Seven ACC schools working together to break Grant of Rights

[jivecat]

There aren't even 9K people willing to join the Panther Club for $50 a year.

The Longhorn Network was a miserable failure, and you think there are enough Pitt fans to support a dedicated streaming service? Plus you have to subtract out the costs of producing the content. And you wouldn't have rights to stream any away games. There is no way Pitt would clear what it is currently getting from the ACC. If this was feasible, there'd be a lot more independents. There are probably less than 10 schools that could do something like that and make decent money, and none of them are in the ACC, so they'd all lose money by doing it..

Nothing you said is wrong but you are looking at the opportunity as it would have presented itself 10 years ago. I'm not sure you understand the economics and demographics as they apply in the future.

 

[pittdan77]

Nothing you said is wrong but you are looking at the opportunity as it would have presented itself 10 years ago. I'm not sure you understand the economics and demographics as they apply in the future.

You should probably explain what you're thinking because the vast majority of schools would be in the same boat at Pitt. Conferences exist for a reason. Pooling schools together for mutual benefit has evolved but the premise remains pretty much the same. The whole is worth more than its parts. That's generally true of anything you sell.

 

[jivecat]

You should probably explain what you're thinking because the vast majority of schools would be in the same boat at Pitt. Conferences exist for a reason. Pooling schools together for mutual benefit has evolved but the premise remains pretty much the same. The whole is worth more than its parts. That's generally true of anything you sell.

You are on the right track. Currently (and in the past) conferences were set up to negotiate everything from academic integrity to TV rights to scheduling. You need to see how the TV market will be more fluid in the future. Schools will have the ability to negotiate reciprocity so they independently can schedule and negotiate TV rights. Take PITT for example, they will seek to work with schools that will offer reciprocity on the right to broadcast on their app service. In the future, you will stand on your own or have your rights purchased by a streaming service (Paramount, Apple, NetFlix, Hulu, Etc). The only group benefitting from conferences will be conferences. You don't need them anymore. There is so much more to this but I would need to write about 33 pages to explain it.

 

[pittdan77]

You are on the right track. Currently (and in the past) conferences were set up to negotiate everything from academic integrity to TV rights to scheduling. You need to see how the TV market will be more fluid in the future. Schools will have the ability to negotiate reciprocity so they independently can schedule and negotiate TV rights. Take PITT for example, they will seek to work with schools that will offer reciprocity on the right to broadcast on their app service. In the future, you will stand on your own or have your rights purchased by a streaming service (Paramount, Apple, NetFlix, Hulu, Etc). The only group benefitting from conferences will be conferences. You don't need them anymore. There is so much more to this but I would need to write about 33 pages to explain it.

But if the conference owns those rights, how exactly does that work? ND doesn't even have the guns to pull that off completely or they wouldn't have an agreement with the ACC.

 

[AllegeneeGenacGenac]

Take PITT for example, they will seek to work with schools that will offer reciprocity on the right to broadcast on their app service.

And when those schools that have reached reciprocity agreements decide to bargain as a group with streaming services (which they will because it makes for a stronger offer and provides more predictable content and revenue), how exactly is this different from what conferences do now?

I'm not asking to be snarky, I'd like to hear a summary of your 33 page manifesto.

 

[jivecat]

And when those schools that have reached reciprocity agreements decide to bargain as a group with streaming services (which they will because it makes for a stronger offer and provides more predictable content and revenue), how exactly is this different from what conferences do now?

I'm not asking to be snarky, I'd like to hear a summary of your 33 page manifesto.

Try to look at it like you would buying an app from the Apple Store. You buy the app that works for you.

 

[AllegeneeGenacGenac]

Try to look at it like you would buying an app from the Apple Store. You buy the app that works for you.

So you'd pay a monthly or annual fee to stream games from a school?

 

[topdecktiger]

Yep, that's why ESPN is gaining subscribers by the millions every year.

Huh? What? That isn't what's actually happening? Really?

Wow, who knew?

If a customer has cable, with ESPN, and switches to streaming, with ESPN, there is no net gain for ESPN.

What you're missing here is there is no restriction on who you can buy service from. It's not based on who owns the line or fiber.

Instead of one or two options, there are 10 or 15. This creates competition and more options for various packages.

