Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[2speedy1]

You guys need to understand that Hulu Live is the outlier in regards to ESPN+. A quick Google search tells me Hulu Live has just under 5 million subs nationally. YTTV has 8M. Cable has 82M, and satellite 15M, Sling has 2M. For all of these subs on the other services ESPNU is a more visible option than ESPN+. And this group is more than 20x the size of Hulu Live users.

This may be true, but ESPN+ is available with or without Hulu Live.

So just looking at the Hulu live numbers does not tell the story.

The point is, if you are worried about being able to see ESPN+ content without having to switch apps and be as easy as switching the channel. Hulu has solved that. You can literally switch from an ESPN+ program, to an ABC program to a FS1 program, to an ESPNU program as easy as Cable or satellite, by just changing channels.

And the number of streaming subs is continuing to increase, while the number of Cable and Satellite subscribers continue to decrease.

And I would say the majority of Cable and Sat subs do not include ESPNU, you have to have an upgraded pack to get it.

 

[2speedy1]

The news that major TV players are developing a common platform sounds great at first blush. But I'll be a skeptic until they announce what the price will be. The speculation going back a few years was that a Disney content platform would need to be in excess of $40/month alone.

I feel like Yormark and Big12 have to be prepared to launch their own sports network when 2031comes along. That doesn't preclude the Big12 from selling some inventory to an NBC, CBS, Netflix, etc. But if Yormark, I wouldn't want to be at the mercy of FOX and Disney.

The streaming technology is such that access will only get more broad based. And broadcasting content don't seem like a quality hurdle. I don't need Fowler and Herbstreit type production. Heck, I am just as happy with IGHSAU production as ESPN+.

B1G has their own network and they still now require a sub to BTN+, for just 1 school, if you want all schools in the B1G and all content you must have an upgraded premium BTN+ package. You also need a Peacock and Paramount+ could be required in the future, if they move to a sub only package not a simulcast for sports.

ACC, SEC have their own networks but still require ESPN+ for all content.

A stand alone conference network is a thing of the past.

 

[2speedy1]

Agreed. Look at how we’ve done on Big Monday for MBB this year, it’s matters.

So are you saying we wont have any content on major networks?

Are you saying SEC and ACC as well as B1G will only have those spots?

We have a contract with ESPN and Fox too.

 

[aeroclone]

This may be true, but ESPN+ is available with or without Hulu Live.

So just looking at the Hulu live numbers does not tell the story.

The point is, if you are worried about being able to see ESPN+ content without having to switch apps and be as easy as switching the channel. Hulu has solved that. You can literally switch from an ESPN+ program, to an ABC program to a FS1 program, to an ESPNU program as easy as Cable or satellite, by just changing channels.

And the number of streaming subs is continuing to increase, while the number of Cable and Satellite subscribers continue to decrease.

And I would say the majority of Cable and Sat subs do not include ESPNU, you have to have an upgraded pack to get it.

The issue isn't availability, it is user experience and behavior. I have had ESPN+ for years. I also have YTTV. I only watch Plus for ISU games. I don't casually watch ESPN+. If I am just casually watching games outside ISU, I flip on YTTV and look at the guide at ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, ESPN/2/U, FSN 1/2, and the smaller sports networks on there and pick the most interesting matchup. Anything happening over on ESPN+ is invisible to me. Looking at the numbers that have been posted here, I think that is very typical of the general viewing public. And that is going to be a big problem for the B12 with the B1G and SEC sucking up all those linear slots. The viewer rating gaps will grow, and that will fuel the narrative that the quality gap is growing.

Hulu Live solves this problem. But Disney owns both ESPN and Hulu, so the path to getting those integrated was much easier. I doubt we ever see that coming to any other services any time soon. These services want to keep you in their app watching their content.

 

[StPaulCyclone]

So are you saying we wont have any content on major networks?

Are you saying SEC and ACC as well as B1G will only have those spots?

We have a contract with ESPN and Fox too.

Sort of, but not the ACC. Look at how many B12 games were on OTA ABC, FOX, etc. and how many do those were OUT. Now with consolidation of programs, there will be more “marquee“ matchups in the big and sec. The B12 is going to be on big Fox and ABC less and on FS1, ESPN2, ESPN+, etc. more. There are “tiers” to these networks and the drop off can be substantial. Look for B12 TV numbers to take some level of hit next season.

