(04-06-2018 03:54 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 10:03 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  NBC is clearing room for the UFC. FOX goes after WWE and clears bunch of programming with UFC gone.

Yeah, I've read about that. Thought it was kind of a joke, or not very significant, but, NBC is chomping at the bit for it. UFC was going to sign with NBC, only to go to Fox. That "switcharoo" and the ratings dip...doesn't matter, apparently. UFC is going to keep making good money, and NBC is probably going to be the one giving it to them. While WWE is meeting with Fox; WWE and NBC having this very long relationship.

In a way, NBC is after this different kind of audience. It's more international, and eclectic. Their portfolio reflects it. Sure, there's some familiar things in there, but they chase different things. And quite aggressively, but still spotty on reason?

Like, I get it why they aren't fully in the college scene. With the emphasis on conference sports and this academic year-long commitment to airing all of their stuff just to get a sniff of football and marquee basketball, the winter and spring sports that come with those arrangements put NBC at odds with their holdings. The Olympics, for example, and all of those winter sports, and then golf...where would college hoops fit in?

There's soccer, too.

But, most of the time, when I'm flipping through stations, NBC and its sports stations come off pretty weirdly. A lot of it looks out of place; looks pre-recorded. Like, I'll be looking for hoops early Saturday afternoon, and while ESPN is good for some, and CBS...NBC-SN is pushing out...some skiing. God knows if it's live, I don't.

I can't fault them for not wanting the commitment thing. If NBC is going to have AAC sports, it's going to have to deal with all of its content, even the bad stuff. When you own the rights to air it, what are you supposed to do with it all? Up here in the northeast, with this very diverse population, just so you can have some good football on Saturdays in the Fall, what are you supposed to do in the winter/spring with bad basketball...in an Olympic year, or as soccer seasons ramp up? But even during the heart of football season, is UFC a better primetime piece for broadcast, or do you risk it with a college football game that might be a total wash?

An NBC-FOX flip of the WWE-UFC does makes sense when you look at the markets the networks target.

FOX is also going to want Network FOX to be in the live event business once the Disney Buyout goes through. WWE Monday Night Raw on Network Fox makes a whole lot of since through that lens.

(04-05-2018 04:17 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 03:39 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think if AAC makes more money it will be because ESPN has two interests. One cut off competitors from anything of value that can be had at a decent price. Two make ESPN+ work and with the change at CEO at ESPN who knows how serious ESPN is about ESPN+ now?

ESPN + is a big wild card here. The Ivy League is an early litmus test of how college athletics fans respond to it. Could be a big boon or a bust.

My inkling is that ESPN is going to want to put as much content as it can online and streaming, and the AAC, being status conscious, is going to resist that.

Just skimming, I found several AAC games on ESPN3, including one involving the national champions from UCF. SMU played three. The bulk of AAC on ESPN3 looks like were vs FCS but some conference games.

Yes, AAC fans and Aresco have often explained away the small dollars in the current contract by talking about the huge amount of ESPN cable channel 'exposure' the conference has gotten in return.

And to be fair, it has gotten a lot. You cruise the ESPN channels during football and hoops season, and you don't have to look very hard to find an AAC game. They aren't always on ESPN and they aren't always in prime spots, but they are there, on an ESPN 'linear cable' channel, and pretty darn frequently.

But that said, there also has been an awful lot of AAC content that has been put on ESPN3 or else sub-contracted to CBSSN. In fact, I think i did a count a while back, and while collectively more football games have been on ESPN Family channels than anywhere else, more games have actually been on CBSSN than on any single ESPN channel. If you were going to identify one single channel as the "home" of AAC football the past five years, it would be CBSSN, not any single ESPN channel.

So there has been a lot of that as well.

To bring this back home: It seems clear that ESPN is really pushing this "+" platform. It's their answer, or part of their answer, to the cord-cutting/roku/a la carte threat that everyone has been talking about. And to sell it, they are going to want to put pretty good, "non-junk" content on it to attract those $5 a month subscribers. And AAC content might very well fit that bill.

