The Changing FBS Football Landscape

[TreeFiddy]

On 11/24/2017 at 3:39 PM, Anthro1999 said:

Gives me tired head 

That might be due to CTE.  Quick, what is the square root of 2?

[Cerebus]

On 12/4/2017 at 9:33 AM, Arkstfan said:

First in regards to ESPN and layoffs. Remember ESPN before the layoffs was profitable. ESPN does not have a revenue/expense problem, they have a Wall Street problem. 

@Arkstfan I agree with almost everything you say, but not this.   ESPN has some astronomical fixed costs.  They won't have income growth, they will be damn lucky to even keep income at current levels.

BI: Get ready for traditional TV to have historically brutal subscriber losses this quarter

Quote

Pay TV providers could lose more than a million subscribers in the current period, a team of analysts at UBS led by John C. Hodulik wrote in a research note distributed Tuesday.

"That would be the worst result on record and equate to a 2.5% annual decline," compared to 2.1% last quarter, the analysts wrote. 

And things for the industry could only get worse, the analysts wrote.

"We estimate this will put the industry on pace for a 3.3% decline in 2017 and 4.0% in 2018," they said in their note.

---

 

 

Even the good news for cable, that streaming packages are growing, is bad news for ESPN because cable providers have ESPN less packages to reduce cost and those are the best selling streaming cable packages.

I agree with you that ESPN is going to move to offering stand alone streaming.  The problem is that isn't going to create new customers as much as cannibalize from those paying for cable.   

The root causes (IMHO) are: 

• Millennial generation graduates with a huge load of debt and cable is an unneeded luxury to many for them.  
• Millennial generation has less interest in sports in general, in fact in any event that takes 3+ hours.
• The generation with the highest interest in sports and the best attitude towards paying for cable (boomers) are hitting the years of their lives where income is fixed/declining and they are the next big wave of cable consolidation. 

 

So right now ESPN is a getting a ton of free money from people who don't actually want ESPN but get it bundled.  If ESPN goes streaming they have to choose between making it an attractive price to those that actually want ESPN, which will lower their revenues.  OR they can try to make all that revenue up by having a high price for the service, which will cost them money and customers.  

[Arkstfan]

9 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

@Arkstfan I agree with almost everything you say, but not this.   ESPN has some astronomical fixed costs.  They won't have income growth, they will be damn lucky to even keep income at current levels.

BI: Get ready for traditional TV to have historically brutal subscriber losses this quarter

 

Even the good news for cable, that streaming packages are growing, is bad news for ESPN because cable providers have ESPN less packages to reduce cost and those are the best selling streaming cable packages.

I agree with you that ESPN is going to move to offering stand alone streaming.  The problem is that isn't going to create new customers as much as cannibalize from those paying for cable.   

The root causes (IMHO) are: 

• Millennial generation graduates with a huge load of debt and cable is an unneeded luxury to many for them.  
• Millennial generation has less interest in sports in general, in fact in any event that takes 3+ hours.
• The generation with the highest interest in sports and the best attitude towards paying for cable (boomers) are hitting the years of their lives where income is fixed/declining and they are the next big wave of cable consolidation. 

 

So right now ESPN is a getting a ton of free money from people who don't actually want ESPN but get it bundled.  If ESPN goes streaming they have to choose between making it an attractive price to those that actually want ESPN, which will lower their revenues.  OR they can try to make all that revenue up by having a high price for the service, which will cost them money and customers.  

Good points but remember ESPN topped out at around 100 million homes. Let's say they go totally online direct sales and can do almost as good as Netflix and hit 30 million direct subscribers.

When ESPN hit peak, it was making about $610 million per month. Now if they can hit 30 million direct subscribers at $25 a month that produces $750 million per month. That's not a crazy number when you consider Sky Sports which does not include ESPN's European content is just over $27 per month with an 18 month contract, it's $36 per month without a contract and that's with you buying another bundle with it and if you want 4K it is even higher.

