(05-31-2018 11:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  I know my ignorance is showing here. Does Amazon already show content produced by someone else? And if so, how does one view it and how do they pay for it?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/getstarted

Quote:Prime Video offers you thousands of movies and TV shows to stream, anywhere, anytime.

Quote:With an Amazon Prime membership, you gain access to thousands of popular movies and TV shows, including exclusive Prime Originals like the Golden Globe Award winning The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel.

Quote:Stream on your compatible TV, gaming console, Fire TV, or from the Prime Video app on phones and tablets.

(05-31-2018 11:42 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-31-2018 11:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  I know my ignorance is showing here. Does Amazon already show content produced by someone else? And if so, how does one view it and how do they pay for it?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/getstarted

Quote:Prime Video offers you thousands of movies and TV shows to stream, anywhere, anytime.

Quote:With an Amazon Prime membership, you gain access to thousands of popular movies and TV shows, including exclusive Prime Originals like the Golden Globe Award winning The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel.

Quote:Stream on your compatible TV, gaming console, Fire TV, or from the Prime Video app on phones and tablets.

That sounds an awful lot like cable to me. Pay for a bazillion things I don't want to watch so I can get access to the few that I do. I might as well drop everything and just go back to watching free OTA programming only. The only drawback to that is I would probably sacrifice picture quality if I had to rely on outdoor antenna reception.

A few thoughts.

One. Amazon discovered with the NFL that it is hard to do live sports and they were doing zero game production, simply streaming the feed.

The top tech company in the sector is BAM Tech and it was purchased by ESPN.

I don't think the tech companies are going to be kicking ass and taking names any time soon on big properties. The top pro sports are billionaire's clubs and they are more interested in the power and the glory and being given their due respect rather than being told how to run their operation.

Relationships matter. At the extreme end you have an event like the Masters where they leave a lot of money on the table to get things done the way they want, and further down the spectrum you have the major leagues who have left money on the table in the past when they innovate by letting existing partners get the new things (extra playoff rounds, non-traditional dates) when they could have bid them out.

On the college side, presidents are inherently risk averse, if you want innovators it's the G5 and FCS and non-football leagues who aren't making serious money who are willing to experiment. Remember Thursday night college football was the province of the non-AQ for quite some time before the P5 were willing to step in, same for Friday night football.

It makes greater sense for someone like Amazon to buy a CBS than go straight to the colleges and NFL.

(05-31-2018 12:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  A few thoughts.

One. Amazon discovered with the NFL that it is hard to do live sports and they were doing zero game production, simply streaming the feed.

The top tech company in the sector is BAM Tech and it was purchased by ESPN.

I don't think the tech companies are going to be kicking ass and taking names any time soon on big properties. The top pro sports are billionaire's clubs and they are more interested in the power and the glory and being given their due respect rather than being told how to run their operation.

Relationships matter. At the extreme end you have an event like the Masters where they leave a lot of money on the table to get things done the way they want, and further down the spectrum you have the major leagues who have left money on the table in the past when they innovate by letting existing partners get the new things (extra playoff rounds, non-traditional dates) when they could have bid them out.

On the college side, presidents are inherently risk averse, if you want innovators it's the G5 and FCS and non-football leagues who aren't making serious money who are willing to experiment. Remember Thursday night college football was the province of the non-AQ for quite some time before the P5 were willing to step in, same for Friday night football.

It makes greater sense for someone like Amazon to buy a CBS than go straight to the colleges and NFL.

Fox and it's remaining TV networks could be up for sale in the not too distant future. If I'm Amazon then that's where I go because I already have the platforms and the branding that will aid my efforts the most.

Comcast/NBC has essentially thrown in with Netflix so you could see an expanded partnership there as well.

It's a giant game of Risk and the natural alliances look to be forming.

(05-31-2018 07:51 AM)McKinney Wrote:  

(05-31-2018 07:45 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Interesting piece. Sounds good in theory, but in practice that would be a nightmare. Even if this is a football only conference, you are going to destroy local rivalries and fan support and local engagement will wilt over time.

I don't get the impression Amazon would be vying for creating a superconference consisting of the "best of the best". More likely they'd set up a nonconference scheduling agreement between these 30-40 schools and have the rights to those nonconference games.

Now that could certainly work (and would be something I would actually enjoy as a fan)

Looks like something The Dude or Buck would post on a message board.
I'll believe it when I see it.
CJ

(05-31-2018 12:46 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(05-31-2018 07:51 AM)McKinney Wrote:  

(05-31-2018 07:45 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Interesting piece. Sounds good in theory, but in practice that would be a nightmare. Even if this is a football only conference, you are going to destroy local rivalries and fan support and local engagement will wilt over time.