In contrast, the AAC is going to want to keep as much of their stuff on the four ESPN cable channels, so that is likely to be a bone of contention.

I predict that the result will be the reverse of last time around: the AAC will agree to more of their stuff going to streaming, in return for more dollars. Because one thing seems clear, the AAC schools are starving for dollars, they've had enough of the '...but it's great exposure!' concept. You can't pay for another recruiter or locker room upgrade with exposure, and Aresco's entire alleged approach since 2012 has been "this time we get exposure, and that will allow us to prove ourselves, and next time we get paid like we should for it".

ESPN+ already has exclusive rights to Ivy League and Sun Belt games. ESPN+ getting exclusive tier 2 AAC games would help boost the resume of that channel. It'd be a win/win I think for both ESPN and the AAC.

ESPN's vision with this is smart. Ivy League football has a lot of historic programs and their viewers with money to sell adverts to. Ivy League basketball is decent and popular in the North East. Sun Belt Football brings in the up-and-coming teams in the South and SB Baseball is a top 6-7 league every year. Adding the AAC tier 2 games to this mix will give ESPN a pretty tight lock on viewers from Texas up to New England.

(04-05-2018 05:30 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Let's estimate there is 100 million paid subscribers of the internet, about how many subscribe to cable.. And lets conservatively estimate ESPN Gets between $.01 a month and $.10/month for ESPN3. That's between $1 million/month and $10M/month for ESPN3.

At $5/month it would take ESPN between 200,000 to 2M subscribers to replace ESPN even stevens.

This is why I think ESPN3 will remain for the time being on top of contractual rights guaranteeing ESPN3 coverage for certain conferences and events

I had heard it was five cents but that was several years back so might be as high as ten cents now.

The real challenge for ESPN+ is doing a better job than they have with the WatchESPN app in promoting content.

Right now WatchESPN just sticks the linear network content up top and says watch this and if you want something else, well you are free to poke around.

Log in to Netflix and they are pushing things they think you might like based on past viewing. Netflix is great at making the service sticky where you want to watch something else.

Yahoo! absolutely SUCKED at promoting their baseball and hockey "game of the day". Even with their Roku app, it was near impossible to figure out what game would be on in an hour much less tomorrow or a few days down the road.

ESPN+ is going to need to hit subscribers with emails hitting highlights of upcoming content and suggesting content.

Content is king and content discovery is going to make or make break the service with many customers.

(04-06-2018 09:02 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 05:30 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Let's estimate there is 100 million paid subscribers of the internet, about how many subscribe to cable.. And lets conservatively estimate ESPN Gets between $.01 a month and $.10/month for ESPN3. That's between $1 million/month and $10M/month for ESPN3.

At $5/month it would take ESPN between 200,000 to 2M subscribers to replace ESPN even stevens.

This is why I think ESPN3 will remain for the time being on top of contractual rights guaranteeing ESPN3 coverage for certain conferences and events

I had heard it was five cents but that was several years back so might be as high as ten cents now.

The real challenge for ESPN+ is doing a better job than they have with the WatchESPN app in promoting content.

Right now WatchESPN just sticks the linear network content up top and says watch this and if you want something else, well you are free to poke around.

Log in to Netflix and they are pushing things they think you might like based on past viewing. Netflix is great at making the service sticky where you want to watch something else.

Yahoo! absolutely SUCKED at promoting their baseball and hockey "game of the day". Even with their Roku app, it was near impossible to figure out what game would be on in an hour much less tomorrow or a few days down the road.

ESPN+ is going to need to hit subscribers with emails hitting highlights of upcoming content and suggesting content.

Content is king and content discovery is going to make or make break the service with many customers.

It all depends on the demand and number of subscribers. There is a ton of potential with ESPN+, but I would be very surprised if they beat WWE Network numbers in the 1st year or 2.

(04-06-2018 03:54 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 10:03 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  NBC is clearing room for the UFC. FOX goes after WWE and clears bunch of programming with UFC gone.

