Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[isucy86]

The recent posts about the power of OTA to attain much higher views vs. ESPN or FS1 is a bit puzzling to me. The numbers obviously bear out that conclusion.

But the gap between OTA and ESPN/FS1 doesn't make sense to me. It's not like 50% of the population has access to OTA and not ESPN/FS1.

The MLB playoffs have been entirely on cable- FS1 & TBS/TRU. The NCAA Basketball Tournament has over 75% of its games on TBS, TNT, TRU vs. CBS. And the Final Four this year will be televised on TBS/TNT/TRU.

IMO it's just a matter of time before the prime games are on ESPN, FS1, Peacock, etc. vs. OTA. It's the only way ESPN, FOX, Peacock DTC platforms can maximize their subscription revenues.

I did see where the recent reform legislation being proposed by the Senate has a clause requiring football games for a school be televised on their local OTA stations. A result of local TV lobby group efforts.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

You missed the Big10 Fox broadcasts:
Wk 1: Texas vs. OSU - 16.62M
Wk 3: ISU vs. Iowa - 4.28M
Wk 4: Rutgers vs. Iowa - 3.01M (Fri Night)
Wk 5: USC vs. Illinois - 4.12M
Wk 6: Michigan vs. Wisconsin - 4.63M
Wk 7: Illinois vs. Ohio State - 5.28M

Obviously the Texas vs. OSU game would skew the Big10's OTA average. But the Big10 median would be around 4.45M viewers.

The other aspect is media companies probably have a tiered structure for their ad rates based on more viewers.

Fox is getting good bang for their buck with what they paid for the B10. I was only looking at CBS/NBC B10 games, to support my comment earlier in the thread.

“And I agree, CBS and NBC are not seeing the ROI in their B10 investment. Going to be a factor when the bubble pops next TV round“

Then Gonzo had a whatabout response with the B12, which is what got me on the comparison tangent.

Edit: I also did count the 4.28M for Fox B12 on week 2. The game was in Ames so that was a B12 rights broadcast.

 

[Kinch]

Thank god. Thought they might cave but after connecting with USC glad they held strong.

USC would have gotten the short end of the stick, when compared to Ohio State.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

The recent posts about the power of OTA to attain much higher views vs. ESPN or FS1 is a bit puzzling to me. The numbers obviously bear out that conclusion.

But the gap between OTA and ESPN/FS1 doesn't make sense to me. It's not like 50% of the population has access to OTA and not ESPN/FS1.

The MLB playoffs have been entirely on cable- FS1 & TBS/TRU. The NCAA Basketball Tournament has over 75% of its games on TBS, TNT, TRU vs. CBS. And the Final Four this year will be televised on TBS/TNT/TRU.

IMO it's just a matter of time before the prime games are on ESPN, FS1, Peacock, etc. vs. OTA. It's the only way ESPN, FOX, Peacock DTC platforms can maximize their subscription revenues.

I did see where the recent reform legislation being proposed by the Senate has a clause requiring football games for a school be televised on their local OTA stations. A result of local TV lobby group efforts.

I don’t know the answer to this. But my theory is that football has exponentially more casual viewers than those other sporting events.

So fans of sports in general have no issue seeking a game on ESPN or FS1 or Tru. But OTA will help attract very casual TV viewers who are more likely to turn on a football game versus other sports. Maybe OTA channels are on these people “recents” menu, but they’ve never even gone to ESPN or FS1

I don’t really know that to be true, but it’s the only reason I can think of.

 

[isucy86]

I called it a Ponzi scheme, Michigan calls it a payday loan.

I am trying to make sense of the proposed Big10 Equity deal. $2.4B seems like a lot, but is it really?

Big10 schools would have to extend their GOR through something like 2046. So is the $2B a periodic equity investment by the Cal Pension Trust and not one time over the next 23 years?

Also, the $2.4B would be split 20 ways. Media reports say OSU/UM/PSU stand to get $190M and the other 15 schools get around $140M. If the payment is 1x, is it really worth it for schools like Iowa, Illinois, etc. to get in bed with PE for $7M a year. That's less than 5% of the annual budget for most Big10 schools not the Big3.

Maybe I am missing something. I believe it was the USC regent who said it. The issue in college sports isn't the revenue line. It's schools inability to control costs of P4 sports.

 

[isucy86]

I don’t know the answer to this. But my theory is that football has exponentially more casual viewers than those other sporting events.

So fans of sports in general have no issue seeking a game on ESPN or FS1 or Tru. But OTA will help attract very casual TV viewers who are more likely to turn on a football game versus other sports. Maybe OTA channels are on these people “recents” menu, but they’ve never even gone to ESPN or FS1

I don’t really know that to be true, but it’s the only reason I can think of.