 

[aeroclone]

Sort of, but not the ACC. Look at how many B12 games were on OTA ABC, FOX, etc. and how many do those were OUT. Now with consolidation of programs, there will be more “marquee“ matchups in the big and sec. The B12 is going to be on big Fox and ABC less and on FS1, ESPN2, ESPN+, etc. more. There are “tiers” to these networks and the drop off can be substantial. Look for B12 TV numbers to take some level of hit next season.

And those SEC and B1G schools will get much better ratings by being on those better networks. And that fact will then be used as justification to give them much better media deals on the next round of renewals while we will get dinged for our lower numbers. It becomes a vicious cycle that just keeps feeding on itself.

 

[2speedy1]

The issue isn't availability, it is user experience and behavior. I have had ESPN+ for years. I also have YTTV. I only watch Plus for ISU games. I don't casually watch ESPN+. If I am just casually watching games outside ISU, I flip on YTTV and look at the guide at ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, ESPN/2/U, FSN 1/2, and the smaller sports networks on there and pick the most interesting matchup. Anything happening over on ESPN+ is invisible to me. Looking at the numbers that have been posted here, I think that is very typical of the general viewing public. And that is going to be a big problem for the B12 with the B1G and SEC sucking up all those linear slots. The viewer rating gaps will grow, and that will fuel the narrative that the quality gap is growing.

Hulu Live solves this problem. But Disney owns both ESPN and Hulu, so the path to getting those integrated was much easier. I doubt we ever see that coming to any other services any time soon. These services want to keep you in their app watching their content.

I guess some of have figured it out.

If you want superior user experience, you get Hulu. If you want to deal with multiple apps you get something else.

Then there is the fact that while what you are saying is true today, it likely wont be in the future.

As the number of streaming subs vs the number of cable and sat subs is going in the exact opposite direction.
Finally, I think you give the "casual viewer" way too much credit. I really doubt that the numbers of "casual viewers" that just happen to see a game and watch for no reason, is really that significant. The vast majority seek out the game they want, where ever that is. Are there a few that do, sure, but not enough to make that much of a difference.

What makes the difference is access. ABC and Fox are accessible to basically everyone, so they will have the most viewers. ESPN and FS1 less so, but still available to many more than ESPNU and ESPN+, so they get viewership between over air and the lesser channels. But the number of people that have ESPN+ is growing exponentially, while the number of people having ESPNU etc is decreasing significantly, and I dont see that trend changing anytime soon.

People need to get over their issue with ESPN+, its way better than anything we have had in years past, and its better than having to have multiple streaming subs like the B1G has to have.

 

[cyzygy11]

Geez Louise. People used to complain about the expense and the efficacy of cable and the dishes, but I am finding myself having to pay for platforms aplenty, on top of my newspapers and news/info sites so I can enjoy the coverage I was used to see on the internet 1.0- 2.0. It is becoming a financial wash, which was not the prince I was promised at the beginning of this slog. Besides, Hulu live is about $77/month. Too much.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

B1G has their own network and they still now require a sub to BTN+, for just 1 school, if you want all schools in the B1G and all content you must have an upgraded premium BTN+ package. You also need a Peacock and Paramount+ could be required in the future, if they move to a sub only package not a simulcast for sports.

ACC, SEC have their own networks but still require ESPN+ for all content.

A stand alone conference network is a thing of the past.

You only need BTN+ for non football and basketball games.

Peacock is the real annoying one, nothing has really been on paramount plus yet. I have peacock for premier league but just don’t like their service.

 

[CyCrazy]

And those SEC and B1G schools will get much better ratings by being on those better networks. And that fact will then be used as justification to give them much better media deals on the next round of renewals while we will get dinged for our lower numbers. It becomes a vicious cycle that just keeps feeding on itself.

Well ya this will happen, its been in the works for awhile. Not much we can do about it.

 

[2speedy1]

You only need BTN+ for non football and basketball games.

Peacock is the real annoying one, nothing has really been on paramount plus yet. I have peacock for premier league but just don’t like their service.

Well, sure. At least for now. But I would not be surprised if they dont eventually try to push more there, and on streams to drive subs.

Longing for the days before streaming, is like longing for the days of the Model T. Some just cant get over it. A decade or so ago, not all the content was available to watch, not even all FB or BB, Let alone womens or wrestling etc. Then there was CyTV that was very subpar to ESPN+ in content etc. And even then for several years you needed a really expensive satellite booster NCAA Gameplan or whatever it was called. We can watch a TON more games and content now then we ever used to. Even when there was the Mediacom channel that was only available in some markets in Iowa on cable, no where near national or on satellite etc. But some think that is better than ESPN+ for some odd reason.