Yeah, I've read about that. Thought it was kind of a joke, or not very significant, but, NBC is chomping at the bit for it. UFC was going to sign with NBC, only to go to Fox. That "switcharoo" and the ratings dip...doesn't matter, apparently. UFC is going to keep making good money, and NBC is probably going to be the one giving it to them. While WWE is meeting with Fox; WWE and NBC having this very long relationship.

In a way, NBC is after this different kind of audience. It's more international, and eclectic. Their portfolio reflects it. Sure, there's some familiar things in there, but they chase different things. And quite aggressively, but still spotty on reason?

Like, I get it why they aren't fully in the college scene. With the emphasis on conference sports and this academic year-long commitment to airing all of their stuff just to get a sniff of football and marquee basketball, the winter and spring sports that come with those arrangements put NBC at odds with their holdings. The Olympics, for example, and all of those winter sports, and then golf...where would college hoops fit in?

There's soccer, too.

But, most of the time, when I'm flipping through stations, NBC and its sports stations come off pretty weirdly. A lot of it looks out of place; looks pre-recorded. Like, I'll be looking for hoops early Saturday afternoon, and while ESPN is good for some, and CBS...NBC-SN is pushing out...some skiing. God knows if it's live, I don't.

I can't fault them for not wanting the commitment thing. If NBC is going to have AAC sports, it's going to have to deal with all of its content, even the bad stuff. When you own the rights to air it, what are you supposed to do with it all? Up here in the northeast, with this very diverse population, just so you can have some good football on Saturdays in the Fall, what are you supposed to do in the winter/spring with bad basketball...in an Olympic year, or as soccer seasons ramp up? But even during the heart of football season, is UFC a better primetime piece for broadcast, or do you risk it with a college football game that might be a total wash?

Don't forget that their available room for college hoops and late season football is limited by the NHL contract.

(04-06-2018 07:21 AM)solohawks Wrote:  An NBC-FOX flip of the WWE-UFC does makes sense when you look at the markets the networks target.

FOX is also going to want Network FOX to be in the live event business once the Disney Buyout goes through. WWE Monday Night Raw on Network Fox makes a whole lot of since through that lens.

Putting it into this whole college sports perspective, consider what's worth more to NBC, I guess, on a Saturday night. Do you broadcast UFC or an irrelevant conference football game?

I guess I'd pick UFC, too. Until something changes in cfb, that is.

Quote:Don't forget that their available room for college hoops and late season football is limited by the NHL contract.

Yup, that too.

And, depending on the market, there's spring training and regular season baseball, too. Around here in Philly, it's far easier get access to the Phillies spring training than it is to Temple...or any of the Big Five hoops outside of Villanova.

(04-06-2018 03:54 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 10:03 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  NBC is clearing room for the UFC. FOX goes after WWE and clears bunch of programming with UFC gone.

Yeah, I've read about that. Thought it was kind of a joke, or not very significant, but, NBC is chomping at the bit for it. UFC was going to sign with NBC, only to go to Fox. That "switcharoo" and the ratings dip...doesn't matter, apparently. UFC is going to keep making good money, and NBC is probably going to be the one giving it to them. While WWE is meeting with Fox; WWE and NBC having this very long relationship.

In a way, NBC is after this different kind of audience. It's more international, and eclectic. Their portfolio reflects it. Sure, there's some familiar things in there, but they chase different things. And quite aggressively, but still spotty on reason?

Like, I get it why they aren't fully in the college scene. With the emphasis on conference sports and this academic year-long commitment to airing all of their stuff just to get a sniff of football and marquee basketball, the winter and spring sports that come with those arrangements put NBC at odds with their holdings. The Olympics, for example, and all of those winter sports, and then golf...where would college hoops fit in?

There's soccer, too.

But, most of the time, when I'm flipping through stations, NBC and its sports stations come off pretty weirdly. A lot of it looks out of place; looks pre-recorded. Like, I'll be looking for hoops early Saturday afternoon, and while ESPN is good for some, and CBS...NBC-SN is pushing out...some skiing. God knows if it's live, I don't.

