Amen. As much as we might like it to be all about football it isn't. There are tradeoffs tough.
I do not know anyone still on cable. Even my elderly mother-in-law went to hulu live. Cable is dead.
Then why hasn't ESPN and FOX dumped cable and gone all streaming which to see most things I would want to see on streaming I would have tp pay for it. Again, streaming is a Titanic setting voyage as they have lost Billions already. It just isn't sustainable yet.
The live streaming services, Hulu Live, Fubo, Youtube tv, Sling, etc pay to carry networks just like cable, except in a more cost effective manner. I have done Hulu Live and Fubo. Both are really decent and cost far less than cable. Traditional cable is dead in the water.
As someone else mentioned, this calculus is almost entirely irrelevant today. In the old TV model, adding Washington, DC and New York, meant millions of cable subscription fees. In the individual streaming market, few people in New York are watching Rutgers and they would never receive and invite today. Neither would MD. In the individual streaming World, all that matters is how many people watch a team and how much Amazon/netflix/ etc. will pay to broadcast. ND is THE white whale. BC and Rutgers are sardines. Miami is, well, you can read about them here.
More people today have a Netflix subscription than have cable, but only by a few million. Cable still drives value, but it's less every year and will go away completely if the trend continues.
That some streaming services are still operating at a loss is largely irrelevant. This is about contractual agreements. If Paramount + is in the red but signs a contract saying they will pay the Big 10 $X million over Y years to add certain teams or air a certain number of game, the conference now has a legally binding document to get paid. They don't care if Paramount is profitable or not as long as they get the money that was promised. If Paramout were to collapse the Big 10 would pursue legal action to collect and would shift to a different streamer in the next contract.
And brand / tv viewership is exactly what dictated this latest round of expansion in the SEC and B1G. The list of most watched college football teams in 2023 can be used to predict who will be the next to jump into the P2 conferences - FSU / Clemson without a doubt.
Net flix is a different animal nice for movies, I guess. Just watch what happens when you begin telling PS OSU MI AL and the like that they will be streamed and not on cable and be on Fri night.
Perhaps I didn't articulate my point very well.
It's unclear to me how you can say this. Take a look at the chart of annual cable subscribers at the link below. Cable has been declining since 2011 and falling off a cliff since 2018. Time will tell when the decline starts to slow, but I think it is going to increase because of demographics. We will continue to see the 18-64 demo shed users at 7%/yr and it will accelerate as the current 65 and up demos pass away at an accelerating rate. The future IS foreseeable and cable IS going away. The only think that could change this is if there is some unforeseen disruption technologically/economically/etc that changes consumer behavior.
www.ibisworld.com
1. The B2G is already telling PS & OSU that they will be playing on friday night. How the game is delivered to consumers is irrelevant. $$ talks and as more people dump cable and move to streaming, the $$ will get bigger.
Do you really think these schools will care if Netflix pays them more money than cable? CFB is all about the almighty dollar anymore, everything else is secondary. That mindset is unfortunately eroding the sport we all loved not just because it was football, but because of the emotional attachment to universities we attended and geographic regions we have ties to. That part is going away, and it being replaced by programs and conferences simply chasing the biggest payday.
I don't think the emotional attachment is changing--that's why they can put money first. The "geographic region" has always been overrated. I don't miss playing Pitt, Syracuse or WVU at all. In fact, I'd be thrilled if we never played them again--same with Temple. I'm thrilled to play teams like Oregon, Washington and USC on a semi-regular basis. I want "good games" not "regional matchups"
It's fading, fast. CFB is going corporate. I don't miss games against some of those opponents either but I don't live locally. If I did, you can bet I'd miss hopping in the car to go to road games vs. having to fly to the west coast. The powers that be are killing the golden goose by deemphasizing everything that made college football different, and for CFB fans better, than the NFL. We don't want the NFL lite. But the NFL lite model pays better so that's where it's going. Until the fans stop supporting it, nothing will change.
The powers that be don't care about attendance. That's not where they make the most money. Stadiums will become smaller as younger generations don't want the live experience. That's who these changes target.
I don't think any of this is true.
Exposure matters if people think streaming will ultimately be anything to anyone except bargain basement teams, I offer you the Old PAC and those teams when that was the offer. They are in the Big 12 now. People are not going to pay streaming to watch college football. Streaming is for nerds and they for the most part don't watch college football. They're too busy watching Big Bang reruns.
The Big 2 also told the league they will not play a home game on Friday night. The agreed to play a Fri night game a year with one of the dregs of the league. I can assure you if the Big 10 or the SEC tell their best teams they will be playing 5-6 games a year on streaming there will be a super leagues formed but not the one they are currently talking about. Exposure matters and streaming will never bring that.
Can anyone accurately say that the decline in college football viewership is due to streaming. Or is due to younger people simply not watching? All the articles I've read (and I don't anymore) have quoted broad numbers on streaming lumping most things together and not breaking it down. It's a nerdy thing to me. I won't say never but thankfully I'll be long dead before it happens.
Exposure matters if people think streaming will ultimately be anything to anyone except bargain basement teams, I offer you the Old PAC and those teams when that was the offer. They are in the Big 12 now. People are not going to pay streaming to watch college football. Streaming is for nerds and they for the most part don't watch college football. They're too busy watching Big Bang reruns.
We disagree but that's ok I take no umbrage from anyone's comments or stance on this subject or any other subject on the board. Where college football is concerned, I see streaming as folly and an eventual huge money loser for streaming companies. That infact has been the case to date to the tune of billions. Sooner or later that bill will come due.As I read your post, this .gif is what I thought of. Respectfully, streaming is not for "nerds" to watch The Big Bang Theory any more than cable was nerdy vs OTA broadcasts. Youtube having NFL Sunday ticket as a streamer, vs needing DirecTV satellite hardware is clearly an upgrade. Streaming is a superior experience and delivery mechanism vs cable for so many reasons. Cable is dying. It just isn't dead yet. Once wireless provides the speed and stability that exists today with the wired lines that provide cable TV/Internet, cable will be dead, if it hasn't collapsed already.
