I'm pretty sure you'll have to pay a subscription fee for Peacock to see live games. The free stuff on there is limited.Peacock is free. Apple is $4.99/month. BTN+ isn't a factor for football season.
I'm pretty sure you'll have to pay a subscription fee for Peacock to see live games. The free stuff on there is limited.Peacock is free. Apple is $4.99/month. BTN+ isn't a factor for football season.
Peacock is free. Apple is $4.99/month. BTN+ isn't a factor for football season.
I'm pretty sure you'll have to pay a subscription fee for Peacock to see live games. The free stuff on there is limited.
Good to know.I'm pretty sure you'll have to pay a subscription fee for Peacock to see live games. The free stuff on there is limited.
Worth the monthly feeOh you mean my MacGruber subscription?
Nah games won’t be on all those streaming services. One streaming service will get most of those second games outside the big ten network. When you spread it too thin it becomes a chore to figure out what your game is on and creates barriers to entry.If anything the B1G fans that will be hit the hardest with streaming fees. They're going to have at least a few or all of BTNgo, Para+, Peacock, and Apple/Amazon. That would be in addition to their TV service and many will also have to keep ESPN+ for all the pro bball, hockey, and baseball on there.
I get that we all hate ESPN and Im with people on this, but if we can keep it to where ESPN+ is the only streaming service we have then i see that as a big win
Peacock is 4.99 too, beyond very limited content.Peacock is free. Apple is $4.99/month. BTN+ isn't a factor for football season.
Paramount+ is part of the B1G deal?Peacock is 4.99 too, beyond very limited content.
Paramount+ is 4.99 too.
Agree, BTN will air the regional games and FS1 will still be there.Nah games won’t be on all those streaming services. One streaming service will get most of those second games outside the big ten network. When you spread it too thin it becomes a chore to figure out what your game is on and creates barriers to entry.
Highly doubt there'll be many if any B1G games streaming there.Paramount is CBS
I agree with a lot of this but there are some things to point out.Streaming is more likely than not the future, and it's already a viable option for whichever conference wants to take the plunge, in my opinion.
Technology isn't the issue. Nor is viewer adoption. More households have a streaming service (95.5 million) than cable (76.1 million). In fact, there are slightly more households with Amazon Prime (76.6 million) than cable and Netflix isn't far behind (75m, but that includes Canada). One of these options is trending down, while the other is trending up.
The Big 10 and SEC revenue models both make a boatload off of their networks because they get a slice of each and every monthly subscription regardless of if the subscriber actually ever turns to that channel. Offering streaming would cut into their Big 10/SEC network viewership, which would imperil their ability to stay on the first tier package, which would imperil the whole operation. In short, they have a model that's working quite well and why mess with it?
If anything, going to streaming could make games more accessible than cable. I have no problem dropping another $20 a month for football and basketball season if it was an option to add it to my Prime or Netflix subscriptions. There's no way in hell I'm going back to paying $100 a month for cable, though. Just going to put this here, but the average cable bill in 2021 was $217 a month.
The Big 10 and SEC will continue with the current model for as long as it makes them more money. When we get to a point where enough people have cut cable that they can make more money streaming than not, I'd expect them to go that way.
I'd be very happy if the Big XII could get a deal to put 2-3 conference games on OTA networks a week and the rest all go to a streaming platform, even if it's an add-on subscription (which seems inevitable). The big matchups would still draw network audiences, but all the rest of the games would probably be more easily accessible than they would if they were on FS1/TNT/USA/ESPN2 and just as accessible if they were on ESPN+.
I agree, was just stating what those 2 services cost, from previous postHighly doubt there'll be many if any B1G games streaming there.
While I would prefer that CBS or NBC picked up the rights for the B12 over a deal with ESPN, this announcement that ESPN will be left out of the B10 television package is probably good news overall. ESPN needs sports programming. There was a risk that CBS or NBC would walk away from college football entirely and show reruns of old movies instead.
All good points.I agree with a lot of this but there are some things to point out.
1. Netflix numbers are dropping and with the price hike they are going to drop even more.
2. Most people have Amazon video becuase they have prime. Amazon doesn’t have that many people who regularly watch their service to the point that they rarely even release ratings on shows.
3. That cable bill item is from a US news article that admits that it isn’t just cable service. It’s internet, equipment rental, etc. Internet alone is more then half of that bill for most people and you have to have that for streaming.
4. YouTube TV, Fubo, sling, etc are not included in those numbers but they are also essentially cable. While it’s not an insane increase it’s still an increase.
5. The younger generation is slowly moving away from watching games. For the next couple years the main audience is still on some form of cable.
Streaming will inevitably be the future but how far in the future no one really knows. The Big12 could be innovators by going full streaming or could set themselves back by having no one watch. High risk, high reward
Agree, I'm not sure about streaming sports just yet. Like this big ten streaming game if these is one, I will never watch that. Nobody is going to watch a big 12 game streaming other than the die hards of those two schools.Yeah but how are those teams ranked? It’s almost always by reputation and the prior years results. If the Big12 is only streaming the joke will be that no one watches the games and their rankings will take a hit. The big12 is already facing a massive perception problem and having the games soley be on various streaming sites won’t help.
Also if you have every tried to watch live sports over a streaming derives you would realize that they still have no idea what they are doing. Premier league on peacock and champions on paramount are awful.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought Paramount owned CBS?Paramount is CBS