Maybe, but are casual viewers watching OTA channels on Saturday afternoons? Heck, I can't recall the last time I watched an OTA channel for other than live sports and nightly national or local news. Even the few OTA shows I like, I typically watch them later On Demand.

 

[isucy86]

Fox is getting good bang for their buck with what they paid for the B10. I was only looking at CBS/NBC B10 games, to support my comment earlier in the thread.

“And I agree, CBS and NBC are not seeing the ROI in their B10 investment. Going to be a factor when the bubble pops next TV round“

Then Gonzo had a whatabout response with the B12, which is what got me on the comparison tangent.

Edit: I also did count the 4.28M for Fox B12 on week 2. The game was in Ames so that was a B12 rights broadcast.

I don't think the bubble will pop. Every new media deal signed this century has been significantly higher than the previous media deal for that Conference. And with the potential for streaming giants like: Amazon, Netflix, Apple being players in the 2030 media deals, we might not have seen anything yet. Add to that ESPN & FOX recently launched DTC platforms. Plus NBC(Peacock) and Warner Bros Discovery (HBO/Max) may view live sports as the main way to grow their subscription platforms.

Also the fact that NBC & CBS were both willing to invest $350M in the Big10 tells me they are satisfied with the ROI. It's not like both Networks finance folks are stupid and would get fleeced by FOX/Big10.

 

[cykadelic2]

I don't think the bubble will pop. Every new media deal signed this century has been significantly higher than the previous media deal for that Conference. And with the potential for streaming giants like: Amazon, Netflix, Apple being players in the 2030 media deals, we might not have seen anything yet. Add to that ESPN & FOX recently launched DTC platforms. Plus NBC(Peacock) and Warner Bros Discovery (HBO/Max) may view live sports as the main way to grow their subscription platforms.

Also the fact that NBC & CBS were both willing to invest $350M in the Big10 tells me they are satisfied with the ROI. It's not like both Networks finance folks are stupid and would get fleeced by FOX/Big10.

Amazon, Netflix, and Apple won’t be players for 2030 CFB rights without direct bidding access to top brands and CFP rights that would be provided under media rights pooling and rational realignment.

And NBC and CBS both got fleeced by Fox after the fact especially given their ratings when compared to what ESPN paid ($300M ) for the 2:30 ABC window and their higher ratings for games they can pick as they see fit unlike NBC and CBS with the B10.

 

[2speedy1]

The recent posts about the power of OTA to attain much higher views vs. ESPN or FS1 is a bit puzzling to me. The numbers obviously bear out that conclusion.

But the gap between OTA and ESPN/FS1 doesn't make sense to me. It's not like 50% of the population has access to OTA and not ESPN/FS1.

The MLB playoffs have been entirely on cable- FS1 & TBS/TRU. The NCAA Basketball Tournament has over 75% of its games on TBS, TNT, TRU vs. CBS. And the Final Four this year will be televised on TBS/TNT/TRU.

IMO it's just a matter of time before the prime games are on ESPN, FS1, Peacock, etc. vs. OTA. It's the only way ESPN, FOX, Peacock DTC platforms can maximize their subscription revenues.

I did see where the recent reform legislation being proposed by the Senate has a clause requiring football games for a school be televised on their local OTA stations. A result of local TV lobby group efforts.

According to what I find and depending on when and what is included in, ie Netflix type is included in some etc.

Somewhere between 40% and 65% of households have some form of Pay tv, the higher percentages include all types of streamers like Netflix, not just live broadcasts like cable, hulu etc, from what I find.

And from what I am finding that number is actually declining not increasing. So there are a lot more homes without Pay TV like ESPN than you think.


Edit for additional info:

As of 2024, there are approximately 132.2 million households in the United States. This number includes all occupied housing units across the country. According to Census data.

As of December 2023, ESPN is available to approximately 70 million pay television households in the United States. This number has decreased from its peak of 100 million households in 2011. From search results.

 

[Kinch]

According to what I find and depending on when and what is included in, ie Netflix type is included in some etc.

Somewhere between 40% and 65% of households have some form of Pay tv, the higher percentages include all types of streamers like Netflix, not just live broadcasts like cable, hulu etc, from what I find.

And from what I am finding that number is actually declining not increasing. So there are a lot more homes without Pay TV like ESPN than you think.


Edit for additional info:

As of 2024, there are approximately 132.2 million households in the United States. This number includes all occupied housing units across the country. According to Census data.

As of December 2023, ESPN is available to approximately 70 million pay television households in the United States. This number has decreased from its peak of 100 million households in 2011. From search results.

And I would like to see the breakdown of age 18-45 households watching Big 10 vs. Big 12.

 

[isucy86]

Amazon, Netflix, and Apple won’t be players for 2030 CFB rights without direct bidding access to top brands and CFP rights that would be provided under media rights pooling and rational realignment.

