Another missed opportunity with the Illinois game on Peacock

[TC4THREE]

Most all Purdue and Illinois fans will find a way to watch it. Probably other Big Ten fans who already subscribe also. But we're shutting out tens of thousands of college basketball fans elsewhere in the country who probably would watch this on BTN or FS1. Just dumb to put top tier games on that platform.

 

[Schmedly_Whiplash]

unless you are trying to get more subscribers.

 

[TC4THREE]

unless you are trying to get more subscribers.

Works for Peacock. Not good for Big Ten basketball exposure.

 

[qazplm]

unless you are trying to get more subscribers.

Exactly

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Works for Peacock. Not good for Big Ten basketball exposure.

NBC wouldn’t have paid big bucks if they didn’t get to put the games on Peacock. Same with Amazon and putting TNF on Prime. You trade some eyeballs for fatter stacks.

 

[TC4THREE]

NBC wouldn’t have paid big bucks if they didn’t get to put the games on Peacock. Same with Amazon and putting TNF on Prime. You trade some eyeballs for fatter stacks.

That's what the Big Ten did. Whether or not it was the right choice depends on your perspective.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

That's what the Big Ten did. Whether or not it was the right choice depends on your perspective.

Time will tell. I have no idea.

 

[Chi-Boiler]

That's what the Big Ten did. Whether or not it was the right choice depends on your perspective.

If you believe that a majority of sports, and programming in general, is going the way of streaming, then you can say the B1G and NBC are getting out ahead of it. To many viewers, mostly those that don't adapt to change well, this is an unsettling shift. I'm not saying you're one of them, but that's the segment of population that will complain about something like this. I was like that for a short period of time before I realized that this is the way of the world, like it or not, and there are ways in which this is better than before. I logged onto Peacock last week from my phone on my way home from work and caught the last 3 minutes of the Indinia-Wisconsin game. Only looked at it when at stoplights, honest!

I also dropped DirecTV about 8 months ago to go all streaming, and with a couple of exceptions, it's a better way of doing it. For me. Might be different for others of course. I now don't have 3 DirecTV receivers. I now don't pay for insurance on 3 DirecTV receivers. I don't have to worry about snowstorms stopping me from watching the Super Bowl. And in total, it's cheaper.

 

[TC4THREE]

If you believe that a majority of sports, and programming in general, is going the way of streaming, then you can say the B1G and NBC are getting out ahead of it. To many viewers, mostly those that don't adapt to change well, this is an unsettling shift. I'm not saying you're one of them, but that's the segment of population that will complain about something like this. I was like that for a short period of time before I realized that this is the way of the world, like it or not, and there are ways in which this is better than before. I logged onto Peacock last week from my phone on my way home from work and caught the last 3 minutes of the Indinia-Wisconsin game. Only looked at it when at stoplights, honest!

I also dropped DirecTV about 8 months ago to go all streaming, and with a couple of exceptions, it's a better way of doing it. For me. Might be different for others of course. I now don't have 3 DirecTV receivers. I now don't pay for insurance on 3 DirecTV receivers. I don't have to worry about snowstorms stopping me from watching the Super Bowl. And in total, it's cheaper.

Not about me. I've seen every game I wanted to on Peacock without subscribing. It just limits your potential audience for what will be the best college basketball game on the schedule tomorrow night. Purdue fans, Illinois fans, and probably most Big Ten fans will likely have their avenues to watch it on Peacock but I doubt any casual cbb fans outside of Big Ten country who don't subscribe to Peacock are going to see it.

If the Big Ten put their trash basketball games on Peacock, like they do in football, it wouldn't hurt exposure. Putting premium games on is not good for Big Ten basketball.

 

[Chi-Boiler]

If the Big Ten put their trash basketball games on Peacock, like they do in football, it wouldn't hurt exposure. Putting premium games on is not good for Big Ten basketball.

