It definitely matters if it’s direct to consumer/stand alone subscription. Markets become irrelevant. And maybe it won’t go that direction but I think everyone has felt like espn would ultimately hit the threshold that made more sense with so many people leaving cable.
Latest from Delllenger regarding FSU lawsuit
- Thread starter Perd Hapley
- Start date
Yeah, I’ve never understood the argument that “cutting the cord” makes a market irrelevant.
That’s because “cutting the cord” is an outdated term. Everything is delivered via stream. What people really mean is “cutting cable” - avoiding paying for channels you don’t want like espn.
The only reason markets have ever mattered is because of the people watching in those markets. Doesn’t matter if they’re watching on cable or streaming. They’re just as valuable either way.
Right. IF the product is delivered via cable. But if espn decides too many have cut cable they could run everything through espn+ with a much higher per month fee and no longer deliver through cable. At that point markets aren’t relevant if espn isn’t being delivered through cable because it’s all about subscribers. Again I don’t know if that’s going to happen but as people have left cable it’s been something people have thrown out as a real
Possibility.
It's heading that way. I'm afraid it's coming to. Major football conference like chip Kelly was talking about. I don't think we will make that one .
And where are those subscribers? For every school, the biggest subscriber base is in their home state. Imagine two worlds, one with no streaming and one with no cable. How is one school going to be worth more or less in either world? That's an extreme example, but the same concept applies no matter what the mix between cable and streaming is.
Because if ESPN goes stand alone they no longer offer through cable. So in Arkansas if they offer through cable they get money from every subscriber in Arkansas. Whether that person cares about sports or not. That model has been dying on them bc so many are leaving cable which has prompted some to think espn could move to stand alone. So if they move to stand alone espn+ now they want all the Arkansas fans to subscribe to espn+. but if they form a super league without Arkansas they risk losing some of that stand alone subscription base. Again I have no idea what would happen but if ESPN goes stand alone they probably need as many fans as possible to subscribe.
Again, where are most of those fans? They're in the home states of the schools. Yes, there are a handful of national teams, but most all of those are already in the SEC or Big 10. Really, FSU and Clemson are the only 2 national schools remaining, and Clemson's sustainability is questionable.
I’m not sure you and I are speaking the same language. Because I dont get your point About where the fans are and how that impacts this.
Arkansas fans are in Arkansas. There is a risk if they are not included in a super league that those fans don’t subscribe to an espn+ product, costing espn money. So espn should have reason to include as many schools as possible if they use espn+. If it’s a cable product then Maybe not.
I’m not sure saying cutting cable or cutting the cord makes any difference… explain why tv markets don’t matter in a cable less world?
What he’s saying is adding a school because of the tv market they are in matters… regardless of how espn delivers the product.
If the sec were to add someone like Virginia, that creates more people in Virginia that would want the sec network or espn. So, either they pick up a cable package or streaming service that carries espn. Or if it’s a direct to consumer model, people in Virginia subscribe to espn because they want to watch Virginia football. So why does espn care what method they are bringing the product to consumer? More consumers that are interested in the product is what matters.
Yall are conflating terms. YouTube tv is nothing but an old school cable package. Same with Hulu. It’s just delivered thru a stream. But the premise is the same - you pay for channels you don’t necessarily want but pay for. Thats what has killed espn as the great Clay Travis has written 500 times. People stopped subscribing to comcast, YouTube, Hulu, cspire tv, etc bc they could get what they wanted thru Netflix or Peacock for far less. So that’s less money to espn.
So that has prompted some to think espn may have to ultimately go to a stand alone model where they push all their games thru espn+ requiring subscribers to espn+. If that happened, a market doesn’t matter if that’s how games are delivered. They need subscribers to that service.
So think of it like this. If you get YouTube tv or Hulu there is no Netflix channel. You have to subscribe to Netflix separately. That’s what the vision with espn+ would be. And in that instance it seems like they would need as many interested sports fans to pay $30-50 per month for that.
I am wide open to someone suggesting otherwise.
Let’s put it this way. What small market schools do you think the SEC & Big 10 should be looking at? Not Florida St or Miami. Those are huge markets. Clemson? Even South Carolina has over 5.3M population. Why isn’t Utah a top target while UCLA was? Utah has a much better football program. Markets matter. Whether cable or streaming.
Yes. Markets matter now because everything is delivered through cable. Everything.
if I’m the the SEC I wouldn’t add anyone that doesn’t add a dollar. If I’m a broadcast network I’d probably look at it differently.
People/organizations with power don't give that power up. The SEC/B10 would be stupid to give up their power. They will be driving the next phase of big time CFB. Neither conference, nor their University Presidents are going to dissolve their conference and give up their power and join another organization. That's as dumb as the idiot last week posting that Academies should leave the MAIS and join the public school association for sports. No matter the next evolution of CFB, the SEC and B10 will be there and be intact. Likely 4 conferences of 20 teams.
It'll be more than 32 teams. No chance brand names schools risk going 6-6 for years in a row. They need teams to beat.
But ESPN already has Virginia because they have the ACC.
It’s robbing Peter to pay Finebaum.
Not if Virginia has the possibility of going to the big 10 and Fox.
