Big East Media Rights Discussion

[DFW HOYA]

As many know, Big East media rights with Fox expire June 30, 2025, so the negotiation window is underway. There are a lot of moving parts in play, including whether the Big East gets the kind of contract bump that the major conferences received with their last deal, or if the continuing erosion of cable (and the clearance Fox needs to broadcast more Big Ten and Big 12 programming that was once wide open for the Big East) will limit what Fox is really willing to pay for non-football content.

So there are a lot of players in this discussion: Fox, Disney (ESPN), Comcast (NBC) WBD...and today's financial news that introduces another wild card: streaming. Netflix announced a 10 year, $5 billion deal to broadcast WWE's Monday programming (8-11 EST) and its monthly pay per view events. Say what you will about WWE, but an analyst figured out if just five percent of its YouTube base alone worldwide signed up for Netflix, it pays for the entire deal. FWIW, there are now twice as many Instagram followers for WWE programming (200 million) than YouTube. Later today, Netflix announces its quarterly earnings and is coming close, or it will soon announce it has surpassed the entire number of subscribers cable TV has, which is approx. 72 million.

WWE's Monday show (currently on Comcast/USA) draws 1.6 million US viewers a week--not NFL numbers, but comparable to ESPN's best college basketball numbers and far more than what Big East games are doing on linear and cable. Its Friday show on Fox broadcast draws over 2 million but was not part of the Netflix deal, as it was previously sold to Comcast for $1.74 billion beginning in 2025.

Georgetown's viewership has been as high as 861,000 on Fox, and 201,000 on FS1. (Its low was just 25,000 vs. Holy Cross.) The average across the conference, according to Sports Media Watch, is 319,000. Georgetown's game Friday night versus Xavier drew 255,000, or 22nd place for that evening.

www.sportsmediawatch.com/2024/01/friday-1-19-sports-ratings-nuggets-celtics-viewership-espn-college-wrestling/

Some various questions for discussion:

1. Does the selection of a rights provider change how much you would follow Big East (and by extension, Georgetown) basketball?
2. How does cable and linear visibility affect recruiting? Would fewer recruits follow the Big East if it wasn't widely available?
3. Would you pay $9.99/month to watch Big East content on a streamer, mindful that ESPN is moving most conferences off its broadcast channels?
4. Would a flat or smaller increase rights deal to stay with Fox cause some schools beyond UConn to start looking elsewhere for a better TV deal?

[jwp91]

I guess a period of instability is on the horizon. I've had my head in the sand enjoying what we have.

I will say it is nice not to search high and low to watch every basketball game. WIth YoutubeTV this year, I have been able to watch almost, if not, everything.

I don't think streaming affects my viewership. I DVR most games and watch later after I have enjoyed the California sunshine.

Live sports are the only thing keeping network TV alive. I would prefer to part of a network's featured sport package just to invest in our brand awareness vs. buried somewhere.

[prhoya]

Jan 23, 2024 14:14:36 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

As many know, Big East media rights with Fox expire June 30, 2025, so the negotiation window is underway. There are a lot of moving parts in play, including whether the Big East gets the kind of contract bump that the major conferences received with their last deal, or if the continuing erosion of cable (and the clearance Fox needs to broadcast more Big Ten and Big 12 programming that was once wide open for the Big East) will limit what Fox is really willing to pay for non-football content.

So there are a lot of players in this discussion: Fox, Disney (ESPN), Comcast (NBC) WBD...and today's financial news that introduces another wild card: streaming. Netflix announced a 10 year, $5 billion deal to broadcast WWE's Monday programming (8-11 EST) and its monthly pay per view events. Say what you will about WWE, but an analyst figured out if just five percent of its YouTube base alone worldwide signed up for Netflix, it pays for the entire deal. FWIW, there are now twice as many Instagram followers for WWE programming (200 million) than YouTube. Later today, Netflix announces its quarterly earnings and is coming close, or it will soon announce it has surpassed the entire number of subscribers cable TV has, which is approx. 72 million.

WWE's Monday show (currently on Comcast/USA) draws 1.6 million US viewers a week--not NFL numbers, but comparable to ESPN's best college basketball numbers and far more than what Big East games are doing on linear and cable. Its Friday show on Fox broadcast draws over 2 million but was not part of the Netflix deal, as it was previously sold to Comcast for $1.74 billion beginning in 2025.

Georgetown's viewership has been as high as 861,000 on Fox, and 201,000 on FS1. (Its low was just 25,000 vs. Holy Cross.) The average across the conference, according to Sports Media Watch, is 319,000. Georgetown's game Friday night versus Xavier drew 255,000, or 22nd place for that evening.

www.sportsmediawatch.com/2024/01/friday-1-19-sports-ratings-nuggets-celtics-viewership-espn-college-wrestling/

Some various questions for discussion:

1. Does the selection of a rights provider change how much you would follow Big East (and by extension, Georgetown) basketball?
2. How does cable and linear visibility affect recruiting? Would fewer recruits follow the Big East if it wasn't widely available?
3. Would you pay $9.99/month to watch Big East content on a streamer, mindful that ESPN is moving most conferences off its broadcast channels?
4. Would a flat or smaller increase rights deal to stay with Fox cause some schools beyond UConn to start looking elsewhere for a better TV deal?

Btw, Saturday’s game at Providence will be on FOX at 12:30 P.M.
Viewership should be 500K+.

[thedragon]

Great discussion. And a business I'm very familiar with.

Pro Sports teams are moving to OTT almost exclusively for their in-market offerings moving forward. From RSNs like Ballys going away (or more likely moving to Prime Video) to the creation of their own internal in-market OTT offerings (see Phoenix Suns and Vegas Golden Knights), there will be less and less regional linear distribution.

Leagues will continue national telecasts on linear for the foreseeable future, but even those games are slowly being matriculated to OTT subscription services like Netflix (WWE). Amazon Prime (MLB, NHL, NBA). Peacock (NFL). Apple TV (MLB and MLS) and the list goes on.

As for NCAA, you've already seen ESPN beef up their ESPN+ content by making the majority of their conference partners exclusively through the service. As for the Big East, they already partner OTT through FloSports for Women's Basketball and other non revenue sports. I wouldn't be surprised if a Paramount + (CBS) wanted to throw their hat in the sports media OTT ring. Not to mention the current players already listed above. The market is ripe for a VERY lucrative deal if they're willing to go OTT.

[guru]

I would not be at all surprised - and actually might expect - the Big East rights to go to a streaming service for the next contract. Live sports are not just important to the old school broadcast networks, they are increasingly vital to streaming services. And the timing of any new deal will be well-positioned to capitalize on the streamers' thirst for content. It could be a lot like last go-round, when FS1 desperately needed content to legitimize the new venture.

There's increasingly very little difference between the broadcast networks, cable channels and streaming services. For the broad audience, and especially for the younger audience these corporations still covet for advertising, any move to a streamer could be relatively seamless. I would expect a few of the streamers to throw tons of money at the conference for this new deal - staying on Fox will likely be a non-starter once those offers start flying around.

[hoyasaxa2003]

Jan 23, 2024 14:14:36 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Some various questions for discussion:

1. Does the selection of a rights provider change how much you would follow Big East (and by extension, Georgetown) basketball? No, I haven't missed a televised game in over a decade (almost all have been televised, and I went to a few that weren't or had bad streaming options). So, the selection of a rights provider is not going to change my viewing habits. That said, I think what really drives ratings on college basketball is the network they are on. That one Marquette blog did a post on this several months back. But, basically, the biggest driving force on ratings is what network is airing it, not the teams playing.

2. How does cable and linear visibility affect recruiting? Would fewer recruits follow the Big East if it wasn't widely available?

