Streaming Question about Iowa State - Going Forward in a New Conference

Would you pay $20/month or $200 a year for a live sports stream subscription?

  • Yes

    Votes: 83 65.4%
  • No

    Votes: 14 11.0%
  • No, but I'd pay at a lower rate

    Votes: 13 10.2%
  • Want it included in my current Netflix/Amazon/Other streaming player rate

    Votes: 17 13.4%

  • Total voters
    127

JHUNSY

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2013
4,361
1,655
113
Des Moines, IA
Is this really an issue for you?
Lolz, issue? No. But I could def see it being an annoyance- not for a 29 year old like me but for other people in our fan base who are perhaps older and less tech savvy, absolutely. Especially during the basketball season when games change networks more often.

Also, not sure what medium you use to watch, but it's also extra fun tuning into the ESPN app a few minutes before a game only to have to scroll past several different ESPN add-on affiliates airing the likes of ACC lacrosse and SEC swimming before being able to find our telecast.
 
Last edited:

StPaulCyclone

Well-Known Member
Oct 9, 2008
1,046
469
83
Duh!
Hindsight is 20/20, but it makes you wonder what would have happened if all the original B12 members had voted with UT for a B12 Network? It fell to them asking if a&m would do it with them, who said no again, and they went on their own. The architect of this plan went on to the B10…

Streaming platform may not be the right play, but a Conference network was out of the box several years ago.

%@&# UT, by the way.
 

cyfan92

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2011
3,560
5,082
113
Augusta National Golf Club
So far about 74% of the votes say they would be willing to increase their current streaming payments for sports content that features ISU.

Very interesting. I really think the remaining Big 8 are going to try to add or merge and make a run with the streaming services
 

I@ST1

Active Member
Dec 15, 2020
245
139
43
35
If
So far about 74% of the votes say they would be willing to increase their current streaming payments for sports content that features ISU.

Very interesting. I really think the remaining Big 8 are going to try to add or merge and make a run with the streaming services

If this was a viable option - it would have already been done. Having a one conference streaming network would not work. Production alone would shrink the payout greatly… it would be worse than the AAC payout.
 

TXCyclones

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 13, 2011
8,500
6,998
113
TX
Would I, yes. The biggest issue and mistake in doing this is that it limits Iowa State’s brand and exposure to only those who have the same affections we do. To continue to grow we need more exposure; not less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I@ST1

DJSteve

Active Member
Apr 29, 2010
216
45
28
Ames
www.stevesmobilemusic.com
It seems to me most of the conference shifting over the past 10-20 years has been based on trying to sell cable subscriptions--essentially trying to force cable providers in a given market to carry certain channels, to support big $ contracts to the conferences, with the income side heavily subsidized by cable customers that may not care that much about any team in a given conference. With the shift towards streaming, I'm pretty skeptical this thought process (or subsidization) is sustainable over the long term.

So what does the long term look like? I won't claim to be an expert so this is largely just spitballing, but I wonder if it becomes a lot more possible for a school to hold the rights to their own home games, have in-house video production/talent (or subcontract the production like ISU currently does with Learfield or whatever they're now called for radio broadcasts) and then license/syndicate that content into other distribution channels (whether OTA broadcast, cable, or streaming) on a per-game basis. Maybe that's less $ total than sharing profits of the viewership pull of big dog conference members... but networks like ESPN/Fox paying big-$ conference contracts presumably expect there to be a profit margin when they bid, so maybe as a university/athletic department there is potential you come out mostly-OK by cutting out the middle man and keeping a bigger % of gross $ even if the pot becomes smaller.

At least at ISU, some degree of infrastructure for content production and selling advertising directly already exists between radio broadcasts and cyclones.tv. And it wasn't THAT long ago that most home basketball games were carried on WOI with what I assume was local production. So maybe instead of major athletic funding coming from a share of a big conference TV contract pot, you make a core $ amount selling subscriptions to your own network and advertising thereon, and then augment that licensing out to additional (local/national/opponent) distribution channels?

In some ways I also wonder if transitioning towards the streaming era makes it easier for schools to be independent / makes conferences less necessary... however there is certainly some viewership synergy being in a conference with respect to paying attention to games of other teams that your team is going to play, or that have implications in conference standings / championship game / etc. And benefits to sharing revenue from CCG / tournament / postseason amongst members to keep income more stable--and not feast or famine depending whether you have a good or bad team in a given year.

Again, I'm not that knowledgeable about specifics to say this would or could work... and I know very little about the sports betting aspect and how that might play into $$. Just my thoughts of what an alternate business model could maybe look like if there's a huge paradigm shift in college athletics.
 

Andyman

New Member
Oct 2, 2019
2
4
3
49
I just read that Barstool Sports is the exclusive sponsor/broadcaster of the Arizona Bowl. There has got to be something there for the future of college football broadcasting. Draft Kings/Barstool/MGM/Bally’s. Somebody has got to want to step up to pay for content to get people to bet on games. If college does not want to get in bed with gambling then I think Amazon/YouTubeTV/other streaming service would want this content.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Cloneon

Cloneon

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2015
1,168
1,197
113
West Virginia
I was just making the point that if the Big 12 ended up on Amazon. Then all football season there will be an ad placement somewhere on the Amazon home page for the upcoming slate of games, maybe even a live stream of an active game. And Amazon sees around 2 billion page views a month.

It hard to compare it to straight up TV viewership, but that visibility is something that the Big 12 didn't have even with UT and OU.
Your cookies and tracing would determine the advertisement policies.
 

BryceC

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2006
21,734
10,765
113
Curious to hear the opinions of the no voters. Is it because you can stream it for free somewhere else? Don't want another monthly payment? $200/year too steep?

I'm not a no. But, the issue is that if they play any away games, we wouldn't own the rights to the broadcast, so you're back to where you need cable or Youtube TV or something if you want to watch all the games.

If there was something like I could pay Amazon Prime 20.00/mo extra for literally every ISU game, I'd do it in a heartbeat and not look back. But it doesn't work that way.
 

farminclone

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2009
6,872
7,343
113
You want ISU to become even more irrelevant if we don't land in a good place going forward? Put them on a streaming service while the B1G/PAC alliance is on Fox and SEC is on ESPN. The diehards would tune in and pay for a stream, but lukewarm fans won't seek that out. And you definitely won't pick up any new fans/grow your brand that way.

There is a reason we get excited when are the Saturday afternoon or Saturday night game on FOX/ABC - network TV is still the best place for exposure as it is the easiest to access. Having our games on Paramount + is laughable as a decent solution.
 

farminclone

Well-Known Member
Nov 16, 2009
6,872
7,343
113
So far about 74% of the votes say they would be willing to increase their current streaming payments for sports content that features ISU.

Very interesting. I really think the remaining Big 8 are going to try to add or merge and make a run with the streaming services

You have to realize that the people voting on this are people that are also willing to take the time to sign up for a CF account, and actively post on a CF account - these are the diehards. The general ISU fanbase wouldn't respond nearly that high.
 

BryceC

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2006
21,734
10,765
113
You want ISU to become even more irrelevant if we don't land in a good place going forward? Put them on a streaming service while the B1G/PAC alliance is on Fox and SEC is on ESPN. The diehards would tune in and pay for a stream, but lukewarm fans won't seek that out. And you definitely won't pick up any new fans/grow your brand that way.

There is a reason we get excited when are the Saturday afternoon or Saturday night game on FOX/ABC - network TV is still the best place for exposure as it is the easiest to access. Having our games on Paramount + is laughable as a decent solution.

We are very likely facing a situation with no decent solutions. It'd be a matter of this is a good enough solution or not.
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron