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

11 minutes ago, CPslograd said:

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

That is my gripe as well.  The last five years the SDSU games shifted 3 hours later.  I like night games, but a schedule filled with "late" night games is a bit much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, namssa said:

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

Sure you can pirate a livestream. Already today you can find pirated live streams of various sports events via a lot of sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the streaming deal, have you guys noticed how much better the situaiton is for audio now than it was a few years ago?

It used to be they'd black out sports broadcasts on Iheartradio and TuneIn, the last couple of years I haven't found that problem for college sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, CPslograd said:

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.

Revenue from ads during the games.  Subs won't give the bang for the buck for any sports with the exception for the pro sports.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CPslograd said:

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.

 

I never made any argument about that. I was trying to answer the question about if you asked a kid if he would rather be on youtube or espn.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RogueStout said:

I never made any argument about that. I was trying to answer the question about if you asked a kid if he would rather be on youtube or espn.

I know.  I wasn't arguing with you.  Just adding my billiance to the conversation.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, CPslograd said:

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.

I am not 100% sure of that. I have not seen the actual numbers but if you look at what the NFL, MLB, NBA and so forth are charging for online subscriptions I do not think the value as such will go down. Especially if you consider reduced overhead cost and the fact that they are cutting out the middle man (TV networks) to net a higher margin for themselves. If I calculated correctly NFL Gamepass needs ~50 million subscribers to bring in the same revenue as the current NFL TV contracts. ESPN today has 87 million subscribers so I think it is entirely feasible to get the same revenues without ESPN.

However that sort of model will only work for the pro leagues and the best P5 college teams everyone else will probably lose significantly as they will not get anywhere near the required number of paying subscribers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, CPslograd said:

The jucos always play at night.

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

 

The same reason CSU-San Jose's fans don't complain about night games...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hador said:

I am not 100% sure of that. I have not seen the actual numbers but if you look at what the NFL, MLB, NBA and so forth are charging for online subscriptions I do not think the value as such will go down. Especially if you consider reduced overhead cost and the fact that they are cutting out the middle man (TV networks) to net a higher margin for themselves. If I calculated correctly NFL Gamepass needs ~50 million subscribers to bring in the same revenue as the current NFL TV contracts. ESPN today has 87 million subscribers so I think it is entirely feasible to get the same revenues without ESPN.

However that sort of model will only work for the pro leagues and the best P5 college teams everyone else will probably lose significantly as they will not get anywhere near the required number of paying subscribers.

If you cut out ESPN, who is going to do the production?  Youtube?

And if you're on YouTube, how are you cutting out the middleman.  You just subsitutued Google for Disney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CPslograd said:

If you cut out ESPN, who is going to do the production?  Youtube?

And if you're on YouTube, how are you cutting out the middleman.  You just subsitutued Google for Disney.

As I said it will only work for maybe the top 5% of college programs because they can carry the cost of production themselves while drawing enough subscribers. The others, including all MWC schools will not have that option.

I never mentioned YouTube, I was talking about paid subscriber models. Financing a D1 college program via YouTube is not gonna happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well guys, the MW has never been afraid to stray from ESPN unlike the WAC.  The MW went with a new channel CSN rather than beheld to ESPN's demands.  Did that stop the MW schools from being a step away from the BCS while the WAC that was on ESPN never achieved the status of the MW?  No...the MW was still a better conference than the WAC despite being CSN and The Mtn.  

ESPN national platform doesn't do squat for the MW currently because nobody here in the central and eastern time zones are up watching the games.   Sorry for BSU because while they do get more TV revenue that any increase in attending could offset, the rest of the schools are losing more revenue by not having butts in seats and that is worth more than the measly TV revenue that is given to us.  While the PAC-12 may complain about the same issues, they are getting $28 million each compare to $1.1 million for the MW schools.  That $1.1 million not only is beholden to football attendance but also basketball attendance also.   In addition...how many game have been on ESPNU?  Quite a few and that is a channel that is only in around 45 million homes. 

We'll have to see who want the MW when the time comes.  Maybe NBC Sports wants to be part of it or Fox for FS1, maybe some other channel...maybe even Stadium will make a big offer and the MW games with be OTA as well as streamed on the multiple platforms that Stadium is on.  

The MW Network has been use quite a bit for games televised on Stadium in women's soccer and volleyball. (There is the production answer CPslograd).   It may be the MW Network produces the games and then uses Stadium's OTA stations and/or getting TV affiliates to show the games.   But right now, the MW Network is streaming a bunch of basketball games and I was able to see Fresno and Utah St play last night but not Nevada because it was push to the U channel.  

While ESPN is not going die, they are waning and very much so.  And now look at this!!!