No, but it is good for Peacock. It's a little bit of a Catch-22. I liken it to what someone told me years ago about doing a giveaway at a sporting event. Do you do your best giveaway for the worst game on the schedule or the best game? You do it for the best game because that's going to get the promotion item to the most people.

 

[PaBoiler78]

Not about me. I've seen every game I wanted to on Peacock without subscribing. It just limits your potential audience for what will be the best college basketball game on the schedule tomorrow night. Purdue fans, Illinois fans, and probably most Big Ten fans will likely have their avenues to watch it on Peacock but I doubt any casual cbb fans outside of Big Ten country who don't subscribe to Peacock are going to see it.

If the Big Ten put their trash basketball games on Peacock, like they do in football, it wouldn't hurt exposure. Putting premium games on is not good for Big Ten basketball.

is Peacock going to carry some games of the Big Dance? just wondering so I know when to cancel

 

[SKYDOG]

If you believe that a majority of sports, and programming in general, is going the way of streaming, then you can say the B1G and NBC are getting out ahead of it. To many viewers, mostly those that don't adapt to change well, this is an unsettling shift. I'm not saying you're one of them, but that's the segment of population that will complain about something like this. I was like that for a short period of time before I realized that this is the way of the world, like it or not, and there are ways in which this is better than before. I logged onto Peacock last week from my phone on my way home from work and caught the last 3 minutes of the Indinia-Wisconsin game. Only looked at it when at stoplights, honest!

I also dropped DirecTV about 8 months ago to go all streaming, and with a couple of exceptions, it's a better way of doing it. For me. Might be different for others of course. I now don't have 3 DirecTV receivers. I now don't pay for insurance on 3 DirecTV receivers. I don't have to worry about snowstorms stopping me from watching the Super Bowl. And in total, it's cheaper.

I’m one of the people you’re talking about. Change has not been good for me on watching TV. Analog was better than digital. Digital with Comcast periodically sticks and I have to change the channel back and forth to fix it. I tried streaming. It was a disaster for me. It constantly buffered and I couldn’t change the channel rapidly. I change channels often trying to eliminate from watching commercials.

So for now I pay up to watch Comcast. I would imagine streaming will continue to go up in price as more people drop linear television. Professional sports broadcasting will continue to cost more. It’s a cycle with no end in sight.

 

[Born Boiler]

Most all Purdue and Illinois fans will find a way to watch it. Probably other Big Ten fans who already subscribe also. But we're shutting out tens of thousands of college basketball fans elsewhere in the country who probably would watch this on BTN or FS1. Just dumb to put top tier games on that platform.

Both Purdue-Illinois games this year got stuck on Peacock with its paltry 30 million subscribers, as opposed to playing on CBS and being available in over 300 million households. That’s 30 vs. 300. Times two. Worth it? For the Big Ten’s only two ranked teams this season? NFW, unless someone is unduly fond of putting their best teams in quarantine, missing over 90 percent of the country. Only a loosier biznuss intern would see that as a real deal.

 

[KentuckyBoiler]

With sports rights becoming more expensive by the year, this is going to be a common occurrence. If people want to see all games that they want to see, then they are going to have to subscribe to almost every streaming service. There is talk of a streaming sports channel that will combine Warner, ESPN and Fox's sports programming to be released this Fall, but that is going to be in the area of $40 to $50 a month, and still does not cover everything. The unfortunate reality of the way TV is right now and will continue to be.

 

[RDUBoiler]

Both Purdue-Illinois games this year got stuck on Peacock with its paltry 30 million subscribers, as opposed to playing on CBS and being available in over 300 million households. That’s 30 vs. 300. Times two. Worth it? For the Big Ten’s only two ranked teams this season? NFW, unless someone is unduly fond of putting their best teams in quarantine, missing over 90 percent of the country. Only a loosier biznuss intern would see that as a real deal.

It's not about selling ads or having the most eyeballs during a specific game.

