I've seen a lot of the posts regarding ratings. Being on Over The Air is a clear advantage over ESPN, and ESPN is a clear advantage over FS1, and FS1 is a clear advantage over subscription streaming in regards to number of eyeballs.
What if the B12 got less money, but more OTA exposure (say NBC). Or more money, but streaming only (Amazon) what do you do?
I think of the Cubs, and the Braves. The amount of Cubs fans in Iowa is amazing, but it is clearly because of the availability in the early 80s on WGN cable. Easy to become a fan when a team is easy to follow. My Marshall fandom is because of TV. When I moved to WV, Marshall, then 1-AA (FCS) televised all their games on local TV and gave it for free to any station on the Eastern Seaboard that would air it. They were on in like 10 cities. As for me, it was football with a local twist. Didn't know squat about Marshall, but started watching. Pretty soon I started going to games. Marshall used it to get recruits. Byron Leftwich came to Marshall because his mom could watch all of his games on some UHF station in Washington DC.
Likewise, setting aside the Cubs suckitude, who is watching them now in great numbers? They are behind the Marquee paywall. Are they building a fan base with 10 year olds?
I don't mind ESPN+. It is awesome I get to watch every ISU mens hoops games. And some women's and volleyball, and wrestling. But my parents can't. They have a moderate interest in ISU, but aren't going to pay for ESPN+.
So what if Amazon comes with a big check? Do you take it? Joe Football Fan in North Carolina is NEVER going to watch us. But if we are on NBC he might. Do we care if Joe Football Fan in North Carolina watches us? Nowadays, all P5 games are aired somehow, someway, so it is not a recruiting tool anymore. But it does sound a lot cooler if you tell a kid, you will be on Fox 5 times a year than you will be on Amazon every game.
I know streaming is coming on fast and furious. And most people under 55 don't have an issue with it. But it sure would be nice to be OTA for some games. What say you, would you take money over availability?
What if the B12 got less money, but more OTA exposure (say NBC). Or more money, but streaming only (Amazon) what do you do?
I think of the Cubs, and the Braves. The amount of Cubs fans in Iowa is amazing, but it is clearly because of the availability in the early 80s on WGN cable. Easy to become a fan when a team is easy to follow. My Marshall fandom is because of TV. When I moved to WV, Marshall, then 1-AA (FCS) televised all their games on local TV and gave it for free to any station on the Eastern Seaboard that would air it. They were on in like 10 cities. As for me, it was football with a local twist. Didn't know squat about Marshall, but started watching. Pretty soon I started going to games. Marshall used it to get recruits. Byron Leftwich came to Marshall because his mom could watch all of his games on some UHF station in Washington DC.
Likewise, setting aside the Cubs suckitude, who is watching them now in great numbers? They are behind the Marquee paywall. Are they building a fan base with 10 year olds?
I don't mind ESPN+. It is awesome I get to watch every ISU mens hoops games. And some women's and volleyball, and wrestling. But my parents can't. They have a moderate interest in ISU, but aren't going to pay for ESPN+.
So what if Amazon comes with a big check? Do you take it? Joe Football Fan in North Carolina is NEVER going to watch us. But if we are on NBC he might. Do we care if Joe Football Fan in North Carolina watches us? Nowadays, all P5 games are aired somehow, someway, so it is not a recruiting tool anymore. But it does sound a lot cooler if you tell a kid, you will be on Fox 5 times a year than you will be on Amazon every game.
I know streaming is coming on fast and furious. And most people under 55 don't have an issue with it. But it sure would be nice to be OTA for some games. What say you, would you take money over availability?
