Are they going to watch if they have to pay a subscription on top of the $6.99 they already give Apple?
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
CU has rejoined the Big 12 and broken college football - talking out asses continues
- Thread starter InTheBuff
- Start date
People who are experts sure think so... if the deal gets made. I don't pretend to know better. Viewing trends and monetization of media rights with whatever goes into their calculus is not my area of expertise.
I would. I signed up for sling and the sports package so id have the p12 network. I felt it was the least I could do. The next call was to DTV telling them to go **** right off.
By the way Ill add to this that when I moved back to Miami in the early 2000s very very very few CU games were available to watch. I think I got CU UT/OU, CU NU and a bowl game. And that was it. The Pac 10 was NEVER on. You”d get Big East (bc Miami), Big Ten (tons of alums in Fla), SEC, and a few ACC games. The Pac12 suffered from this balkanized regional TV even now because when we could be put on out east it was done so late on the east coast that no one watched it.
With streaming you will get all the games anywhere.
Last edited:
Fred 2
steaming service
Only if you pay for it! And who the he** is going to pay for it in the south? No one!
Can relate from being in college on the east coast n the early 2000s and I didn’t see CU much since there was no Fox Sports RM for obvious reasons.
chitownbuff
Club Member
Come on, man. At least read the post you quoted.
The **** is this?
He is Fred 1’s cousin.
That dude sucked.
Dude. I pay whatever they charge me to watch the Broncos and the Buffs and the Dodgers. This is a great time to be alive for sports fans because if you choose to you can get the content you want. I’ve lived in ca for a long time. I got directv way back in the day because I could get the Bronco games. I ditched directv when I No longer needed them to get the nfl package. People do make buying decisions based upon content.
Especially if fans down south are shelling out the cash for game tickets in bigger numbers than most of the nation?
For people from the south, three things matter: college football, pro wrestling, and NASCAR. Wrestling already went streaming awhile back and college football is starting to do streaming. NASCAR hasn't done much of that due to their old contract but that ends in several years and they will be on streaming.
Can't feel sorry for those people who might have to give up a case of Marlboros or two in order to afford streaming.
Big Jim
WTF?
I believe you misunderstood dear Fred2. He was implying that most southerners don’t have internet or don’t know how to use it.
Personally I think he is wrong, but let the poor bastard rant.
LOL... wut?
“Houston- Art Briles cut his teeth here and now have Dana Holgerson who even West Virginia thought drank too much”
Was reading up a bit on streaming. It was surprising how popular it already is and the trends are incredible. I turned a bit to look at sports and I thought this graphic was fascinating:
To make sure it's clear, the graphic represents professional sports. The demand we're seeing on soccer justified the investment we just saw to get those rights. Now, understanding that college sports aren't going to be nearly as popular as pro sports, that still leads me to believe that gaining rights to live broadcast a conference's football and basketball games (even soccer, baseball and hockey if they play those sports) is worth a ton to them. Also interesting and possibly important here is that surveys of consumers said they would deal with commercials if it reduced the cost of the app. Is it possible that for a streaming service a deal with a college conference for all those hours of live broadcast of content consumers are saying they want... that if they forecast that they could drive themselves to a larger streaming market share through content while making back what they invested through ad revenue... throw some of that back by lowering subscription fees or running promos (both of which snag even more subs & results in higher ad revenues in a cycle that has a pretty long runway before saturation)... wouldn't they be looking at the profitability best of both worlds (ad sales plus subscriptions)... and wouldn't that make a major conference's sports broadcast rights a hell of a lot more valuable and its investments much more easy to recoup through its revenue model?
I suspect, given that universities are generally risk averse, that the Pac-12 is going to leave money on the table which would be offered in a higher upside deal that carried the risk of making money below forecast if it didn't perform. With that, I see the Pac-12 wanting a safer, guaranteed minimum floor. To get that, they'd have to forego some upside. Even so, if the minimum was in that ACC/Big 12 zone and the upsides could carry it to where the B1G/SEC weren't in a completely different neighborhood, that would actually be a better deal that I would have expected if USC and UCLA had stayed.
