguars as an example of American popularity not mattering much for European success). Similarly, the sport as a spectacle doesn't go away when comparing NFL vs. college.
I'll re-emphasize, though, that I don't necessarily think an international push would definitely work. I'm more just outlining the reasons why I think it *could*.
It doesn't need to make Premier League money; every dollar is incremental. Even a tiny niche sport would make some bonus cash.
People watch cycling for gods sake.
