re: Reminder: TV markets are meaningless

quote:

---

Nothing you described has *anything* to do with "markets" but rather # of people.

---

What? The Big 10 Network isn't included in the Comcast channel lineup outside of the the Big 10 "market" footprint.

The # of people is reduced because of the "market"

Why are you up voting yourself

I didn't upvote myself, guy.

quote:

---

That's all you got

---

No. Let me explain. As I might to a child.

What matters to advertisers and thus networks is eyeballs on the screen. That's how every form of advertising works.

In the olden days, when there was limited literal "bandwidth" in the world, networks and cable providers had to prioritize what was available. So they focused programming in the areas where it was relevant. Ad buys would be regional, so 40%-50% of ads would be local or regional. There were scores of networks across the country to fill this need.

Fast-forward to 2022, and less than 10% of ad buys for FBS/top-level college football are regional or local. Those boutique networks have mostly been gobbled up by Disney and Fox. The only other major player is CBS, but they're defacto regional. To a national brand what matters is how many viewers. To a local or regional brand, that's meaningless. This changed the game.


USC and UCLA are appealing - despite carving out the same market - because they bring a big fanbase with money. Numbers. Eyeballs. People.

So every time expansion comes about people still talk about needing to expand the TV market when what they really want to do is expand the # of people watching, regardless of location. That's why USC and UCLA are joining the Big 10. People watching screens. They could be in Missouri or Alaska for all the Big 10 cares.

quote:

---

Major college football is now primarily viewed through digital means with no local ad buy-ins. There are fewer cable tv subscribers every day.

---

You are living in a dream world. I agree local ad buys are not significant but never have been so I am not sure what your point is. National ad buys are where the money is for TV contracts.

The major providers have moved to control all streaming of games to their subscription services so whats the difference.

FWIW, ND is about the only school with a non geographic fanbase...

quote:

---

Nobody watches college football in L.A.

---

Despite not being very good and playing in a shite conference, USC is the 16th most watched team in CFB since 2015

If you don’t see the value of USC playing in an elite conference in the NIL era, I’m not sure what to tell you

So please explain why we added Mizzou and a&m because neither are perceived as top tier programs and do nothing besides expanding viewerships into competitors markets

quote:

---

Cable and Satellite kicks Steaming TV providers arse when it comes to subscriber numbers.

2022 1st quarter Subscriber Numbers
Cable 40 million
Sat 21 million
Stream 11.5 million

---

Pretty sure you are wrong about this.

42.2 million households watch TV using a streaming box or stick, an increase of 15% over last year. The number of homes using a smart TV to stream grew 22% to 37.2 million. In other words, 73% of households with a streaming box or stick use it to watch Internet TV, and 72% of smart TVs homes use the device to do the same.
ScreenMedia.com

And those numbers are are only going to grow in the future. Streaming is expanding and is the future....at least the immediate future until something else comes along.

I do agree that TV market makes a difference, because the larger the population areas, the larger the potential viewers.

quote:

---

2022 talk here. Comcast has 17 million subscribers. The Big 10 Network is included in the Big 10 States/footprint only channel lineup. So 3/4s of Comcast subscribers are not paying $2 a month to the Big 10/Fox.

The SEC Network is nation wide on Comcast. SEC/ESPN is getting $408 million a year and the Big 10 is getting $102 million from Comcast.

Tell us again how that $306 million a year difference doesn't matter to the Big10/Fox.

---

None of these numbers include streaming services FUBO, HULU, etc. You are quoting only cable numbers and streaming is fast overtaking cable. It's cheaper and you can do it on a monthly basis.

During college football season last year, for instance, I picked up FUBO for $65 a month and got pretty much every channel i had with DirecTV (Or Dish Network when we had them)
for less than half the price. After the National Championship game I cancelled my subscription to FUBO.

I now get the best internet speeds, Netflix, HBOMax and Amazon Prime for about $88 a month. I was paying the two dishes something like $227 a month with no extra channels. (HBOMax or Prime, although we did have Netflix.)

quote:

---

So please explain why we added Mizzou and a&m because neither are perceived as top tier programs and do nothing besides expanding viewerships into competitors markets

---

TAMU has one of the highest public endowments in the nation, is a top-20 TV viewership.

Missouri was always a headscratcher and the assumption was it was an all-sports deal, but they're still a top 30 overall sports viewership program and have an SEC-level endowment.

People & money. As I said.