No, im not confusing any terms. I completely understand how these streaming services work. What I don’t understand is how espn bringing their product directly to the consumer makes it to where they don’t care about the market. To espn it’s still about delivering content that the most amount of people want to watch. And the best way to do that is by putting colleges on that are in the biggest markets that have the most amount of potential viewers.
look at it this way. If you had to sell a stand alone product who are you taking first- LSU or Northwestern? One is in a huge tv market. One is not.
Virginia or Clemson? How would Virginia help sell more stand alone subs by being in the DC market when the vast majority of that market doesn’t care about Virginia football.
Here's your next 4 - locking up the SE for the SEC. These are the only decent schools left on the outside looking in across the SE. If it goes to 6 more, add Virginia and OK State.
North Carolina
NC State
Clemson
Florida State
North Carolina
NC State
Clemson
Florida State
The state of Virginia has a population of 8.6 million. The DC metro area has over 6 million. The state of South Carolina has 5 million people. Half of the 5 million probably already would buy espn as a stand along because of the university of South Carolina. So you add Clemson and pick up a potential 2.5 million give or take. You add Virginia you have access to 8 million people that currently don’t have an interest in a stand alone espn package for college football. Adding Clemson and Florida state could provide diminishing returns because espn already has a large portion of the state interested in espn vs having no interest in North Carolina and Virginia if both of those schools were to go to big 10 and Fox.
That will be my last word on this. I’ll concede to whatever your opinion is.
I will be surprised if North Carolina doesn't choose the Big 10. SEC will make a string push for them though & I think would be a better conference for them. Travel is going to be a bigger problem for Big 10 than I think anyone realizes.
There is a belief among our baseball coaches that california recruiting is already picking up bc kids don’t want to have to deal with all the travel.
They’ll make it work for football, because it’s so few games & it’s really big money. But all the other sports are going to struggle.
Probably between 60 and 80. Not only the reason that you mentioned, but also to fill TV spots and to bring more fans (viewers) to the game. Fans of mid tier teams also watch the big boys. A KSU fan likely watches all the big CFB games in addition to KSU. Move KSU out of the P5, then TV execs risk losing that fan, he/she may will likely have less interest in the college game and focus on the NFL.
Football travel is for a lot fewer games, but a ton more equipment. Travel across the country for the other sports will be hugely expensive and more frequent with huge disruptions for academics. National conferences will cost schools a ton more travel money - will probably end up with regional divisions to minimize costs - which makes you wonder what the point of a national conference is at that point.
Yeah, but they will have Noon kickoffs that are 9am for the West Coasters. Early kickoffs are an issue for NFL teams, and will certainly be an issue for a team of teenagers and young adults.
Eh, once you’re on a plane, a few hours cruising doesn’t really make a difference. And the PAC teams have always had to fly to get to each other.
They could mitigate it some too by having permanent opponents geographic areas, and in some of the smaller sports, make them play multiple times.
First off, LSU is absolutely in a big TV market…so that’s not the greatest example.
You need to substitute “TV market” for “likely subscribers”. There’s some overlap there, but it varies from school to school. The biggest correlation is with historical success and number of living alumni. To your LSU / Northwestern comparison, LSU dominates them in both. Now, substitute Northwestern for Illinois, and suddenly its much closer. Illinois’ football success of course doesn’t touch LSU’s and is really no different from Northwestern. But they are a much, much larger school with many more living alums. For them, that Chicago market sure as hell matters.
Virginia vs. Clemson is also more interesting than you think. Clemson had a nice run with Deshaun Watson and Trevor Lawrence, but they never were and never will be a blue blood. Their time in the sun is over. Take out that half decade, and there’s not a lot of difference at all between them and Virginia, from a national interest perspective. Virginia’s another large school with huge presence in that DC market, which matters. If Clemson was an AAC institution, with 40,000 students, and the SEC didn’t already have a foothold in South Carolina, then they would be a far more interesting prospect for both the SEC and B1G. But none of those 3 things are true.
Hahahaha. 2 natties, and 2 runner-up places and a top 4 finish in 5 years. Fills up an 80K seat stadium routinely. They have one of the most rabid fanbases out there. Plenty of money. You don’t get more blue blood than that.
They also have a natty from 1981, you know. It’s not like they are Johnny come lately.
But back to the conference TV thing, the answer to the riddle is you’d like to get both big name brands that help nationally (Clemson) and a lesser known brand that may help you geographically (Virginia), using your examples. I mean, nationally more people would watch say, Arkansas vs Clemson. But in VA, a lot of people would watch Arkansas vs Virginia. I’ll let the execs figure out which is best for the SEC. My thought is that it’s Clemson, but if you can get both, may as well.
Last edited:
Correct. DTC will be about how to draw subscribers. With cable/linear you do that by going to large tv markets and shoving espn and its affiliates down the throat of people who may not want to pay for it but have to. In a DTC world that’s not an option.
Iger has said they will do both in the beginning and see how it plays out. Be interesting to watch.
The big 10 is coming into SEC territory if they want and nothing the SEC can do about it.
if we get fsu and Clemson they’ll get Miami and North Carolina or Virginia, etc.
Im not against fsu or Clemson but it’s not like it’s them or failure.
Latest posts
-
-
OT: Elvis tried to kill Obama- Latest: YesIAmAPirate
Get unlimited access today.