Started By
Message
re: Dr. Sankey or: why I learned to stop worrying and love the Texas addition
Posted on 4/25/23 at 2:43 pm to BreakawayZou83
Posted on 4/25/23 at 2:43 pm to BreakawayZou83
Well-written.
I agree in principle, but differ on a few points or on the relative importance of a few points. The first is that I don't think linear television ever truly bows out of CFB because there is simply too much ad revenue there to walk away. I do agree that more and more games will be behind paywalls for streaming platforms, but I see that shift happening simultaneously with more "bundling" of streaming - think the Hulu, Disney+, and ESPN+ bundle subscription. I already have subscribed to what is technically considered streaming (DirecTV Stream) but it is bundled and presented as a traditional channel lineup OR via individual-content apps. (I can use guide and select a channel, or access the ESPN app, Disney+, Netflix, etc apps) Basically I think the future of subscription-based packaged entertainment - what I grew up calling "cable" - will shift more and more into this direction and ultimately meet a homeostasis of some content-creator productions being available via other platforms.
My evidence for this is the slow death of HBOMax and, what I believe will be the ultimate death knell for Disney+ in that you can access or rent their content on other platforms. (Amazon Prime ftw, and Disney having to add ad revenue to prop up Disney+) The way we consume entertainment is changing, but the money that drives the development of that entertainment - ad revenue - is not. So my basic disagreement here is that linear networks will evolve to present content via streaming, as they're already doing, but their biggest source of income is from selling ad space - a serious faux pas in the streaming world. When is the last time you watched an entire ad on YouTube trying to watch a Fat Electrician video about Freedom Fractions and Warheads on Foreheads? YouTube is free - though you can pay for them to provide you bundled - "channel" - streaming content just like you would pay a cable provider.
But, what streaming DOES do far more accurately is provide ACTUAL VIEWERSHIP numbers. For most of our lifetimes, viewership numbers are a combination of actual data and educated guesses. And there is where I agree with your premise - if the SEC is on the tip of the spear as to how their games are carried on streaming platforms, they can see actual numbers and for which games, which regions they were viewed, etc. So when the next "TV Rights" deal comes up, and CBS or Fox or ESPN tries to throw a low number, Sankey can throw a big stack of actual streaming data on the table to demand the big money. The SEC office knows I've watched almost every LSU baseball game on the ESPN app this season due to being able to access it via my DirecTV Stream subscription - all the IP address, provider info, viewed time, etc is visible.
Sorry if that's a little TL; DR but it's been on my mind too. I would pay $10/ month for some sort of all-access SEC Sports app even on top of what I'm paying now - but the ESPN games, or ABC games, with the production values, experienced crews, announcers, etc - those are just better. Even if they have 18 ads from Budweiser running a Clydesdale across my screen to try to get me forget about their Bud Light advertising gaffe with a confused young man named Dylan.
I agree in principle, but differ on a few points or on the relative importance of a few points. The first is that I don't think linear television ever truly bows out of CFB because there is simply too much ad revenue there to walk away. I do agree that more and more games will be behind paywalls for streaming platforms, but I see that shift happening simultaneously with more "bundling" of streaming - think the Hulu, Disney+, and ESPN+ bundle subscription. I already have subscribed to what is technically considered streaming (DirecTV Stream) but it is bundled and presented as a traditional channel lineup OR via individual-content apps. (I can use guide and select a channel, or access the ESPN app, Disney+, Netflix, etc apps) Basically I think the future of subscription-based packaged entertainment - what I grew up calling "cable" - will shift more and more into this direction and ultimately meet a homeostasis of some content-creator productions being available via other platforms.
My evidence for this is the slow death of HBOMax and, what I believe will be the ultimate death knell for Disney+ in that you can access or rent their content on other platforms. (Amazon Prime ftw, and Disney having to add ad revenue to prop up Disney+) The way we consume entertainment is changing, but the money that drives the development of that entertainment - ad revenue - is not. So my basic disagreement here is that linear networks will evolve to present content via streaming, as they're already doing, but their biggest source of income is from selling ad space - a serious faux pas in the streaming world. When is the last time you watched an entire ad on YouTube trying to watch a Fat Electrician video about Freedom Fractions and Warheads on Foreheads? YouTube is free - though you can pay for them to provide you bundled - "channel" - streaming content just like you would pay a cable provider.
