Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[RustShack]

Nice way of saying he was wrong?

No, that streamers want more inventory. Bigger conferences.

 

[isucy86]

I agree, but with a slight spin.

Rather than "good football schools" I would frame it as "big state schools" that are both capable of being really good at football, as well as bringing a good amount of alumni and media interest. They might not be the elites, but they have high floors and a certain amount of respectability just based on size and name.

Agree, if the top 2 state schools are currently in a P5, its a positive to have both schools in your conference. Large alumni bases, both schools capture much of the media coverage (TV, print, social) and broad fan interest. Even though I am a Cyclone fan, I watch or at least track the Hawkeyes.

The opportunity to have UU/BYU or ASU/UA is a positive for any conference because of visibility and intensity of rivalry. It's a big deal when IU plays Purdue or Ole Miss vs MSU. And its a whole other level of Bama v Auburn, UT v A&M.

 

[PickSix]

Can anyone shed some light on streamers for me? It seems like a handful of respected media people insist that streamers generally will value quality of games over quantity of games. But other people are making it sound like the streamers are pushing for conferences like the PAC to get bigger and add more inventory.

Which is it? Does it depend on the company? Genuinely curious as someone who isn't that familiar with this space...

 

[FLYINGCYCLONE]

On3 in talking about 2024 recruiting classes show Texas and Oklahoma in the SEC, and they show USC and UCLA in the Big 10. We know T and O are gone for 2024. Looks the same for the Cal schools.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

On3 in talking about 2024 recruiting classes show Texas and Oklahoma in the SEC, and they show USC and UCLA in the Big 10. We know T and O are gone for 2024. Looks the same for the Cal schools.

Cali schools were always joining in 2024 I believe

 

[CyCrazy]

I think there's a misconception that's out there that people expect to move to a world where everything is only on streaming. As long as ESPN/Fox and the main broadcast networks exist, they're gonna televise live sports. If you're the Pac, it's going to be even easier for your games to get lost on a Saturday crowded with games if people can't get it on a TV without a lot of hassle.

Yes, people expect to be able to stream things. But a lot of what that means is if someone already has ESPN, they expect to be able to stream it without hassle since they already pay for it. If I'm in an airport in Idaho, it should be no issue to stream any Iowa State game if its on a channel I already subscribe to on cable or that I would have on something like Hulu or YouTube TV. People aren't going to passively be on Prime every day and happen upon a Cal-Wazzu game.

Hulu on my phone is great I can watch isu when I am at my girls sports stuff.

 

[isucy86]

On3 in talking about 2024 recruiting classes show Texas and Oklahoma in the SEC, and they show USC and UCLA in the Big 10. We know T and O are gone for 2024. Looks the same for the Cal schools.

Yeah the Pac12's current media deal ends June 30, 2024. So USC & UCLA would move for 2024 season.

That's why there is so much media focus on Pac12 not having a TV contract done by now. And why Big12 realignment talk is heating up now that OUT are gone in 2024.

 

[isucy86]

Can anyone shed some light on streamers for me? It seems like a handful of respected media people insist that streamers generally will value quality of games over quantity of games. But other people are making it sound like the streamers are pushing for conferences like the PAC to get bigger and add more inventory.

Which is it? Does it depend on the company? Genuinely curious as someone who isn't that familiar with this space...

No expert, but streaming platforms can handle unlimited inventory so they are ideal to own rights to many games. So Amazon having rights to 6 Pac12 games on their platform, would grow their subscriber base significantly among a targeted audience.

And more importantly gets their foot in the door ahead of when CFB games are largely add-on subscriptions for Disney, Amazon, etc.

I haven't seen anything lately on Amazon's foray into NFL Thu night football and if it drove up subscriptions or maybe they were just happy to sell ad time for a large viewing audience.