And NBC and CBS both got fleeced by Fox after the fact especially given their ratings when compared to what ESPN paid ($300M ) for the 2:30 ABC window and their higher ratings for games they can pick as they see fit unlike NBC and CBS with the B10.

Amazon, Netflix and Apple don't need the help of politicians, regulations or changes to the college football structure to become players in televising CFB. The have $$$ and we all know that's what gets Presidents, AD's and Commissioners attention. And it's also why we see the Big10 & SEC continuing to expand. By growing their brands and more big games each week, it opens the door for the Big10 to give FOX, NBC, CBS and a streamer a big game. Same goes for the SEC.

The $300M ESPN media deal with the SEC was in 2020 dollars. While the NBC & CBS deals with the Big10 were in 2022 dollars. So probably natural for a couple years inflation to drive up prices.

Also the 2020 SEC/ESPN deal was before OU/UT joined the SEC and based on 8 conference games. I expect ESPN bumped the SEC payment for adding OU/UT. And earlier this year when the SEC added a 9th conference game, media reports indicated ESPN was going to increase their media rights by $40M annually.

I'm sure the numbers made a ton of sense for NBC & CBS's finance guys. But I would agree that ESPN probably got a better deal because they have the SEC tied up until 2034. Whereas the Big10 deal goes back out to market in 2030. And I bet the Big10 gets 2-3x their current media rights.

 

[cykadelic2]

Amazon, Netflix and Apple don't need the help of politicians, regulations or changes to the college football structure to become players in televising CFB. The have $$$ and we all know that's what gets Presidents, AD's and Commissioners attention. And it's also why we see the Big10 & SEC continuing to expand. By growing their brands and more big games each week, it opens the door for the Big10 to give FOX, NBC, CBS and a streamer a big game. Same goes for the SEC.

The $300M ESPN media deal with the SEC was in 2020 dollars. While the NBC & CBS deals with the Big10 were in 2022 dollars. So probably natural for a couple years inflation to drive up prices.

Also the 2020 SEC/ESPN deal was before OU/UT joined the SEC and based on 8 conference games. I expect ESPN bumped the SEC payment for adding OU/UT. And earlier this year when the SEC added a 9th conference game, media reports indicated ESPN was going to increase their media rights by $40M annually.

I'm sure the numbers made a ton of sense for NBC & CBS's finance guys. But I would agree that ESPN probably got a better deal because they have the SEC tied up until 2034. Whereas the Big10 deal goes back out to market in 2030. And I bet the Big10 gets 2-3x their current media rights.

Amazon, Netflix, CBS, NBC and Apple spending all clearly get optimized with media rights pooling, rational geographic realignment and unfettered access to CFP rights.

That spending from them clearly doesn’t get optimized (and flow directly to schools) if ESPN and Fox continue to add and hoard top brands in the SEC and B10 and then sublicense those rights as you suggest. And then on top of that, they essentially continue their control of CFP rights at a discount and solely for their benefit.

 

[isucy86]

Amazon, Netflix, CBS, NBC and Apple spending all clearly get optimized with media rights pooling, rational geographic realignment and unfettered access to CFP rights.

That spending from them clearly doesn’t get optimized (and flow directly to schools) if ESPN and Fox continue to add and hoard top brands in the SEC and B10 and then sublicense those rights as you suggest. On then on top of that, they essentially continue their control of CFP rights at a discount and solely for their benefit.

Do you have a macro on your computer to write that sentence? I've seen that thought quite a bit in your posts. Apple & Amazon print money, so if the advertising and subscription monies are there to bid for CFB media rights, Apple/Amazon don't need anyone's help.

You throw out concepts like "spending optimized", do you know what that means?

1. Networks and streamers investment is optimized by televising games like Ohio State vs. Texas or Alabama vs. Georgia or Oregon vs. Penn State. Not games like Iowa State vs. Minnesota. The TV folks are looking for $10M+ views (approaching NFL level), not $2M views.
2. Networks investment is optimized when their investment is spread over 40ish teams instead of 70 teams. It's also optimizes the $$$ for the elite schools as well.

Although as a fan, I'd love to see ISU play more regional opponents like Minnesota or Nebraska or Mizzou or Illinois. But that's a little bit like wanting Santa Claus to be real.

 

[cykadelic2]

Do you have a macro on your computer to write that sentence? I've seen that thought quite a bit in your posts. Apple & Amazon print money, so if the advertising and subscription monies are there to bid for CFB media rights, Apple/Amazon don't need anyone's help.

You throw out concepts like "spending optimized", do you know what that means?