I can't fault them for not wanting the commitment thing. If NBC is going to have AAC sports, it's going to have to deal with all of its content, even the bad stuff. When you own the rights to air it, what are you supposed to do with it all? Up here in the northeast, with this very diverse population, just so you can have some good football on Saturdays in the Fall, what are you supposed to do in the winter/spring with bad basketball...in an Olympic year, or as soccer seasons ramp up? But even during the heart of football season, is UFC a better primetime piece for broadcast, or do you risk it with a college football game that might be a total wash?

I think you bring up an interesting point when it comes to NBC and the AAC. The “all hands on deck” Winter Olympic coverage could be a major problem once every 4 years when it comes to covering the AAC basketball season. Where would those basketball games go during that 2 weeks of wall to wall Olympic coverage? The summer olympics will likely never conflict with the AAC content—but the Winter Olympics could definitely be an issue.

UFC to NBC, WWE to FOX/FS1 makes a lot of sense for both networks.

FOX/FS1 clearing UFC programming with the contracts they have with Big Ten, Big 12 and PAC-12 gives more windows available for those current contracts.

NBC with the UFC has multiple opportunities to fill live programming on NBC, NBCSN and USA they didn't have before. USA seems like a better home for Ultimate Fighter program.

(04-06-2018 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think you bring up an interesting point when it comes to NBC and the AAC. The “all hands on deck” Winter Olympic coverage could be a major problem once every 4 years when it comes to covering the AAC basketball season. Where would those basketball games go during that 2 weeks of wall to wall Olympic coverage? The summer olympics will likely never conflict with the AAC content—but the Winter Olympics could definitely be an issue.

Is NBCSN used for the olympics too? Or perhaps the rights to the impacted AAC games could be sold elsewhere? (ESPN/ABC, CBS, or streaming on Facebook/Twitter)

(04-06-2018 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 03:54 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 10:03 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  NBC is clearing room for the UFC. FOX goes after WWE and clears bunch of programming with UFC gone.

Yeah, I've read about that. Thought it was kind of a joke, or not very significant, but, NBC is chomping at the bit for it. UFC was going to sign with NBC, only to go to Fox. That "switcharoo" and the ratings dip...doesn't matter, apparently. UFC is going to keep making good money, and NBC is probably going to be the one giving it to them. While WWE is meeting with Fox; WWE and NBC having this very long relationship.

In a way, NBC is after this different kind of audience. It's more international, and eclectic. Their portfolio reflects it. Sure, there's some familiar things in there, but they chase different things. And quite aggressively, but still spotty on reason?

Like, I get it why they aren't fully in the college scene. With the emphasis on conference sports and this academic year-long commitment to airing all of their stuff just to get a sniff of football and marquee basketball, the winter and spring sports that come with those arrangements put NBC at odds with their holdings. The Olympics, for example, and all of those winter sports, and then golf...where would college hoops fit in?

There's soccer, too.

But, most of the time, when I'm flipping through stations, NBC and its sports stations come off pretty weirdly. A lot of it looks out of place; looks pre-recorded. Like, I'll be looking for hoops early Saturday afternoon, and while ESPN is good for some, and CBS...NBC-SN is pushing out...some skiing. God knows if it's live, I don't.

I can't fault them for not wanting the commitment thing. If NBC is going to have AAC sports, it's going to have to deal with all of its content, even the bad stuff. When you own the rights to air it, what are you supposed to do with it all? Up here in the northeast, with this very diverse population, just so you can have some good football on Saturdays in the Fall, what are you supposed to do in the winter/spring with bad basketball...in an Olympic year, or as soccer seasons ramp up? But even during the heart of football season, is UFC a better primetime piece for broadcast, or do you risk it with a college football game that might be a total wash?

I think you bring up an interesting point when it comes to NBC and the AAC. The “all hands on deck” Winter Olympic coverage could be a major problem once every 4 years when it comes to covering the AAC basketball season. Where would those basketball games go during that 2 weeks of wall to wall Olympic coverage? The summer olympics will likely never conflict with the AAC content—but the Winter Olympics could definitely be an issue.

