Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

  • After Iowa State won the Big 12, a Cyclone made a wonderful offer to We Will that now increases our match. Now all gifts up to $400,000 between now and the Final 4 will be matched. Please consider giving at We Will Collective.
    This notice can be dismissed using the upper right corner X button.

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
5,602
6,081
113
37
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
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.
 

cyIclSoneU

Well-Known Member
Apr 7, 2016
3,231
4,400
113
I’m genuinely curious what a normal B1G week of 8 games will look like.

1 on FOX
1 on CBS
1 on NBC
1 on FS1?
2 on BTN?
2 on Apple TV?

It’s not like it’s hard to find those channels with a cable package, but there’s a big drop off from those top 3 to the rest in terms of eyeballs. But I guess that’s what happens when you don’t have ESPN in the mix, which is like a bridge between network TV and everything else in terms of eyes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: agentbear

Gonzo

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2009
23,177
25,253
113
Behind you
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.
Agree, BTN will air the regional games and FS1 will still be there.
 

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
5,602
6,081
113
37
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 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
 

StLouisClone

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
7,274
500
113
St. Louis
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SEIOWA CLONE

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
5,072
5,809
113
I will say these networks have been throwing a few games on their streams here and there to drive subs over last couple year. Which could continue. ND game was on Peacock if I remember last year.

I am not sure if they will with the B1G but they could try this with some games, say Illinois vs Indiana or some preseason games, when BTN is full or something, throw it on Peacock/Paramount, hope to drive some new subs.

But that really depends on how these deals work out, and how the games filter out between each carrier.
 

cyIclSoneU

Well-Known Member
Apr 7, 2016
3,231
4,400
113
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.

Still hoping we get the Big 12 game of the week on CBS or something. We can get others on ESPN and others still on Amazon Prime or whatever. One game on a broadcast network would be big. I think ESPN's deals with the SEC and ACC mostly guarantee afternoon and night games, so maybe we can get a 11:00 AM game on ABC even if we go all ESPN. Not sure but I think network TV exposure would be crucial.
 

exCyDing

Well-Known Member
Nov 29, 2017
4,258
7,546
113
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
All good points.

1.) Yes, Netflix is shedding subscribers at the moment, but adding live sports would absolutely help reverse that.
2.) Something like 70% of Prime subscribers use it to stream. How much? Hard to say. My main point was a majority of people have no trouble streaming, so it shouldn’t necessarily be viewed as a hurdle.
3.) Should’ve read more! Safe to say, it would be considerably more expensive to get cable for CFB games than to have a streaming option.
4.) Cable sub estimates were all over the place - some said 50m, others said 80m+. Lots pegged it somewhere in the 70s. The estimate I used included Hulu+ and similar streaming cable subs.
5.) Hard to say where the younger generations end up. I went through a period in may late teens/early 20s where I didn’t watch much sports at all. That said, it makes sense the audience would skew slightly older. I don’t think streaming-only is viable at this point, but I’m not convinced there would be a significant difference between FS1 and a streaming option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlySpartan

cyatheart

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Nov 18, 2008
8,052
5,193
113
47
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.
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.