It's a similar model with more granularity, because that's what people are used. It won't stay that way.

What you're missing is that these various providers end up offering similar packages.

Most networks/channels/whatever don't have enough of an audience to make it on their own. That's why they bundle up with other networks/channels/whatever.

Plus, after awhile, most the 10 or 15 service providers can't make it, and you end up with 3 or 4.

 

[pittdan77]

If a customer has cable, with ESPN, and switches to streaming, with ESPN, there is no net gain for ESPN.

Yup. They're moving to stream more so they pick up the cord cutters.

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

"Pay TV" subscriber numbers are dropping across the board. Youtube TV was the only provider that added in Q1. Cable companies are hemorrhaging. The streamers are forced to raise prices because of increasing fees, from ESPN and others, and then folks run from them. It's just a viscous cycle.

My kids couldn't care less about pay TV, and frankly I'm there myself outside of football and college BB season. Doubt I watch an hour of TV a day on average, so I'm on the cusp of dropping DirectTV. Wouldn't even care to replace it with anything until fall.

Sports is the only thing that drives my interest in Pay TV. When I can get that directly from the provider I will.

 

[jivecat]

"Pay TV" subscriber numbers are dropping across the board. Youtube TV was the only provider that added in Q1. Cable companies are hemorrhaging. The streamers are forced to raise prices because of increasing fees, from ESPN and others, and then folks run from them. It's just a viscous cycle.

My kids couldn't care less about pay TV, and frankly I'm there myself outside of football and college BB season. Doubt I watch an hour of TV a day on average, so I'm on the cusp of dropping DirectTV. Wouldn't even care to replace it with anything until fall.

Sports is the only thing that drives my interest in Pay TV. When I can get that directly from the provider I will.

This demographic is growing and lends credence to what the TV market projects to in the next 10 years. You are like me....I would pay $20/month to get PITT football and basketball...as well as some of the Olympic sports.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

If a customer has cable, with ESPN, and switches to streaming, with ESPN, there is no net gain for ESPN.

I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand, but lots of people who had cable with ESPN have moved to streaming WITHOUT ESPN. Which is why ESPN has lost tens (plural) of millions of customers over the last few years.

ESPN had just over 100 million subscribers at it's peak, in 2011. Today ESPN has 74 million subscribers. They've lost over 25% of their customers! And the numbers are accelerating.

You seem to think that everything is just fine at ESPN. You can rest assured that the people who own ESPN don't think like you do.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Nothing you said is wrong but you are looking at the opportunity as it would have presented itself 10 years ago. I'm not sure you understand the economics and demographics as they apply in the future.

I'm quite sure you don't understand the reality. Pitt simply does not have enough fan support to make it economical viable. Very few schools do.

Such a situation would also decimate exposure because controlling its own distribution rights, streaming or otherwise, means it would be shut out any media carrying major sports. Frankly, it would be a death spiral disaster. And there won't be reciprocity of any rights with power conference members because entities like Fox, NBC, and ESPN will still own the rights to ALL of those school's home games. If Pitt finds itself as an independent trying to hawk its own streaming package, and that is the source of its primary media revenue, it will not be participating in major college athletics either financially or by whom it is competing against on the field or court.

 

[pittchagg]

I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand, but lots of people who had cable with ESPN have moved to streaming WITHOUT ESPN. Which is why ESPN has lost tens (plural) of millions of customers over the last few years.

ESPN had just over 100 million subscribers at it's peak, in 2011. Today ESPN has 74 million subscribers. They've lost over 25% of their customers! And the numbers are accelerating.

You seem to think that everything is just fine at ESPN. You can rest assured that the people who own ESPN don't think like you do.

I think two things can be true: ESPN can not be the powerhouse that it was 10-15 years ago, and also that things aren’t aggressively dire for them like you’re making it seem. They made $500M on the ACC deal last year. They’re going to make even more on the SEC deal every year. They make, and will continue to make, a billion dollars a year or so on the NBA. They’re doing okay.

 

[CrazyPaco]

I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand, but lots of people who had cable with ESPN have moved to streaming WITHOUT ESPN. Which is why ESPN has lost tens (plural) of millions of customers over the last few years.