For streaming in the UK, you can get standard def for $40 a month. HD streaming is $50 a month and 4k will run you $90 a month but with all those you are getting some other channels included and buy directly from your internet provider. Remember all those are basically just English soccer with a few odds and ends tossed in. Nothing at all similar to having four major pro leagues and colleges and import soccer and MLS like you get here.

Yes, it will price people out but the subscribers remaining are going to be very valuable to advertisers simply because they have the disposable income to afford the subscriptions.

 

[Anthro1999]

On 12/4/2017 at 10:06 AM, TreeFiddy said:

That might be due to CTE.  Quick, what is the square root of 2?

Uh...

[Wag Tag]

9 hours ago, Arkstfan said:

Good points but remember ESPN topped out at around 100 million homes. Let's say they go totally online direct sales and can do almost as good as Netflix and hit 30 million direct subscribers.

When ESPN hit peak, it was making about $610 million per month. Now if they can hit 30 million direct subscribers at $25 a month that produces $750 million per month. That's not a crazy number when you consider Sky Sports which does not include ESPN's European content is just over $27 per month with an 18 month contract, it's $36 per month without a contract and that's with you buying another bundle with it and if you want 4K it is even higher.

For streaming in the UK, you can get standard def for $40 a month. HD streaming is $50 a month and 4k will run you $90 a month but with all those you are getting some other channels included and buy directly from your internet provider. Remember all those are basically just English soccer with a few odds and ends tossed in. Nothing at all similar to having four major pro leagues and colleges and import soccer and MLS like you get here.

Yes, it will price people out but the subscribers remaining are going to be very valuable to advertisers simply because they have the disposable income to afford the subscriptions.

 

Can espn survive without the forced bundle? I think they would have trouble selling just an ESPN programming only! It is really strange how you don’t have something for awhile you realize you don’t miss it!

[Arkstfan]

4 hours ago, Wag Tag said:

Can espn survive without the forced bundle? I think they would have trouble selling just an ESPN programming only! It is really strange how you don’t have something for awhile you realize you don’t miss it!

Maybe the folks in the UK are more crazy about soccer than we are about football, baseball, basketball, hockey and soccer.

They don't do forced bundles (think its some EU regulation) so only the interested buy, but they are apparently making money on their standalone packages. 

My concern is if forced bundles go away it will hurt interest.

[TheColonyEagle]

Interesting article:

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/12/12/how-espn-college-football-playoff-saving-bowl-games/940670001/

 

 

[runner-man]

I think G5 schools should have their own playoff to compete for their own championship, separate from the P5 schools.

However, every school at the FBS level yearns to stand at the top of the mountain, so it'll probably never happen.

 

Edited December 12, 2017 by runner-man

[GrandGreen]

6 minutes ago, runner-man said:

I think G5 schools should have their own playoff to compete for their own championship, separate from the P5 schools.

However, every school at the FBS level yearns to stand at the top of the mountain, so it'll probably never happen.

 

They already have that it is called the FCS Division.  You think NT and their fellow G5's are ignored now, try this.   

[Wag Tag]

40 minutes ago, GrandGreen said:

They already have that it is called the FCS Division.  You think NT and their fellow G5's are ignored now, try this.   

As the article has stated the money is in the playoffs! Let’s get a playoff!

[untjim1995]

2 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

They already have that it is called the FCS Division.  You think NT and their fellow G5's are ignored now, try this.   

There has to be a way to reward the G5 teams with a national championship...EVERY OTHER LEVEL OF FOOTBALL has a champion—except ours. We have chosen crumbs from the Power Table (BCS Bowl bid, bodybag games, Little media)

[GrandGreen]

12 hours ago, Wag Tag said:

As the article has stated the money is in the playoffs! Let’s get a playoff!

