Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

namssa

Mountain West weighs TV money versus controlling game times

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, boisewitha-s said:

Yeah go ask any recruit if they would rather play on YouTube or espn. 

I get that conventional TV remains important, but that dynamic is changing and changing quickly.  I've got a 28yr old and a 18yr old and they seldom ever watch TV anymore.  They are streaming on their electronic devices.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, boisewitha-s said:

Yeah go ask any recruit if they would rather play on YouTube or espn. 

It is a lot easier for you to believe that as a Boise fan, but this is about the entire conference.

 

The more realistic question is "Would you rather play on CBSSports and get out of the stadium past midnight, or Youtube and be out of there in time for a fun night out?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, pokebball said:

I get that conventional TV remains important, but that dynamic is changing and changing quickly.  I've got a 28yr old and a 18yr old and they seldom ever watch TV anymore.  They are streaming on their electronic devices.

Between student loans, high housing costs most of them can’t afford standard cable and have been served by other models.  Those habits are becoming ingrained which is a problem for ESPN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fresno's always played a lot of games at night.  It was great, you'd watch Keith Jackson's game of the week during the afternoon, or maybe Barry Tomkins game on Prime Ticket.  Then the Dogs on the local affiliate saturday night.  

The jucos always play at night.

High schools play at night.  How come no one complains about that?

Having half or a little more than half of your home games at 6 or 7 doesn't bother me.  The thursday and friday night games bug me more.  And the 8 o'clock starts are too late.

I get why the schools in the desolate frozen tundra don't like night games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, pokebball said:

I get that conventional TV remains important, but that dynamic is changing and changing quickly.  I've got a 28yr old and a 18yr old and they seldom ever watch TV anymore.  They are streaming on their electronic devices.

Which in a lot of cases in regards to sports they can only do because their parents are paying for a cable subscription.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, boisewitha-s said:

doubt it. ESPN is not going away. I cut the cord and there are plenty of ways to get espn. 

I don't know how old you are, and I am not looking to argue on a message board, but I will tell you this - I have three teenagers. They NEVER watch network tv. I have about 15 young tech types working for me; they almost NEVER watch network tv.

Everything these "kids" consume is via streaming. 

There are plenty of ways to get ESPN, I am not sure how that is relevant. 

28 minutes ago, Brew_Poke said:

No shit.  It seems obvious to me.

Me too.

24 minutes ago, fanhood said:

The people claiming "recruits want to be on TV" sound like the same people that said "people want to use cash" when debit cars and credit cards first came out. Completely out of touch. 

Good analogy. 

lamb-with-human-face-150331-670.jpg?itok

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, CPslograd said:

Fresno's always played a lot of games at night.  It was great, you'd watch Keith Jackson's game of the week during the afternoon, or maybe Barry Tomkins game on Prime Ticket.  Then the Dogs on the local affiliate saturday night.  

The jucos always play at night.

High schools play at night.  How come no one complains about that?

Having half or a little more than half of your home games at 6 or 7 doesn't bother me.  The thursday and friday night games bug me more.  And the 8 o'clock starts are too late.

I get why the schools in the desolate frozen tundra don't like night games.

High School games take two hours. Generally, you are in  your community, so the drive home is short. there is zero traffic for the most part. Just some reasons. 

SDSU always played at night. But the games started around 6pm. Huge difference between a 6pm and 7:30pm start time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The decision is do you want to play on ESPN maybe once or twice a year and then some random channel no one knows about the rest of the year or have EVERY game streamed on a dedicated website for your entire family to easily access and watch.  

I grew up watching TV.  But even now in my 40s with Netflix, Amazon, Plex, Kodi, and YouTube, I rarely find myself watching TV.  If the MWC had all their games streamed I would cut the cord tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, fanhood said:

High School games take two hours. Generally, you are in  your community, so the drive home is short. there is zero traffic for the most part. Just some reasons. 

SDSU always played at night. But the games started around 6pm. Huge difference between a 6pm and 7:30pm start time.

Agreed 7:30 is a little late, especially after the time change.  6 is better, 7 is ok.  8:15 is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, namssa said:

The decision is do you want to play on ESPN maybe once or twice a year and then some random channel no one knows about the rest of the year or have EVERY game streamed on a dedicated website for your entire family to easily access and watch.  

I grew up watching TV.  But even now in my 40s with Netflix, Amazon, Plex, Kodi, and YouTube, I rarely find myself watching TV.  If the MWC had all their games streamed I would cut the cord tomorrow.

Well, of course.  I think most of us would.  But how do the schools monitize that?

Streaming subscription sites generally works fine.  A lot of the pirated stuff doesn't work so great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d love to see the MWC go exclusively with a streaming service. See if Facebook, YouTube, Netflix, etc will pay ~$15mil per year for all our football games. I’ve got to think it’s worth that. Not any more money for us, but we could get better start times. Maybe we could eventually get other sports to stream as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't really pirate live games though.  Most want to watch it live.

It will be interesting.  The MWC pioneered the MWC Channel before all the Bigger conference did it.  I thought the MWC channel was awesome while it lasted.  Maybe we will be pioneers again in moving to streaming content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RogueStout said:

I don't know how old you are, and I am not looking to argue on a message board, but I will tell you this - I have three teenagers. They NEVER watch network tv. I have about 15 young tech types working for me; they almost NEVER watch network tv.

Everything these "kids" consume is via streaming. 

There are plenty of ways to get ESPN, I am not sure how that is relevant. 

Me too.

Good analogy. 

But even if you stream ESPN you have to have a subscription, whether it's too Comcast, Sling, Vue or whatever.  Same thing with Netflix or Amazon.

Youtube is a completely different deal.  They make their money off of advertising.  So they are more analagous to OTA TV or Radio.

Can the conference make legitimate money through YouTube broadcasts?  I don't think so at this time.  Which means it would probably need to be subscription based one way or the other.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Brew_Poke said:

ESPN is going away; have you not seen their hundreds of thousands of subscriber losses per quarter?

ESPN is losing subscribers because of people cutting the cord. Anybody that had cable or dish were paying for espn even if they never watched it. People that have cut the cord will still watch sports and espn is available to them. ESPN is not going away they just have to adapt which they are doing. 

"but we only lost to Stanford by 3."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, boisewitha-s said:

ESPN is losing subscribers because of people cutting the cord. Anybody that had cable or dish were paying for espn even if they never watched it. People that have cut the cord will still watch sports and espn is available to them. ESPN is not going away they just have to adapt which they are doing. 

Agreed.

But the inflated value of sports products due to the nature of the cable tv model is going away.  ESPN and sports content providers like the MWC will have to adapt to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of exposure I agree that even today streaming probably beats or at least equals TV for most MWC schools. However while exposure via streaming may be (and certainly will be) better than via TV the fact remains that as of today we get no money at from those streams and I guess if we were to start charging then viewership i.e. exposure would drop at least to a certain degree.

I think today most MWC schools make between $1.5 to 2.5 million per year from our TV contract. Having more favorable starting times is probably not going to offset these losses. I guess to do so we would need to gain 10-15k people on average which I do not think will happen. Most MWC schools are hard pressed for money already and the ADs are operating in the red. Getting even less revenue may be too much for them to cope.

So in reality I think unless we find a way to earn at least $1 million per school on yearly basis via streaming we will not be able to forsake ESPN & co...

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...