Streaming Games: Rough Waters or Gently Down the Stream?

[Jon Joseph]

While the proof is not yet in the pudding, the Pac-10 has yet to finalize its new media deal, it has been widely reported and speculated that the new media agreement will have approximately 50% of the money ball sports, men's football, and basketball broadcast via streaming instead of on traditional linear network and cable television.

 

If this structure comes to fruition the Pac-10 will become the beta site (test site) for the streaming of the Power 5 money ball sports. Is this a risk that the Pac-10 can afford at this point in time? Without having the final new media deal numbers in hand this is a question that at this time is anyone's best guess. Without the LA schools in the conference and with the ACC locked into a woeful media deal through 2036, the benchmark for broadcast comparative purposes is the Big 12 (B12) conference. (The Pac-10 will not come close to the huge media deals that have been executed by the B1G and the SEC conferences.)

 

The B12's existing deal includes the soon-to-depart Oklahoma and Texas and expires in 2025. The B12 including its four new members joining in 2023, jumped ahead of the Pac-10 with its media negotiations and has concluded its new media deal with FOX and ESPN. Each B12 member will receive approximately $37M a year in media revenue under the new agreement. All B12 games will be broadcast on ESPN and FOX. (A number of non-revenue sports games will be carried on the ESPN3 streaming service.) With it being no secret that the B12 would like to add Pac-10 teams, the Pac-10 is doing all it can to equal or exceed the $37M per season number.

 

The most likely streaming partner for the Pac-10 is Amazon. Amazon is headquartered in Pac-10 country, Seattle, and has already dipped its toe into the sports broadcast waters with its weekly broadcast of an NFL game. In 2022, the NFL broadcast produced a positive return on investment for Amazon. Larry's Loser Network has left, finally, the San Francisco headquarters building for less costly facilities south of San Francisco. Amazon's NFL games were broadcast via an NBC subsidiary; Amazon does not have its own sports production facilities  A streaming of games agreement with Amazon could bring about a serendipitous marriage of this huge network with the slimmed-down and less costly Pac-Network and perhaps finally put the network in the black.

 

In 2019, Amazon Prime (the company's broadcast arm that distributes such programs as the ultra-successful 'Yellowstone' series) had 150M worldwide customers. In 2022 this number had grown to over 200M worldwide customers including 76.6M subscribers in the United States. 59% of American households had at least one Amazon Prime membership in 2022. The amount of American household customers is vital because many outside of the USA prefer futbol over football. Note that in addition to the cost of the Prime membership, Amazon does charge extra to watch popular programs such as Yellowstone. A Pac-10 streaming package is likely to come with a one-off game or annual package additional charge.

 

In contrast with Amazon, ESPN lost approximately 3.5M subscribers last season and 7.2% of its customer subscription base since 2011. Folks are indeed cutting the cable cord for alternative viewing opportunities. And since 2011 ESPN's costs to broadcast the NFL, NBA, college football games and other well-watched sporting events have soared. Media experts predict that ESPN will have to move much of its broadcasting from linear to streaming in order to compete with Amazon and other high-tech companies such as Apple. 

 

Of course, streaming 50% of your most valuable sports inventory does not come without risk. How many folks familiar with linear TV will watch Pac-10 football and basketball via streaming? How will kickoff and tip-off times work? Could many of the Pac-10 Late Nite games be played earlier in the day and streamed throughout the day and the week? Will ESPN show highlights from these games on Sports Center and College Football Final? Will the moving of half of the money ball product off of linear TV hurt football and basketball recruiting? 

 

I'm sure there are many other issues that more tech savvy people than I ( that's most of the known universe) will have. The Pac-12 went its own way with the network and feel on its financial face. Could this new venture result in the same or result in the conference being the leader into the brave new world of streaming college sports?

[Smith72]

Jon, good summary of the options available for the Pac-10(?).  With the trend of cutting the cable cord and more people choosing to go with streaming, I like the idea of a 50/50 approach.

 

We'll have to hope that the Commissioner and the Presidents negotiate a good deal for the Pac.  I'm hoping for more of a streaming option in the future.

 

I don't like being a prisoner to "Pac-12 After Dark" just to get a game on ESPN or FOX.  There are so many reasons to hate a game that ends around midnight. Then the travel home!  How many recruits across the country will watch Oregon at 3 a.m. Eastern time?

[Charles Fischer]

Great topic, and superb layout for us Jon.

 

Assuming a 50/50 split....we will lose viewers who won't go to streaming--at first.  But we will also tap into a huge worldwide audience that are Oregon/Pac-12 fans, and that number will only grow.  It will be incredibly handy for recruits to watch Oregon at any time online, as the games would be available.  And there will be learning curve for everyone as we transition to a new technology.

