Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[CascadeClone]

Making significantly more money with media rights pooling for the SEC and B10 and the rest of P4/G5 is far more important than retaining the SEC/B10's selfish competitive advantage. And the Feds will insure that, if absolutely required.

And G5 schools can make significantly more money with media rights pooling and fund their own long overdue G5 playoff if those G5 rights are bundled with P4 (P7 with rational realignment) rights.

For example, SEC, ACC and partial CFP rights would be bundled with a G5 conference and partial G5 playoff rights. Offer that package for open bidding and given that ESPN is the incumbent for SEC/ACC rights, give them the right of first refusal to match offers from the likes of Amazon and Google.

CFB needs to act and think like the NFL and quit having ESPN and Fox and their two little puppets control CFB for their sole benefit.

You are delusionally optimistic. I mean, what you are saying would be great for ISU, not to mention truth, justice and the American Way.
But it goes against all logic. It relies on everyone in charge being willing to sacrifice their own advantage and power and money for the common good.
I guess theres a first time for everything. But its more likely you are just fking wrong.

 

[ClubCy]

Yeah and every other rational FBS commissioner.

Except for…….? You’re almost there.

Look man, as mentioned, you’re overtly optimistic and I praise you for that and honestly there probably isn’t a person on this board that does not want what you keep saying to happen. I desperately want that to happen.

It would be the best thing to happen in college athletics but you speak as if it’s an absolute when it’s a very small number of people saying what should happen. I mean we are still in the stage of the SEC/B1G trying to squeeze every single dollar and advantage in their favor despite already having every single dollar and advantage at their disposal.

Again, I want you to be right on this.

 

[cykadelic2]

You are delusionally optimistic. I mean, what you are saying would be great for ISU, not to mention truth, justice and the American Way.
But it goes against all logic. It relies on everyone in charge being willing to sacrifice their own advantage and power and money for the common good.
I guess theres a first time for everything. But its more likely you are just fking wrong.

Nah, it’s more likely you and others will be proven wrong. The money is too great to pass up and as noted in Dellenger’s tweet, everyone in the industry except for Sankey and Pettiti are beginning to publicly acknowledge the huge financial benefits of media rights pooling and the two little puppets will eventually lose out to public, political and perhaps legal pressure as well especially given they also financially benefit with it.

 

[Clonehomer]

Making significantly more money with media rights pooling for the SEC and B10 and the rest of P4/G5 is far more important than retaining the SEC/B10's selfish competitive advantage. And the Feds will insure that, if absolutely required.

And G5 schools can make significantly more money with media rights pooling and fund their own long overdue G5 playoff if those G5 rights are bundled with P4 (P7 with rational realignment) rights.

For example, SEC, ACC and partial CFP rights would be bundled with a G5 conference and partial G5 playoff rights. Offer that package for open bidding and given that ESPN is the incumbent for SEC/ACC rights, give them the right of first refusal to match offers from the likes of Amazon and Google.

CFB needs to act and think like the NFL and quit having ESPN and Fox and their two little puppets control CFB for their sole benefit.

Revenue would triple at the cost of the viewer. That package would be too big for one network to bid. So you’ll have to piecemeal it all over multiple networks. Which means consumers will be forced to get all sorts of packages and subscriptions to be able to watch their teams. At least with the current system your teams conference is somewhat limited to just one or a few networks.

But….rather than bid it out, why wouldn’t the NCAA just create their own streaming network? They certainly have the content to fill the timeslots all year long. Maybe sell the rights to some games to broadcast TV, but a subscription model for all NCAA D1 sports TV could bring in good money. For the smaller sports and schools, you could use the opportunity to hire students to help produce games and learn valuable skills for communications and broadcasting majors. It could be a really cool opportunity for students beyond just the athletes. And then maybe the athletes could be employees of the NCAA rather than the schools to make things easier to navigate?

 

[1UNI2ISU]

Revenue would triple at the cost of the viewer. That package would be too big for one network to bid. So you’ll have to piecemeal it all over multiple networks. Which means consumers will be forced to get all sorts of packages and subscriptions to be able to watch their teams. At least with the current system your teams conference is somewhat limited to just one or a few networks.