If they can add a significant number of subscribers (say 1 million or so) by requiring people to watch certain games on Peacock, over a year that's a lot of money: (1 million subscribers x $10 month x 12 months= $120,000,000). Churn for streaming services is relatively low, and once you subscribe, Peacock doesn't care whether or how often you watch. NBC and all cable stations rely on maintaining viewership. Ads certainly add to the bottom line for Peacock, but that's far from being their most important revenue stream.

Obviously others will subscribe for other reasons, and since Peacock is part of the NBC empire, they likely own the rights anyway.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

is Peacock going to carry some games of the Big Dance? just wondering so I know when to cancel

All the reports I've seen state the NCAA Tournament will continue with the four networks as the last several years - TBS, CBS, TNT, and truTV.

 

[ChoiceBeef]

I don’t understand why they don’t do some flex scheduling options. Perhaps it is more possible with BTN and Fox than with CBS and Peacock. If you have the scenario that Purdue Illinois is on BTN, then flex it out to Fox. You can draw more eyes on Fox than BTN.

I’m with @TC4THREE - that I haven’t missed a peacock game but I haven’t paid them a dime. Where there is a will, there is a way.

 

[qazplm]

If you believe that a majority of sports, and programming in general, is going the way of streaming, then you can say the B1G and NBC are getting out ahead of it. To many viewers, mostly those that don't adapt to change well, this is an unsettling shift. I'm not saying you're one of them, but that's the segment of population that will complain about something like this. I was like that for a short period of time before I realized that this is the way of the world, like it or not, and there are ways in which this is better than before. I logged onto Peacock last week from my phone on my way home from work and caught the last 3 minutes of the Indinia-Wisconsin game. Only looked at it when at stoplights, honest!

I also dropped DirecTV about 8 months ago to go all streaming, and with a couple of exceptions, it's a better way of doing it. For me. Might be different for others of course. I now don't have 3 DirecTV receivers. I now don't pay for insurance on 3 DirecTV receivers. I don't have to worry about snowstorms stopping me from watching the Super Bowl. And in total, it's cheaper.

Side note, DTV now switches you to internet based signal if you lose sat signal because of weather.

It's definitely an expensive luxury though for sure.

 

[Chi-Boiler]

is Peacock going to carry some games of the Big Dance? just wondering so I know when to cancel

No because NBC does not have any rights to the tournament.

 

[Born Boiler]

It's not about selling ads or having the most eyeballs during a specific game.

If they can add a significant number of subscribers (say 1 million or so) by requiring people to watch certain games on Peacock, over a year that's a lot of money: (1 million subscribers x $10 month x 12 months= $120,000,000). Churn for streaming services is relatively low, and once you subscribe, Peacock doesn't care whether or how often you watch. NBC and all cable stations rely on maintaining viewership. Ads certainly add to the bottom line for Peacock, but that's far from being their most important revenue stream.

Obviously others will subscribe for other reasons, and since Peacock is part of the NBC empire, they likely own the rights anyway.

Poo on Peacock. We only care about Purdue and the Big Ten getting all the national exposure and fanfare it deserves, and a limit of 30 million viewers is ridiculous next to 300 million households.

If exposure isn’t of primary importance to the Big Ten, the recent expansions into New York City, Los Angeles, Seattle and Nike Nation must be just for fun and frequent flier miles.

Now let’s credit Peacock and its quarantines for its part in limiting the Big Ten to two ranked teams with only one other drawing a vote (2 points) and just one week left in the season. Are Alabama and Florida really that much better than Northwestern and Nebraska -- two ranked vs. two ignored, each with nine losses? Too bad for Nebraska that our game got stuck on Peacock. Aw, shucks. No pub.

 

[TC4THREE]

It's not about selling ads or having the most eyeballs during a specific game.