This is a good question. Kids basically stream everything and are much less attached to the old cable-oriented focus. I think it's important to note that there is a difference between streamers too. For example, ESPN+, Amazon, Apple TV, Paramount Plus--these are all streaming services that offer high quality streaming you can watch on your TV. On the other hand, if the Big East did its own thing that you could only watch on a desktop or laptop, for example (yes, I know you can basically stream anything now if you try hard enough, but the point here is ease), that would be bad.

That said, see my point above about the network showing a game being the biggest factor on ratings. Will the regular networks continue to decline? Absolutely. Do they still get better ratings than most things on streaming services? Yes, unless it's the NFL.

3. Would you pay $9.99/month to watch Big East content on a streamer, mindful that ESPN is moving most conferences off its broadcast channels? See #1. Yes. But I would prefer to have it on TV too simply because I already pay for cable and it makes it easy.

4. Would a flat or smaller increase rights deal to stay with Fox cause some schools beyond UConn to start looking elsewhere for a better TV deal? I really don't think the non-football schools have much of a choice here. Where are they going to go? Connecticut is unique because they have FBS football, but even that program is in the dumps and not very desirable. Could Connecticut get more if it moved to a depleted ACC once Florida State and Clemson manage to get out of it? Yes. But, I think that's already true. Connecticut would drop us like a hot potato to get football money--but nobody wants them. The same was seen when the conferences consolidated and the PAC 12 collapsed. None of the big time conferences were clamoring for Connecticut to join.

I think the conference needs to get the best deal possible. Obviously, if a legitimate streamer was willing to throw millions at the Big East like Netflix with the WWE, that would likely be worth it. But, assuming there is nobody willing to pay a lot more, I still think a network deal with a streaming component (which is basically what Fox Sports has now) is the best option.

I disagree that sports do not matter to the networks anymore. In fact, it's the opposite. Live sports are the one thing that DOES bring in ratings and higher ad rates. ESPN and others want good live sports. After all, if they aren't showing live sports, what else are they going to show? Part of the issue with ESPN and ESPN+ is that they have SO MUCH content they cannot air everything on ESPN/ESPN2. Even with the Big 10/12, I am not sure that Fox Sports has that problem.

[guru]

Jan 23, 2024 17:15:26 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

I disagree that sports do not matter to the networks anymore. In fact, it's the opposite. Live sports are the one thing that DOES bring in ratings and higher ad rates. ESPN and others want good live sports. After all, if they aren't showing live sports, what else are they going to show? Part of the issue with ESPN and ESPN+ is that they have SO MUCH content they cannot air everything on ESPN/ESPN2. Even with the Big 10/12, I am not sure that Fox Sports has that problem.

What/who are you disagreeing with here? No one has said anything remotely approaching this. It is an absolute fact that networks crave live sports, and streaming services are beginning to as well.

[hoyasaxa2003]

Jan 23, 2024 17:39:24 GMT -5 guru said:

Jan 23, 2024 17:15:26 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

I disagree that sports do not matter to the networks anymore. In fact, it's the opposite. Live sports are the one thing that DOES bring in ratings and higher ad rates. ESPN and others want good live sports. After all, if they aren't showing live sports, what else are they going to show? Part of the issue with ESPN and ESPN+ is that they have SO MUCH content they cannot air everything on ESPN/ESPN2. Even with the Big 10/12, I am not sure that Fox Sports has that problem.

What/who are you disagreeing with here? No one has said anything remotely approaching this. It is an absolute fact that networks crave live sports, and streaming services are beginning to as well.

You said it.

Jan 23, 2024 16:48:33 GMT -5 guru said:

Live sports are not just important to the old school broadcast networks, they are increasingly vital to streaming services.

I very much disagree with this. The streaming services are trying to get sports BECAUSE they are so valuable. But the main networks want them too. That's why you have contracts with the networks for various sports, the Olympics, etc. And they pay millions/billions for some of these rights, like the NFL and high level college basketball.

Case in Point: www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2023-10-11/why-sports-are-returning-to-free-broadcast-tv

[hoyaguy]

Jan 23, 2024 14:56:50 GMT -5 thedragon said:

Great discussion. And a business I'm very familiar with.