But….rather than bid it out, why wouldn’t the NCAA just create their own streaming network? They certainly have the content to fill the timeslots all year long. Maybe sell the rights to some games to broadcast TV, but a subscription model for all NCAA D1 sports TV could bring in good money. For the smaller sports and schools, you could use the opportunity to hire students to help produce games and learn valuable skills for communications and broadcasting majors. It could be a really cool opportunity for students beyond just the athletes. And then maybe the athletes could be employees of the NCAA rather than the schools to make things easier to navigate?

The non-revs are such bad money deals that the NCAA has to bundle them with the Women's Tournament, Volleybsll and the FCS Playoffs to get them on TV. They basically force ESPN to take them. There's no money to be made there.

 

[cykadelic2]

Revenue would triple at the cost of the viewer. That package would be too big for one network to bid. So you’ll have to piecemeal it all over multiple networks. Which means consumers will be forced to get all sorts of packages and subscriptions to be able to watch their teams. At least with the current system your teams conference is somewhat limited to just one or a few networks.

…..and it would be no different than the NFL which is now on 4 OTA networks as well as Peacock, NFLN, Amazon and Netflix. And the NBA is going to be on 2 OTA networks in addition to Peacock, Amazon and NBATV.

 

[Clonehomer]

The non-revs are such bad money deals that the NCAA has to bundle them with the Women's Tournament, Volleybsll and the FCS Playoffs to get them on TV. They basically force ESPN to take them. There's no money to be made there.

But as a whole, ESPN, Fox, and the like are all making money on college sports even if they are being forced to take those events.

And like I stated, maybe it’s about getting control and offering opportunities to the students you are supporting just as much as the money.

 

[Clonehomer]

…..and it would be no different than the NFL which is now on 4 OTA networks as well as Peacock, NFLN, Amazon and Netflix. And the NBA is going to be on 2 OTA networks in addition to Peacock, Amazon and NBATV.

That’s what I think would happen if they bid a consolidated package out. That’s why I was thinking a dedicated NCAA streaming network would be good for the athletes and the consumers. It would, of course, be really bad for the TV networks.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Revenue would triple at the cost of the viewer. That package would be too big for one network to bid. So you’ll have to piecemeal it all over multiple networks. Which means consumers will be forced to get all sorts of packages and subscriptions to be able to watch their teams. At least with the current system your teams conference is somewhat limited to just one or a few networks.

But….rather than bid it out, why wouldn’t the NCAA just create their own streaming network? They certainly have the content to fill the timeslots all year long. Maybe sell the rights to some games to broadcast TV, but a subscription model for all NCAA D1 sports TV could bring in good money. For the smaller sports and schools, you could use the opportunity to hire students to help produce games and learn valuable skills for communications and broadcasting majors. It could be a really cool opportunity for students beyond just the athletes. And then maybe the athletes could be employees of the NCAA rather than the schools to make things easier to navigate?

While I don’t think what he is talking about will happen this is kinda already the case for the big ten. If you legit wanted to watch all football and basketball you need Fox, CBS, NBC, paramount, peacock and BTN. If you want to watch other sports like hockey you need to have BTN+ as well.

Now most of those services only have a couple games that you could just choose to ignore or find a work around but I don’t think that’s what would stop this from happening.

 

[CascadeClone]

While I don’t think what he is talking about will happen this is kinda already the case for the big ten. If you legit wanted to watch all football and basketball you need Fox, CBS, NBC, paramount, peacock and BTN. If you want to watch other sports like hockey you need to have BTN+ as well.

Now most of those services only have a couple games that you could just choose to ignore or find a work around but I don’t think that’s what would stop this from happening.

It wasn't much different for the Big12 last year.

Even with a bundled package with ESPN and Fox, I still needed Paramount and ESPN+ streaming. And there was still a couple games I missed. It's not even the cost, its the complexity/aggravation and the feeling you are getting worked by a bunch of weasels.

 

[cykadelic2]

That’s what I think would happen if they bid a consolidated package out. That’s why I was thinking a dedicated NCAA streaming network would be good for the athletes and the consumers. It would, of course, be really bad for the TV networks.

....would also be bad for revenue growth.

 

[Cloneon]

Making significantly more money with media rights pooling for the SEC and B10 and the rest of P4/G5 is far more important than retaining the SEC/B10's selfish competitive advantage. And the Feds will insure that, if absolutely required.

And G5 schools can make significantly more money with media rights pooling and fund their own long overdue G5 playoff if those G5 rights are bundled with P4 (P7 with rational realignment) rights.

For example, SEC, ACC and partial CFP rights would be bundled with a G5 conference and partial G5 playoff rights. Offer that package for open bidding and given that ESPN is the incumbent for SEC/ACC rights, give them the right of first refusal to match offers from the likes of Amazon and Google.

CFB needs to act and think like the NFL and quit having ESPN and Fox and their two little puppets control CFB for their sole benefit.

What's so interesting is 'why' the Amazons, Apples and Googles haven't jumped in. Sure, they're sticking their toe in, but there's a reason they are not. That's the question everyone here should be speculating on. I'm sure there's a degrading revenue stream as the season wears on as teams are eliminated from contention. But, I still feel a local rivalry will garner more eyeballs from that region than say an out-of-region P2 matchup. Of course, I'm going from my own habits. It's very unlikely I'll watch an out-of-conference game unless it has ramifications on first ISU, then the B12. Otherwise, I just don't care.

 

[cykadelic2]

What's so interesting is 'why' the Amazons, Apples and Googles haven't jumped in. Sure, they're sticking their toe in, but there's a reason they are not. That's the question everyone here should be speculating on. I'm sure there's a degrading revenue stream as the season wears on as teams are eliminated from contention. But, I still feel a local rivalry will garner more eyeballs from that region than say an out-of-region P2 matchup. Of course, I'm going from my own habits. It's very unlikely I'll watch an out-of-conference game unless it has ramifications on first ISU, then the B12. Otherwise, I just don't care.

The reason the Amazons, Apples and Googles haven't jumped in is two fold:

1) ESPN and Fox, via their realignment manipulation, have hoarded all of the top brands into the 3 conferences they 100% own (B10, ACC & SEC) with the exception of Notre Dame.
2) Without access to regular season inventory of those top brands, there is little incentive for Amazon, Google, etc. to enter the CFB space including the CFP (which is illogically hoarded by only ESPN)

The obvious fix is media rights pooling and rational realignment into seven 10-team conferences (with top brands more spread out) and have the rights to those 7 conferences and annual shared CFP rights bid out NFL style. The rights could be bundled as follows:

1) SEC/ACC/Partial CFP/Two G5 conferences/Partial G5 Playoff => ESPN/ABC/ACCN/SECN has right to match other bids
2) B10/PAC/Partial CFP/G5 Conference/Partial G5 Playoff => Fox/BTN/FS1/FS2 has right to match other bids
3) SWC/"Big East"/Partial CFP/One G5 Conference/Partial G5 Playoff
4) Notre Dame/B12/Partial CFP/One G5 Conference/Partial G5 Playoff => NBC/USA/Peacock has right to match other bids

Package #3 would likely draw and could be shared amongst these 3: CBS/Paramount, Amazon and/or TNT.

Total media rights revenues would at least double and the SEC/B10 would continue their revenue advantage with an element of unequal revenue sharing based on regular season and CFP TV ratings (e.g. 25% of the total revenue pool shared unequally).

 

[aeroclone]

https://frontofficesports.com/mls-reveals-apple-tv-streaming-numbers-raising-questions/

Perhaps the streamers haven't jumped in because the results of moving sports to streaming services have been lackluster. MLS ratings on Apple were 60k viewers last year, and doubled to 120k this year. But in their last year on ESPN they drew 340k. Maybe the streamers aren't willing to outbid the networks because the product remains far more valuable to a network owner than a streaming owner.

 

[Clonehomer]

https://frontofficesports.com/mls-reveals-apple-tv-streaming-numbers-raising-questions/

Perhaps the streamers haven't jumped in because the results of moving sports to streaming services have been lackluster. MLS ratings on Apple were 60k viewers last year, and doubled to 120k this year. But in their last year on ESPN they drew 340k. Maybe the streamers aren't willing to outbid the networks because the product remains far more valuable to a network owner than a streaming owner.

MLS is a tough compare because Apple TV is still small potato’s when it comes to streaming services. So how much of that is due to MOS and how much is due to Apple? Seems a better comparison would be when TNF moved to Amazon. How much did those numbers drop when a vast majority of the nation had access to the streaming?

So I think the service is important as you talk about this. Can you partner with Amazon that has a huge viewership base or are you getting a service like Peacock that only exists for Yellowstone reruns?

 

[FriendlySpartan]

What's so interesting is 'why' the Amazons, Apples and Googles haven't jumped in. Sure, they're sticking their toe in, but there's a reason they are not. That's the question everyone here should be speculating on. I'm sure there's a degrading revenue stream as the season wears on as teams are eliminated from contention. But, I still feel a local rivalry will garner more eyeballs from that region than say an out-of-region P2 matchup. Of course, I'm going from my own habits. It's very unlikely I'll watch an out-of-conference game unless it has ramifications on first ISU, then the B12. Otherwise, I just don't care.

So a huge part of it is that the conferences don’t want to lose viewership putting games on streaming. The idea would be that if one of the major conferences were the first to jump that their ratings would plunge. You can see this whenever Notre Dame is on peacock or Michigan is on a streamer. They go from millions of views to barley over 100K

 

[Clonehomer]

So a huge part of it is that the conferences don’t want to lose viewership putting games on streaming. The idea would be that if one of the major conferences were the first to jump that their ratings would plunge. You can see this whenever Notre Dame is on peacock or Michigan is on a streamer. They go from millions of views to barley over 100K

Who’s the opponent that would cause them to drop to Peacock? It’s not a fair comparison as they don’t put the marquee games on Peacock.

 

[aeroclone]

MLS is a tough compare because Apple TV is still small potato’s when it comes to streaming services. So how much of that is due to MOS and how much is due to Apple? Seems a better comparison would be when TNF moved to Amazon. How much did those numbers drop when a vast majority of the nation had access to the streaming?

So I think the service is important as you talk about this. Can you partner with Amazon that has a huge viewership base or are you getting a service like Peacock that only exists for Yellowstone reruns?

The fact of the matter is, you lost two thirds of your viewers moving from ESPN to Apple. Those were MLS viewers who decided not too subscribe to Apple TV to continue viewing MLS. I tend to think of MLS fans as pretty dedicated. Not a lot of casuals over there. It looks like Apple spent a lot of money to get this content, and that jas not converted those fans into subs.

Sure, maybe a bigger platform like Amazon would stay closer to the network ratings. But if it is just your existing subs watching and you aren't generating a bunch of new subscriptions, is it worth it? These contracts cost billions. You need to see a return on that.

 

[Clonehomer]

The fact of the matter is, you lost two thirds of your viewers moving from ESPN to Apple. Those were MLS viewers who decided not too subscribe to Apple TV to continue viewing MLS. I tend to think of MLS fans as pretty dedicated. Not a lot of casuals over there. It looks like Apple spent a lot of money to get this content, and that jas not converted those fans into subs.

Sure, maybe a bigger platform like Amazon would stay closer to the network ratings. But if it is just your existing subs watching and you aren't generating a bunch of new subscriptions, is it worth it? These contracts cost billions. You need to see a return on that.

I guess there’s a question of how much those fans were bringing to ESPN vs Apple in terms of subs and ad revenue. I do not know how you’d ever measure the ESPN subs that MLS drove, but I can’t imagine many of those 340K viewers subscribed to ESPN because of MLS. Where you’re getting $70 per season plus a good chunk of Apple TV subs from that 120K. I doubt that it’s penciling out for Apple now, but if they can continue to increase viewership maybe it will eventually?

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Who’s the opponent that would cause them to drop to Peacock? It’s not a fair comparison as they don’t put the marquee games on Peacock.

That’s the point, they won’t risk the lower ratings of having a big game on a streamer, they want the larger numbers that the current main networks give them. Even when playing cupcake games those teams still draw good numbers though, on the streamers that just doesn’t happen yet