 

For example there are software programs that record a streaming game, and later everyone can use them to watch a late game the next day as they would using the DVR.  I do not want Pac-12 to pass on streaming, and feel the Larry-Left-Us-Losing feeling again.  The technology of televisions is so mainstream that hooking the internet into the TV is routine, thus it is just learning curve for most, or....do as I do, and hire tech people to help you get it set up.  It is money well spent, IMHO.

 

There is pain with either side of the decision; we go half streaming and lose audience for probably five years.  Go 100% TV, and slowly die on the vine as times change.  When do we want to take the medicine?

 

There is risk with Avoidance...

[Jon Joseph]

On 2/5/2023 at 1:52 PM, Smith72 said:

Jon, good summary of the options available for the Pac-10(?).  With the trend of cutting the cable cord and more people choosing to go with streaming, I like the idea of a 50/50 approach.

 

We'll have to hope that the Commissioner and the Presidents negotiate a good deal for the Pac.  I'm hoping for more of a streaming option in the future.

 

I don't like being a prisoner to "Pac-12 After Dark" just to get a game on ESPN or FOX.  There are so many reasons to hate a game that ends around midnight. Then the travel home!  How many recruits across the country will watch Oregon at 3 a.m. Eastern time?

I made this comment on another post earlier but I do not think FOX after raiding LA and elbowing ESPN out of the B1G will be a bidder for Pac-10 media rights. Agree with all of your observations and I hope the conference media deal will at least match that of the new B12 deal.

 

As Charles so correctly points out below, streaming does provide the ability to watch at any time. At least for the time, the partner streams the games.

 

Living on the Right Coast I can tell you that games that kick off at 10:30 eastern time are must-tape and unwatchable live for grey beards and also for many recruits who are 'footballed out' by late in the day on Saturday.

[noDucknewby]

For me this about trying to turn a weakness into a strength.  Right now the P12(10) is in danger of becoming the weakest Power 5 conference, perhaps not even a power conference at all.  We can't sugarcoat the loss of the LA market, it's potentially catastrophic.  Our expansion options are limited, Fox is all-in on the B1G and ESPN is only interested in the P12(10) except as a value brand.  

 

At least we're not the ACC, stuck in a bad, long-term TV deal.  Really hard to believe they fell for that one.  The B12 may be losing their best name-brands, but they immediately expanded to try and make up the slack.  We probably don't have the option of adding four teams that actually add value (unless of course they can be poached from another conference which seems unlikely at this time).

 

So where does that leave us?  We are most likely going to be thrust into the forefront of college football streaming, as Jon says the "beta testers".  Here I believe is where we make lemonade out of lemons.  Take our limited linear TV options along with the failed P12 Network and roll them into some kind of partnership with Amazon.  We have the production capabilities, they have worldwide distribution.  We have the broadcast experience, they have the deep pockets.  An all-in streaming approach is not likely viable at this time, but sometime in the future it likely will be.

 

A 50/50 linear/streaming split is risky to be sure, but mostly in the short-term.  It seems likely that streaming will eventually dominate live sports programming.  As to the question Jon raises, rough waters at first then hopefully smooth sailing down the road.  

[Annie]

Well, I've never streamed anything and don't even have a clue if I can on my TV. So this news is not positive for me, unless it is streaming in addition to the channels I already get.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Annie

[Pennsylvania Duck]

I am in agreement that perhaps in around 8-10 years, streaming will dominate the sports market. That is too far away for the conference to think of an all- streaming model. In my opinion, the conference as it stands today, is not one that is a model of strength after losing two teams in the largest media market and no stated growth plans. I don't think the conference can go the all-streaming route right now and survive financially and grow the eyeballs needed to be successful. That is way too much risk for the conference to take at this time.

 

If all-streaming was the route to go now, why haven't the pro teams in the NFL, NBA, MLB, done more? I still can't get out of my mind the fact that the Thursday Night NFL games on Amazon this year were a 40% drop off from broadcast tv the year before. Those leagues can probably wait for the growth, but I don't think our conference has that leisure in time to wait for the growth in streaming to occur.

 

I think it needs to be about 40/60 broadcast in the next contract period, which needs to be no longer than 5 years. After that, perhaps the next contract can lean more to streaming.

[2002duck]

For East coasters, who's watching late night Oregon games the following day that isn't already a massive Oregon fan? The "watch anytime you want" argument doesn't work well unless you love analyzing plays. It's live or bust.

 

Having to do the whole dance of "I'm turning off my phone, and avoiding looking at the news until I watch the game in solitude" is not a sustainable business strategy. 

 

Of course I will watch streamed games that the Ducks play live, but I'm not going to stream any other games. I have given up on NFL Thursday Night Football- toggling to the app- and away from it to check out other games like the Blazers is a chore. 

