The future of college football ...

[Guest]

9 hours ago, DataBull said:

The money will become more targeted, but there will be more of it.  All these same articles were written when we went from three major networks to many channels on cable TV and doom and gloom was spouted about the three major networks.  They have survived quite nicely.

While I don't have articles to cite, I don't think anyone was talking about how cable was going to hurt the ability of networks to deliver programming.  At the time, TV shows just didn't cost that much... and cable didn't start really taking meaningful ratings away until the 1990s.  Heck, the most watched TV program ever was the MASH finale - long after the advent of many major cable networks.  However, let's set that argument aside as it's a red herring.

Clearly, there will not be more money going forward.  ESPN has 92 million subscribers... but had an average of 2.7 million for it's games this year.... 26 million people watched the Alabama-Clemson game.  Let's use that as the maximum number of people who might be interested in NCAA in a world where the FCC has approved a la carte programming.  If 92 million people pay $8 per month now, that's $8.8 billion.  ESPN (or some other sports network) would have to charge more than $28 PER MONTH for those 26 million subscribers to get to $8.8 billion.  I don't see that happening.  That 8.8 billion pays for all of the sports ESPN offers -- from NCAA football to Major League Baseball to the World Series of Poker.  I also don't really think 26 million would pay subscriptions to see NCAA football, given the bulk of the programming was 10% of that number -- even if it is open outside of the US.

Your opinion has some appeal to it... but logically the numbers don't add up.  If the cable industry falls apart (because cord cutting or a la carte forces many networks to fold)... then the big revenue paid to professional sports will be less than it is today.



 

[smazza]

19 hours ago, Sellular1 said:

The Halves keep having more, while the Nots...

like the rest of the world

[smazza]

espn will be heading to bk court one day to get out of these brutal contracts 

[Who'sYourData?]

On 1/16/2016 at 2:21 AM, JimUSFSig said:

While I don't have articles to cite, I don't think anyone was talking about how cable was going to hurt the ability of networks to deliver programming.  At the time, TV shows just didn't cost that much... and cable didn't start really taking meaningful ratings away until the 1990s.  Heck, the most watched TV program ever was the MASH finale - long after the advent of many major cable networks.  However, let's set that argument aside as it's a red herring.

Clearly, there will not be more money going forward.  ESPN has 92 million subscribers... but had an average of 2.7 million for it's games this year.... 26 million people watched the Alabama-Clemson game.  Let's use that as the maximum number of people who might be interested in NCAA in a world where the FCC has approved a la carte programming.  If 92 million people pay $8 per month now, that's $8.8 billion.  ESPN (or some other sports network) would have to charge more than $28 PER MONTH for those 26 million subscribers to get to $8.8 billion.  I don't see that happening.  That 8.8 billion pays for all of the sports ESPN offers -- from NCAA football to Major League Baseball to the World Series of Poker.  I also don't really think 26 million would pay subscriptions to see NCAA football, given the bulk of the programming was 10% of that number -- even if it is open outside of the US.

Your opinion has some appeal to it... but logically the numbers don't add up.  If the cable industry falls apart (because cord cutting or a la carte forces many networks to fold)... then the big revenue paid to professional sports will be less than it is today.



 

Again, the same argument was made for the "dilution" of TV advertising revenue when cable came along a many more channels became nationwide.  This is exactly the same scenario, except that we are talking world wide instead of nationwide.  The dollars will be there in some form or fashion, and they will be larger than they are today.  

I do think we will see the dollars flatten or possibly shrink a bit in the next few years until the new streaming markets take hold, but that is temporary.   More eyeballs ultimately means more dollars.  Always has, always will.

[namuh-bull]

7 hours ago, DataBull said:

...

 ... More eyeballs ultimately means more dollars.  Always has, always will.

That is the whole point.  The number of eyeballs that will actually watch is decreasing, not increasing.

 Interest in college football is decreasing.  I know a young guy who goes to UT in Austin.  He is a junior now and the last time I saw him I asked him what it was like going to a Texas game.  He told me he had never been to one.  As strange as that seems, I don't think it is all that unusual.