Unless the summer Olympics are in the southern hemisphere, summer isn't an issue and they aren't set to go there through 2028.

(04-06-2018 10:45 AM)McKinney Wrote:  Is NBCSN used for the olympics too?

There's a number of stations that are part of the NBCSN family, outside of NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, and USA where you can view it. Yes and no...around here, CSN (NBC Sports Philadelphia) wasn't. NBCSN, like that actual station...yes.

(04-06-2018 10:45 AM)McKinney Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think you bring up an interesting point when it comes to NBC and the AAC. The “all hands on deck” Winter Olympic coverage could be a major problem once every 4 years when it comes to covering the AAC basketball season. Where would those basketball games go during that 2 weeks of wall to wall Olympic coverage? The summer olympics will likely never conflict with the AAC content—but the Winter Olympics could definitely be an issue.

Is NBCSN used for the olympics too? Or perhaps the rights to the impacted AAC games could be sold elsewhere? (ESPN/ABC, CBS, or streaming on Facebook/Twitter)

NBCSN was used more heavily for the Olympics compared to any other channel in the Comcast family. It was literally a 24/7 Olympics channel for the Winter Olympics back in February and they didn't show the NHL and Premier League during that time period.

That being said, I don't think that should be a determining factor for the AAC any more than it's a determining factor for NBCSN's other properties. Both ESPN and Fox have many more contractual obligations with other sports leagues at a national level compared to Comcast.

ESPN+ actually does seem to be tailor-made for G5 conference sports - you get the passionate fans that care enough about their schools to pay $5 a month but aren't drawing a wide enough audience to justify paying for them for the linear channels. The only thing that people need to do is temper expectations about the amount that ESPN will actually pay for ESPN+ content. Let's say that ESPN+ has 10 million subscribers after a year, which would be *very* successful for an a la carte offering. At $5 per subscriber per month, that translates into $50 million gross revenue per month to cover that content. That's compared to the over $7 per month per subscriber that the ESPN mothership is getting on basic cable for 90 million subscribers, which is gross revenue of $630 million per month. (To put that number in perspective, fellow Disney-owned Black Panther is now the #4 domestic gross box office movie of all-time... and it's at $655 million. As I've said before, that's why Disney will still fight for basic cable to the death - a single month of ESPN basic cable revenue that's effectively guaranteed is the same amount as releasing one of the top 5 box office movies in *history*.) To the extent that ESPN is going to pay large amounts for TV contracts, it's still going to be based on how well they will perform on linear channels. ESPN+ (at least in the beginning) is for ancillary sports for ancillary revenue procured with ancillary costs.

(04-06-2018 10:50 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 03:54 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 10:03 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  NBC is clearing room for the UFC. FOX goes after WWE and clears bunch of programming with UFC gone.

Yeah, I've read about that. Thought it was kind of a joke, or not very significant, but, NBC is chomping at the bit for it. UFC was going to sign with NBC, only to go to Fox. That "switcharoo" and the ratings dip...doesn't matter, apparently. UFC is going to keep making good money, and NBC is probably going to be the one giving it to them. While WWE is meeting with Fox; WWE and NBC having this very long relationship.

In a way, NBC is after this different kind of audience. It's more international, and eclectic. Their portfolio reflects it. Sure, there's some familiar things in there, but they chase different things. And quite aggressively, but still spotty on reason?

Like, I get it why they aren't fully in the college scene. With the emphasis on conference sports and this academic year-long commitment to airing all of their stuff just to get a sniff of football and marquee basketball, the winter and spring sports that come with those arrangements put NBC at odds with their holdings. The Olympics, for example, and all of those winter sports, and then golf...where would college hoops fit in?

There's soccer, too.

But, most of the time, when I'm flipping through stations, NBC and its sports stations come off pretty weirdly. A lot of it looks out of place; looks pre-recorded. Like, I'll be looking for hoops early Saturday afternoon, and while ESPN is good for some, and CBS...NBC-SN is pushing out...some skiing. God knows if it's live, I don't.