If they can add a significant number of subscribers (say 1 million or so) by requiring people to watch certain games on Peacock, over a year that's a lot of money: (1 million subscribers x $10 month x 12 months= $120,000,000). Churn for streaming services is relatively low, and once you subscribe, Peacock doesn't care whether or how often you watch. NBC and all cable stations rely on maintaining viewership. Ads certainly add to the bottom line for Peacock, but that's far from being their most important revenue stream.

Obviously others will subscribe for other reasons, and since Peacock is part of the NBC empire, they likely own the rights anyway.

We all fully understand what Peacock is trying to do here. What's being discussed is the cost to the Big Ten in this arrangement of allowing many of its top games to be shown to a very limited audience. Apparently the Big Ten decided it was worth whatever NBC paid but that doesn't change that it limits exposure.

 

[qazplm]

We all fully understand what Peacock is trying to do here. What's being discussed is the cost to the Big Ten in this arrangement of allowing many of its top games to be shown to a very limited audience. Apparently the Big Ten decided it was worth whatever NBC paid but that doesn't change that it limits exposure.

I would guess what they gained is NBC agreeing to a huge contract. Peacock was part of the price of that deal.

 

[TC4THREE]

I would guess what they gained is NBC agreeing to a huge contract. Peacock was part of the price of that deal.

Yeah. That's obvious. Now look at the cost.

 

[Bleedinggoldandblack]

Freaking Peacock......who signed that deal anyway.

 

[Dryfly88]

For those that are saying put this on CBS or Fox, there is no way a Tuesday night game is getting put on FOX or CBS. Primetime programing is going to outweigh a college basketball game every time. Also you can't move the game to the weekend obviously because of other scheduled games and teams.

Whether we like it or not, once the B1G severed ties with ESPN, we (PU) lost a chance at exposure. I'm sure the contract that the B1G signed with the non-ESPN networks was a good deal $$ wise. But from exposure, it really took a hit. I know a lot of posters here don't like ESPN, and that is fine. But it is obvious that had we been part of ESPN contract this year, we would have gotten a lot more air time to more people. Tonight's game as one example would have been the Super Tuesday 7:00 prime game.

Not only do we lose the game exposure on ESPN, we also lose the "talk" about PU also. To me it has been obvious that the talking heads don't mention PU nearly as much as other top 5 teams that they do have broadcast rights for. Gameday gives very little coverage of PU. Honestly, and it pains me to say, Bilas has been our biggest supporter this year on ESPN. Our highlights aren't shown as early as other top teams on Sports Center.

Some will say "so what" or "I hate ESPN anyway" and all those are fine, but ESPN is still the king of college basketball and we are missing out on not being a part of it when we have such a good team. Just one guys take on the landscape.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Yeah. That's obvious. Now look at the cost.

I’m guessing the B1G would say the “cost” is minimal.

They are a proven entity when it comes to live sports media rights and would rather have the extra hundreds of millions instead of “ratings” at this point.

On a smaller scale, similar to the NFL not being worried about “ratings” for games on Peacock or Prime.

 

[TC4THREE]

I’m guessing the B1G would say the “cost” is minimal.

They are a proven entity when it comes to live sports media rights and would rather have the extra hundreds of millions instead of “ratings” at this point.

On a smaller scale, similar to the NFL not being worried about “ratings” for games on Peacock or Prime.

NBC pays 350 million per season for the football rights. I'm trying to find the numbers for basketball but the difference between broadcasting Tuesday night games on Peacock instead of something like FS1 is not in the hundreds of millions.

 

[Schmedly_Whiplash]

We all fully understand what Peacock is trying to do here. What's being discussed is the cost to the Big Ten in this arrangement of allowing many of its top games to be shown to a very limited audience. Apparently the Big Ten decided it was worth whatever NBC paid but that doesn't change that it limits exposure.

You just answered your own question.