 

Go Bulls!

[Who'sYourData?]

1 minute ago, namuh-bull said:

That is the whole point.  The number of eyeballs that will actually watch is decreasing, not increasing.

 Interest in college football is decreasing.  I know a young guy who goes to UT in Austin.  He is a junior now and the last time I saw him I asked him what it was like going to a Texas game.  He told me he had never been to one.  As strange as that seems, I don't think it is all that unusual.

 

Go Bulls!

You evidently did not read a word I wrote.

The article was about the waning influence of ESPN.  ESPN will be replaced by a medium that which will reach more people.  Thus, there will be more sports fans available to pay money for sporting events.  Money will go up.

This thread is not about the relative interest in college football in the United States which is an entirely different topic that would require and entirely different thread.

[namuh-bull]

10 minutes ago, DataBull said:

You evidently did not read a word I wrote.

The article was about the waning influence of ESPN.  ESPN will be replaced by a medium that which will reach more people.  Thus, there will be more sports fans available to pay money for sporting events.  Money will go up.

This thread is not about the relative interest in college football in the United States which is an entirely different topic that would require and entirely different thread.

No, the problem is that I did read what you wrote.   You are just wrong.  More availability doesn't mean more viewers and certainly doesn't mean more money.  Why do you think ESPN has declining revenue?  People don't want to pay for something they don't want.  Revenue will decline along with interest in the sport.  

 

Go Bulls.

[Who'sYourData?]

7 minutes ago, namuh-bull said:

No, the problem is that I did read what you wrote.   You are just wrong.  More availability doesn't mean more viewers and certainly doesn't mean more money.  Why do you think ESPN has declining revenue?  People don't want to pay for something they don't want.  Revenue will decline along with interest in the sport.  

 

Go Bulls.

LOL  We will see who is right and who is wrong.  But I appreciate your passion.

But once again, this thread is not about declining interest in the sport.  That is a different topic.  Message boards work better if we stay on topic.

Edited January 18, 2016 by DataBull

[The Great 8]

On 1/16/2016 at 3:58 AM, Bausfkid said:

ESPN's cash cow, football, is changing and it's affecting their business model.  This goes far deeper than people "cutting the cord" on cable television. Football is not a growth sport.  Cost to play the game, concussions (and other injuries) and protective (educated) parents are all having massive affects on the game.  Football is very, very expensive.  Other games are far less costly (lacrosse and soccer).  The consistent messaging to parents about the game of football is about the potential of injuries.  Protective parents are not taking the risks with their children to play football.  I know one kid (my nephew) who plays football.  He's a HS sophomore and the number of teammates is tiny compared to what I grew up with in the early 80s.  Sociologically, the game has changed.  It's become urban as suburban kids are not playing football or attending games the way they did even 20 years ago. 

I never see kids playing football in their yard, a church lot or a vacant field.  They all have lacrosse sticks or soccer balls.  If you ask a kid today if they've ever played the game "kill the carrier", "maw-paw" or "smear the *****" they've never even heard of these games. 

Football has changed over the last 25 years and will continue to change dramatically over the next 15 years.  To me, it's the greatest game on the planet and I can't get enough.  I am in a very small minority today. 

Go Bulls!

Your anecdotal evidence is wrong. I see, or more accurately, hear about, kids going to play football with friends all the time via family gatherings and such. It's clear when cousins say "I'm going to play football with Billy" and come back 2 hours later covered in dirt and smiling that they've been having fun and playing hard.

Speculation: You live a northeast state, in an affluent area. Those are the only big areas I ever hear about soccer and lacrosse dominating basketball and football (anecdotal).

[GaUSFBull]

15 hours ago, DataBull said:

But once again, this thread is not about declining interest in the sport.  That is a different topic.  Message boards work better if we stay on topic.

Message board topics evolve.  Maybe even more so on TBP than most other message boards (this is the only one I go to, so I don't know).  

But if you don't think a discussion on declining interest in the sport of college football is relevant to a message board thread titled "the future of college football," I'm not sure which direction to go to help you.