I can't fault them for not wanting the commitment thing. If NBC is going to have AAC sports, it's going to have to deal with all of its content, even the bad stuff. When you own the rights to air it, what are you supposed to do with it all? Up here in the northeast, with this very diverse population, just so you can have some good football on Saturdays in the Fall, what are you supposed to do in the winter/spring with bad basketball...in an Olympic year, or as soccer seasons ramp up? But even during the heart of football season, is UFC a better primetime piece for broadcast, or do you risk it with a college football game that might be a total wash?

I think you bring up an interesting point when it comes to NBC and the AAC. The “all hands on deck” Winter Olympic coverage could be a major problem once every 4 years when it comes to covering the AAC basketball season. Where would those basketball games go during that 2 weeks of wall to wall Olympic coverage? The summer olympics will likely never conflict with the AAC content—but the Winter Olympics could definitely be an issue.

Unless the summer Olympics are in the southern hemisphere, summer isn't an issue and they aren't set to go there through 2028.

Its still held in the northern hemisphere "summer" regardless of location. We just had that with Brazil in 2016. Same in Sydney before that.

Yeah, when it was in Sydney, iirc, it hit in the late summer, early fall? Like, toward the front end of the college football season. It wasn't nearly the multi-channel commitment it is now.

I think it's worse when the event is much further away from the US, actually. You have a live feed across some channels, and then replays across the others. NBC turns into a recap of the day, or, like with the recent South Korean Olympics, it's live-streaming an event during Prime Time. Brutal.

(04-06-2018 12:56 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Yeah, when it was in Sydney, iirc, it hit in the late summer, early fall? Like, toward the front end of the college football season. It wasn't nearly the multi-channel commitment it is now.

I think it's worse when the event is much further away from the US, actually. You have a live feed across some channels, and then replays across the others. NBC turns into a recap of the day, or, like with the recent South Korean Olympics, it's live-streaming an event during Prime Time. Brutal.

Australia was held in like November each time.

(04-06-2018 12:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 10:45 AM)McKinney Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 10:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think you bring up an interesting point when it comes to NBC and the AAC. The “all hands on deck” Winter Olympic coverage could be a major problem once every 4 years when it comes to covering the AAC basketball season. Where would those basketball games go during that 2 weeks of wall to wall Olympic coverage? The summer olympics will likely never conflict with the AAC content—but the Winter Olympics could definitely be an issue.

Is NBCSN used for the olympics too? Or perhaps the rights to the impacted AAC games could be sold elsewhere? (ESPN/ABC, CBS, or streaming on Facebook/Twitter)

NBCSN was used more heavily for the Olympics compared to any other channel in the Comcast family. It was literally a 24/7 Olympics channel for the Winter Olympics back in February and they didn't show the NHL and Premier League during that time period.

That being said, I don't think that should be a determining factor for the AAC any more than it's a determining factor for NBCSN's other properties. Both ESPN and Fox have many more contractual obligations with other sports leagues at a national level compared to Comcast.

ESPN+ actually does seem to be tailor-made for G5 conference sports - you get the passionate fans that care enough about their schools to pay $5 a month but aren't drawing a wide enough audience to justify paying for them for the linear channels. The only thing that people need to do is temper expectations about the amount that ESPN will actually pay for ESPN+ content. Let's say that ESPN+ has 10 million subscribers after a year, which would be *very* successful for an a la carte offering. At $5 per subscriber per month, that translates into $50 million gross revenue per month to cover that content. That's compared to the over $7 per month per subscriber that the ESPN mothership is getting on basic cable for 90 million subscribers, which is gross revenue of $630 million per month. (To put that number in perspective, fellow Disney-owned Black Panther is now the #4 domestic gross box office movie of all-time... and it's at $655 million. As I've said before, that's why Disney will still fight for basic cable to the death - a single month of ESPN basic cable revenue that's effectively guaranteed is the same amount as releasing one of the top 5 box office movies in *history*.) To the extent that ESPN is going to pay large amounts for TV contracts, it's still going to be based on how well they will perform on linear channels. ESPN+ (at least in the beginning) is for ancillary sports for ancillary revenue procured with ancillary costs.

