Streaming Games: Rough Waters or Gently Down the Stream?

[Dave23]

I'm in my '40s and have kids that don't even know what satellite or basic cable is. I can't think of one of my friends that has cable. The regional sports Network model is extremely dated and has cost the PAC 12 2 teams and a lot of money.

[Jon Joseph]

I have really enjoyed all POVs presented in the comments section.

 

I reiterate in saying that I believe Charles's comment was prescient. There is likely to be an early decline in viewership but viewership based on potential audience size will grow. 

 

I get the angst shared by 'advanced middle-aged folk' such as me. I also note that many of us older folk with kids and grandkids note that for the younger generations, this is all par for the course and a piece of cake.

 

Thus be it ever with new technology. As a famous person once noted: to a less advanced civilization all modern technology seems to be 'magic' come to life. My grandmother was born in an age when few households had telephones. She lived to watch men walk on the moon.

 

We are on the threshold of quantum computing and tech we cannot imagine. I am certain that high-tech companies that venture into broadcasting live events will do all they can to simplify the process. As an example, I believe we are now on Windows 11.

 

The hard truth is that the Pac-10 without streaming will be looking at dropping down to the level of G5 conferences. A rehash of how this came to be is counter-productive. It is what it is and IMO streaming, especially with tech giant Amazon as a partner is a risk the conference must take to remain viable and revenue-wise in '3rd place' behind the SEC and B1G.

 

The Left Coast has consistently been the leader in high-tech development and implementation, and I believe this will continue to be the case. If being the beta site for broadcasting money ball sporting events works out, it could be the Pac-10's salvation and launch the conference to new viewership and financial heights. 

 

One thing for certain. The Pac Network's distribution problems with cable will not be an issue with Amazon.

[Darren Perkins]

I recall reading that one part of the "Patriot Way" was the belief that it is better to let a player go a year too early than a year too late.

 

I think that translates here. I think it would be better for the Pac-12 to lead the way into streaming services a little too early than a little too late.

 

I say, go for it!

Edited February 7, 2023 by Darren Perkins

[Duckology]

Streaming is where the market is headed for the simple reason of price and choice.... It is going to leave people with poor bandwidth options out in the cold...those are becoming fewer but they do still exist. The one thing currently separating streaming from cable/satellite providers is currently sports, you can get everything else at a fraction of the cost of cable/satellite on streaming platforms with even more options...

 

Streaming providers simply have lower overhead...a lot lower...and with ad free channels for a small premium they are going to take over the market.. You can watch a full months worth of movies on a streaming platform for the price of one satellite pay per view movie.. There are over 200+ channels that are totally free with ads on streaming...and at least 30+ that are totally add free...Satellite providers and cable companies are just middlemen and streaming eliminates them from the loop.

 

The only real sports channel for streaming is Fubo that basically packages all the sports channels into one subscription...for roughly $70 per month... It is the final coffin in Dish/Directv/Cable that will tank their market share when sports become an al a carte item...I see a time when we'll be paying 10 bucks to stream a game...that would still be less than the current subscription rates and an increase in revenue to the Ducks by over 2x their current rate if the streamed the games ad free.....the middlemen are really rather greedy....

 

 

[Mudslide]

I believe that the predicted success of sports streaming is totally speculative.  This was the kind of thinking that went into Luddite Larry's effort to begin the PAC's own network.  It wasn't cable distribution that failed.  It was the gawd awful rights negotiations...particularly with Directv.

 

This is factual.  Currently, cable is the only platform that will produce excellent broadcast results.  Broadband doesn't mean broad bandwidth in delivery systems such as satellite tv.  I'd like to repeat this...streaming will be an extra cost over and above cable (or any other platform).  So immediate success is most likely to be in the negative column.

 

Assuming technology advances quickly to overcome cable reliance for streaming...years in the future as pondered by Charles, we still don't really know what the future holds.  But successful, money-making sports trends are currently in the hands of PPV.  Ala carte offerings have been discussed before by the various platforms.  And they are still very much a possibility for our Ducks viewing future.

[jrw]

MLS (Major League Soccer) is conducting a real-life experiment/jump-into-the-deep-end with streaming in just a few weeks.

 

Apple + will stream all league games, as an extra-cost package on top of the monthly Apple subscription fee. Only one or two marquee match up games per week will be broadcast on Fox.

 

As a Portland Timbers fan, I'm not wild about this, and I'm not yet sure if I'll pony up the funds. All Timbers' game have until now been available on local television/cable.