Also We people with ESPN+.....Get everything, as long as you have a linked sub to ESPN. Its all we need, to get all content, from all Big 12, plus a lot more.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Finding ESPN plus takes roughly 3 clicks on my remote, yep damn near impossible.

No one said it was difficult, my point was its harder than turning on your TV and there is network TV. If ESPN+ is go popular, then why are the major games not being shown there? Because it kills the ratings, just go look at them and see which games in the top 100 were only streamed. Little hint, none.

Games Rule: Sports events account for all but six of the top 100 telecasts of 2022

Sports continued to show why they are the most valuable programming on television in 2022, making another strong statement at a time when the entertainment industry faces challenges with attracting viewers to scripted programming.

www.sportsbusinessjournal.com

 

[ClubCy]

I guess some of have figured it out.

If you want superior user experience, you get Hulu. If you want to deal with multiple apps you get something else.

Then there is the fact that while what you are saying is true today, it likely wont be in the future.

As the number of streaming subs vs the number of cable and sat subs is going in the exact opposite direction.
Finally, I think you give the "casual viewer" way too much credit. I really doubt that the numbers of "casual viewers" that just happen to see a game and watch for no reason, is really that significant. The vast majority seek out the game they want, where ever that is. Are there a few that do, sure, but not enough to make that much of a difference.

What makes the difference is access. ABC and Fox are accessible to basically everyone, so they will have the most viewers. ESPN and FS1 less so, but still available to many more than ESPNU and ESPN+, so they get viewership between over air and the lesser channels. But the number of people that have ESPN+ is growing exponentially, while the number of people having ESPNU etc is decreasing significantly, and I dont see that trend changing anytime soon.

People need to get over their issue with ESPN+, its way better than anything we have had in years past, and its better than having to have multiple streaming subs like the B1G has to have.

Dude no one started this conversation about the user ability of ESPN+ it was about the consolidation of conferences on the major networks. Indiana/michigan st on cbs will get better ratings than Ok st/isu on ESPN+/U/and possibly FS1.

In fact, ESPN+ has gotten way better over the years but this thread is about realignment and media deals.

 

[2speedy1]

Dude no one started this conversation about the user ability of ESPN+ it was about the consolidation of conferences on the major networks. Indiana/michigan st on cbs will get better ratings than Ok st/isu on ESPN+/U/and possibly FS1.

In fact, ESPN+ has gotten way better over the years but this thread is about realignment and media deals.

Of course they get better ratings. Always have. But ESPN+ is gaining viewership and no one really knows any numbers for streaming at this point.

People continue to complain about ESPN+ because they want to go back to CyTV and mediacom...apparently, which is dumb.

 

[Bestaluckcy]

The reason I have a problem with ESPN+ is we live in a data starved country location that does not allow for a home router and Wi-Fi setup. We have been getting by using an IPad with a dedicated line then casting the feed to a TV. Originally ESPN+ worked in that regard. The last two years they eliminated the ability to cast to a TV. So now we are stuck watching games on a small IPad screen. Most other things like ESPN etc. still allow for casting to the tv. Will not be surprised to see that ended by the new syndicate deal.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Of course they get better ratings. Always have. But ESPN+ is gaining viewership and no one really knows any numbers for streaming at this point.

People continue to complain about ESPN+ because they want to go back to CyTV and mediacom...apparently, which is dumb.

No one is wanting to go back to CyTV and mediacom, and yes, streaming numbers are picking up, but there was not one program that was streamed last year in the top 100 viewed shows. Look at all the people complaining when the Chiefs/Dolphins playoff game this past year was only streamed.

You want ratings, you put the game on one of the major networks, you want no one to watch, you stream it. That will change when we see Ohio State/ Michigan or Alabama/Georgia only on a streaming service, until then, stop crowing about ESPN+.

 

[aeroclone]

No one is wanting to go back to CyTV and mediacom, and yes, streaming numbers are picking up, but there was not one program that was streamed last year in the top 100 viewed shows. Look at all the people complaining when the Chiefs/Dolphins playoff game this past year was only streamed.

You want ratings, you put the game on one of the major networks, you want no one to watch, you stream it. That will change when we see Ohio State/ Michigan or Alabama/Georgia only on a streaming service, until then, stop crowing about ESPN+.

Yes, this. Nobody is saying that ESPN+ wasn't a huge improvement for viewing our lower tier games or olympic sports. It has been the best thing we ever had in that regard, and it works well for it.