BOOM!  A new TV streaming cable package is now out without sports or local and news channels!    https://try.philo.com/

Philo has a pretty extensive cable package and by not offering sports, news or local channels they can offer the bigger cable channels for $16/month.   So, while some customers were moving away from cable and satellite to PS VUE, Sling and DirecTV Now....they now can get a cheaper option that offers what the 80% of viewers actually watch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, CPslograd said:

If you cut out ESPN, who is going to do the production?  Youtube?

And if you're on YouTube, how are you cutting out the middleman.  You just subsitutued Google for Disney.

Production has been done by the schools and also by Stadium.   Check out their productions for the CUSA games.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently moved into the Eastern Time Zone, and I gotta tell you, starting a game at 10:30 p.m. is ridiculous. I've fallen asleep at halftime, which I NEVER did in Mountain Time. I'm just too old and tired, I guess. LOL

If we're talking about national exposure, then starting a game at that time of night does us no favors. If anything we need to move the time UP to 3 p.m. Mountain Time for national exposure. I don't care if it's streaming on Facebook, YouTube or anything. Please let the games start earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting that this article is from ABC News i.e. Disney/ESPN.  It's like someone from Disney thought they'd get a different story from the Hair if an ABC News reporter is asking the questions rather than an ESPN reporter but they didn't. 

It does appear that Boise is on the same with rest of the conference in so far as the quotes are compared with the days of the Big East football only affiliation.  I imagine their fans don't want to go backwards with respect to ESPN.

I think the reporter spoke with ESPN's side of the negotiations table based on the use of an unnamed source stating that 400,000 viewers is the average for ESPN broadcasts.  I'd like to get the Pac 12 data from ESPN to compare because i doubt that the disparity in ratings is in a similar proportion to the disparity in compensation that the Pac 12 and Mountain West receive for Window 4 games.

I noted that the American conference was not mentioned anywhere in the article but the Pac 12 was.  Personally I agree that as TV properties the Pac 12 and MW are not all that different. The Pac 12 would happily follow the Mountain West in a TV deal structure that drives up the price for Window 4 games along with reducing the number of window 4 games the conference is committed to scheduling each week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, CPslograd said:

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.

This in my opinion is the key.  To assume ESPN is dead would be silly.  They own content and have the first opportunity to evolve it.  People believing that cord cutting == ESPN death are not very informed.  When ESPN began they were on the forefront of change.  I will wait to see their plan on content prior to considering them dead. 

 

The reliance on TV revenue as we know it is about to be over.  Our conference will suffer as many here were betting on increased revenue to make their athletic programs work at this level.  Same old conversation here.  How will this effect schools like Hawaii, Reno, SJ State, Unlv

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, CPslograd said:

OK.  Well, the money is going to be a lot less than it is now.

Yes...it will but everyone will be able to view the game.  Also, if you are getting more viewers than TV, the way ads are paid by viewers online could break even with the TV revenue and there is the possibility of getting even more due to the $ paid per viewer.  Getting more from TV requires a renegotiation.

By they way, we did get some $$$ from Stadium for the Facebook games they did. Sure it was in the tens of thousands but it wasn't zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, "Here's to Coastie" whom I miss to this day.

Second, from "right there" along side the power conferences... The MWC is becoming less relevant on the national scene each year.  We are begging for scraps.

Finally, the choice seems pretty easy... We tell the big TV revenue guys (ESPN and CBS Sports) no thanks and start building-up our local fan bases, or we continue down this downward slope where no one watches us on TV and no one comes to our games.

I say break the cycle and build up our local base.  The TV execs can't ignore a full house, which we should be most worried about.  Our fans are leaving and we're only getting pennies for their departure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FoursIn said:

First of all, "Here's to Coastie" whom I miss to this day.

Second, from "right there" along side the power conferences... The MWC is becoming less relevant on the national scene each year.  We are begging for scraps.

Finally, the choice seems pretty easy... We tell the big TV revenue guys (ESPN and CBS Sports) no thanks and start building-up our local fan bases, or we continue down this downward slope where no one watches us on TV and no one comes to our games.

I say break the cycle and build up our local base.  The TV execs can't ignore a full house, which we should be most worried about.  Our fans are leaving and we're only getting pennies for their departure.

Upset that I was not able to like more than once!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CSU is in the top half of the conference in football budget, but not by a whole lot and certainly not at the top. Rather than do a conference average, I just looked at our numbers.  TV is less than 3% of our revenue. I’d donate an extra hundred to the AD every year if it meant not getting home from games at 2AM.  The games would have a lot more flow as well if spent more time playing football than selling crap. 

Obviously donations won’t be the bailout, but @FoursIn is correct, full stadiums do bring media $$$. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...