I don't get the impression Amazon would be vying for creating a superconference consisting of the "best of the best". More likely they'd set up a nonconference scheduling agreement between these 30-40 schools and have the rights to those nonconference games.

Now that could certainly work (and would be something I would actually enjoy as a fan)

It would likely limit the playoffs to only those schools which isn't good. A far better idea is the current super-inclusive playoffs where every school has a chance. Or something like that.

(05-31-2018 12:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-31-2018 12:15 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  A few thoughts.

One. Amazon discovered with the NFL that it is hard to do live sports and they were doing zero game production, simply streaming the feed.

The top tech company in the sector is BAM Tech and it was purchased by ESPN.

I don't think the tech companies are going to be kicking ass and taking names any time soon on big properties. The top pro sports are billionaire's clubs and they are more interested in the power and the glory and being given their due respect rather than being told how to run their operation.

Relationships matter. At the extreme end you have an event like the Masters where they leave a lot of money on the table to get things done the way they want, and further down the spectrum you have the major leagues who have left money on the table in the past when they innovate by letting existing partners get the new things (extra playoff rounds, non-traditional dates) when they could have bid them out.

On the college side, presidents are inherently risk averse, if you want innovators it's the G5 and FCS and non-football leagues who aren't making serious money who are willing to experiment. Remember Thursday night college football was the province of the non-AQ for quite some time before the P5 were willing to step in, same for Friday night football.

It makes greater sense for someone like Amazon to buy a CBS than go straight to the colleges and NFL.

Fox and it's remaining TV networks could be up for sale in the not too distant future. If I'm Amazon then that's where I go because I already have the platforms and the branding that will aid my efforts the most.

Comcast/NBC has essentially thrown in with Netflix so you could see an expanded partnership there as well.

It's a giant game of Risk and the natural alliances look to be forming.

If you are producing your own original content it would make sense to reverse the flow of programming.

A series like Bosch on Amazon, you release a season on Amazon in 2018 and then move it to an OTA network like Fox or CBS a year or 18 months later instead of the other direction.

(05-31-2018 11:42 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-31-2018 11:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  I know my ignorance is showing here. Does Amazon already show content produced by someone else? And if so, how does one view it and how do they pay for it?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/getstarted

Quote:Prime Video offers you thousands of movies and TV shows to stream, anywhere, anytime.

Quote:With an Amazon Prime membership, you gain access to thousands of popular movies and TV shows, including exclusive Prime Originals like the Golden Globe Award winning The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel.

Quote:Stream on your compatible TV, gaming console, Fire TV, or from the Prime Video app on phones and tablets.

From what I can tell from Amazon's website, the only things I could get are shows from HBO, Showtime and something called Starz. No OTA channels, no PBS, no sports, no sitcoms, game shows or anything like that for my $14.99 a month plus $99 a year. Seems like there should be more.

One way it could work is, conferences stay intact but only 2-3 schools get paid big time while the rest get peanuts. Amazon could pay USC $70 million to have the rights for all its games while Oregon State would get $2 million. Now if you’re a mid level to mediocre P5 program, what are you going to do? Leave? Of course not. In the case of Oregon State, having USC, Oregon and Washington on the schedule is way better than going to the MWC, even if the pay is the same.

(05-31-2018 01:17 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  One way it could work is, conferences stay intact but only 2-3 schools get paid big time while the rest get peanuts. Amazon could pay USC $70 million to have the rights for all its games while Oregon State would get $2 million. Now if you’re a mid level to mediocre P5 program, what are you going to do? Leave? Of course not. In the case of Oregon State, having USC, Oregon and Washington on the schedule is way better than going to the MWC, even if the pay is the same.

The conference as economic unit is a relatively new invention.

I have my doubts that Alabama or Ohio State can make enough extra as a direct seller to be worth the hassle. USC, Texas, Clemson? That difference might matter.

Why not just do away with conferences altogether? Let it be every man for himself in every sport. Your schedule consists of anybody you can get to play you. If that means Ohio State gets to play 9 home games a year and Wake Forest only gets 3, so be it. That's the free market at work.

Reading this article, I believe it keeps the realignment conspiracy theories industry alive and well. In other words, IMO it's nonsense and I don't believe a word of the Oklahoma writer.

Been following Rutgers football closely since they entered the Big Ten (I live locally although my kids attend other Big Ten schools). I have observed that money and TV revenue is a factor in competitiveness, or lack thereof. It affects coaching staffs, infrastructure, recruiting budget, other benefits and just about all elements necessary to compete at a successful level. As an example, if USC was being paid $100M a season by Amazon (or other provider) and Oregon State was being paid a few million, if I were a fan of Oregon State, I would want my school to pack their bags and go home - Drop to a lower level of football supported by playing on sunny Saturday afternoons by true student-athletes throwing the pigskin around for the sole purpose of having fun. I certainly would not want to watch my school, Oregon State play USC on the same football field as the disparity of what occurs today would be much worse.
I simply don't believe Conferences as established today will see anything more then maybe a few adjustments in the forseeable future. Amazon is not going to come in as de facto commissioner and re-establish how the college football conferences are organized. The University Presidents are a slow moving group collectively and have other much more major purposes compared to establishing a colossal change to the athletics landscape today.