It's interesting how Amazon, Hulu and Netflix have all expanded beyond their subscription based/no-ads model to include traditional ad supported programming. As a consumer, I have found myself reverting back to the traditional ad supported programming. I don't need to watch commercials- can jump on internet or grab bite to eat or potty break.

 

[simply1]

No expert, but streaming platforms can handle unlimited inventory so they are ideal to own rights to many games. So Amazon having rights to 6 Pac12 games on their platform, would grow their subscriber base significantly among a targeted audience.

And more importantly gets their foot in the door ahead of when CFB games are largely add-on subscriptions for Disney, Amazon, etc.

I haven't seen anything lately on Amazon's foray into NFL Thu night football and if it drove up subscriptions or maybe they were just happy to sell ad time for a large viewing audience.

It's interesting how Amazon, Hulu and Netflix have all expanded beyond their subscription based/no-ads model to include traditional ad supported programming. As a consumer, I have found myself reverting back to the traditional ad supported programming. I don't need to watch commercials- can jump on internet or grab bite to eat or potty break.

Thursday night football flopped, 41% less viewership than network averages.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

No expert, but streaming platforms can handle unlimited inventory so they are ideal to own rights to many games. So Amazon having rights to 6 Pac12 games on their platform, would grow their subscriber base significantly among a targeted audience.

And more importantly gets their foot in the door ahead of when CFB games are largely add-on subscriptions for Disney, Amazon, etc.

I haven't seen anything lately on Amazon's foray into NFL Thu night football and if it drove up subscriptions or maybe they were just happy to sell ad time for a large viewing audience.

It's interesting how Amazon, Hulu and Netflix have all expanded beyond their subscription based/no-ads model to include traditional ad supported programming. As a consumer, I have found myself reverting back to the traditional ad supported programming. I don't need to watch commercials- can jump on internet or grab bite to eat or potty break.

The problem with defining streaming is that every service is after different things. Amazon isn’t trying to grow subscribers they are trying for very targeted ads. Apple is in a similar boat as they don’t care about losing money. ESPN+ really needs growth to justify its expense. Hulu/YouTube don’t buy sports rights they simply broadcast cable channels through streaming.

So there isn’t one answer and the fear of moving to a steaming service dramatically reducing visibility is why the major conferences haven’t gone the streaming route. PAC could be the first to try a brand new experience.

 

[KnappShack]

Thursday night football flopped, 41% less viewership than network averages.

It'll be interesting to see if those numbers improve next year. The games were bloody awful and I'm not a fan of the announce team.

It wasn't "out of sight, out of mind", but more of a "this game SUCKS" situation for me.

The NFL had moderate success. The NBA could make it work. No one watched baseball on Apple

I would have pretty low expectations if I'm a PAC school looking for exposure on Amazon

 

[keepngoal]

Can anyone shed some light on streamers for me? It seems like a handful of respected media people insist that streamers generally will value quality of games over quantity of games. But other people are making it sound like the streamers are pushing for conferences like the PAC to get bigger and add more inventory.

Which is it? Does it depend on the company? Genuinely curious as someone who isn't that familiar with this space...

I have been roasted for this take before, and still think its a thing. games on streaming venues miss out on easy viewership in every hotel room, lobby, restaurant, and bar. sure the establishment would find a way to stream them on one TV maybe two …. And make sure they have the bandwidth for all of it.

For me streaming viewership will lag provider viewership. how many bars have jumped to YTTV, or hotels for that matter … near zero if not zero.

 

[alarson]

Thursday night football flopped, 41% less viewership than network averages.

But did it support enough subscriptions for Amazon to find it worth it? That's the question.

Also most of the games were absolute garbage this year it felt like.

 

[alarson]

I have been roasted for this take before, and still think its a thing. games on streaming venues miss out on easy viewership in every hotel room, lobby, restaurant, and bar. sure the establishment would find a way to stream them on one TV maybe two …. And make sure they have the bandwidth for all of it.

For me streaming viewership will lag provider viewership. how many bars have jumped to YTTV, or hotels for that matter … near zero if not zero.