ESPN had just over 100 million subscribers at it's peak, in 2011. Today ESPN has 74 million subscribers. They've lost over 25% of their customers! And the numbers are accelerating.

You seem to think that everything is just fine at ESPN. You can rest assured that the people who own ESPN don't think like you do.

Eventually ESPN's entire platform is going to switch over to streaming whenever it calculates that it will make $1 more in doing so as opposed to forcing itself onto cable and satellite packages. It is the canary in the coal mine for the industry (in fact there was just a WSJ article about that). As of now, it still is making boatloads of money for the mouse as a linear network. It is actually one of the most profitable units for the mouse. It isn't going away; it is just going to eventually change delivery platforms. Instead of just bundling ESPN+ with its other properties, it is going to offer the whole enchilada when it makes sense to do so; and it will remain one of the most profitable units because live events are one of the only things that draws viewers in real time.

 

[pittchagg]

Eventually ESPN's entire platform is going to switch over to streaming whenever it calculates that it will make $1 more in doing so as opposed to forcing itself onto cable and satellite packages. It is the canary in the coal mine for the industry (in fact there was just a WSJ article about that). As of now, it still is making boatloads of money for the mouse as a linear network. It is actually one of the most profitable units for the mouse. It isn't going away; it is just going to eventually change delivery platforms. Instead of just bundling ESPN+ with its other properties, it is going to offer the whole enchilada when it makes sense to do so; and it will remain one of the most profitable units because live events are one of the only things that draws viewers in real time.

ESPN probably makes 10x on its traditional delivery method than what it makes via ESPN+. That percentage will probably skew towards ESPN+ slowly, but there’s a reason why there’s no rush by the mouse to move everything in that direction.

 

[CrazyPaco]

ESPN probably makes 10x on its traditional delivery method than what it makes via ESPN+. That percentage will probably skew towards ESPN+ slowly, but there’s a reason why there’s no rush by the mouse to move everything in that direction.

ESPN+ doesn't carry the primary sports content, so the two aren't comparable. ESPN+ is a way to squeeze a little money out of left over content while it prepares its platform for the eventual streaming of all the other ESPN channels.

ESPN channels drive cable and satellite subscription packages. When it starts streaming ESPN, ESPN2, ACCN, SECN, etc, and it is just a matter of time, it is really going to hurt cable and satellite.

 

[Dan1911]

I’m having conference AND tv service fatigue. Constant upheaval and drama. Like some here, i really don’t watch tv much. I got three months of free appletv with my new phone. I may have watched 20 Minutes of Programming. Not one thing on their network interests me.

 

[ThePanthers]

I'm quite sure you don't understand the reality. Pitt simply does not have enough fan support to make it economical viable. Very few schools do.

Such a situation would also decimate exposure because controlling its own distribution rights, streaming or otherwise, means it would be shut out any media carrying major sports. Frankly, it would be a death spiral disaster. And there won't be reciprocity of any rights with power conference members because entities like Fox, NBC, and ESPN will still own the rights to ALL of those school's home games. If Pitt finds itself as an independent trying to hawk its own streaming package, and that is the source of its primary media revenue, it will not be participating in major college athletics either financially or by whom it is competing against on the field or court.

Heck, ask the pac 12 how it worked for them and their network to go alone.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I think two things can be true: ESPN can not be the powerhouse that it was 10-15 years ago, and also that things aren’t aggressively dire for them like you’re making it seem. They made $500M on the ACC deal last year. They’re going to make even more on the SEC deal every year. They make, and will continue to make, a billion dollars a year or so on the NBA. They’re doing okay.

I'm not arguing that ESPN is going to go away or anything like that. I was simply responding to the person who thinks that all these streaming services are, or I guess soon will be, offering ESPN. He doesn't get that for millions of people the fact that, say, Prime doesn't have ESPN is a feature, not a bug. There are lots of people, millions of them, who don't want ESPN at any price. 15 or 20 years ago they basically didn't have a choice. It was a part of their cable or satellite package and they paid for it whether they ever watched it or not.

Today, those people have a choice. And millions of them have chosen not to pay ESPN their monthly fee. The choice isn't between cable and satellite with ESPN or streaming without it. The choice is cable or satellite with ESPN, or streaming with ESPN, or streaming without ESPN. And millions of people, a number that is increasing every year, are choosing that third option.