(05-31-2018 01:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  Why not just do away with conferences altogether? Let it be every man for himself in every sport. Your schedule consists of anybody you can get to play you. If that means Ohio State gets to play 9 home games a year and Wake Forest only gets 3, so be it. That's the free market at work.

Works for me. I never did like conferences, anyway.

Back to the Future where you have 25-35 football independents whose brand and drawing power attracts the cash.

Why not? There is your "break away" from the NCAA that people sometimes talk about.

If Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, Villanova can do the same thing in basketball, more power to them.

Aren't college sports fans red/white/blue capitalists?

(05-31-2018 02:15 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-31-2018 01:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  Why not just do away with conferences altogether? Let it be every man for himself in every sport. Your schedule consists of anybody you can get to play you. If that means Ohio State gets to play 9 home games a year and Wake Forest only gets 3, so be it. That's the free market at work.

Works for me. I never did like conferences, anyway.

Back to the Future where you have 25-35 football independents whose brand and drawing power attracts the cash.

Why not? There is your "break away" from the NCAA that people sometimes talk about.

If Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, Villanova can do the same thing in basketball, more power to them.

Aren't college sports fans red/white/blue capitalists?

If you didn't have conferences, there would be no autobids to the NCAAT. It would be a total meritocracy. That right there would satisfy a lot of fans.

The reality is, the B1G and SEC sell their properties as a unit. You may only be interested in 8 of the 14 schools in your top 30, but another 3 are probably in your top 40 anyway, and the content is as a league. CBS, ABC/ESPN/FOX (as they are becoming one) bid on these units, and they too have the same 30 or 40 school list. They just make their bids as if Rutgers and Vandy football didn't exist, and don't show them, unless the metrics say the game against Ohio State or Florida is still worth showing for audience.

Also the schools are no longer set up to individually bid, and have turned over the rights to the conferences. Notre Dame and BYU are exceptions as Independents, and one could see Texas going Independent if OU leaves. But the Notre Dame experience says going it alone will not yield you the same revenue as belonging to a powerful league. Schools know this and wont break ranks. So Amazon will find the going tough.

Honestly Amazon's instincts are the same as the networks, and that is why the conferences took over, to protect the entire membership as a single unit. And that has proven to work, as the value of the B1G and SEC is greater than the individual parts. But that seems to be less so true in the other conferences, especially the Big 12 (or the big 2 and the little 8). Amazon will find they are going to have to deal with anywhere from 20-40% content they are less interested in, in order to get the content they want.

(05-31-2018 02:15 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-31-2018 01:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  Why not just do away with conferences altogether? Let it be every man for himself in every sport. Your schedule consists of anybody you can get to play you. If that means Ohio State gets to play 9 home games a year and Wake Forest only gets 3, so be it. That's the free market at work.

Works for me. I never did like conferences, anyway.

Back to the Future where you have 25-35 football independents whose brand and drawing power attracts the cash.

Why not? There is your "break away" from the NCAA that people sometimes talk about.

If Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, Villanova can do the same thing in basketball, more power to them.

Aren't college sports fans red/white/blue capitalists?

Wondered if that hanging curve would get met.

(05-31-2018 03:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-31-2018 02:15 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-31-2018 01:53 PM)ken d Wrote:  Why not just do away with conferences altogether? Let it be every man for himself in every sport. Your schedule consists of anybody you can get to play you. If that means Ohio State gets to play 9 home games a year and Wake Forest only gets 3, so be it. That's the free market at work.

Works for me. I never did like conferences, anyway.

Back to the Future where you have 25-35 football independents whose brand and drawing power attracts the cash.

Why not? There is your "break away" from the NCAA that people sometimes talk about.

If Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, Villanova can do the same thing in basketball, more power to them.

Aren't college sports fans red/white/blue capitalists?

If you didn't have conferences, there would be no autobids to the NCAAT. It would be a total meritocracy. That right there would satisfy a lot of fans.

Or just regress back to using regional qualifying tournaments.

They could cherry pick the top G5 schools as well that moves the needle better than several P5 schools. Boise State moves the needle more than half of the ACC. BYU are better with viewership than many P5 schools.

You say Tech and then seven or eight years from now and my eyes glaze over. That’s more than an eternity. Nobody has any idea what’s going to happen?