Pro Sports teams are moving to OTT almost exclusively for their in-market offerings moving forward. From RSNs like Ballys going away (or more likely moving to Prime Video) to the creation of their own internal in-market OTT offerings (see Phoenix Suns and Vegas Golden Knights), there will be less and less regional linear distribution.

Leagues will continue national telecasts on linear for the foreseeable future, but even those games are slowly being matriculated to OTT subscription services like Netflix (WWE). Amazon Prime (MLB, NHL, NBA). Peacock (NFL). Apple TV (MLB and MLS) and the list goes on.

As for NCAA, you've already seen ESPN beef up their ESPN+ content by making the majority of their conference partners exclusively through the service. As for the Big East, they already partner OTT through FloSports for Women's Basketball and other non revenue sports. I wouldn't be surprised if a Paramount + (CBS) wanted to throw their hat in the sports media OTT ring. Not to mention the current players already listed above. The market is ripe for a VERY lucrative deal if they're willing to go OTT.

I wouldn’t say no to Paramount plus who already do European Champions league which in terms of quality of American coverage of soccer is only second to NBCSN in my opinion (which is really good). Fox sports frankly sucks at basketball and soccer, the graphic with the score looks worse than stuff I made in middle school photoshop. Many of the commentators are downright bad. Sure the convenience on tv is nice for those who have it, but not a fan personally. I expect us to still do well in terms of the contract with how relevant the big East has been in recent years. I’m sure we will see “Gonzaga to the big East” over and over until the new deal is done. They should definitely include expansion clauses in the event another conference implodes and we add valuable players

[hoyasaxa2003]

Jan 23, 2024 18:41:37 GMT -5 hoyaguy said:

Jan 23, 2024 14:56:50 GMT -5 thedragon said:

Great discussion. And a business I'm very familiar with.

Pro Sports teams are moving to OTT almost exclusively for their in-market offerings moving forward. From RSNs like Ballys going away (or more likely moving to Prime Video) to the creation of their own internal in-market OTT offerings (see Phoenix Suns and Vegas Golden Knights), there will be less and less regional linear distribution.

Leagues will continue national telecasts on linear for the foreseeable future, but even those games are slowly being matriculated to OTT subscription services like Netflix (WWE). Amazon Prime (MLB, NHL, NBA). Peacock (NFL). Apple TV (MLB and MLS) and the list goes on.

As for NCAA, you've already seen ESPN beef up their ESPN+ content by making the majority of their conference partners exclusively through the service. As for the Big East, they already partner OTT through FloSports for Women's Basketball and other non revenue sports. I wouldn't be surprised if a Paramount + (CBS) wanted to throw their hat in the sports media OTT ring. Not to mention the current players already listed above. The market is ripe for a VERY lucrative deal if they're willing to go OTT.

I wouldn’t say no to Paramount plus who already do European Champions league which in terms of quality of American coverage of soccer is only second to NBCSN in my opinion (which is really good). Fox sports frankly sucks at basketball and soccer, the graphic with the score looks worse than stuff I made in middle school photoshop. Many of the commentators are downright bad. Sure the convenience on tv is nice for those who have it, but not a fan personally. I expect us to still do well in terms of the contract with how relevant the big East has been in recent years. I’m sure we will see “Gonzaga to the big East” over and over until the new deal is done. They should definitely include expansion clauses in the event another conference implodes and we add valuable players

Paramount Plus would allow for games on CBS, the home of the NCAA tournament, of course. And on CBS Sports. If the Big East went the streaming route, I think it'd be a good place to land.

[daveg023]

My guess is we’ll stay on Fox but we’ll see more games pushed to the Fox App going forward. I can’t see ESPN getting in the mix.

[hoyasaxa2003]

Jan 23, 2024 18:13:20 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

Jan 23, 2024 17:39:24 GMT -5 guru said:

What/who are you disagreeing with here? No one has said anything remotely approaching this. It is an absolute fact that networks crave live sports, and streaming services are beginning to as well.

You said it.

Jan 23, 2024 16:48:33 GMT -5 guru said:

Live sports are not just important to the old school broadcast networks, they are increasingly vital to streaming services.

I very much disagree with this. The streaming services are trying to get sports BECAUSE they are so valuable. But the main networks want them too. That's why you have contracts with the networks for various sports, the Olympics, etc. And they pay millions/billions for some of these rights, like the NFL and high level college basketball.

Case in Point: www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2023-10-11/why-sports-are-returning-to-free-broadcast-tv

I realize I may have misread your post given the way it was worded. In which case, apologies. I think we actually agree on this.

[guru]

Jan 23, 2024 22:59:34 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

Jan 23, 2024 18:13:20 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

You said it.

I very much disagree with this. The streaming services are trying to get sports BECAUSE they are so valuable. But the main networks want them too. That's why you have contracts with the networks for various sports, the Olympics, etc. And they pay millions/billions for some of these rights, like the NFL and high level college basketball.

Case in Point: www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2023-10-11/why-sports-are-returning-to-free-broadcast-tv

I realize I may have misread your post given the way it was worded. In which case, apologies. I think we actually agree on this.

Ha. Yes, you were arguing with yourself. I’m not sure how the wording was confusing, but no harm no foul.

[This Just In]

Jan 23, 2024 17:15:26 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

Jan 23, 2024 14:14:36 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Some various questions for discussion:

1. Does the selection of a rights provider change how much you would follow Big East (and by extension, Georgetown) basketball? No, I haven't missed a televised game in over a decade (almost all have been televised, and I went to a few that weren't or had bad streaming options). So, the selection of a rights provider is not going to change my viewing habits. That said, I think what really drives ratings on college basketball is the network they are on. That one Marquette blog did a post on this several months back. But, basically, the biggest driving force on ratings is what network is airing it, not the teams playing.

2. How does cable and linear visibility affect recruiting? Would fewer recruits follow the Big East if it wasn't widely available?

This is a good question. Kids basically stream everything and are much less attached to the old cable-oriented focus. I think it's important to note that there is a difference between streamers too. For example, ESPN+, Amazon, Apple TV, Paramount Plus--these are all streaming services that offer high quality streaming you can watch on your TV. On the other hand, if the Big East did its own thing that you could only watch on a desktop or laptop, for example (yes, I know you can basically stream anything now if you try hard enough, but the point here is ease), that would be bad.

That said, see my point above about the network showing a game being the biggest factor on ratings. Will the regular networks continue to decline? Absolutely. Do they still get better ratings than most things on streaming services? Yes, unless it's the NFL.

3. Would you pay $9.99/month to watch Big East content on a streamer, mindful that ESPN is moving most conferences off its broadcast channels? See #1. Yes. But I would prefer to have it on TV too simply because I already pay for cable and it makes it easy.

4. Would a flat or smaller increase rights deal to stay with Fox cause some schools beyond UConn to start looking elsewhere for a better TV deal? I really don't think the non-football schools have much of a choice here. Where are they going to go? Connecticut is unique because they have FBS football, but even that program is in the dumps and not very desirable. Could Connecticut get more if it moved to a depleted ACC once Florida State and Clemson manage to get out of it? Yes. But, I think that's already true. Connecticut would drop us like a hot potato to get football money--but nobody wants them. The same was seen when the conferences consolidated and the PAC 12 collapsed. None of the big time conferences were clamoring for Connecticut to join.

I think the conference needs to get the best deal possible. Obviously, if a legitimate streamer was willing to throw millions at the Big East like Netflix with the WWE, that would likely be worth it. But, assuming there is nobody willing to pay a lot more, I still think a network deal with a streaming component (which is basically what Fox Sports has now) is the best option.

I disagree that sports do not matter to the networks anymore. In fact, it's the opposite. Live sports are the one thing that DOES bring in ratings and higher ad rates. ESPN and others want good live sports. After all, if they aren't showing live sports, what else are they going to show? Part of the issue with ESPN and ESPN+ is that they have SO MUCH content they cannot air everything on ESPN/ESPN2. Even with the Big 10/12, I am not sure that Fox Sports has that problem.

