Awful Announcing: B1G adding Rutgers, Maryland could be major problem when cable dies

joshvanklomp

Active member
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
1,923
Reaction score
0
Points
36
via AA:

Whatever outlet is streaming college football games in the 2020s will not want the bloated buffet of games. The present model favors the conferences. ESPN and FOX need live sports content to get cable providers to carry multiple networks. That changes if you’re dealing with Apple or Amazon.

We could see a model where the ten best Big Ten football games per season are on Amazon Prime. The Big Ten is streaming the rest of its football package and almost all of regular season college basketball on its own.

Cable subscribers no longer matter in that scenario. Fans who watch do, the very fans the Big Ten blithely disregarded. Rutgers and Maryland become dead weight.

Those two schools dilute the product. They drag on attendance when they show up to Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State. They drag on television revenue. Mich/OSU/PSU are playing Maryland and Rutgers vs. sellable games against Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Iowa. They are also two extra mouths to feed when it comes to distributing the diminished revenue Mich/OSU/PSU are producing.

Adding Rutgers and Maryland made short-term financial sense for the Big Ten. Making the product worse may have grave consequences in the intermediate to long-term when the Big Ten is courting active viewers rather than a cable footprint. Of course, those handling said consequences would not be Jim Delany and the present set of school athletics administrators.

http://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/big-ten-adding-rutgers-maryland-major-problem-cable-dies.html
 

It's business. If/when it comes to that, the Big Ten will reorganize again. Pretty much all conferences have bottom feeders and from time to time they change. Maryland is recruiting well. It's interesting but it's tough to predict what tv will look like in 10 years. Lots of possibilities.
 

This is my honest opinion of where things are headed: The main people that should be worried are the broadcast teams. The trend is to shrink into our own bubbles and I'm sure at some point you will be able to subscribe to a particular school. You might not have commentators, or graphics/stats during the game - but who really needs them anyways. It will just be a live feed, that you can pair with Twitter...the entire play-by-play and color man is the outdated part of this entire scenario.

The larger programs will probably have better production quality and more things similar to what we have today, but so much of what we are given these days is pointless. I always laugh when ESPN/BTN give their "key players" to the game. It's just pointless filler. Everyone watching only cares about bragging rights or gambling.
 

You mean it will be Aggievision 24-7? Hooray for Aggievision!
 



It's been years, and brought up many times, but I still can't help laugh every time AggieVision is brought up. What a classic experience that was. Sorry to anyone who missed it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

If Big Ten wants to keep the packaged tied together they will.
They create the content so they'll get to decide who gets access to it.

The content creators will still have the final say and if you have a proprietary package which most sports are, you'll get to control the price, the package, and how it's delivered.
So maybe you want live feed with no announcing? Well, if the Big Ten says you only get a delayed fee with Kermit the Frog as announcer, it's your choice to buy it or not. If you don't like Kermit, good luck finding another source for the feed of Big Ten football.
 

B1G has always been one for all and all for one - it would be against the ethos of the league to segment tier one media deals for individual schools.

The league will adapt to the new media landscape as it has the competitive one.
 

Wouldn't potentially every non national draw type team be a problem then?

Even us?
 



For some reason, I feel special and a bonafide Gopherhole insider thanks to two things:

1. I watched a full broadcast on Aggievision. Casa De Autos!
2. I survived the Middle Tennessee steam bath despite being a Minnesota deer in the humidity head lights.
 

via AA:

Whatever outlet is streaming college football games in the 2020s will not want the bloated buffet of games. The present model favors the conferences. ESPN and FOX need live sports content to get cable providers to carry multiple networks. That changes if you’re dealing with Apple or Amazon.

We could see a model where the ten best Big Ten football games per season are on Amazon Prime. The Big Ten is streaming the rest of its football package and almost all of regular season college basketball on its own.

Cable subscribers no longer matter in that scenario. Fans who watch do, the very fans the Big Ten blithely disregarded. Rutgers and Maryland become dead weight.