 

I really don't care about watching teams and games that I'm not interested in; I just want to watch the Timbers games. But, to do that I have to pay for the ability to watch all the league games.

[Mudslide]

On 2/7/2023 at 2:40 PM, jrw said:

MLS (Major League Soccer) is conducting a real-life experiment/jump-into-the-deep-end with streaming in just a few weeks.

 

Apple + will stream all league games, as an extra-cost package on top of the monthly Apple subscription fee. Only one or two marquee match up games per week will be broadcast on Fox.

 

As a Portland Timbers fan, I'm not wild about this, and I'm not yet sure if I'll pony up the funds. All Timbers' game have until now been available on local television/cable.

 

I really don't care about watching teams and games that I'm not interested in; I just want to watch the Timbers games. But, to do that I have to pay for the ability to watch all the league games.

And you have my preference.  I'd gladly pay over and above the carrier costs for Timbers and Ducks games.  I don't really give a hoot about other teams in their leagues.  Ala carte is ala bueno for me...and I'd speculate most others here, as well.

[Jon Joseph]

On 2/7/2023 at 5:55 PM, Mudslide said:

And you have my preference.  I'd gladly pay over and above the carrier costs for Timbers and Ducks games.  I don't really give a hoot about other teams in their leagues.  Ala carte is ala bueno for me...and I'd speculate most others here, as well.

And I believe that one-off game purchases will be more easily facilitated via streaming. 

 

ESPN, CBS. NBC and ABC are forking over a bunch of money to the NFL, CFB, MLB, NBA, NHL, etc. But what if the NFL Network via streaming offered NFL games exclusively or as part of a package buy? Via their existing partner Amazon platform or otherwise including the NFL's own production facilities.

 

This is ultimately, in my less-than-learned tech opinion, the way that the NFL and other pro leagues and perhaps, college Moneyball sports are headed.

 

I just do not see subscription fees for cable TV being viable. I don't see network TV and ESPN being able to find the advertising dollars to broadcast linear instead of charging a fee to watch a game(s) as is the case today with folks paying to attend games live.

 

But this comes from a tech 'out-of-iy' old-timer.

Edited February 7, 2023 by Jon Joseph

[Dave23]

On 2/7/2023 at 2:48 PM, Mudslide said:

Currently, cable is the only platform that will produce excellent broadcast results.

The main problem is if you don't live on the west coast you can't get the PAC 12 Network on cable.

 

High speed internet, capable of streaming 3 programs at once, is a fact of life for most people now days. I couldn't get by without it between my business and my kids I'm paying for it one way or another.

 

What I don't pay for is the $100+ a month for cable. All my subscription and cable internet are still under $100.

 

I live in a town with less that 1k of people and there's at least 7 Ducks fans that would love to watch the PAC but currently can't. Opening up viewership to the millions of alum that no longer live on the west coast will makeup for the few disgruntled west coasters that don't want to sign up for Amazon Prime. 

Edited February 8, 2023 by Dave23

[Dave23]

I think a short-term answer would be to license the PAC 12 Networks to Amazon and give the rest to ESPN.

 

Ideally the à la carte option would be awesome. Oregon could retaining the licensing rights providing local markets with liver tv on ABC, NBC, or CBS and stream to the rest of the world. Production would be the difficult part, maybe the PAC 12 Network could turn into subcontractors and provide camera crews and announcers.

 

This would let the schools reap the maximum benefits for their brands and cut out the middle man.

[Jon Joseph]

On 2/7/2023 at 7:05 PM, Dave23 said:

The main problem is if you don't live on the west coast you can't get the PAC 12 Network on cable.

 

High speed internet, capable of streaming 3 programs at once, is a fact of life for most people now days. I couldn't get by without it between my business and my kids I'm paying for it one way or another.

 

What I don't pay for is the $100+ a month for cable. All my subscription and cable internet are still under $100.

 

I live in a town with less that 1k of people and there's at least 7 Ducks fans that would love to watch the PAC but currently can't. Opening up viewership to the millions of alum that no longer live on the west coast will makeup for the few disgruntled west coasters that don't want to sign up for Amazon Prime. 

I live in South Carolina and I receive the Pac Network on Dish.

[Dave23]

On 2/7/2023 at 6:14 PM, Jon Joseph said:

Pac Network on Dish.

Yes you can get it on Dish anywhere but not on cable, who I also get my internet from. That's an extra $100 a month minimum, I could get sling or fubu for $70 or I could watch it on Prime which I already have and cost $11.59 a month. 

 

So far Amazon has not charged extra for sports, but that will probably change. What I don't want to pay for is the 240 channels I will never watch.