 

10 hours ago, untjim1995 said:

There has to be a way to reward the G5 teams with a national championship...EVERY OTHER LEVEL OF FOOTBALL has a champion—except ours. We have chosen crumbs from the Power Table (BCS Bowl bid, bodybag games, Little media)

I don't get the logic.  It's like stating that the G5's need bowls.   They have plenty, it just that not many fans not associated with the school's care.   

The analogy is with the FCS playoffs not the NCAA division 1 championships.  A second tier playoff system would do nothing but further distance the big boys from the G5's.  Does anyone even know what teams are in the FCS playoffs?

By the way technically there is no such thing as a G5 level or structure.  G5's and P5s are just terms to define teams from the power conferences and the rest of the FB division of the NCAA.  G5's can at least theoretically get into the NCAA playoffs.  

Funny, that many on the board would chose any bowl against any P5 versus a bowl against any G5.  That illustrates the fact that even G5 team's fans have the same bias as college football fans in general. 

There is nothing to prevent a bowl matching the highest rated teams from the G5's.   If there were a lot of demand, it would happen; but there is not.  

[UNTexas]

Readers Digest version: The future of the G5 programs is being basically relegated to a second tier status similar to D1aa, FCS will be third tier. 

[Wag Tag]

1 hour ago, GrandGreen said:

 

I don't get the logic.  It's like stating that the G5's need bowls.   They have plenty, it just that not many fans not associated with the school's care.   

The analogy is with the FCS playoffs not the NCAA division 1 championships.  A second tier playoff system would do nothing but further distance the big boys from the G5's.  Does anyone even know what teams are in the FCS playoffs?

By the way technically there is no such thing as a G5 level or structure.  G5's and P5s are just terms to define teams from the power conferences and the rest of the FB division of the NCAA.  G5's can at least theoretically get into the NCAA playoffs.  

Funny, that many on the board would chose any bowl against any P5 versus a bowl against any G5.  That illustrates the fact that even G5 team's fans have the same bias as college football fans in general. 

There is nothing to prevent a bowl matching the highest rated teams from the G5's.   If there were a lot of demand, it would happen; but there is not.  

Is there any playoff system out there that negatively impacts that particular league? Nope! You pick any sport at any level and the playoff generates the most $$ and exposure!

[VideoEagle]

Quote

The biggest game, the national championship, is owned by the College Football Playoff Administration LLC, a for-profit entity whose members are the 10 major college football conferences and Notre Dame.

The 10 D1 football bowl series conferences are part of the organization that owns to CFP. It's not a P5 and G5 - it's the 10 conferences plus Notre Dame. 

 

21 minutes ago, UNTexas said:

Readers Digest version: The future of the G5 programs is being basically relegated to a second tier status similar to D1aa, FCS will be third tier. 

Not exactly, D1aa IS FCS. What used to be called D1a is FBS. 

[GangGreen]

25 minutes ago, Wag Tag said:

Is there any playoff system out there that negatively impacts that particular league? Nope! You pick any sport at any level and the playoff generates the most $$ and exposure!

How many people watch the NIT as opposed to the NCAA tournament? 

I think it would be along those lines.

[Wag Tag]

There are playoffs below us, above us and even in all the other college sports within UNT! I bet the playoff in volleyball drew the largest crowd! Who else doesn't incorporate a playoff system? Do it like professional football and have home field advantage! Fill the Ap!

[untjim1995]

1 hour ago, GangGreen said:

How many people watch the NIT as opposed to the NCAA tournament? 

I think it would be along those lines.

If done correctly, they could get solid interest WAY above the spare bowls they are set up to play. 

IOW, play it during December when nothing but spare bowls are being played and nobody who gets a big following in college football is playing. 

We will never get to be a power league team. UH, SMU, Rice, USF, Cincy, and UConn got kicked out. TCU, Baylor, and Iowa State, as well as other possible Big XII parts will get kicked out. That group is getting more exclusive and there is zilch that can be done about it. 

[oldguystudent]

12 or 16-team playoff with all ten conference champions.  No G5 is ever realistically getting out of the first round, let alone winning the whole thing,  but it gives the illusion of hope like Mississippi Valley St. occasionally making the big dance in March. It makes the CUSA conference championship game mean something more than Lane Kiffin is better than us. 

[UNTexas]

4 hours ago, VideoEagle said:

The 10 D1 football bowl series conferences are part of the organization that owns to CFP. It's not a P5 and G5 - it's the 10 conferences plus Notre Dame. 

 

Not exactly, D1aa IS FCS. What used to be called D1a is FBS. 

Yes, I know the difference between FBS and FCS. We all do. The day is coming when the pecking order will be separated by the NCAA to P5, then G5, then FCS, the D2, and so on. The current model can't sustain itself because P5 is a monopoly over FBS and the current system is failing. Teams like ours will outside of the big leagues.

[Cerebus]

5 minutes ago, UNTexas said:

Yes, I know the difference between FBS and FCS. We all do. The day is coming when the pecking order will be separated by the NCAA to P5, then G5, then FCS, the D2, and so on. The current model can't sustain itself because P5 is a monopoly over FBS and the current system is failing. Teams like ours will outside of the big leagues.

P5 doesn't want that because they feel it further erodes the "amateur" status of CFB.  They are afraid a full cutting off of the G5 would lead to lawsuits, attacks on their tax free status, attacks on wages for players, attacks on liability for injuries.  

They have what they consider to be a great system now.  The G5 in a totally powerless position, happy to accept the crumbs.  Don't forget the P5 get to make rules for all of FBS without any voting input by the G5.

The G5 pose no threat to them.  The real power struggle is going to come when the P5 trims down to the P4.  Notice ESPN is already pushing that narrative that the lower P5 are just parasites.     If P5 leftovers can't fight their way out of it, then the P4 will be in what the consider to be the perfect place.  

[UNTFan23]

The end on net neutrality could cause even more ripples for streaming options for those cutting the cord to cable.

[untjim1995]

1 hour ago, Cerebus said:

P5 doesn't want that because they feel it further erodes the "amateur" status of CFB.  They are afraid a full cutting off of the G5 would lead to lawsuits, attacks on their tax free status, attacks on wages for players, attacks on liability for injuries.  

They have what they consider to be a great system now.  The G5 in a totally powerless position, happy to accept the crumbs.  Don't forget the P5 get to make rules for all of FBS without any voting input by the G5.

The G5 pose no threat to them.  The real power struggle is going to come when the P5 trims down to the P4.  Notice ESPN is already pushing that narrative that the lower P5 are just parasites.     If P5 leftovers can't fight their way out of it, then the P4 will be in what the consider to be the perfect place.  

The P4 own the legislatures, media, and money. No lawsuit will ever get off the ground to change this. Think USFL vs NFL,  but worse, since the judges and Congressmen overwhelmingly support the P4s. 

The bone that will be thrown to the leftovers and top end G5’s will be that they can still play OOC and bowl games against them. It’ll be some combo of the leftovers of the Big XII, the MWC, and the AAC. The MAC, SBC, and CUSA won’t make that cut...

[TIgreen01]

29 minutes ago, UNTFan23 said:

The end on net neutrality could cause even more ripples for streaming options for those cutting the cord to cable.

This +1 billion.  My love affair with Playstation Vue could be coming to a very painful end, very soon.  

[TheColonyEagle]

On 12/13/2017 at 9:18 AM, untjim1995 said:

We will never get to be a power league team. UH, SMU, Rice, USF, Cincy, and UConn got kicked out. TCU, Baylor, and Iowa State, as well as other possible Big XII parts will get kicked out. That group is getting more exclusive and there is zilch that can be done about it. 

I've seen this said on here before...I'm trying to understand the reasoning. In my mind....there is NO WAY IN HELL TCU and Baylor get left behind. Why do we think this? TCU and Baylor both have almost made the playoff. They have loads of money, history, recent success and fan support.

I just want to understand why some think this. I'm curious....