 

When games are on network TV or ESPN/FS1 people are almost "tricked" or forced to watch, or happily stumble upon the game and stay to watch. With streaming, someone has to go out of their way to watch a game- and I don't see that happening.

 

I don't see any point in being a guinea pig. We can have a short GOR, and do whatever soon anyway. Also, Amazon is always axing their budgets (or staff) when things are not going well. If they don't like the numbers- then they will bail. I could see them dropping Thursday Night Football, to be honest. 

 

The PAC and its big programs need to focus on exposure, and less about money. Short term payments from an unproven model in sports streaming are not worth it. 

Edited February 5, 2023 by 2002duck

[Pennsylvania Duck]

On 2/5/2023 at 4:31 PM, Annie said:

Well, I've never streamed anything and don't even have a clue if I can on my TV. So this news is not positive for me, unless it is streaming in addition to the channels I already get.

Hi Annie. I have streamed a few things and find it to be a big bother. I find it annoying that I can see games from every conference on my cable network but the Pac-12 on the sports package we have. 

 

One of our OBDF posters told me on another thread that the new tvs make it easier to stream. However, I am not ready for a new tv yet but may have to invest in one before too long. 

 

 

[Jon Joseph]

Annie, if you have a newer model TV all of the key streaming apps, Amazon, Apple, U Tube, Hulu, etc. should be built into the system. In my case I still needed help getting all of 'this' set up.

 

Your concern I am sure will be echoed by many which is one of the reasons going the streaming route presents a risk for the conference.

[Pennsylvania Duck]

On 2/5/2023 at 4:37 PM, 2002duck said:

toggling to the app- and away from it to check out other games like the Blazers is a chore. 

I am so in agreement with this! I have found myself not going back to the streamed program once I leave to check out other channels.

[Jon Joseph]

On 2/5/2023 at 4:42 PM, Pennsylvania Duck said:

Hi Annie. I have streamed a few things and find it to be a big bother. I find it annoying that I can see games from every conference on my cable network but the Pac-12 on the sports package we have. 

 

One of our OBDF posters told me on another thread that the new tvs make it easier to stream. However, I am not ready for a new tv yet but may have to invest in one before too long. 

As noted above in my response to Annie's comment streaming apps are built into all 'modern TVs." But this does not provide a solution for folks who do not want to spend the money on a new TV. Generally, streaming is available on your computer or on your laptop.

[Annie]

On 2/5/2023 at 1:47 PM, Jon Joseph said:

Annie, if you have a newer model TV all of the key streaming apps, Amazon, Apple, U Tube, Hulu, etc. should be built into the system. In my case I still needed help getting all of 'this' set up.

 

Your concern I am sure will be echoed by many which is one of the reasons going the streaming route presents a risk for the conference.

Even if they are built in (and I don't know if they are) I am not subscribed to any of them. Wish my daughter and SIL lived closer than an hour-and-half away--they know about these things.

On 2/5/2023 at 1:42 PM, Pennsylvania Duck said:

Hi Annie. I have streamed a few things and find it to be a big bother. I find it annoying that I can see games from every conference on my cable network but the Pac-12 on the sports package we have. 

 

One of our OBDF posters told me on another thread that the new tvs make it easier to stream. However, I am not ready for a new tv yet but may have to invest in one before too long. 

 

 

I'm not ready for a new TV either, and from I see in ads it looks as if one needs a model bigger than 32" and I don't have room for that in the space where I have (and want) my TV. Sometimes I really hate progress!

 

[Jon Joseph]

On 2/5/2023 at 4:42 PM, Pennsylvania Duck said:

Hi Annie. I have streamed a few things and find it to be a big bother. I find it annoying that I can see games from every conference on my cable network but the Pac-12 on the sports package we have. 

 

One of our OBDF posters told me on another thread that the new tvs make it easier to stream. However, I am not ready for a new tv yet but may have to invest in one before too long. 

THIS could be a big issue prior to most broadcast content going to, as expected to happen, streaming. Love this and Annie's comment because easy access to the streaming source is likely to be the main issue as to whether streaming will work for the Pac.

 

I agree with Charles prescient comment. It is likely that at first streaming could negatively effect viewership. But streaming is the way of the future. Any new tech is tough for me but is a piece of cake for folks who grew up in this 'electronic wonder land. 

 

I am realistic enough to know that ads on TV today are not aimed at 76 year olds like me.

 

Again, as Charles noted, the potential national and USA reach of Amazon is off the charts. Cable is dying; streaming is growing.

 

 

[Jon Joseph]

On 2/5/2023 at 4:49 PM, Pennsylvania Duck said:

I am so in agreement with this! I have found myself not going back to the streamed program once I leave to check out other channels.

 

I expect as is the case with most new tech that access and use will be made easier rather than harder?