Well I don't think anyone is expecting to pull half what the SEC does on it's deal thanks to being on ESPN+ but there is more revenue potential for G5's on ESPN+ than there is on the linear ESPN family because fees there are in large part because ESPN's revenue would fall significantly more than that amount if they lost those rights and the consumers moved to other providers.

If we presume Sun Belt linear rights stayed flat (bad assumption given there are more linear games under this contract), interest in the Sun Belt needs to provide fewer than 110,000 annual subscribers for ESPN to cover the rights fee minus typical credit card fees. Realistically the number may be closer to half of that because of the added linear games.

One interesting component is MLS. ESPN bought the digital rights prior to the 2016 season and won't exercise them until a week from tomorrow.

ESPN+ buying the local distribution rights to Chicago Fire makes for a fascinating experiment as well. Fox RSN's hold some distribution rights that they are limited in their ability to distribute.

Unless you have a sports package you can't get the Oklahoma Thunder or Memphis Grizzlies in large parts of Arkansas despite being in the broadcast territory. There are some cable companies and satellite customers without the sports package often don't have the Cardinals in Arkansas despite the Cardinals being by far the most popular MLB team. My understanding is there are parts of Illinois that are in a similar boat with the Cubs and White Sox.

The ESPN+ dabbling in local rights may result in some sort of locals package, at least for underserved areas.

(04-06-2018 02:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 12:56 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Yeah, when it was in Sydney, iirc, it hit in the late summer, early fall? Like, toward the front end of the college football season. It wasn't nearly the multi-channel commitment it is now.

I think it's worse when the event is much further away from the US, actually. You have a live feed across some channels, and then replays across the others. NBC turns into a recap of the day, or, like with the recent South Korean Olympics, it's live-streaming an event during Prime Time. Brutal.

Australia was held in like November each time.

Not quite that late--but your right--I thought it was late summer like Rio. Sydney was Sept 15th -Oct 1rst. Rio was August 5th - Aug 21rst. Honestly, since we arent heading south of the equator until 2028---I doubt the next agreement the AAC signs will be long enough to be affected. I guess it could be---but I suspect a shorter 6 year deal like these same schools always seemed to do in CUSA is more likely.

(04-06-2018 09:52 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 03:54 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 10:03 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  NBC is clearing room for the UFC. FOX goes after WWE and clears bunch of programming with UFC gone.

Yeah, I've read about that. Thought it was kind of a joke, or not very significant, but, NBC is chomping at the bit for it. UFC was going to sign with NBC, only to go to Fox. That "switcharoo" and the ratings dip...doesn't matter, apparently. UFC is going to keep making good money, and NBC is probably going to be the one giving it to them. While WWE is meeting with Fox; WWE and NBC having this very long relationship.

In a way, NBC is after this different kind of audience. It's more international, and eclectic. Their portfolio reflects it. Sure, there's some familiar things in there, but they chase different things. And quite aggressively, but still spotty on reason?

Like, I get it why they aren't fully in the college scene. With the emphasis on conference sports and this academic year-long commitment to airing all of their stuff just to get a sniff of football and marquee basketball, the winter and spring sports that come with those arrangements put NBC at odds with their holdings. The Olympics, for example, and all of those winter sports, and then golf...where would college hoops fit in?

There's soccer, too.

But, most of the time, when I'm flipping through stations, NBC and its sports stations come off pretty weirdly. A lot of it looks out of place; looks pre-recorded. Like, I'll be looking for hoops early Saturday afternoon, and while ESPN is good for some, and CBS...NBC-SN is pushing out...some skiing. God knows if it's live, I don't.