But, what streaming DOES do far more accurately is provide ACTUAL VIEWERSHIP numbers. For most of our lifetimes, viewership numbers are a combination of actual data and educated guesses. And there is where I agree with your premise - if the SEC is on the tip of the spear as to how their games are carried on streaming platforms, they can see actual numbers and for which games, which regions they were viewed, etc. So when the next "TV Rights" deal comes up, and CBS or Fox or ESPN tries to throw a low number, Sankey can throw a big stack of actual streaming data on the table to demand the big money. The SEC office knows I've watched almost every LSU baseball game on the ESPN app this season due to being able to access it via my DirecTV Stream subscription - all the IP address, provider info, viewed time, etc is visible.
Sorry if that's a little TL; DR but it's been on my mind too. I would pay $10/ month for some sort of all-access SEC Sports app even on top of what I'm paying now - but the ESPN games, or ABC games, with the production values, experienced crews, announcers, etc - those are just better. Even if they have 18 ads from Budweiser running a Clydesdale across my screen to try to get me forget about their Bud Light advertising gaffe with a confused young man named Dylan.
0
Posted on 4/25/23 at 2:51 pm to Beachbum87
quote:
Anyone got a TL;DR?
SEC wants $$$. Best brand matchups = $$$.
Posted on 4/25/23 at 3:00 pm to BreakawayZou83
quote:
We're rapidly approaching the death of the linear network and the rise of the streaming platform
Many people don’t have time to watch a whole game anymore. Highlights are the future of sports consumption. Offering tiered streaming options allows platforms to best monetize that change.
Posted on 4/25/23 at 3:05 pm to BreakawayZou83
Posted on 4/25/23 at 3:46 pm to BreakawayZou83
quote:Would Texas have fit the Big Ten profile? Except for not being a contiguous state, sure. But, Texas was encumbered with the LHN contract, meaning they could effectively only move to a league where ESPN wanted them to go. ESPN would have refused to let Texas out of the LHN deal if Texas had asked out to go to the Big Ten.
Texas would have 100% ended up in the B1G if the SEC had declined to invite them. I'm not sure about Oklahoma, the B1G puts a frankly ridiculous amount of emphasis on academics/AAU and media markets. Oklahoma is not impressive on either front. But why do you think the B1G would expand to Southern California but would not expand to Austin, Texas to capture the wealthiest football program in the country? That Longhorn Network deal ran through 2031 and had about $120mm left in value. That's an amount of money that Texas and/or the B1G would happily part with in exchange for the longterm gain.
Besides that fact, there would have been pushback from the Big Ten presidents on ANY expansion prior to the SEC taking OU and Texas. The Rutgers/Maryland addition had not worked well, and I don't think the conference office could have sold a disruptive move like this, setting aside the ESPN problem. Sankey changed all that by blowing up the Big XII.
Posted on 4/25/23 at 4:23 pm to twk
quote:
ESPN would have refused to let Texas out of the LHN deal if Texas had asked out to go to the Big Ten.
The Longhorn Network only permitted two lower tier broadcasts per year. It's unclear if it ever turned profitable from ESPN's perspective. I know it was bleeding money in its early years. And you're talking about a network worth $15mm/year to Texas when they stood to gain $30mm more by being a B1G member instead of a Big 12 member. This wasn't some ACC grant of rights through 2036 problem. I'm quite confident that the B1G and Texas would have figured it out. Even though they are housewreckers, you don't pass on the Longhorns when they come knocking.
quote:
Besides that fact, there would have been pushback from the Big Ten presidents on ANY expansion prior to the SEC taking OU and Texas. The Rutgers/Maryland addition had not worked well, and I don't think the conference office could have sold a disruptive move like this, setting aside the ESPN problem. Sankey changed all that by blowing up the Big XII.
Comparing the Rutgers/Maryland additions to Texas is quite the stretch. Don't get me wrong, I don't love the Longhorns, but they might be the most valuable brand in the college football. They check every box from a conference's perspective. And the icing on the cake is that despite all their resources, they suck, so they will lose to your conference's schools and inflate their value.
quote:
Sankey changed all that by blowing up the Big XII.
The Big 12 was doomed from the start, but that deserves its own topic. That conference really died when half the conference nearly jumped ship for the PAC in 2010. That permanently destabilized things and four of the six largest brands were gone within two years afterwards.
But we've been careening toward super conferences for longer than most folks realize. The Big Eight wanted to add BYU and New Mexico way back in early 90s when the SWC schools joined. In the 1950s, the PAC considered inviting Notre Dame, Pitt, Penn State, and Syracuse. The Big Ten has been trying to lure Notre Dame since the dawn of time, and there were reports in 2010 that if Notre Dame had said yes, the Big Ten would have also invited Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, and Rutgers.
Posted on 4/25/23 at 5:12 pm to bamameister
Nebraska has been a disaster. 
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News