[Annie]

On 2/5/2023 at 1:51 PM, Jon Joseph said:

As noted above in my response to Annie's comment streaming apps are built into all 'modern TVs." But this does not provide a solution for folks who do not want to spend the money on a new TV. Generally, streaming is available on your computer or on your laptop.

Well, I don't have a laptop and I don't want to have to sit at my desk to watch on my desktop. Yes, I'm old-fashioned, and I also want to keep my electronic clutter to a minimum.

[Haywarduck]

We have the NIL, fancy uniforms, the transfer portal, and now streaming! I have no idea why they matter, or how they work. I suppose if my Ducks still put on their uniforms and play football, whatever they look like, all will be good in the end.

 

[Pennsylvania Duck]

On 2/5/2023 at 4:51 PM, Jon Joseph said:

Generally, streaming is available on your computer or on your laptop.

Thanks for the suggestion, Jon. However, I don't like watching games on a laptop. I like seeing the action on a big screen. I think convenient access to games is a big plus in my book and for many "older" fans. Perhaps one day streaming can be easier for "non-techies" like me. 

[noDucknewby]

The Achilles Heel to streaming is that if you don't have the required bandwidth it is infuriating.  Taking 5 minutes for your app to log on and then watching it buffer endlessly makes me prefer Law and Order reruns on cable.

 

That was years ago for me though, now I have plenty of bandwidth and my streaming apps perform better than my cable box.

 

Agree streaming live sports is kind of clunky now, but does anyone remember dial-up internet?  

 

 

Edited February 5, 2023 by noDucknewby

[Log Haulin]

My son watches all the NFL games he wants through streaming. I could have game on my 75" samsung qled ( greatest tv for watching ball) and he still will stream it on his phone and go do something else.

 

Something streaming offers is an international audience. Something the Ducks have already tapped into. The Duck brand would generate revenue Ducks didn’t have access to previously. 

 

American football is primed for an international audience. The Ducks could claim the throne of the international market.

[olcodgerduck]

Something I have done in the last several years is to cable my TV to my desktop or my laptop via HDMI cables. I don't watch a ton of streaming content, but it works great for watching YouTube videos with my wife, or watching Prime TV content. My main TV is almost 20 years old, and it handles all the connections I want to throw at it. Once this connection is put in place, all you have to do is switch inputs on your TV to watch whichever one you want to at the time.

 

Something I have started doing when traveling is to pack an HDMI cable with my laptop, and connect it to the TV in my hotel room - allowing me to watch whatever would be my regular programming at home, or watch content from my DVR. 

 

Can't call me a gray beard as I don't wear a beard, but my mustache is definitely not the same shade of brown it was 40+ years ago either.  Nothing stays the same, and while I bristle when confronted with change, I will do whatever it takes to watch my Ducks.

 

Go Ducks!!

[Dr Hilarius]

The Pac-12 networks (why on Earth are there plural?) requires streaming to see a lot of good games, anyway. 

 

ANYTHING is better than the Pac-12 networks. 

[HappyToBeADuck]

Well our (actually my) sports room TV is 7 years old.  The first Amazon Prime NFL Thursday Night broadcast was a complete suprise to me. I couldnt find it on FOX, CBS, ESPN or anywhere. Frustration ruled the moment.

 

So i called my 26 year old grandson, Chris, to ask him what was going on? He told me the game was streaming on AP. I said WTH!  And really started to piss, whine and moan about this. I am absolutely tech ignorant. Chris asked if we had Amazon Prime? I replied, all i know is I have a TV and NFLTNF should be on it.

 

Chris and his wife had cut the chord 2 years earlier and stream everything. They have access to all the college and NFL games they can watch. Then my 5 year old granddaughter got on the phone to walk her Papa thru the process. What worked for them didnt work for me on our TV and set up.

 

My sweet Italian wife had been listening to the conversation and on her way downstairs was hurling degrading and insulting comments toward me in Italian. My phone was on speaker and she didnt want the youngsters to know what she was saying. It wasnt nice but the general comments were toward my general tech ineptitude. In the strongest terms possible.

 

She told me to push the Blue button on the remote and say: Amazon Prime NFL Thursday Night Football. I did and 15 seconds later i am watching the game. To return to cable, i just pushed guide button once. Should be noted that 2 other grandsons called to make sure i was tuned in.  i love those rascals.

 

It should be noted that my sweet wife accepted my thank you then sent another parting shot at me in Italian. I love my spicy, sausy wife!

 

I feel the anxiety and frustration that comes from this type of change. And recognize that not all TVs are that easy or that the bandwidth available may be lacking. However, technology moves faster than the speed of light. The streaming giants have deep pockets and will make this work for all.