The providers like YTTV seem less of a problem than getting some of the games on the less cable-like providers. Most bars will have the cable-like provider that has ESPN\2\FS1etc. Its when a game ends up on ESPN+, Amazon, etc that it becomes less likely. Sports-focused bars will likely have it available if the teams in their market end up on that particular streaming platform, but even then finding an employee who knows how to change that might be hard (it can be hard enough when it was just a satellite setup).

 

[2speedy1]

Hulu on my phone is great I can watch isu when I am at my girls sports stuff.

HuluLive is a little different, same with YoutubeTV. While they are streaming and include streaming only content and on demand. They also Double as peoples Live TV in place of linear Cable. So yes you are technically streaming everything, you are still accessing live broadcasts on regular channels like ESPN, ABC, Fox etc through that platform as well.

When most people refer to streaming, in regards to streaming platforms for media rights, they are thinking strictly streaming only, with no other option, no cable, no antenna. So Amazon, Apple+, Netflix, Paramount+, ESPN+, Peacock, etc. It is also of note that even then people further separate the networks like ESPN+, Paramount+, Peacock etc. that have a sister linear network that would be included in their media deal. So in reality you are left with the likes of Amazon, Apple+, Netflix, etc.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

But did it support enough subscriptions for Amazon to find it worth it? That's the question.

Also most of the games were absolute garbage this year it felt like.

Amazon doesn’t care about subscriptions, they care about ads marketing their own products. The NFL deal for TNF is a rounding error for Amazon

 

[simply1]

Hotline mailbag: Pac-12 partnerships with Amazon and SMU require the same calculation, expansion timeline, the 14-team option and more

The conference appears ready to expand, if the schools sign a media rights deal that could lean heavily into Amazon Prime Video.

www-mercurynews-com.translate.goog

Hmm

Our best guess is that college football will have three conferences by the mid-2030s: The Big Ten and SEC, each with 20 or 24 members, and a fully revamped Big 12 that spans the country and incorporates most, if not all of the remaining Power Five schools.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

I have been roasted for this take before, and still think its a thing. games on streaming venues miss out on easy viewership in every hotel room, lobby, restaurant, and bar. sure the establishment would find a way to stream them on one TV maybe two …. And make sure they have the bandwidth for all of it.

For me streaming viewership will lag provider viewership. how many bars have jumped to YTTV, or hotels for that matter … near zero if not zero.

I think this will be balanced out (a bit) by the targeted-ad opportunities that streaming live sports provides.

If I logged into my Amazon account to watch Arizona vs. Colorado or something, Amazon has access to everything I've every purchased, my address, my age, etc. and will be able to sell that demographic information to target specific ads at me. 20 of us could be watching the same game on Prime Video and see 20 different ads during a commercial break after a touchdown.

That cancels out the money aspect of lower viewership a bit but it does not affect the reduction in exposure that going streaming heavy will create. Pac-12 will really be out of sight, out of mind for a big chunk of the country and they already have to fight against that to an extent due to their time zone.

 

[Cloneon]

But did it support enough subscriptions for Amazon to find it worth it? That's the question.

Also most of the games were absolute garbage this year it felt like.

I may be an outlier, but I've been an Amazon Prime person for a very long time and haven't watched a second of TNF. In fact, I haven't watched a single sporting event unless it had one of 'my' teams. It seems hard to believe growing their subscriber base justifies 41% viewing.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Hotline mailbag: Pac-12 partnerships with Amazon and SMU require the same calculation, expansion timeline, the 14-team option and more

The conference appears ready to expand, if the schools sign a media rights deal that could lean heavily into Amazon Prime Video.

www-mercurynews-com.translate.goog

Hmm

Their previous best guess was that the pac was worth more than the Big12 and that the Big12 wouldn’t exist anymore. Don’t start listing to people just because their view has changed to the one you want to believe