[Charles Fischer]

On 2/7/2023 at 4:05 PM, Dave23 said:

Opening up viewership to the millions of alum that no longer live on the west coast will makeup for the few disgruntled west coasters that don't want to sign up for Amazon Prime. 

I really think the FIVE Million Oregon fans globally that cannot get the Pac-12 channel currently will ultimately make streaming games profitable for the Pac-12 and Oregon.

[Mudslide]

On 2/7/2023 at 6:01 PM, Dave23 said:

Yes you can get it on Dish anywhere but not on cable, who I also get my internet from. That's an extra $100 a month minimum, I could get sling or fubu for $70 or I could watch it on Prime which I already have and cost $11.59 a month. 

 

So far Amazon has not charged extra for sports, but that will probably change. What I don't want to pay for is the 240 channels I will never watch.

It's not just an east coast vs. west coast phenomenon.  Until last month I couldn't get Ducks games, either.  And I live in Oregon.  It's the carrier that does or does not carry the games.  I had Directv which does not carry the PAC12 Network.  I now have Spectrum, which does.  This was one of the major problems with good ol' Larry.  He negotiated the network, unrealistically asking for the moon.  And many carriers (and linear networks) just said "Go away".  That is the reason you can't see the games.

[Dave23]

On 2/7/2023 at 7:25 PM, Charles Fischer said:

I really think the FIVE Million Oregon fans globally that cannot get the Pac-12 channel currently will ultimately make streaming games profitable for the Pac-12 and Oregon.

Add in all the other PAC 12 fans and you have  10s of millions of underserved fans. To bad the LA schools left before the PAC figured out that it wise to tap into your full potential viewership. know they tried but follow thru by Larry was horrible.

 

Long live the PAC!

[Notalot]

The sports TV environment will change enormously during the next ten years. What we have known from national networks and sports cable channels will fracture and evolve. Availability, access, distribution, and pricing are in flux. The tug-of-war has begun and fan viewer consumers are under siege as the big business battle is waged.

 

Thanks, Jon, for illuminating some of the aspects that are or may be changing. The discussion you initiated is interesting. Points of view are surfacing along with concerns and approaches to resolve issues coming to light.

 

 

[Duckology]

On 2/7/2023 at 1:48 PM, Mudslide said:

I'd like to repeat this...streaming will be an extra cost over and above cable (or any other platform).  So immediate success is most likely to be in the negative column.

 

 

 Cord cutting has been the trend for some time now... (Full disclosure: I am short cable/satellite providers) The slow changeover for sports to streaming has been caused by the actual production logistics, unlike other content there is a very high premium on live content for sports. For College games, I can see this production moving in house. The current business model of cable/satellite providers has been broken by streaming services..it is just a matter of time before they go the way of the yellowpages and phone booths..

[Annie]

I listen to the DA Show and it promotes itself on being on just about every radio platform possible. Why not have the Ducks available on every radio and TV platform possible to enable the most listeners/viewers possible?

[Tandaian]

Streaming sports is not speculative, it is nearly the norm.  ESPN/ABC, FOX/Foxsports, and CBS/TNT/TBS/CBS Sports all stream live sporting events.  A few years ago, me and some buddies rented a house in Lincoln City for the first week of March Madness and we had 2 TVs and 2 laptops all showing different games all because of streaming.

 

I wouldn't go 100% for streaming, but I would be willing to go 60% cable and 40% streaming to bring in more money to the Pac conference media deal.  If you are a good team, people will seek out to watch you.  Is it going to suck for CAL football, absolutely.  I would definitely rather be the 1st with Amazon, so we have that relationship.

 

 

[Mike West]

Interesting comments.  

 

I have some concerns about streaming.  Actually it's about the conference's brand as a whole.  

 

Content is desired when it is valuable.  That requires value last year's football teams brought to the table, and like the years UW, Cal, WSU and Oregon were top ten powerhouses before USC reclaimed it's throne as the West Coast premier football program.  

 

I do believe streaming will augment, if not replace cable as a revenue source.  Live sports tops all programming by far (especially compared to current TV programming), and avid college football fans thirst for top tier games to watch each weekend outside their favorite conference.

 

The prospect of watching a game (over) again several times is also attractive- especially if the audience gets to pick when they want to watch a replay.  That does require top shelf football however, which until last year was seriously lacking out West.

 

With playoff expansion on the horizon, the prospect that say OBD goes to Tennessee when the Volunteers are ranked 7th or 8th, and  pull an upset- that is a game changer.  Hopefully, the SEC will lay off their guarded reputation and schedule teams that can actually defeat them down South.  