 

I cannot find the business article that i read a few weeks ago about the future of Disney, ABC and ESPN.  Shareholders forced the ouster of the CEO and brought back a former CEO to return the conglomerate to profiability. One of the moves discussed was selling off ESPN and all its subsidiaries. This could be good, bad or simply conjecture. Either way ESPN may not be as big a player as we all hope in the future. ESPN gave the PAC a low ball offer and cash flow could be a real problem for them going forward.

 

Consider that Amazon could be a viable purchaser of the sports network giant. They lack infrastructure that ESPN provides. They would control both sides of the viewing process with 24/7 announcers, studio hosts and a deep footprint in the sports industry. The uber rich get stronger by making smart business decisions. Want to be a force in sports programming? Then buy a world wide programming network.....

 

Only time will tell how this or if this plays out. Either way the PAC games will be televised, the Ducks will rule and i will keep telling my remote what i want to watch.

 

And rest assured my wife will continue to give me her thoughts and feelings in Italian.

[Mudslide]

I'm with Penn...Duck.  This move, even with split broadcasting, is too large a risk to undertake at this time.  The PAC is a weak conference and there will likely be a substantial loss of viewership and value (for reasons stated above as well as others).  Even with the 'possibility' of increased public use of streaming services in the latter part of this decade, as long as there are linear viewing options, streaming is unlikely to be profitable in the near term.  Netflix has been bleeding customers recently and Amazon has been axing employees like cheap trees.  These may or may not represent viable and profitable platforms for the PAC...but I think only in the long term when all plasma tv's and aged fans are long gone.

 

Lastly, I'd like to add that satellite streaming potential is minimal due to bandwidth problems.  How about DSL?  I just dumped CenturyLink (gawd-awful customer service).  Our download speed...with their latest modem, was a pedestrian 75mbps.  (Upload was sick at .75 mbps.  POINT 75!)  And now, how about the oft-stated 'end of life' cable (Spectrum) that we went to?  365 mbps d/l and 11 mbps upload.  (I am told that upload will soon be going to 100 meg.)  Unless I completely misunderstand (an unfortunate possibility), this "dying" cable is the very best method for streaming without a gaggle of interrupts.  

 

Streaming?  I'm with Annie.  I'm too damn old to play with tech that I don't want, and too cheap/poor to gather other expenditures I don't need (new tv, streaming devices, etc.)  I think streaming is definitely for the youth culture that exists today.  Commentary on the latter withheld to protect the innocent.  

Edited February 5, 2023 by Mudslide

[Annie]

Totally agree, Mudslide. And I have no grandchildren, daughter & SIL do not live close enough to run over here quickly, and my late husband can't beam down to help me. That's the trouble with splitting responsibilities--I can do the taxes, but I left the technical stuff to my husband. Ah, such is life.

 

 

[Charles Fischer]

I really believe that if streaming is one of the main viewing options, that the equipment and instructions will be easy for somebody that can handle the technology. If you can’t, it does not cost that much to hire somebody for a couple of hours to install it, show you how to do it, and then you write down the directions.
 

I am not tech savvy, but have painfully written down scads of different directions for all the different things with two websites. The primary component, was mental, in terms of my fears.

 

I got over my reluctance by just accepting the following…I just assume it’s going to take me five times longer than anybody else to learn it, and 2 to 3 times longer than anybody else to actually do it, and I have my step-by-step instructions, so I get it done.

 

The good news with things like this, is once you’ve learned it, then you’ve got it, and rarely changes much.

 

My process and equipment going into this last football season for converting games to digital (for analysis) was completely different than the 10 years before, and I was very stressed out about it. But my tech guy got me through it, and once you’ve done it a time or two, it’s really not hard.

 

Until it acts up...

[Just Ducky]

If we have problems with the technology then turning to our grandchildren is easy and it’s free. If you can get them to slow down long enough to comprehend. I have 4 streaming services and the total bill is far less than what I was paying for Comcast. The sooner we cut cable the better off we all will be.

[HappyToBeADuck]

Unfortuneately, for all of us, change comes in many shapes and sizes. Those shapes and sizes don't fit all. When changes disrupt our individual habits or patterns we get uncomfortable.  And to quote Annie,

"Ah, such is life."

 

There is great wisdom in those 4 words.

 

Money drives the train that is college football. For the last decade, ESPN has grossly overpaid for sports broadcasting rights. Grossly overpaid........just google espn financial problems and read how the landscape has changed since 2013.

 

ESPN and any cable channel needs expanding subscriber numbers to pay the bills. Subscriber losses mean less monthly dollars. Less proven viewers mean advertisers pay less dollars to ESPN. That's why ESPN let go of 300 staffers and 100 on air personalities took pay cuts.

 

Add in that fierce competitors (streaming) have taken market share and you can see why ESPN gave the PAC a low ball offer. They are bleeding cash and Disney doesn't want to overpay for anything. Consider that Bob Igor, as the top executive of the Disney board stopped taking his $3 million a year salary a few years back.

 

Would you work for free andcthen over pay for diminished PAC10 media rights?

 

It will all work out for the PAC schools but as fans it might take 30 srconds more to find it.

 

I dont like this change but its coming.........

 

[Annie]

On 2/5/2023 at 5:07 PM, Charles Fischer said:

I really believe that if streaming is one of the main viewing options, that the equipment and instructions will be easy for somebody that can handle the technology. If you can’t, it does not cost that much to hire somebody for a couple of hours to install it, show you how to do it, and then you write down the directions.
 

...

Where does one find such a person???

[lownslowav8r]

On 2/5/2023 at 1:51 PM, Jon Joseph said:

As noted above in my response to Annie's comment streaming apps are built into all 'modern TVs." But this does not provide a solution for folks who do not want to spend the money on a new TV. Generally, streaming is available on your computer or on your laptop.

Not true. There are the Amazon Fire-sticks and AppleTV — to name the two biggest sellers— that can be added to any TV with a HDMI input (which are all TVs made since around 2005). I used an Amazon Fire Stick for years with a dumb TV in order to stream. 

Edited February 6, 2023 by lownslowav8r

[Mudslide]

I'd appreciate it if someone would tell me what current internet service provides the speed and bandwidth to provide anything streaming

without constant buffering.  Good old cable is the only one I know.  

Edited February 6, 2023 by Mudslide

[Log Haulin]

I watch Youtube, Amazon Prime and Netflix on my smart tv. No buffering. No issues at all unless internet goes down. Actually works better than dish. 

[Santa Rosa Duck]

Streaming is the future and it is here now. If you choose to avoid it, you will be left behind and this is not just in relation to college football. A new TV is the answer to most of the problems that are being discussed here. The streaming apps are built into the newer TV's. Plus there are huge benefits to newer TV's. They will come in 4K plus Ultra High Def capability. More and more programs are being released to TV in these high end formats. Let's take a non football example. Do you want to watch Maverick Top Gun at home? Well you can stream it in 4K and you do not want to watch it in anything less than 4K.

 

Yes there is a risk to going to streaming but more and more people are getting on board. Do you know how Amazon made money the first year of showing the NFL on Thursday nights? They made another small fortune because to get the broadcast, millions signed up for Amazon Prime which of course is a portal to the entire Amazon empire.

 

At times, I can be a luddite myself but this is one change in our viewing experience that one cannot afford to be left behind.

[Tandaian]

Remember, TV people are not in business to bring in people over the age of 40.  They want young viewers.  99% of the people under age 40 will know how to find games on Amazon Prime.  They also have the internet to support streaming without buffering.

[GODUCKS15]

On 2/5/2023 at 11:03 PM, Mudslide said:

I'd appreciate it if someone would tell me what current internet service provides the speed and bandwidth to provide anything streaming

without constant buffering.  Good old cable is the only one I know.  

I have Comcast internet and an LG OLED TV with built in apps for Amazon and Netflix. I have zero buffering. Previously I used an Amazon Fire stick and a 7 year old not all that smart TV and got buffering on occasion.

 

Not enough to ruin the day but it became annoying sometimes. It also took much longer for either of those apps to start up. 

 

Also any pausing of the program would cause the lips and sound to fall out of sync. That has not happened once with the new LG smart TV.

 

I will also add that the picture is phenomenal. 

Edited February 6, 2023 by GODUCKS15

[Pennsylvania Duck]

On 2/6/2023 at 11:51 AM, GODUCKS15 said:

I have Comcast internet and an LG OLED TV with built in apps for Amazon and Netflix. I have zero buffering. Previously I used an Amazon Fire stick and a 7 year old not all that smart TV and got buffering on occasion.

 

Not enough to ruin the day but it became annoying sometimes. It also took much longer for either of those apps to start up. 

 

Also any pausing of the program would cause the lips and sound to fall out of sync. That has not happened once with the new LG smart TV.

 

I will also add that the picture is phenomenal. 

On these new tvs, are you able to switch between apps and regular tv pretty quickly/easily? I have an older tv, probably about the age of your old one. I have a firestick. It is such a hassle to get into an app, then if I wanted to check on something on broadcast tv, often times I just don't go back to the app. Also, I never pause because of the syncing issue! BTW, I have Verizon Fios. Had Comcast, but their service was horrible!

[noDucknewby]

On 2/6/2023 at 8:51 AM, GODUCKS15 said:

I have Comcast internet and an LG OLED TV with built in apps for Amazon and Netflix. I have zero buffering. Previously I used an Amazon Fire stick and a 7 year old not all that smart TV and got buffering on occasion.

 

Not enough to ruin the day but it became annoying sometimes. It also took much longer for either of those apps to start up. 

 

Also any pausing of the program would cause the lips and sound to fall out of sync. That has not happened once with the new LG smart TV.

 

I will also add that the picture is phenomenal. 

Love my LG OLED, great picture and OS, but they're not cheap to be sure.

 

I have Spectrum and I hate their cable (mostly because it's ridiculously overpriced, no ala carte option, etc) but their internet is good 300+ mps with no buffering.

[noDucknewby]

This has turned into an interesting debate regarding linear versus streaming.  I'm a pragmatist, streaming will become the dominant medium in the next few years (maybe sooner).  That's technology, embrace it or don't, the world moves on.  I have a couple high-school buddies that still don't have cell phones or use the internet.  

 

As for the TV deal, without a streaming partner we will be stuck with a crap deal, probably less than the B12 with a whole lot of night games.  Sucko.  

 

Like it or not, for conference stability we a good TV revenue to help finance the arms race and keep the remaining 10 members in the fold.  I just don't see that happening without a streaming partner.

[Jon Joseph]

On 2/5/2023 at 6:34 PM, Mudslide said:

I'm with Penn...Duck.  This move, even with split broadcasting, is too large a risk to undertake at this time.  The PAC is a weak conference and there will likely be a substantial loss of viewership and value (for reasons stated above as well as others).  Even with the 'possibility' of increased public use of streaming services in the latter part of this decade, as long as there are linear viewing options, streaming is unlikely to be profitable in the near term.  Netflix has been bleeding customers recently and Amazon has been axing employees like cheap trees.  These may or may not represent viable and profitable platforms for the PAC...but I think only in the long term when all plasma tv's and aged fans are long gone.

 

Lastly, I'd like to add that satellite streaming potential is minimal due to bandwidth problems.  How about DSL?  I just dumped CenturyLink (gawd-awful customer service).  Our download speed...with their latest modem, was a pedestrian 75mbps.  (Upload was sick at .75 mbps.  POINT 75!)  And now, how about the oft-stated 'end of life' cable (Spectrum) that we went to?  365 mbps d/l and 11 mbps upload.  (I am told that upload will soon be going to 100 meg.)  Unless I completely misunderstand (an unfortunate possibility), this "dying" cable is the very best method for streaming without a gaggle of interrupts.  

 

Streaming?  I'm with Annie.  I'm too damn old to play with tech that I don't want, and too cheap/poor to gather other expenditures I don't need (new tv, streaming devices, etc.)  I think streaming is definitely for the youth culture that exists today.  Commentary on the latter withheld to protect the innocent.  

Great comment. But without a streaming component, the Pac-10 will not be able to equal or exceed the B12's $37M a year. make no mistake in big-time CBB and CFB today it is every man for himself. If a move to the B12 could bring in significantly more dollars for Team X then such a move will at least be considered by any administration and its athletic department.

[GODUCKS15]

On 2/6/2023 at 9:17 AM, Pennsylvania Duck said:

On these new tvs, are you able to switch between apps and regular tv pretty quickly/easily? I have an older tv, probably about the age of your old one. I have a firestick. It is such a hassle to get into an app, then if I wanted to check on something on broadcast tv, often times I just don't go back to the app. Also, I never pause because of the syncing issue! BTW, I have Verizon Fios. Had Comcast, but their service was horrible!

I don't switch back and forth. I usually just watch a movie or TV series on Amazon or Netflix straight through. Maybe some Pandora once in a while. Then go back to Dish and use the DVR to watch recorded shows. 

 

However if I were watching Thur night football and wanted to switch back to Dish all I have to do is hit the power button on my Dish remote and goes to the last channel live. To back from there to Amazon I hit the Prime button on the LG remote and it goes back to the last show in resume mode. Pretty basic. 

 

I've had zero issues with Comcast internet. Dish has given me a few fits now and then but their customer service IMO is pretty good. Hardly any wait time when calling about an issue.

 

[DUCati855]

On 2/5/2023 at 7:45 PM, Annie said:

Where does one find such a person???

Annie,

For you I would recommend buying a ROKU device (fairly inexpensive) from Best Buy. It will allow you to stream even on older TV's. Also, Best Buy will have techs who will help you set it up. I believe the techs at Best Buy are called their Geek Squad. It may cost a few dollars extra to have them come to your house to set it up. But, it is a one time charge, they will explain it thoroughly, and make sure you understand how to use it. I hope this helps.

[Annie]

On 2/6/2023 at 12:43 PM, DUCati855 said:

Annie,

For you I would recommend buying a ROKU device (fairly inexpensive) from Best Buy. It will allow you to stream even on older TV's. Also, Best Buy will have techs who will help you set it up. I believe the techs at Best Buy are called their Geek Squad. It may cost a few dollars extra to have them come to your house to set it up. But, it is a one time charge, they will explain it thoroughly, and make sure you understand how to use it. I hope this helps.

