NJDuck Moderator No. 1 Share Posted June 5, 2023 Washington’s trip to Michigan State on Sept. 16, a game controlled by the Big Ten and its media partners, will be broadcast exclusively on Peacock, the streaming platform owned by NBCUniversal. Perhaps the premier non-conference games of Week Three won’t be on FOX’s Big Noon window or ABC’s primetime slot. It won’t be on broadcast or cable television. Instead, a preseason top-10 team (UW) with a Heisman Trophy candidate (quarterback Michael Penix) will face an upper-level Big Ten program on a streaming service with just 20 million subscribers (approximately). Most UW fans will need to find the remote control and break out the credit card in order to watch the 2 p.m. kickoff. Meanwhile, two lesser Big Ten games received better broadcast windows: Syracuse-Purdue is slotted for primetime on NBC; and Western Kentucky-Ohio State is on FOX. The attractiveness of the Washington-MSU matchup is the very reason NBC opted for an exclusive broadcast on Peacock. It wants to drive viewers to the streaming platform and is using premium Big Ten football as a means to that end. Both Michigan and Penn State are slotted for Peacock broadcasts in September. 2. Market trend The Washington-MSU matchup is merely the latest example of media companies shifting their football inventory to streaming platforms — a trend that will accelerate in a few years when ESPN itself becomes a streaming service. (It’s not just college football for NBC’s subsidiary: Peacock has the exclusive rights to an NFL regular-season and playoff game.) The Pac-12’s next media rights agreement likely will have a significant streaming component, whether it’s Apple or Amazon or ESPN or another service. So we wonder: What if Washington’s appearance on Peacock is a glimpse into the Pac-12’s future? What if NBC is bidding on a package of Pac-12 games (most of them bound for Peacock) that would complement its Big Ten inventory? It could work as the second half of a Saturday doubleheader, with the Big Ten game airing at 4:30 p.m. (PT) and then a Pac-12 matchup at 7:30 or 8 p.m. Perhaps that’s not the likely outcome of the Pac-12’s media negotiations. But until the saga reaches a resolution, it’s foolish to ignore scenarios that haven’t been popular on the rumor mill. In fact, clarity often comes when we peer into the silence. Wilner Pac-12 news recap: Washington on Peacock (and what it means), NBA Draft decisions, legal affairs SPORTS360AZ.COM <p>A weekly assessment of developments across the Pac-12 … 1. Penix meets Peacock There was one surprise Wednesday from the release of kickoff times for the Pac-12’s early-season games... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lownslowav8r No. 2 Share Posted June 5, 2023 Not buying a month of streaming on Peacock for one game. Watching football is going to get expensive. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave23 No. 3 Share Posted June 5, 2023 On 6/5/2023 at 9:52 AM, lownslowav8r said: Watching football is going to get expensive. This is what you get now that college football is big business. Players are getting paid NIL money and maybe sooner than later they will get payed by University. Couple that with universities want to get paid 60 or 70 million a year and that money has to come from somewhere. I'm just hoping after this initial phase the streamers will consolidate down to two or three. I'm willing to wager that at some point Amazon or competitor will start offer a package deal on sports coverage similar to modern-day cable but streaming. At some point in time the 32 team mega conference will probably have its own DTC streaming service thus cutting out the middleman altogether. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDuck Author Moderator No. 4 Share Posted June 5, 2023 On 6/5/2023 at 12:33 PM, Dave23 said: I'm just hoping after this initial phase the streamers will consolidate down to two or three. I'm willing to wager that at some point Amazon or competitor will start offer a package deal on sports coverage similar to modern-day cable but streaming. I believe that is what ESPN is looking to do with ESPN+ according to the one article posted about ESPN and streaming. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph No. 5 Share Posted June 5, 2023 And NBC moved a Michigan State home game from E. Lansing to Detroit. The money spends but it comes with a price. Take note UCLA and USC. Streaming of all sports events and pay-for-view will be here sooner rather than later. Both Apple and Amazon are in far more households, worldwide, than Peacock. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph No. 6 Share Posted June 5, 2023 On 6/5/2023 at 12:33 PM, Dave23 said: This is what you get now that college football is big business. Players are getting paid NIL money and maybe sooner than later they will get payed by University. Couple that with universities want to get paid 60 or 70 million a year and that money has to come from somewhere. I'm just hoping after this initial phase the streamers will consolidate down to two or three. I'm willing to wager that at some point Amazon or competitor will start offer a package deal on sports coverage similar to modern-day cable but streaming. At some point in time the 32 team mega conference will probably have its own DTC streaming service thus cutting out the middleman altogether. Sad, but true. Many schools awarding athletic scholarships today will not continue to do so once, not if, players are found to be employees. NFL Lite is coming with the NFL picking up the bill and the players being athletes and not student-athletes. And the players will be drafted out of high school and be union members with restrictions on transferring, etc. Very sad IMO but inevitable now that CFB has been completely monetized. BTW, Nick Saban will not be paid $12M a year to coach in NFL Lite. Meanwhile, let's enjoy CFB for what it is today for as long as we can. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph No. 7 Share Posted June 5, 2023 On 6/5/2023 at 11:52 AM, lownslowav8r said: Not buying a month of streaming on Peacock for one game. Watching football is going to get expensive. Not that you will want to watch but it will be more than 1 game. UCLA and USC will both play late-night on Peacock. Won't it be funny if Pac-10 does a deal with the far more widely distributed Apple or Amazon while the LA schools play on a network close to the number of subscribers who paid for the Pac-12 network? Love to see the LA schools hoist on their own greedy petard. Already partially hoist with B1G teams now expected to receive $65M, at best, and not $70M per annum. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave23 No. 8 Share Posted June 5, 2023 On 6/5/2023 at 11:00 AM, NJDuck said: I believe that is what ESPN is looking to do with ESPN+ according to the one article posted about ESPN and streaming. I have to admit I was a little confused by what that article was getting at as currently you can watch all the games ESPN has on ESPN+ streaming. Did it allude to ESPN+ featuring games from other networks? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudslide No. 9 Share Posted June 5, 2023 Scratching my head, with a little grin on my face, wondering what ever happened to the ADVERTISERS paying the freight on sporting events. It almost seems like they have gotten a message that still eludes conferences and their media partners. Ah ha. This economy is most certainly a down turning one. Somewhere in the bruhaha of this media circus-of-insecurity lies a reason ... more than that it is all tech or subscriber driven ... for a rush to streaming. "Save us, they screamed!" to Mother Streamer. I'm pretty certain there will be some winners ... but also big losers and collapses in this business in the not-too-distant future. Kinda like the U.S. debt, the cost of this business of collegiate sports broadcasting can only get so big before it will eventually face plant on itself. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Marsh No. 10 Share Posted June 6, 2023 On 6/5/2023 at 8:52 AM, lownslowav8r said: Not buying a month of streaming on Peacock for one game. Watching football is going to get expensive. Football has already been expensive. It's just been wrapped up in a cable bill with some other stuff you may watch as well. ESPN has been 10-20 dollars of your cable bill for years. Stuff on ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX is free with an antenna so those games are already wrapped into a cable package for ease. FS1 is probably at least another 5 dollars of the cable bill. Pac-12 network only seems apart of packages that are a level or two up from basic so if you're only getting it for the football that will cost you. I know I got rid of my cable and I haven't missed it. I really only used it for football and it was costing me far more than I wish to say. Football and sports viewing has always been expensive. For someone like me if I can focus my streaming services then it might actually be cheaper. If you are someone who intends on keeping cable or dish no matter where the sports go then it would probably be more expensive. Also... Other note on peacock. If you have Comcast you get peacock for free. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie No. 11 Share Posted June 6, 2023 At this rate, I may have to settle for following only Oregon games--on the radio. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