 

Regardless, excellent football is an absolute must from now on ( not to mention excellent basketball). 

 

Now if I were GK, I'd negotiate a short term deal with the option for extensions ( say a four year deal with an option to renegotiate).  I'd also bury games after 5 pm Pacific, especially for the top ranked football teams ( whom can compete with Bama, Georgia and Ohio State as long as they stay undefeated AND they drop 45 ON EVERYBODY).  

 

That's my take on things.  Force the Deal Makers to risk losing a possible up and comer conference ( no more deals like the ACC got suckered into).  Risk the product and force ADs and football coaches to develop elite teams.  

 

2024 is really the deadline.  If the Fuskies can beat the blue bloods ( anathema to almost all of you), that means OBD become part of the REAL conversation in CFB because we are the heated rivals of our "punks" to the North.  Of course if we do so as well, or Utah (any conference team really), that is all the better.

 

Streaming is a moot point to me if we don't duplicate last year and match the drama last year brought as the season closed.  To me, three 10-2 teams and one 11-1 ( or say an undefeated team and an 11-1 team with at least one other 10 win team) should be the goal of the conference ( and creaming non conference teams along the way).

 

Elite football draws eyeballs.  Not just audience numbers.  I'm sure plenty of people East of the Mississippi will watch the conference at 8 EST if they KNOW they're going to see top tier football.  That is how streaming might help the conference.  Value.  From the conference itself.

 

Just my opinion.

 

[Duck Fan 76]

On 2/5/2023 at 10:31 AM, Jon Joseph said:

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?

There are serious risks here that could result in underexposure for PAC-12 football and I think those topics are pretty well explored in this thread.  I do want to highlight a possible opportunity that could result in a PAC-12 streaming slam-dunk!

 

The question of streaming success for the PAC-12 is about more than just how many streaming customers their are but also a question of perceived value through the streaming product.  The PAC-12 network broadcasts to me look like Wayne and Garth are behind the cameras and the commentary is mostly bordering on the inane chit chat.  I personally hate watching the PAC-12 network games because of the poor poor poor production quality.  I mean just shut up and show me the field.  For me, the cost and availability of the service aren't the source of my primary opposition.

 

How could the PAC-12 turn a potential negative into a positive in a way that is unique for our circumstances?  One of the challenges of streaming games late is that only the hardcore football fans (or east coast PAC fans) are usually tuning in for the late games that a streaming service could offer so it's a small market.  Oregon vs. USC is going to be carried in primetime so we're mostly talking about the Cal vs. Arizona St. games and such.  Who outside of those teams fanbase are likely to tune in?  How about members of the media and sports gamblers.  They may want to consume those games and not necessarily in real time.

 

How can the PAC play up the value of a PAC-12 streaming deal?  Go the route of NFL premium+ and make the All-22 film available through the streaming service.  That film is the most desirable film for analysts of all kinds and at the college level it's pretty much unavailable.  In fact the official sharing of All-22 film between conferences wasn't codified in college football until 2021.  If you are an east coast football fanatic and you want to place bets on PAC-12 games watching the All-22 film is a huge advantage.

 

If the PAC were to market the All-22 film via a streaming service I would pay for that at a premium.  If ESPN+ get's that service then I would pay for ESPN+ without batting an eye.  FYI, ESPN+ does make the college playoff games All-22 film available but nothing else.  If Amazon Prime were to offer it, then I could see them using their cloud services to offer not just the All-22 film but with significant real time stats and for the Sports betting world that is HUGE.   

[Santa Rosa Duck]

Check out todays Wall Street Journal. I would post it but you need a subscription to read it. "Super Bowl Spoilers: Streaming and Live TV are out of Sync". It seems that streaming can be as much as one minute behind the live broadcast. Last years Super Bowl in streaming mode was running 20 seconds behind live TV. "The action can be off by up to a minute explaining why the neighbors are cheering". That will be an issue.

[Jon Joseph]

Whoa, Nellie! Based on recent news regarding the Pac-12's new media deal and conference expansion, it does not appear that Amazon is all that interested in jumping into the world of college athletics. 

 

The B12's Yarmack has played the game perfectly. $37M per annum for B12 members in 2 seasons with all games available on linear TV through FOX and ESPN. And Oklahoma and Texas will be paying $100M to exit the B12 after the 2023 season. Much of this money will be disbursed to the 8 schools that stayed with the B12 after OK/TX gave notice they were headed to the SEC. While GK dithered the B12 moved aggressively.