 

[forbesfield]

I think that ironically, people were clamoring to be able to buy TV channels a la carte, only buying the ones that they watched. They were unhappy about paying for religion channels or shopping channels or music channels or whatever, if they didn't watch them. Now, with streaming, it will soon truly be a la carte channel buying, but it will wind up costing everybody a whole lot more money to do so than it did when they were paying a monthly cable fee.

I have no doubt that ESPN is going to streaming, and I have no doubt that it will be bundled with Disney and other things, and I have no doubt that it will cost a small fortune. And if they play their cards right, and own much of the rights to college football and the NHL and the NBA etc, we'll all have no choice but to pony up.

 

[The Ole Six-Fiver]

I think that ironically, people were clamoring to be able to buy TV channels a la carte, only buying the ones that they watched. They were unhappy about paying for religion channels or shopping channels or music channels or whatever, if they didn't watch them. Now, with streaming, it will soon truly be a la carte channel buying, but it will wind up costing everybody a whole lot more money to do so than it did when they were paying a monthly cable fee.

I have no doubt that ESPN is going to streaming, and I have no doubt that it will be bundled with Disney and other things, and I have no doubt that it will cost a small fortune. And if they play their cards right, and own much of the rights to college football and the NHL and the NBA etc, we'll all have no choice but to pony up.

Forget the mundane comparison of prices (often purposefully apples Vs oranges). My biggest gripe is that streaming is generally slower and far more clumsy. Lots of waiting for (whatever) service to load up. Then having to learning where and how to move and scroll to get among as sea of shows or other “channels”. No single service seems to offer exactly everything I want, either. “Service X has everything BUT ATT Sportsnet” and such. The interfaces of the services seem to be changed weekly, never for the better, just different for the sake of being different. Hit the wrong button on the remote and often you get returned to your main smart TV home and have to start all over.

Whereas with cable or sat…Just turning on the TV with the power button and scrolling with the remote with the up and down button or entering the channel number is easier and honestly more gratifying. With minimal thought, there you are.

 

[pittdan77]

Forget the mundane comparison of prices (often purposefully apples Vs oranges). My biggest gripe is that streaming is generally slower and far more clumsy. Lots of waiting for (whatever) service to load up. Then having to learning where and how to move and scroll to get among as sea of shows or other “channels”. No single service seems to offer exactly everything I want, either. “Service X has everything BUT ATT Sportsnet” and such. The interfaces of the services seem to be changed weekly, never for the better, just different for the sake of being different. Hit the wrong button on the remote and often you get returned to your main smart TV home and have to start all over.

Whereas with cable or sat…Just turning on the TV with the power button and scrolling with the remote with the up and down button or entering the channel number is easier and honestly more gratifying. With minimal thought, there you are.

Familiar problems. It's gotten better in the last few years but there are still issues.

 

[AllegeneeGenacGenac]

I think that ironically, people were clamoring to be able to buy TV channels a la carte, only buying the ones that they watched. They were unhappy about paying for religion channels or shopping channels or music channels or whatever, if they didn't watch them. Now, with streaming, it will soon truly be a la carte channel buying, but it will wind up costing everybody a whole lot more money to do so than it did when they were paying a monthly cable fee.

I have no doubt that ESPN is going to streaming, and I have no doubt that it will be bundled with Disney and other things, and I have no doubt that it will cost a small fortune. And if they play their cards right, and own much of the rights to college football and the NHL and the NBA etc, we'll all have no choice but to pony up.

It's not going to cost everyone more money, just people who watch sports on channels that are no longer subsidized by all the non-sports watchers and people who like really niche content (but that's a topic for another board).

I personally think we're close to peak prices for sports content across the board, and the fat 16 is going to be taking a long look at why they added Rutgers and possibly UMD in the not too distant future.

 

[Burgh15]

Familiar problems. It's gotten better in the last few years but there are still issues.

The delay is what gets me for live sports.

 

[pittdan77]

The delay is what gets me for live sports.

I don't understand it either. Maybe it was so they could censor the odd f-bomb but they end up making it to the air anyway.