Thanks! I've actually come to think that my TV is smarter than I am, in that it is a Smart TV. Still hoping games will be available on both regular network TV and streaming--there would be an even bigger audience that way.

[Mudslide]

On 2/6/2023 at 8:51 AM, GODUCKS15 said:

I have Comcast internet and an LG OLED TV with built in apps for Amazon and Netflix. I have zero buffering. Previously I used an Amazon Fire stick and a 7 year old not all that smart TV and got buffering on occasion.

 

Not enough to ruin the day but it became annoying sometimes. It also took much longer for either of those apps to start up. 

 

Also any pausing of the program would cause the lips and sound to fall out of sync. That has not happened once with the new LG smart TV.

 

I will also add that the picture is phenomenal. 

Thanks for your answer, GODUCKS.  But you have sort of illuminated my point.  This Comcast streaming tech is carried by CABLE tv.  That is the only way streaming can be fruitfully realized.  Some people think that if they have wifi, then streaming is a piece of cake.  Not.  It depends upon the platform (i.e. cable, dsl, satellite).  Cable trounces other platforms with its speed and bandwidth.  So basically one has to have cable to obtain decent streaming.

 

Therein lies a little problem or two.  Streaming adds on another layer of pricing to the cable system.  Also, cable (such as my new Spectrum) already provides tons of sports that will compete with any streaming additions.  If the PAC moves into a streaming system (e.g. Apple, Amazon, Netflix, etc.) it will be competing with the other solid and much viewed sports on the basic cable platform.  

 

And these streaming companies will have to wage a hefty financial war with established network and cable tv to obtain profitable network shares of the sports viewership.  Like most of you, I believe streaming will be the next video (and audio) frontier.  But even with as fast as technology advances, it will be a long slog for the companies to make serious headway in the ultra-profitable sports broadcast market.  I'm not certain they have the competitive and financial will to go head-to-head with giants like NBC (which owns Comcast, by the way).

 

I don't know.  Perhaps my old man logic is still stuck in the '60s, and I don't see the scope of culture change...as it pertains to Gen Z and later.  Attitudes certainly change.  Still, I see much headwind facing the growth of tv streaming.  My into-the-future telescope believes that all sports will eventually be offered ala carte.  So PPV will be that next wave, me thinks.

As an addendum, I'll say that I have watched a couple of Comcast cable streamed movies.  (No sports, though.)  There was a quite a diminished difference from the picture and audio quality of dvd/blu-rays.  I did not see it on 4k capable equipment.  So there is that possibility.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Mudslide

[Pennsylvania Duck]

If you haven't read this John Conzano article which was posted on another thread earlier this month, I recommend you read it. The whole article deals with a potential media deal, but the second half deals with exactly what we are talking about here, streaming vs traditional tv. He offers some interesting comments and numbers to back up his point.

[Haywarduck]

I think I have this streaming game down already. Just lay it out there, and let it go gently down the stream. Sorry, a bit of a Monday!

[Jemangi]

I am 73 years old, not particularly interested in tech and never watch tv shows.

I stream almost all sporting events with little effort and most often the picture is clear with no buffering.

All internet companies that I know of provide enough bandwidth to stream.

I can stream onto laptop, any size monitor and almost any tv.

Looking forward to this new age myself!!

Go Ducks, I will watch them however I can and streaming service is most likely to make this most possible it seems.

Pac 12 Network was a joke in my opinion.

[Dave23]

On 2/5/2023 at 2:32 PM, Pennsylvania Duck said:

Thursday Night NFL games on Amazon this year were a 40% drop

When the NFL network came out it was free the first year then they charged for it the second year. I'm sure they had a big drop off because I remember having to go to a bar to watch the game.

 

 The NFL network had one game a week and if you didn't have a cable sports package your didn't get it. Remember it was the only NFL game not on a major network broadcasted for free, so I see your point.

 

The  more game that are on one streaming service the more attractive it becomes to subscribe.

[Dave23]

On 2/5/2023 at 2:37 PM, 2002duck said:

When games are on network TV or ESPN/FS1 people are almost "tricked" or forced to watch, or happily stumble upon the game and stay to watch.

I watch games on the ESPN app and click into games that I was not intended to watch all the time. In the app you can see the score and if it's close I check it out.

Edited February 7, 2023 by Dave23

[Dave23]

On 2/5/2023 at 2:42 PM, Pennsylvania Duck said:

I find it annoying that I can see games from every conference on my cable network but the Pac-12 on the sports package we have. 

Not being on the west coast I find this extremely frustrating as well. To me the only answer to this is streaming as I don't see ESPN picking up and airing all PAC 12 games.