 

If GK cannot come up with a new media deal close to $37M a year why wouldn't the 4 Corners Schools consider making a move to the B12? Why would SDSU join the Pac-10 in such a situation and not the B12?

 

I am far less bullish on the future of the Pac-10 conference and the potential benefits of streaming than I was a week ago which makes me angry and sad at the same time.

[McDuck]

On 2/10/2023 at 10:17 AM, Jon Joseph said:

The B12's Yarmack has played the game perfectly. $37M per annum for B12 members in 2 seasons with all games available on linear TV through FOX and ESPN.

 

If GK cannot come up with a new media deal close to $37M a year why wouldn't the 4 Corners Schools consider making a move to the B12? 

Serious question, do the four corner schools bring an additional $148 million annually to the Big 12 media deal?  

[Tandaian]

3 of 4 corner teams come from bigger TV markets than half the new B12, so it could pencil out they could bring in on average 37 mil.  However, actual eyes watching football games, they are below almost all of the B12.

 

ASU/Phx TV market 11th

Arizona/Tuscon TV market 64th

Colorado/Denver TV market 16th

Utah/SLC TV market 30th

 

TCU/Dallas 5th

Houston 8th

UCF/Orlando 17th

Kansas/Kansas City 23rd

BYU/SLC 30th

Cincinnati 36th

 

[Duck Fan 76]

On 2/10/2023 at 10:17 AM, Jon Joseph said:

I am far less bullish on the future of the Pac-10 conference and the potential benefits of streaming

Media rights are pretty complicated negotiations in general for the PAC since the fanbase is pretty widespread and the time zones create problems.  The SEC has the best situation to be in because they have an extremely loyal fanbase concentrated near their schools but also a high level of national interest so advertisers view their product as lucrative across the board.  The PAC schools have a more widely distributed fanbase that in general isn't as loyal (Oregon excluded of course).  It's not a straightforward calculation of regional populations nor total fanbases to get to a number.  

 

In the PAC Oregon is clearly in the best position though and that's good for us.  In the long run though, we do need the PAC to be financially successful to avoid being forced to another conference or going the independent route (a very bad choice).  It's ultimately I believe going to be best for Oregon if the PAC gets a pretty good contract but we don't have to fight over the peanuts to stay relevant.  I think it's most important that the PAC maintains some adaptability in the contract so I would prefer to see a 4 year ESPN contract with a 3 year ESPN+ streaming contract. 

 

I'm ultimately not as worried about the final number because "the remaining" PAC schools aren't drowning in debt and there will be plenty of cheese left over for football operations which is the part we really care about.  I mean Badminton is a hell of a sport but I don't really care if they get a travel budget or get stuffed in 12-pax vans for the weekend...         

[Jon Joseph]

Great take. The Oregon brand is strong and Oregon will be fine and competitive no matter what happens with expansion and the new media deal.

[Mike West]

On 2/9/2023 at 11:51 AM, Duck Fan 76 said:

How can the PAC play up the value of a PAC-12 streaming deal?  Go the route of NFL premium+ and make the All-22 film available through the streaming service.  That film is the most desirable film for analysts of all kinds and at the college level it's pretty much unavailable.  In fact the official sharing of All-22 film between conferences wasn't codified in college football until 2021.  If you are an east coast football fanatic and you want to place bets on PAC-12 games watching the All-22 film is a huge advantage.

 

If the PAC were to market the All-22 film via a streaming service I would pay for that at a premium.  If ESPN+ get's that service then I would pay for ESPN+ without batting an eye.  FYI, ESPN+ does make the college playoff games All-22 film available but nothing else.  If Amazon Prime were to offer it, then I could see them using their cloud services to offer not just the All-22 film but with significant real time stats and for the Sports betting world that is HUGE.   

I'm sure football junkies would JUMP at the prospect of seeing conference games in the all-22 format.

 

High School coaches, and position coaches in general (as well as dedicated football players) would be all over that product.

 

Not sure about the casual fan, but I would totally find time in my limited schedule to watch plenty of all-22 action.  

 

The NFL has provided that be option for years, and they even show the all-22 from the lineman perspective, so I find it highly valuable for people serious about studying football.

 

I hope that is an option being discussed.  

 

I think Netflix is a better option for streaming, but if Amazon can add value to the conference, and from what I hear, CBS gets the Utah v. UW, OBD v. Utah, and all the other high profile games, maybe the conference came make out and stay relevant. 

 

[Pennsylvania Duck]