The future and how will WVU do?

[Rootmaster]

The future of college sports "broadcasting" will be online streaming with "game paid subscriptions" replacing advertising dollars...or at least the network version of it. Will WVU's inclusion in the Big 12-2=10 mean anything then? Will conferences mean anything? Will it all come down to how many are willing to pay to watch...on your phone etc?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbes...not-if-youll-cut-cable-but-when/#609fda6f3bbc

 

[topdecktiger]

It means less money.

 

[steeleer]

It will depend on the fans. We have always felt WVU fans are everywhere and are great fans.
If we are then we will do fine

It will all depend on our willingness to pay to watch for games, whether it's a "WVU pack" or by individual games.

Overall this is a good thing. The model of the Big 12 million might be a good thing since we are a "you eat what you kill" TV model already (Tier 3)

 

[topdecktiger]

It will depend on the fans. We have always felt WVU fans are everywhere and are great fans.
If we are then we will do fine

It will all depend on our willingness to pay to watch for games, whether it's a "WVU pack" or by individual games.

Overall this is a good thing. The model of the Big 12 million might be a good thing since we are a "you eat what you kill" TV model already (Tier 3)

Tier 3 doesn't make anywhere near the money of the regular TV contract.

 

[steeleer]

Tier 3 doesn't make anywhere near the money of the regular TV contract.

My point is that that ratio might change dramatically when the new contracts get done.

 

[topdecktiger]

My point is that that ratio might change dramatically when the new contracts get done.

That might be true, but it would be due to the contracts going down, not Tier 3 going up.

 

[writeon]

The future of TV sports is unpredictable even to university presidents and athletic directors.

 

[steeleer]

That might be true, but it would be due to the contracts going down, not Tier 3 going up.

I wouldn't be surprised if the number of games televised under "tier 1"would go down, and a number of potential tier 3 games going up. Essentially save the network money from production costs, and making the individual schools more reliant on "eating what you kill. "

 

[topdecktiger]

I wouldn't be surprised if the number of games televised under "tier 1"would go down, and a number of potential tier 3 games going up. Essentially save the network money from production costs, and making the individual schools more reliant on "eating what you kill. "

If you're talking about the quantity of games under each designation changing, then that's possible. That's not really the point though. The issue is the amount of viewers/subscribers, and the figures simply suggest decrease, not increase.

"Eat what you kill" isn't really relevant. Without networks, the value of that content is severely limited.

 

[steeleer]

If you're talking about the quantity of games under each designation changing, then that's possible. That's not really the point though. The issue is the amount of viewers/subscribers, and the figures simply suggest decrease, not increase.

"Eat what you kill" isn't really relevant. Without networks, the value of that content is severely limited.

Of course it's the point. If you have a weak brand and the more games get dumped into tier 3, the more you have to be individually responsible for getting people to pay to watch your games. You can't ride the coattails of Texas or Oklahoma like the current models set up.

The days of taking on a Rutgers or Maryland to capture a bunch of TV sets isn't going to cut it anymore either. The Marylands and Rutgers of the world are going to have to justify their expenditures based on what they are personally bringing in as far as viewers go....UnLike the current model is set up.

The future will most likely be more of a partnership between networks and universities on a more individual level, as opposed to negotiating with a big old conference. Universities will take on more of an individual risk than they do now. Obviously we'll still need networks, it would just be different.

 

[steeleer]

I'll also say, that I never would've written what I just wrote a year ago. Who's foresaw the collapse of ESPN?

 

[topdecktiger]

Of course it's the point. If you have a weak brand and the more games get dumped into tier 3, the more you have to be individually responsible for getting people to pay to watch your games. You can't ride the coattails of Texas or Oklahoma like the current models set up.

The days of taking on a Rutgers or Maryland to capture a bunch of TV sets isn't going to cut it anymore either. The Marylands and Rutgers of the world are going to have to justify their expenditures based on what they are personally bringing in as far as viewers go....UnLike the current model is set up.

The future will most likely be more of a partnership between networks and universities on a more individual level, as opposed to negotiating with a big old conference. Universities will take on more of an individual risk than they do now. Obviously we'll still need networks, it would just be different.

Yeah, and see, here is what you don't understand. Individual schools, even schools like Alabama or Texas, don't have big viewership for their lower-tier games. For example, Alabama's game vs. UT-Chattanooga drew 2.4 million viewers. (That's a 1.5 rating). This was a 7 PM game on ESPN 2.

Now, consider the ramifications of your "pay to watch" scenario. You are already starting with a rather low number of 2.4 million total viewers. Some of those are just casual viewers. They aren't going to actively pay for that game. The only reason they watch is because they can just flip on the TV.

The thing you are missing is that these big TV contracts are valuable because of the cumulative content. The networks aren't locked in one team's schedule each week. When Alabama has a dud game like UTC, you might have another good game, like LSU-Tennessee or whatever.

I can agree with you about networks trimming down. However, you aren't going to see networks making individual deals for crappy Tier 3 games. This is why you see me arguing so much when people bring up this Tier 3 business.Those games simply aren't that valuable. The real value is in the big games, and these lower-tier games the networks have just picked up as supplements.

I'll also say, that I never would've written what I just wrote a year ago. Who's foresaw the collapse of ESPN?

The problems is, it's not just ESPN. If ESPN can't survive, then neither can FS1, NBCSN, etc.

 

[Cuyahoga Falls Eers]

It's simple math. If TV has less money to spend, and ESPN's downward spiral is evidence that the bubble is in danger of bursting, then the colleges will get less money for their product.

WVU is getting almost $40 million (Big 12 plus Tier 3 rights) because the bidding war for games drove up the price. But if ESPN, Fox Sports, et al can't make a profit at current prices, and the games are siphoned off for various streaming venues, the splintering will water down the money for each school.

That should be the concern. I don't revel in ESPN's woes because those problems will eventually bite WVU and every P5 conference and school in the country.

The same thing happened to non-sports TV. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon are producing their own movies and series. NBC, et al

There is no joy for WVU fans in all of this.