 

[Schmedly_Whiplash]

Yeah. That's obvious. Now look at the cost.

yes, there is always a cost of doing business. NBC and the Big Ten weighed those costs and came to the agreement they did.
YOU can look at the cost.
They already have.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

If exposure isn’t of primary importance to the Big Ten, the recent expansions into New York City, Los Angeles, Seattle and Nike Nation must be just for fun and frequent flier miles.

Expansion = MONEY and POWER.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

NBC pays 350 million per season for the football rights. I'm trying to find the numbers for basketball but the difference between broadcasting Tuesday night games on Peacock instead of something like FS1 is not in the hundreds of millions.

I believe the media rights deal is an “all-in” proposition.

In my opinion, what the B1G should be worried about isn’t micro ratings decline due to Peacock but macro ratings decline due to the NIL/free agency portal, especially for football.

 

[TC4THREE]

I believe the media rights deal is an “all-in” proposition.

In my opinion, what the B1G should be worried about isn’t micro ratings decline due to Peacock but macro ratings decline due to the NIL/free agency portal, especially for football.

Clearly. But IMO the Big Ten shouldn't whore itself out for every last penny it can get either. Act like the premier conference in college sports and put your top games on in places you can showcase yourself. Or you can put IU/Maryland and OSU/Michigan basketball games on a CBS doubleheader in early March and wonder why Big Ten basketball continues to be mocked.

 

[TC4THREE]

yes, there is always a cost of doing business. NBC and the Big Ten weighed those costs and came to the agreement they did.
YOU can look at the cost.
They already have.

Yes. I am looking at the costs. Thanks for finally catching up.

 

[Schmedly_Whiplash]

Yes. I am looking at the costs. Thanks for finally catching up.

You're the one that can't get your head around basic business concepts.
But thanks for that chat.......

 

[TC4THREE]

You're the one that can't get your head around basic business concepts.
But thanks for that chat.......

You can't comprehend. The fact that the Big Ten did this for money hasn't been in doubt since the day the deal was finalized. Any moron can...and apparently has in your case....figured that out. It might have been a monumental victory for you to have pieced that together but that doesn't mean it's the focal point for everyone else who has moved past it.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Clearly. But IMO the Big Ten shouldn't whore itself out for every last penny it can get either. Act like the premier conference in college sports and put your top games on in places you can showcase yourself. Or you can put IU/Maryland and OSU/Michigan basketball games on a CBS doubleheader in early March and wonder why Big Ten basketball continues to be mocked.

$350 million is a lot of “penny’s”…

 

[TC4THREE]

$350 million is a lot of “penny’s”…

And the large majority of that is what they are paying for football rights which are vastly more valuable than the basketball rights.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

And the vast majority of that is what they are paying for football rights.

Exactly. Basketball is little more than an afterthought. The baked potato to the football filet.

NBC wants some good basketball games on Peacock thrown in to get this $350 million deal done? Sure thing!

 

[TC4THREE]

Exactly. Basketball is little more than an afterthought. The baked potato to the football filet.

NBC wants some good basketball games on Peacock thrown in to get this $350 million deal done? Sure thing!

Yep. That's what was decided.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

You can't comprehend. The fact that the Big Ten did this for money hasn't been in doubt since the day the deal was finalized. Any moron can...and apparently has in your case....figured that out. It might have been a monumental victory for you to have pieced that together but that doesn't mean it's the focal point for everyone else who has moved past it.

one problem is that the $$$$ has gotten so substantial, it's tantamount to a tsunami....many of the other "purposes" or "objectives" get washed away......oh, there's spin to it and all that, but in the end that's what's driving it and too many people are incentivized for that to really change in a meaningful way.

we've all seen this coming over the years and many called it a Pandora's Box.....

on ESPN - to me, that feud has been a brewing media Hatfields/McCoys ever since the BTN and going back to Delany.....I have no doubt there are ESPN execs who revel in sticking it to the Big Ten.

Purdue has benefitted greatly (as have all the conference members) in recent times with media rights.....part of what comes with the territory in today's world.

JMHO