The problem is trying to keep pace with revenue, exposure, and perception of the B12 with the B1G and SEC. We are always going to be number 3 there, but the question is the gap. Those two having more of a presence on linear is going to pay them huge dividends. And yes streaming is growing while cable is dying and that isn't going to change. But I feel pretty safe saying the big games on ABC, CBS, Fox, and ESPN are still going to be drawing a lot more eyeballs than the top ESPN+ games 5 years from now. We are still a ways away from streaming being the premier method for watching live sports

 

[2speedy1]

No one is wanting to go back to CyTV and mediacom, and yes, streaming numbers are picking up, but there was not one program that was streamed last year in the top 100 viewed shows. Look at all the people complaining when the Chiefs/Dolphins playoff game this past year was only streamed.

You want ratings, you put the game on one of the major networks, you want no one to watch, you stream it. That will change when we see Ohio State/ Michigan or Alabama/Georgia only on a streaming service, until then, stop crowing about ESPN+.

Yes, this. Nobody is saying that ESPN+ wasn't a huge improvement for viewing our lower tier games or olympic sports. It has been the best thing we ever had in that regard, and it works well for it.

The problem is trying to keep pace with revenue, exposure, and perception of the B12 with the B1G and SEC. We are always going to be number 3 there, but the question is the gap. Those two having more of a presence on linear is going to pay them huge dividends. And yes streaming is growing while cable is dying and that isn't going to change. But I feel pretty safe saying the big games on ABC, CBS, Fox, and ESPN are still going to be drawing a lot more eyeballs than the top ESPN+ games 5 years from now. We are still a ways away from streaming being the premier method for watching live sports

But you are claiming you KNOW what will happen, that the B12 wont get equal billing, or the way some of you seem to believe will get no billing what so ever on major networks.

We have not even started our new contract yet. We do get billing on major networks, and starting with the new contract that will include BB on Fox as well as ESPN.

Will the SEC and B1G get more of the major spots, possibly, but no one knows for sure, and saying they always have gotten it is just not true, and saying we wont ever get on a major network, is just exaggeration.
Some of you think everything is a sign the sky is falling, and it just isnt so. Keep in mind that ESPN no longer will have the Pac12, nor are they part of the B1G media package anymore. The SEC will no longer be on CBS, the SEC is only on ESPN/ABC and the ACC is on ESPN and.....the CW.

The Big 12 still has its contractual spots on ESPN and Fox with added share of Fox BB. Plus will pick up spots that need to fill the PACs old spots etc. There will be plenty of games on major networks. Will it always be ISU, no, but ISU has never been one to always be in the major slots.

Preseason BB will mostly be on ESPN+, but those games have always been on non major networks, outside a few.

Relax. We are in as good or better spot than we have been when it comes to TV coverage. Does it suck that we arent getting what the SEC and B1G are...sure, but that ship has sailed, and we are still better than the PAC or really even the ACC at this point.

 

[2speedy1]

No one is wanting to go back to CyTV and mediacom, and yes, streaming numbers are picking up, but there was not one program that was streamed last year in the top 100 viewed shows. Look at all the people complaining when the Chiefs/Dolphins playoff game this past year was only streamed.

You want ratings, you put the game on one of the major networks, you want no one to watch, you stream it. That will change when we see Ohio State/ Michigan or Alabama/Georgia only on a streaming service, until then, stop crowing about ESPN+.

Also note that my original reply on this subject was someone claiming ESPNU was superior to ESPN+, and it was stated that being on ESPNU would be preferred to ESPN+.

ESPNU is a far cry from Network ABC, CBS, Fox etc and not even close to ESPN/2.

And my comment was that the sub numbers of ESPN+ will soon surpass the sub number of ESPNU.

Of course over air networks and flagship sports networks will have more viewership, than streaming and secondary networks, that is obvious, and no one is claiming anything else, Altimore's tweet was just stating the obvious.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

Yes, this. Nobody is saying that ESPN+ wasn't a huge improvement for viewing our lower tier games or olympic sports. It has been the best thing we ever had in that regard, and it works well for it.

The problem is trying to keep pace with revenue, exposure, and perception of the B12 with the B1G and SEC. We are always going to be number 3 there, but the question is the gap. Those two having more of a presence on linear is going to pay them huge dividends. And yes streaming is growing while cable is dying and that isn't going to change. But I feel pretty safe saying the big games on ABC, CBS, Fox, and ESPN are still going to be drawing a lot more eyeballs than the top ESPN+ games 5 years from now. We are still a ways away from streaming being the premier method for watching live sports

The Big 12 has already lost that battle. There is no getting close or closing the gap. The cake is already baked.