Live sports is such a big deal nowadays that Monday Night Football and Playoff games were simulcast on ESPN and ABC sports for the last 2 seasons breaking about a decade long drought of ABC show casing a Monday Night game and playoff games.

[This Just In]

Football drives the bus for the networks and basketball is 2nd.

[hoyasaxa2003]

Jan 24, 2024 12:32:47 GMT -5 This Just In said:

Football drives the bus for the networks and basketball is 2nd.

Definitely true. The one thing college basketball has going for it is that the meaty part of the season is post-football. But, football is always king when it comes to media rights.

[astrohoya]

I could see a streaming component to the next deal, but do not think it will be exclusive. College basketball is clearly miles behind football, but channels do seem to like to broadcast it during a down period of the sports calendar, and it’s a good product as that goes.

Ackerman has done a solid job and at this point I trust her to make the best deal possible. The good news is that outside of Connecticut we don’t have to worry about anybody leaving over complaints about the media deal.

The new Big East and FS1 have basically been the best case scenario one could have predicted three years ago. The only negative is Georgetown hasn’t lived up to its part of the bargain.

[bills]

Jan 23, 2024 16:48:33 GMT -5 guru said:

I would not be at all surprised - and actually might expect - the Big East rights to go to a streaming service for the next contract. Live sports are not just important to the old school broadcast networks, they are increasingly vital to streaming services. And the timing of any new deal will be well-positioned to capitalize on the streamers' thirst for content. It could be a lot like last go-round, when FS1 desperately needed content to legitimize the new venture.

There's increasingly very little difference between the broadcast networks, cable channels and streaming services. For the broad audience, and especially for the younger audience these corporations still covet for advertising, any move to a streamer could be relatively seamless. I would expect a few of the streamers to throw tons of money at the conference for this new deal - staying on Fox will likely be a non-starter once those offers start flying around.

Help out a class of 70 old timer with a question on streaming.  If the games are being carried on a streaming service, can I DVR  them and watch them later, fast forwarding over timeouts and halftime?  I am on Verizon now and use their DVR to record most everything I watch.  Thanks for helping me decide when and how I want to drop my expensive Verizon service and move to streaming.

[thedragon]

Jan 25, 2024 17:14:24 GMT -5 bills said:

Jan 23, 2024 16:48:33 GMT -5 guru said:

I would not be at all surprised - and actually might expect - the Big East rights to go to a streaming service for the next contract. Live sports are not just important to the old school broadcast networks, they are increasingly vital to streaming services. And the timing of any new deal will be well-positioned to capitalize on the streamers' thirst for content. It could be a lot like last go-round, when FS1 desperately needed content to legitimize the new venture.

There's increasingly very little difference between the broadcast networks, cable channels and streaming services. For the broad audience, and especially for the younger audience these corporations still covet for advertising, any move to a streamer could be relatively seamless. I would expect a few of the streamers to throw tons of money at the conference for this new deal - staying on Fox will likely be a non-starter once those offers start flying around.

Help out a class of 70 old timer with a question on streaming.  If the games are being carried on a streaming service, can I DVR  them and watch them later, fast forwarding over timeouts and halftime?  I am on Verizon now and use their DVR to record most everything I watch.  Thanks for helping me decide when and how I want to drop my expensive Verizon service and move to streaming.

Depends what you mean. For example - Hulu and YouTube offer Live TV options. Streaming cable essentially. On those they have DVR-record options just like your cable provider. The Hoyas, if they were to move to streaming only would be part of a separate subscription service more than likely. Espn+ (included with Hulu Live TV), Peacock, Paramount +, Apple TV etc. Those services have VOD (video on demand). So the game would be there in its entirety to watch when you please. Whether you could watch commercial free though is likely a different story. My guess would be No.

[thedragon]

Why Hello...