|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Aug 1, 2023 10:51:18 GMT -8
One thing I love about my Comcast account is being able to have 9 or 10 games on the "last" mode and I can get to any one of them with one click when the game I'm watching goes to commercial, injury, replay or halftime. Can't do that with streaming.
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Aug 1, 2023 11:32:27 GMT -8
Starting every game at 1pm would be a terrible idea. The idea is to play as many games at different times as possible, so that people can watch all the games, boosting viewership numbers. Me for example, the Oregon State game is the game I anchor my entire weekend around. I'm not watching something else if they're playing. But, my secondary options are always Pac-12 teams when they're not playing. I'd rather watch Arizona vs. Cal than Alabama vs. Kentucky. I would guess that most people on the west coast are the same. By the same token, when I wake up at 9am and want to watch a game, I don't have a Pac-12 option, so I watch whatever's on....usually starting with ESPN because I'm checking to see what head Corso is wearing, and then cycling through channels from there. It's unrealistic to expect west coast teams to play at 9am, much like it's unrealistic for east coast teams to play at 10pm local time. But if someone's just gone to a UNC-Virginia game, got home around 10:30, still has a hankering for some more football, it'd sure be nice if there was a Pac-12 game on for them to watch. It's why we play games on Thursdays or Fridays occasionally. Less competition for eyeballs. Why we moved the SJSU game to a Sunday. There are 10 D1 football games at 12:30 on Saturday, September 2nd, including Ohio State vs. Indiana in a conference game, UW vs. Boise, and the Ducks vs. Portland State. On the 3rd, we will be the only Div. 1 football game on nationwide, on a broadcast channel, on a weekend that there is no NFL. CBS did not air a game last year during week 1 on Sunday afternoon, but an ESPN midday game between FAMU and Jackson St. got nearly 1M viewers. The FSU-LSU game on ABC that Sunday evening drew 7.55M, the second largest viewership of the weekend. More games at more times is the key if we want the revenue to be there from this media deal. Seems to me you might be thinking in linear TV terms. One game at a time and best not overlap, the show is on once and if you are lucky there will be a replay, unless you want to tie up storage space on some service you're paying for. With streaming, the moment a game starts it's potentially available at any second in perpetuity. You get all games, all the time once they're played, no worryingabout TV schedules. I'd rather see 10 million or more eyeballs over the course of a weekend than getting a "big score" of 7 million eyeballs at 7pm on Sunday. With streaming you could potentially watch any game at any time after the game begins. You could watch every minute of every league game back to back in any order, flipping to the next game the moment the previous one ends. If you heard later a particular game was a great game, you don't have to be bummed you missed it, it's right there on the streaming service. You don't have to sit through other games, you watch the game you want, at any time you want, and it'll be there ready for you to watch it until they pull it down, potentially years later. If you want to watch other non-leage games live and it's not on the streaming service or over the air, I guess that could be an issue. If it didn't interfere with fans wanting to watch high school games in person (which could affect game attendance) the entire league could potentially hold their games at 7pm on Friday, then those who want to wake up and watch 6 games of Pac 12/14 football back to back for 18-20 hours could do just that. To me, having all games available at any time trumps having to watch them the one preset time TV currently has. The only hangups I can see is it could frustrate hardcore channel surfers and there will likely be people who are unwilling to activate Apple TV (assuming that's the service) at $6.99 (or whatever they are going to charge) a month during football season. |
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Aug 1, 2023 12:42:48 GMT -8
Starting every game at 1pm would be a terrible idea. The idea is to play as many games at different times as possible, so that people can watch all the games, boosting viewership numbers. Me for example, the Oregon State game is the game I anchor my entire weekend around. I'm not watching something else if they're playing. But, my secondary options are always Pac-12 teams when they're not playing. I'd rather watch Arizona vs. Cal than Alabama vs. Kentucky. I would guess that most people on the west coast are the same. By the same token, when I wake up at 9am and want to watch a game, I don't have a Pac-12 option, so I watch whatever's on....usually starting with ESPN because I'm checking to see what head Corso is wearing, and then cycling through channels from there. It's unrealistic to expect west coast teams to play at 9am, much like it's unrealistic for east coast teams to play at 10pm local time. But if someone's just gone to a UNC-Virginia game, got home around 10:30, still has a hankering for some more football, it'd sure be nice if there was a Pac-12 game on for them to watch. It's why we play games on Thursdays or Fridays occasionally. Less competition for eyeballs. Why we moved the SJSU game to a Sunday. There are 10 D1 football games at 12:30 on Saturday, September 2nd, including Ohio State vs. Indiana in a conference game, UW vs. Boise, and the Ducks vs. Portland State. On the 3rd, we will be the only Div. 1 football game on nationwide, on a broadcast channel, on a weekend that there is no NFL. CBS did not air a game last year during week 1 on Sunday afternoon, but an ESPN midday game between FAMU and Jackson St. got nearly 1M viewers. The FSU-LSU game on ABC that Sunday evening drew 7.55M, the second largest viewership of the weekend. More games at more times is the key if we want the revenue to be there from this media deal. Seems to me you might be thinking in linear TV terms. One game at a time and best not overlap, the show is on once and if you are lucky there will be a replay, unless you want to tie up storage space on some service you're paying for. With streaming, the moment a game starts it's potentially available at any second in perpetuity. You get all games, all the time once they're played, no worryingabout TV schedules. I'd rather see 10 million or more eyeballs over the course of a weekend than getting a "big score" of 7 million eyeballs at 7pm on Sunday. With streaming you could potentially watch any game at any time after the game begins. You could watch every minute of every league game back to back in any order, flipping to the next game the moment the previous one ends. If you heard later a particular game was a great game, you don't have to be bummed you missed it, it's right there on the streaming service. You don't have to sit through other games, you watch the game you want, at any time you want, and it'll be there ready for you to watch it until they pull it down, potentially years later. If you want to watch other non-leage games live and it's not on the streaming service or over the air, I guess that could be an issue. If it didn't interfere with fans wanting to watch high school games in person (which could affect game attendance) the entire league could potentially hold their games at 7pm on Friday, then those who want to wake up and watch 6 games of Pac 12/14 football back to back for 18-20 hours could do just that. To me, having all games available at any time trumps having to watch them the one preset time TV currently has. The only hangups I can see is it could frustrate hardcore channel surfers and there will likely be people who are unwilling to activate Apple TV (assuming that's the service) at $6.99 (or whatever they are going to charge) a month during football season. The women's world cup games are all on in the middle of the night, so I'm recording all of them. I have the capability to go back and watch any game at any time. Do I watch them all? No, because I already know the results most of the time before I have a chance to watch. Nearly impossible to avoid results if you have to go online or talk to someone who also cares about these things. So if I know the result, I'm not watching, unless the Beavs are involved. I'd imagine this is true for most people. I'll watch the Ducks if they don't play at the same time as the Beavs, but will I go back and watch a recorded Duck game that I missed because I was watching the Beavs? No way. Don't care enough. Apple (and more importantly, their advertisers) aren't going to shell out money for a bunch of games people are fast forwarding through commercials and may or may not watch because they already know the result. They're going to want as many games shown at different times as possible. The Pac-12 isn't a professional league, with 30-40 teams spread out across the country to pull subscribers from. It's got (as of this posting) 9 teams, all in the western US, where there are just fewer people than there are as you go further east....particularly without a Southern California presence. They need as many invested eyes watching as many minutes as they can get. |
|