1. Networks and streamers investment is optimized by televising games like Ohio State vs. Texas or Alabama vs. Georgia or Oregon vs. Penn State. Not games like Iowa State vs. Minnesota. The TV folks are looking for $10M+ views (approaching NFL level), not $2M views.
2. Networks investment is optimized when their investment is spread over 40ish teams instead of 70 teams. It's also optimizes the $$$ for the elite schools as well.

Although as a fan, I'd love to see ISU play more regional opponents like Minnesota or Nebraska or Mizzou or Illinois. But that's a little bit like wanting Santa Claus to be real.

Media experts who know far more than you are logically forecasting revenue growth that is double/triple of what is currently constricted by the existing ESPN/Fox duopoly and it doesn’t take destruction of 30 existing P4 ADs (including ISU) in doing so.

Your viewpoint is strictly through the lens of ESPN and Fox and it is clearly destructive to the overall good of FBS. And you got effin blinders on if you don’t think media spending is optimized with Fed legislative reform and rational realignment with clear access to CFP rights and top brands for all bidders.

 

[Cloneon]

Do you have a macro on your computer to write that sentence? I've seen that thought quite a bit in your posts. Apple & Amazon print money, so if the advertising and subscription monies are there to bid for CFB media rights, Apple/Amazon don't need anyone's help.

You throw out concepts like "spending optimized", do you know what that means?

1. Networks and streamers investment is optimized by televising games like Ohio State vs. Texas or Alabama vs. Georgia or Oregon vs. Penn State. Not games like Iowa State vs. Minnesota. The TV folks are looking for $10M+ views (approaching NFL level), not $2M views.
2. Networks investment is optimized when their investment is spread over 40ish teams instead of 70 teams. It's also optimizes the $$$ for the elite schools as well.

Although as a fan, I'd love to see ISU play more regional opponents like Minnesota or Nebraska or Mizzou or Illinois. But that's a little bit like wanting Santa Claus to be real.

Not really interested in sticking my nose into other people's argument, but ROI is a better term for 'optimization'. And, IMO, 'viewing numbers' are only a subset of optimization and a rather antiquated metric at that. Return to the advertisers for the money they spend is a preferred measurement. Yes, numbers 'suggest' a better return, but there are so many other factors which play into it (viewer's remorse, competing slots, a day at the beach, a wedding, etc). That's why a 'commodity' based advertisement system will the future. When? I have no idea, but as real-time information becomes more ubiquitous so will real-time bidding for time slots. Again, want to become rich? Mastermind this.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

Apple said this week they're only interested in properties that they can control 'end to end' (think MLS and the new F1 deal) because of the bad taste the MLB deal left in their mouths.

I don't see them as a realistic bidder on anything other than the NFL going forward.

 

[cykadelic2]

Apple said this week they're only interested in properties that they can control 'end to end' (think MLS and the new F1 deal) because of the bad taste the MLB deal left in their mouths.

I don't see them as a realistic bidder on anything other than the NFL going forward.

Yeah, they aren’t buying sub licensed rights for top brands from ESPN and Fox and it’s unlikely Netflix and Amazon will as well after seeing CBS and NBC get hosed by Fox on their B10 deals.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

Yeah, they aren’t buying sub licensed rights for top brands from ESPN and Fox and it’s unlikely Netflix and Amazon will as well after seeing CBS and NBC get hosed by Fox on their B10 deals.

They didn't get hosed.

CBS had the SEC on a sweetheart, grandfathered way under market deal and that's before we even talk about inflation. NBC and CBS would do these deals again ten times out of ten.

It's weird that these sublicenses bother you so much but ESPN and FOX selling every sublicense under the sun on their Big 12 rights is just fine.

I don't know why you take every post in this thread as a personal attack and then turn into a petulant child every time someone presents a fact from a different source or has an opinion different from yours. Life isn't that serious.

 

[cykadelic2]

They didn't get hosed.

CBS had the SEC on a sweetheart, grandfathered way under market deal and that's before we even talk about inflation. NBC and CBS would do these deals again ten times out of ten.

It's weird that these sublicenses bother you so much but ESPN and FOX selling every sublicense under the sun on their Big 12 rights is just fine.

I don't know why you take every post in this thread as a personal attack and then turn into a petulant child every time someone presents a fact from a different source or has an opinion different from yours. Life isn't that serious.

No, it’s not fine for any sub licensed CFB deal including the B12.

Those sub licenses are a direct function of the ESPN/Fox CFB duopoly.

If CFB FBS media rights were properly pooled and executed like the NFL, there wouldn’t be any sub licensed deals and all revenues would be optimized and flow directly to the conferences instead of ESPN and Fox getting their cuts from other providers they execute deals with.

 

[cykadelic2]

Update from Dellenger on SCORE and STAR (which include amending SBA). Best case scenario is to merge aspects of both that will pass the House and Senate in 2026 prior to mid-terms.