To make sure it's clear, the graphic represents professional sports. The demand we're seeing on soccer justified the investment we just saw to get those rights. Now, understanding that college sports aren't going to be nearly as popular as pro sports, that still leads me to believe that gaining rights to live broadcast a conference's football and basketball games (even soccer, baseball and hockey if they play those sports) is worth a ton to them. Also interesting and possibly important here is that surveys of consumers said they would deal with commercials if it reduced the cost of the app. Is it possible that for a streaming service a deal with a college conference for all those hours of live broadcast of content consumers are saying they want... that if they forecast that they could drive themselves to a larger streaming market share through content while making back what they invested through ad revenue... throw some of that back by lowering subscription fees or running promos (both of which snag even more subs & results in higher ad revenues in a cycle that has a pretty long runway before saturation)... wouldn't they be looking at the profitability best of both worlds (ad sales plus subscriptions)... and wouldn't that make a major conference's sports broadcast rights a hell of a lot more valuable and its investments much more easy to recoup through its revenue model?
I suspect, given that universities are generally risk averse, that the Pac-12 is going to leave money on the table which would be offered in a higher upside deal that carried the risk of making money below forecast if it didn't perform. With that, I see the Pac-12 wanting a safer, guaranteed minimum floor. To get that, they'd have to forego some upside. Even so, if the minimum was in that ACC/Big 12 zone and the upsides could carry it to where the B1G/SEC weren't in a completely different neighborhood, that would actually be a better deal that I would have expected if USC and UCLA had stayed.
BuffsAlways
Member
Apple is planning to grow its ad revenue from $4B today to $30B by 2026. They might need some live content to make that happen
Victory
Well-Known Member
Good stuff. Agree with all of the growth ideas + add in x-sell for products like Vision Pro (if it’s Apple).Was reading up a bit on streaming. It was surprising how popular it already is and the trends are incredible. I turned a bit to look at sports and I thought this graphic was fascinating:
To make sure it's clear, the graphic represents professional sports. The demand we're seeing on soccer justified the investment we just saw to get those rights. Now, understanding that college sports aren't going to be nearly as popular as pro sports, that still leads me to believe that gaining rights to live broadcast a conference's football and basketball games (even soccer, baseball and hockey if they play those sports) is worth a ton to them. Also interesting and possibly important here is that surveys of consumers said they would deal with commercials if it reduced the cost of the app. Is it possible that for a streaming service a deal with a college conference for all those hours of live broadcast of content consumers are saying they want... that if they forecast that they could drive themselves to a larger streaming market share through content while making back what they invested through ad revenue... throw some of that back by lowering subscription fees or running promos (both of which snag even more subs & results in higher ad revenues in a cycle that has a pretty long runway before saturation)... wouldn't they be looking at the profitability best of both worlds (ad sales plus subscriptions)... and wouldn't that make a major conference's sports broadcast rights a hell of a lot more valuable and its investments much more easy to recoup through its revenue model?
I suspect, given that universities are generally risk averse, that the Pac-12 is going to leave money on the table which would be offered in a higher upside deal that carried the risk of making money below forecast if it didn't perform. With that, I see the Pac-12 wanting a safer, guaranteed minimum floor. To get that, they'd have to forego some upside. Even so, if the minimum was in that ACC/Big 12 zone and the upsides could carry it to where the B1G/SEC weren't in a completely different neighborhood, that would actually be a better deal that I would have expected if USC and UCLA had stayed.
I also had a similar thought Pac-12 going the risk averse, secure payout route vs uncertain but potentially higher revenue. Here’s what I mean.
Example:
DTC Subscription Model - $59.99 annual
- All games available (some simulcast on linear per week)
- Available on Apple TV + standalone app
They would likely go w/ the guaranteed payout.
We already know it’ll also include some linear distribution for marquee games but the majority of the revenue will come in through the DTC streamer. Some examples of what that could look like.
ESPN - One game (Sat 7pm PT)
CBS - One game (Sat 3:30pm PT)
Network #3 - One game (Sat 1pm PT)
These networks would pay a fee to simulcast the game from the DTC option. That’s how the conference gets at or past the $31M mark.
Last edited:
Is there a new version of the stereotype for those people? This thread is full of them.
This may have been true 30 years ago. I don't believe it's been since.
You forgot Monster truck racing, tractor pulling, and gladiators.
Pilots?