Those two schools dilute the product. They drag on attendance when they show up to Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State. They drag on television revenue. Mich/OSU/PSU are playing Maryland and Rutgers vs. sellable games against Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Iowa. They are also two extra mouths to feed when it comes to distributing the diminished revenue Mich/OSU/PSU are producing.

Adding Rutgers and Maryland made short-term financial sense for the Big Ten. Making the product worse may have grave consequences in the intermediate to long-term when the Big Ten is courting active viewers rather than a cable footprint. Of course, those handling said consequences would not be Jim Delany and the present set of school athletics administrators.

http://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/big-ten-adding-rutgers-maryland-major-problem-cable-dies.html

This makes no sense to me. There are finite number of channels on cable to do. There are infinite number of "channels" in streaming. The more games you can offer, the more games people will watch.

ANd the idea that Rutgers and Maryland are a drag on TV revenue is just completely incorrect.

http://adage.com/article/media/east-young-man-expansion-a-boon-big-ten-network/300748/

In expanding its scholastic footprint, the Big Ten also increased the value of the BTN's New York and D.C. subscribers. According to SNL Kagan data, cable operators pay an estimated "in-market" rate of $1 per sub per month, more than double the $0.44 fees charged outside the conference's home markets. Cablevision alone serves 2.64 million video customers in New York, New Jersey and southwestern Connecticut; with the upgraded fee in place, BTN sees its annual payout from the operator rise to around $31.7 million from $13.9 million.
 

This fails to account for the reality of how content rights are bought and sold.

All one has to do is look at the evolution of non-live content rights as it has moved from cable to streaming. Why would live content rights be any different? This world where we all watch movies produced by our friends on YouTube instead of watching Hollywood blockbusters never materialized.

We watch content our friends produce. But, not surprisingly, the real professionals have found ways to make even more money for their products as the industry was disrupted.

There is a market for valuable content. Then there is the content people are not interested in and has to be given away mostly for free.

Whether it's being appraised by Comcast or some combination of Netflix, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Apple, Roku, Microsoft, or Sling, content is content. People are either interested in it or not.

With the avalanche of free content available, the services above will likely need to pay MORE for the content people want in the future rather than LESS.

If one of the content buyers above could land a deal with the BTN to stream independent of a cable TV account, what would it be worth to them?

I am going to guess 310 trillion. And my guess would be about as informed as whoever wrote this piece.
 

Wouldn't potentially every non national draw type team be a problem then?

Even us?

You see they glaringly left us out when they said "sellable games against NE,IA,WI..." that was suuuuper telling (and borederline offensive) if you ask me... which no one did so I'll shut up now lol [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



I'm too old I guess. The whole streaming thing drives me nuts and I've had both top end Comcast and Quest. Glitchy, unreliable, crashes needed to reboot. I streamed a lot of the NCAA tourney this March and had problems way to often. I want a quality product I can count on and that has been cable or satellite. Until they get the streaming thing down I'm not a fan, I will pay the extra money to have consistency.

Plus you have to add announcers! You ever watch a movie with the soundtrack removed? I have and it was way less enjoyable. Now if your at the game it's different (don't get me started on the lack of replays at TCF!) but online or through tv I like to have it but that's just me. Heck I still like to read the newspaper in my hands, paper and ink...no internet connection for me when I'm on a plane or having coffee.
 

Whatever outlet is streaming college football games in the 2020s will not want the bloated buffet of games. The present model favors the conferences. ESPN and FOX need live sports content to get cable providers to carry multiple networks. That changes if you’re dealing with Apple or Amazon.

Cable is just a method of distributing data. It doesn't really make much difference whether that data is distributed by antenna, cable or internet. We already have Sling TV, where you can stream ESPN content. We have the Big Ten Network - they are the ones who will stream Big Ten sports. The Big Ten isn't going to sign that away to Amazon, the conferences will be in charge.
 




Top Bottom