They did and TNF had its lowest rating since the NFL pulled it off network tv. And the NFL didn't move to Amazon because streaming is the future, they are paying them a freaking billion dollars to air 15 games each year. But whether streamers are willing to pay for it is the kicker here. PAC viewership has been really really bad and there is no reason to think it won’t get worse. Streaming has it's place and maybe that will expand moving forward, but I think they are in a world of trouble if they start asking people to pay to watch games. They aren't really watching when it's free.
Sure - but the whole now vs the future issue. The NFL wants money, but they also have proven to be experts at building the brand and extending their reach. They wouldn't have done this unless they expect streaming to be a big thing going forward. Sure - but their ratings partially suck because they get 9pm games and other nonsense with their current contracts - there's just a limited amount of inventory on ESPN and FOX, and the B10/SEC have already locked up most of the primetime games. Getting away from network contracts allows them to put all their games on at normal hours. I don't think anyone is suggesting that it would a PPV type thing. It would be a streaming contract just like the network contracts. The streamer would just pay the rights instead of the network. It's a way for AppleTV or Prime or Hulu or whomever to expand their subscriptions.
Guess the question is whether the casual college football fan in CST/EST will log into their streaming account at 2:30 to watch Cal vs. Oregon State over whatever other B10/SEC matchup is on Network TV. I don’t disagree timing and inventory is an issue but the PAC’s current problems go a lot deeper than that. And personally I think they are going to get worse. Didn’t mean PPV. But at the end, people will have to pay a subscription to watch their games. NFL is the king and TNF viewership took a nose dive, I can’t even imagine what it would do to PAC viewership.
I think you really underestimate the amount of ppl that would pay for the package (like the new MLS deal) because of how easy and convenient it is and you can cancel anytime pretty easily. Plus, I bet one of the big streaming partners can create better supplemental content than the pac 12 could themselves. I don't know anyone under 40 with an actual TV subscription. I also don't think hey are done in Texas. SMU for the Dallas market and maybe UTSA or Rice. Yea, they are **** programs but long term they could be pretty good because of the home markets. That is what the Pac 12 is after now that you can pay players. They don't want SMU, they want Dallas. SMU will get better by virtue of the conference money. I maintain what I said when this started and that is the Pac 12 deal will be considerably better than the big 12 deal by the time everything plays out. Maybe I'm wrong but I think it makes sense.
Viewership numbers have been posted a few times in this thread, folks simply aren’t watching PAC games. Not sure how you can expect numbers to go up under a subscription model when people weren’t watching them when they were free. This is like Tillman selling Rockets games to Hulu. Sure some people will subscribe, but I’d venture majority of people wouldn’t spend the additional $10-$15 each month. I can tell you I probably would not.
The trade-off is always exposure vs. $$$. The NFL can afford to lock some of its 2nd and 3rd tier games away on TNF with a streaming partner because it already has as much mindshare as it ever will. To not do that deal for them would just be flushing money down the toilet. The PAC, on the other hand, can't really afford to go full bore off into the streaming wilderness. They have a delicate balance to strike between income, exposure, and maintaining their brand value. My guess is they are doing whatever they can to avoid having the Big 12 media rights be higher than theirs (as this is all the headline would be about). The question is whether achieving that will A) end up having them lock up a significant amount of their inventory onto some streaming platform and/or B) cause them to dilute their league with additions to the point it's no longer relevant.
NBA needs a convenient way to watch every team but mainly the *home* team. How many League Passes would they have sold already if the blackouts didn't exist? I'd be watching the NBA almost every day. Right now I barely watch it at all. Even the games TNT/ESPN want to cram down my throat I don't tune in for. Premier League is thriving here in the States now because of Peacock.
Not sure I quite follow. Are you saying you’d be watching more games if you had to purchase league pass but right now you don’t because it’s “free?”
If I could get Rockets games I'd buy Leage Pass. If I had League Pass I'd watch games I'm interested in watching and not like...the Lakers vs Warriors or whatever matchup TNT/ESPN is deciding to show. I guess to sum it up I don't care and don't watch the games the NBA has decided to air on TNT/ESPN. I'm interested in watching Magic vs Pistons or Kings vs Pelicans. But because Rockets games are blacked out, there's no point in getting League Pass. And I'm on YT TV which doesn't get Rockets games either.
Now that the TV deal and OUT exit are done, you have to think that Yormark is going to full court press the unhappy PAC members to switch leagues. IIRC, any P5 addition would be treated pro-rata, but if it happens to be PST inventory, he can make a legitimate play to re-negotiate and increase the pie. Also, the SMU thing is happening, I guess. It looks like this is going to be a wild couple of months.
But they weren't free - they were simply unavailable. If you're a Stanford alumni living on the east coast, there was no way to watch the majority of their games - maybe 1 or 2 that get nationally televised, but that's it. With streaming, every game could be accessible.
Not everyone in the local area has access to the games. For example, in Austin, the Astros are blacked out because we're in their region - but most providers don't carry the games. So you can't get them on TV and you can't get them on MLB.TV or whatnot. You simply can't watch them and they lost a huge chunk of their fan base here. (this is the result of the CSN-Houston fiasco)
Everything hangs with Oregon and Arizona. If either bolts the conference is effectively over. Not sure how the money gets divvied up when it comes to these deals but would it be possible to just give those schools more money than the others to stay put and add say Gonzaga/SMU/Boise State/Fresno State or something like that? I get Washington and Utah are also in the PAC but they bolted I think replacing them would be far easier than Oregon/Arizona. I think just like NBA TV, these leagues are going to have to realize that the force fed "marquee matchup" based model is fading into obscurity. A la carte TV has been happening now for over a decade and sports needs to follow. Again...Peacock with the Premier League. It's absolutely amazing. 5 bucks a month. I get almost every match. Wake up Saturday, have coffee, watch 1 or 2 PL matches in the morning and go about my day.
A die hard, I definitely respect that. A PAC deal relying heavily on streaming will definitely pull their share of those. But in all honesty how many people do you know would rather watch Kings/Pelicans vs. Lakers/Warriors? Even if both were airing on Network TV at the same time, it wouldn't be a contest at all. Now imagine if Kings/Pelicans was on League Pass only. This is the dilemma for the PAC.