I can't fault them for not wanting the commitment thing. If NBC is going to have AAC sports, it's going to have to deal with all of its content, even the bad stuff. When you own the rights to air it, what are you supposed to do with it all? Up here in the northeast, with this very diverse population, just so you can have some good football on Saturdays in the Fall, what are you supposed to do in the winter/spring with bad basketball...in an Olympic year, or as soccer seasons ramp up? But even during the heart of football season, is UFC a better primetime piece for broadcast, or do you risk it with a college football game that might be a total wash?

Don't forget that their available room for college hoops and late season football is limited by the NHL contract.

That is why the CAA got bumped off NBCSN. They had like 9 games a year, but they got bumped because they added more NHL content. Previously they had two NHL games a week (Mondays and Tuesdays). Later they added Wednesdays and Sundays. Those hockey games draw better ratings and revenue than the mid-major college basketball games NBCSN had (they also had the MWC).

NBC shows a lot of A-10 games. Most of them do poor ratings. 50,000 is usually a high number. UFC draws well for Fox, but you see what is going on with the sport right now with the Conor McGregor mess, him single-handedly causing 3 fights to be cancelled at UFC 223. There will be a lot of negative reaction for that.

(04-06-2018 02:46 PM)sctvman Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 09:52 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 03:54 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 10:03 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  NBC is clearing room for the UFC. FOX goes after WWE and clears bunch of programming with UFC gone.

Yeah, I've read about that. Thought it was kind of a joke, or not very significant, but, NBC is chomping at the bit for it. UFC was going to sign with NBC, only to go to Fox. That "switcharoo" and the ratings dip...doesn't matter, apparently. UFC is going to keep making good money, and NBC is probably going to be the one giving it to them. While WWE is meeting with Fox; WWE and NBC having this very long relationship.

In a way, NBC is after this different kind of audience. It's more international, and eclectic. Their portfolio reflects it. Sure, there's some familiar things in there, but they chase different things. And quite aggressively, but still spotty on reason?

Like, I get it why they aren't fully in the college scene. With the emphasis on conference sports and this academic year-long commitment to airing all of their stuff just to get a sniff of football and marquee basketball, the winter and spring sports that come with those arrangements put NBC at odds with their holdings. The Olympics, for example, and all of those winter sports, and then golf...where would college hoops fit in?

There's soccer, too.

But, most of the time, when I'm flipping through stations, NBC and its sports stations come off pretty weirdly. A lot of it looks out of place; looks pre-recorded. Like, I'll be looking for hoops early Saturday afternoon, and while ESPN is good for some, and CBS...NBC-SN is pushing out...some skiing. God knows if it's live, I don't.

I can't fault them for not wanting the commitment thing. If NBC is going to have AAC sports, it's going to have to deal with all of its content, even the bad stuff. When you own the rights to air it, what are you supposed to do with it all? Up here in the northeast, with this very diverse population, just so you can have some good football on Saturdays in the Fall, what are you supposed to do in the winter/spring with bad basketball...in an Olympic year, or as soccer seasons ramp up? But even during the heart of football season, is UFC a better primetime piece for broadcast, or do you risk it with a college football game that might be a total wash?

Don't forget that their available room for college hoops and late season football is limited by the NHL contract.

That is why the CAA got bumped off NBCSN. They had like 9 games a year, but they got bumped because they added more NHL content. Previously they had two NHL games a week (Mondays and Tuesdays). Later they added Wednesdays and Sundays. Those hockey games draw better ratings and revenue than the mid-major college basketball games NBCSN had (they also had the MWC).

NBC shows a lot of A-10 games. Most of them do poor ratings. 50,000 is usually a high number. UFC draws well for Fox, but you see what is going on with the sport right now with the Conor McGregor mess, him single-handedly causing 3 fights to be cancelled at UFC 223. There will be a lot of negative reaction for that.

I dont think that will adversely affect UFC long term. I still dont really see how that makes much difference for NBC on Saturday afternoons.

Besides, it seems to me that UFC is what FS-2 has been built around since its inception. I just dont see them dumping UFC. However, if FOX did lose UFC, that might be one thing that would make Fox interested moving more college football to FS-2 and may even make them a possible bidder for the AAC (I dont think they would be considered much of a threat to bid for the AAc as things now stand).