And isn't his comment basically saying "We are also giving up on Sanford, Cal etc too." Not very positive.
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
For a streaming platform like Amazon it may not be Big12 or Pac12. The economics for a streaming platform might be the tipping point for a Big12/Pac12 merger.
A 20ish team conference could result in:
- Maximum streaming subscriber growth.
- Inventory in all time zones.
- A truly nationwide conference. Potential for nationwide vs. regional interest.
This might be a stupid idea, and if it is I would be glad to read somebody explaining to me why, but would Gonzaga make sense as a basketball-only add for the Big 12 if it goes west?
Ok I missed that element I was thinking solely TCU not specific to Patterson.
The reason it's not discussed more is because football generates the majority of the media value, in addition to the travel costs associated with getting out to Spokane.
In the P2 era, doing anything to bolster the conference makes sense.
If it’s true that one reason the Big 12 is edging out PAC is ESPN needing basketball content, getting Gonzaga can’t hurt. Makes adding the mountain 4 and UW/Oregon basketball game easier
Right, one way to compare would be to compare the previous Thursday's game's rating since that was on an over the air and then you would have a plausible ratio of what to expect for a college football games ratings.
The Bills Rams game (which wasn't competitive) drew 21.3 million. So I think for the very best college football games Amazon could get they could expect something like 2 million viewers for a primetime game
It'll be interesting to see what tonight's dog of a game gets in ratings.
Steelers/Browns is far from a dog of a game. Ratings will still be huge.
The Steelers are a traditionally highly rated team when it comes to TV viewers...
ok, we'll see. Mitch Trubisky vs Jacoby Brissett doesn't scream huge ratings to me but the NFL is king.
I get that point...but the Steelers have always fared very well in ratings...it is one reason why they are shown to so many markets when they play on Sundays.
Here is another data point. Thursday streamed about as well as the Super Bowl. A little better actually
"NBC said another 11.2 million people streamed this year's game, putting the total audience at 112.3 million people"
Rams' SB LVI win had total audience of 112.3M
An estimated 101.1 million people watched the Rams win Super Bowl LVI over the Bengals on NBC and Telemundo.
www.espn.com
You can see why Amazon preferred to pay to further consolidate into P2 of top 40+ teams.
a PAC 10 only game does not anywhere near as well as a BIG that has top programs from every region of country besides Texas and Deep South.
Maybe Amazon gets the exclusive rights to the eventual BIG vs SEC night
Here is another data point. Thursday streamed about as well as the Super Bowl. A little better actually
"NBC said another 11.2 million people streamed this year's game, putting the total audience at 112.3 million people"
Rams' SB LVI win had total audience of 112.3M
An estimated 101.1 million people watched the Rams win Super Bowl LVI over the Bengals on NBC and Telemundo.
What point is this supposed to prove exactly? That a game that was exclusive to a streaming service rated better than steaming a game you could get for free over the air?
This gives Amazon amazing metrics on the value of their Prime membership. I'm betting 10 to 1, they'll start pitching merchandise specific to those members.
Not just any game. The Super Bowl. An event when almost one out of every 2 televisions are tuned in.
The Super Bowl doubled it's streaming audience from the prior year and Thursday beat that.
For the NFL a streaming only partner sure seems to make sense for all parties. Same with college? Jeesh. Not sure, but adaptation seems to be heading that way if the NFL is any indication.
I'm guessing tonight's game does even better
Now we're getting somewhere. Start running team specific sales during the game?
I've got a couple in me, the good guys are winning, and I only have to click a button to buy that $80 hoodie..... Next level ****
It probably depends a lot on demographics, specifically age.
For people under 35, if a game was exclusively on Prime or something they could subscribe to for $5/10 month they'd probably be more likely to see it than if it required a cable subscription or OTA (lots of younger people don't even know about OTA, even some middle aged people who grew up with cable barely know about OTA).
For the over 35 demographic having it streaming only probably plunges the viewership.
I'm just pulling 35 out of my @$$ but there's definitely an age where streaming makes it more likely to be seen by younger audiences. The way to really maximize viewership in the right now would be if ESPN had their cable tv games also available to stream on ESPN+ for a low monthly no contract fee. That's not in their best interest right now but some day that will probably happen for a few years when cable TV actually is dying.
The Steelers are a national brand, it will draw big numbers.